> WRONG! Amazing that folks make accusations without even reading the news
> attached to the posting. One of the pieces of legislation passed by the
> Gingrich Congress was the new rule allowing the repeal of regulations on a
> staight majority vote of both houses of Congress- no filibuster allowed.
> This is the first time the provision has been used, since Clinton was there
> to veto any such vote before, but it was a nice anti-regulatory rule that
> will soon be used all the more commonly.
Oh I read it. It's just hard to believe that Senators would willingly give up their privilege to obstruct, even for short-term political advantage. But the filibuster is still a weapon, one the Republicans have used in the past, and the one the Democrats have declined to use when it is available (the nominations, for example), in the name of civility, or bipartisanship, or the inadvisability of expending political capital (though when ARE they going to expend it?), or whatever.
> I know folks want to find every way possible to blame the Dems for what is
> coming down because Bush was elected President, but the reality is that
> Nader did help contribute to rolling back the most important OSHA
> protections for workers in a generation, just as his campaign helped remove
> the veto for the bankruptcy bill about to be passed, and just as it
> contributed to the cutoff of family planning funds globally.
Barely half the Democrats voted against the bankruptcy bill, which passed the House 309-108. If the Senate breaks down the same way, the bill would be veto-proof anyway. (And there was plenty of pernicious legislation Clinton not only didn't veto, but supported.) I'd say the Democratic Party bears a lot of responsibility for this one. Besides, how sure are we that Gore would veto this anyway? Given that half the House Democrats are for it, it seems just as likely that a watered-down version of it, just not quite as draconian, would eventually pass and that Gore would sign it, appeasing big business while appearing to "protect" consumers. The point is, given the Democrats' track record, you can't just assume that they would hold the line on a lot of things.
> As the consequences of having GOP control of all parts of government becomes
> clear, it is amazing that folks can keep up the prattle about no differences
> between the parties. For those workers suffering repetitive stress injuries
> without relief, the differences are all too clear.
Of course there are differences--nobody, including Nader, disagrees with that. There just aren't enough of them, and the Democrats in opposition aren't really doing anything to dispel that notion. If Gore had sincerely challenged corporate power in his campaign (which was impossible, since it was corporate-backed and funded), maybe not as many of us would have gone for Nader. (As it was, about half of those who agreed more with Nader voted for Gore anyway.) And it's hard to present yourself as a crusader when you've been in power for eight years, with little under your belt but "reinventing government." As for the Democrats in Congress--they've been collaborating in the rightward shift in U.S. politics for decades now, and most of that time they were in the majority.
Gary Ashwill