2% The Two Percent Company
[ - ]
| Large Type Edition |
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Navigate the Rants




Categories

Special Collections
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Subscribe to the
2%Co Rants:



Syndicate this site:
ATOM
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| The Usual Suspects
On Hiatus
Carnivals
Carnival of the Godless
Skeptics' Circle
Tangled Bank

Gone But Not Forgotten
Lost to the Mists of Time
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Archives (Weekly)
% 2016.11.06 » 2016.11.12
% 2009.04.05 » 2009.04.11
% 2009.03.15 » 2009.03.21
% 2009.03.08 » 2009.03.14
% 2009.03.01 » 2009.03.07
% 2009.02.15 » 2009.02.21
% 2009.01.25 » 2009.01.31
% 2009.01.18 » 2009.01.24
% 2009.01.04 » 2009.01.10
% 2008.12.21 » 2008.12.27
% 2008.11.16 » 2008.11.22
% 2008.11.09 » 2008.11.15


Archives (Monthly)
% 2016 November
% 2009 April
% 2009 March
% 2009 February
% 2009 January
% 2008 December
% 2008 November
% 2008 October
% 2008 September
% 2008 July
% 2008 June
% 2008 April
% 2008 January
% 2007 November
% 2007 October
% 2007 August
% 2007 July
% 2007 June
% 2007 May
% 2007 April
% 2007 March
% 2007 February
% 2007 January
% 2006 December
% 2006 November
% 2006 October
% 2006 September
% 2006 August
% 2006 July
% 2006 June
% 2006 May
% 2006 April
% 2006 March
% 2006 February
% 2006 January
% 2005 December
% 2005 November
% 2005 October
% 2005 September
% 2005 August
% 2005 July
% 2005 June
% 2005 May
% 2005 April
% 2005 March
% 2005 February
% 2005 January
% 2004 December
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
« Bait and Switch: The Elusive Common Ground The RantsChewing the Cud with God »

Don't Make Us Angry - We Wouldn't Vote for You When We're Angry
2005.09.22 (Thu) 16:18

This is just ridiculous.

Senate Republicans on Wednesday scuttled an attempt by Sen. Hillary Clinton to establish an independent, bipartisan panel patterned after the 9/11 Commission to investigate what went wrong with federal, state and local governments' response to Hurricane Katrina.

The New York Democrat's bid to establish the panel — which would have also made recommendations on how to improve the government's disaster response apparatus — failed to win the two-thirds majority needed to overcome procedural hurdles. Clinton got only 44 votes, all from Democrats and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont. Fifty-four Republicans all voted no.

Come on. What the fuck is wrong with these politicians?

A senator's job is to serve the people of the United States — not to cover their Party's ass. An investigative commission of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina is a move that would identify the problems with that response, and hopefully enable officials to rectify those problems to preclude their reoccurrence in future emergency situations. It is not about "placing blame" — despite the fact that, certainly, after such an investigation, we would know who to blame for the inaction and lying we've witnessed. But the "blame game" is only a peripheral side effect of such a commission; the primary purpose is to improve our government and the agencies under its command, thus serving the people of our nation by augmenting our ability to aid them in the event of another such emergency!

So...Republican senators...what the fuck are you thinking? What do you think the purpose of your fucking existence is, as senators? As senators, you are part of the carefully constructed three-way balancing act we call our democracy. Your job is not to blindly support an administration with whom you share a label — "Republican" — but, in fact, quite the opposite: to make sure that neither of the other two branches of government gets out of control...by keeping them in check. "Keeping them in check" — wow, that seems to lead so logically into "initiate an investigation into their actions when something goes wrong for which they may be responsible." So again: what the fuck is wrong with you assholes?

If the vote hadn't gone so clearly along party lines, then perhaps one could make an argument that there is a "valid" reason for not commissioning this investigation. But that clear-cut border is so glaring, a giant neon red buzzing arrow pointing right at the Republican Party. The only reason the vote went this way, quite simply, is because these folks think that their political party is more important than their people. Fucking hell, even the Louisiana Republican, David Vitter, chose to abstain rather than voting on a measure that would put his party under the microscope. That's pathetic.

Keep in mind that yes, we know this is the game of politics, and this is how it's typically played. We aren't surprised at the behavior on display here, we are simply incredibly pissed off. So none of that "Why does this shock you?" stuff. It doesn't shock us — it angers us. Dig?

Somewhere along the way, politicians forgot what government is supposed to be about: it's about maintaining our nation, its liberties, and its safety. And our nation, folks, is our people — without the people, what the fuck is there? Zip, zero, nada, nothing. Our politicians seem to be laboring under the delusion that the point of government is to maintain their own power.

It's fucking disgusting.


— • —
[  Filed under: % Government & Politics  ]

Comments (5)

Grendel, 2005.09.22 (Thu) 19:19 [Link] »

Oh fer crissakes -do you honestly think Clinton's intentions are all honorable? C'mon, lol.



The Two Percent Company, 2005.09.22 (Thu) 22:47 [Link] »

We're not interested in evaluating Hillary Clinton's motivations in this Rant, Gren. If we were, we would have done so. In this instance, Hillary proposed an independent investigation of the government response to Hurricane Katrina. To us, that's a good idea, and that's true no matter who proposed it. Hell, if Bill Frist was behind the proposal, we'd still be in favor of it, and we can't stand him.

The point of our Rant, which we firmly stand by, is that voting consistently along party lines is not good for our nation. Fuck the particular measure being put to a vote; it's quite beside the point. Blind of that, we wanted to point out why voting along party lines is so blatantly wrong (because it doesn't take into consideration the measure itself). Add to that the fact that this proposal is so obviously a good idea, and it just makes the partisan bullshit behind the vote even more obvious (and more infuriating).

Fuck Hillary. We're not singing her praises. We're simply pointing out a major breakdown in the processes of our government; which is, quite simply, due to the ridiculous two-party partisanship we've grown to despise.

In addition, it doesn't matter to us which of the parties is playing this game — we'd call both of them out with equal vehemence. In point of fact, we did call out the Democrats for their similar voting record on a Class Action Reform bill earlier this year. The bottom line, to us, is that if anyone is voting consistently along party lines, then they are likely failing to examine the issues on which they're actually voting. That's just wrong.



Grendel, 2005.09.23 (Fri) 10:11 [Link] »

The problem is in your assumption that the purpose of the investigation would have been as stated. That's bullshit.

Clinton wants to have a Senate hearing into the federal response to Katrina, and no other. If it came about it would provide her and her closest allies (Schumer, Kennedy, Biden, Reid, et al) a platform from which they could pillory the federal government (read: George W) just before the critical 2006 elections. I don't believe for one second they have any intent towards an honest investigation. That's the context and it damn sure does factor in.

Liberal Dems were launching attacks on Bush before Katrina left Louisiana, lol.

Senate Republicans saw a hack job coming up the Senatorial river and sank it with their Senate majority.

If the situation were totally reversed -Dem President, Dem majority in the Senate, etc. -the Republicans would be doing the exact same thing.

Bear in mind -Clinton knew full well there was no chance in hell for her proposal and made it only to force the Republicans to shoot it down. Their shoot-down of her proposal became her 'next best thing' to use politically for the 2006 elections and her 2008 run.

This is nothing more than cynical power politics, American style, for better or for worse. Right now, the Republicans hold the majority. Obviously the Dems want it back and this sort of thing is part of how it's accomplished.

Pardon me for suggesting it, but perhaps it's a little idealistic to expect selfless and honest action from the US Congress?



Shawn, 2005.09.23 (Fri) 13:46 [Link] »

What I've never been clear on is who gets on these investigative committees and who appoints those people.

If the idea was a panel of professionals chosen by both sides and open to peer review. In other words, a basic technical panel to fix problems. Then it was a good measure, regardless of politics.

However, if it was a cherry picked set of people, who may or may not have any knowledge of the subject, or worse yet were Senators, then the whole damn thing was another excuse for asshole Senators (read, all of them) to get on the bully pulpit and scream their point of view at the only people who will listen.. each other.

Stupid political parties. Stupid selfish politicians. Stupid public that keeps following them. Send 'em all to Texas tonight.



The Two Percent Company, 2005.09.23 (Fri) 15:56 [Link] »

Wait — our problem is our assumption that the purpose of the investigation would have been as stated? Hillary's proposal was to have an independent committee assigned to investigate this issue. The idea was to mirror the committee that investigated the response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. That committee was not made up of Senators, and was staffed by experts in various fields. From the web site for the 9-11 committee:

How many people serve on the Commission staff?
  • The Commission has nearly 80 full-time employees, contractors, and detailees on staff. All the Commissioners and staff have received the security clearances they need to carry on the investigation.

    The Commission has been highly successful in attracting the talents of an experienced, outstanding group of professionals, including a former Deputy Director of Intelligence, a former State Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, a professor of international history and foreign intelligence from Harvard, experts on cross-border money transfers, several former federal prosecutors, and several staff from the Congressional Joint Inquiry.

Do we believe that, if the proposal had passed, that is the kind of committee that would have been formed? Yes, we do. Would some of the Democratic Senators have used this investigation to unfairly attack the Republican administration? We're sure they would have, but we're also sure that such attacks would amount to little more than hollow rhetoric.

So, it is likely that some Democrats would have used this probe to lob insults at the Republicans. However, to us, the potential benefits of having a proper investigation (i.e., being better equipped to respond in the future) outweigh the drawbacks of such petty attacks.

We said it before, and we'll say it again — the proposal was good. An independent investigation was a good idea. It doesn't matter to us what Hillary's motives were if the end result was a good proposal. Hell, her motive could have been part of an elaborate plan to corner the internet porn market for her own profit — that wouldn't change the fact that the proposal itself was still a good one. Of course, at some other time we might take a look at Hillary's motives; but that wasn't what we were talking about here. Like we said, we would have supported this proposal even if it had come from someone that we despise.

As Shawn pointed out above, the worst thing that could happen would be for a group of Senators to get together to "investigate" what went wrong. According to the article we cited above, that's exactly what the Republicans are angling for. Now that would be a complete waste of time, and would more closely resemble the political circus that Grendel seems to be envisioning.

Would it be idealistic to expect selfless and honest action from the US Congress? It sure would be. But that's not what we're saying. We explicitly stated in our Rant that we are not shocked by any of this — we are angry. As we said in the Rant:

Keep in mind that yes, we know this is the game of politics, and this is how it's typically played. We aren't surprised at the behavior on display here, we are simply incredibly pissed off. So none of that "Why does this shock you?" stuff. It doesn't shock us — it angers us. Dig?

It isn't that we expect such lofty behavior from our politicians, but rather that every time they show us why we don't expect it, it makes us more and more outraged over the current state of the government.



% Trackback » 2005.09.26 (Mon) 22:32
"Obvious Headline of the Week" from The Two Percent Company's Rants

How does this AP headline grab you? Brown Says He Should've Sought Aid Sooner Hey, no shit, Mike. You don't say? Also of interest in this article: Brown is continuing to work at the Federal Emergency Management Agency at full pay,... [More]



— • —

|
[ - ]


Terms of Use — • — Privacy Policy — • — FAQ
[ - ]
| Protecting our Civil Liberties
ACLU
EFF: Support Bloggers' Rights!
Individual-i

Bullshit Busters
JREFSkeptic's Dictionary
QuackwatchSnopes.com
SymantecMcAfee
SophosSnopes.com

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Buy 2%Co Products
2%Co Stores


Visit the 2%Co Wish List
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Where can you find 2%Co?

Site MeterGlobe of Blogs
Atheism OnlineThe Truth Laid Bear
BlogwiseBlogarama
BlogsharesTechnorati

2%Co Search Rankings

Link to our Rants
2%Co Rants


Link to our Allison DuBois: Debunked! collection
Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)


The 2%Co Rants powered by
MovableType
|
[ - ]