Were it passed by deem and pass, the appropriate response to claims of using legislative techniques would be to point out Republicans threats of a filibuster to force a super majority to pass the bill. Filibustering is no less trickery and deception than using any other legislative rule (though it may be a more familiar tactic) and the Dems should call them on it. I agree with anoregonreader's sentiments.
So much of the budget is driven by defense companies that point to jobs created in congressional districts, and so regardless of whether there is a need for another fighter plane, money gets allocated and more get built - the political-military-industrial complex at work. With the infrastructure spending in the stimulus (whether it be health, the green job sector, or transportation) you can be sure that at least some residents will actually benefit from the projects.
If this 'fake Census' confuses people and disuades them from filling out the real Census, it is indeed shameful. Each one percent of households that don't return the mail Census form costs the government $85 million in follow-up costs.
Could part of it be that Obama had a Supreme Court nomination in his first year whereas Bush did not? I would think the same office handles both federal bench and Supreme Court appointments and that may have slowed the pace...
I too wonder how the traditional advocacy groups come up with the priorities for the LGBT movement. Pushing marriage equality in 2004 certainly wasn't a winning strategy. Ending DADT is laudable, but wouldn't many more in our community be protected by passing ENDA (of which I rarely hear a word at rallies)? And definately, as you say, the HIV issue has not disappeared, even if it may not be as much of a political winner for advocacy. I don't think it is necessarily wrong to agitate for results, but I hope Aravosis hasn't lost sight of who our true allies are in this effort.
Six years ago at this moment I was watching the President address the nation and saying a prayer for a quick and bloodless resolution of the conflict. I was finding it strange that during the earlier national crisis I had sought to advance the cause of peace between countries and then was watching my country enter a war unprovoked. I was hoping for an end to the cycle of violence unleased on September 11th.
Wouldn't this be a two-way street, in that if no Republicans voted for this bill, there are no 'bipartisan' votes to be retained in a subsequent conference committee and thus no reason to exclude family planning funding (etc.)?
Reinserting such measures might not be in keeping with pledges to be bipartisan, but Obama/Democrats aren't the ones who are coming across as unyielding after round one, so I don't see what's to lose.
I am not surprised that Sen. Cornyn would be calling for commitments from Holder not to prosecute officials who approved torture or those involved in the warrantless wiretapping 'program'. I am surprised that Sen. Specter is going along with Cornyn and holding up Obama's pick on these grounds. As Sen. Whitehouse stated, prosecutors do not usually pledge in advance what cases they will or will persue, they make decisions based on the evidence.
The Kennedy's, Clintons, Udalls, Bidens, Pryors, Chafees, Dodds, Diaz-Balarts, Levins, Murkowskis, Bennetts... now the Salazars! Has Congress always been this oligarchical?! I can see how politics may run in the genes but I wonder if we allow name recognition to trump qualifications a little bit too much sometimes.
I'm a Delaware native but haven't lived there for awhile so can only speculate.
From what I've read, the gubenatorial primary reflected more of a verdict in favor of Markell and the change he could bring than a repudiation of Carney. So I think Carney could mount a competitive campaign if he decided to run in 2010. Other Delawareans may have more informed thoughts about his intentions and prospects though...
I imagine some in the state party see this as a slight against Minner's lieutenant governor, Carney, who was said to still have a future in state politics. That said, there was probably no one who would be more familiar with the responsibilities of the office than Kaufman.
It will be a closer race in 2010 should the current (moderate Republican) Representative run, but I would expect the Democratic nominee would still win.
On a related note, none of the 22 Democratic Senators who voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002 have been defeated in the elections since then (of course one passed away, four retired, and one is now Governor of New Jersey).
I like to think they were rewarded for their patriotism, even if their votes weren't seen as such at the time.
The Foreign Relations Chair would certainly have less power with an executive of the same party, but still presides over hearings on the ratification of treaties (such as the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, global warming, international criminal court), consent of ambassadors, and can bring to light certain issues of interest. Considering Feingold heads the subcommittee on African Affairs, he could contribute his knowledge of issues there (the Congo, Darfur, Zimbabwe) to administration decision-making.