Blog: "Leech in Walen's Pond" is doing a good job

LATE BREAKING NEWS" WHITE HOUSE ADMITS THAT WHITE HOUSE DID GOOD!

In an amazing reversal of partisanship, the White House has gone on record to admit that the President did good by signing in the $787 Billion stimulus plan. While some doubted the authenticity and reliability of the document, all Thomas-like thinking was laid to rest when VP Joe Biden officially went on record to say that Obama has helped the economy.


In other news, the Blogger of "Leech in Walden's Pond" just officially blogged that the "Leech in Walden's Pond" was the best new blog in the blogosphere.

Evan Bayh, a Democratic, is causing quite a stir on the journalist front.

CNN let us know that he's retiring and that he's sure it won't hurt his party. LINK: CNN tries to prove it's political slant

Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh says his decision to retire at the end of the year rather than run for re-election has not left his party in a bind.

FOX NEWS is unabashed in their excitement over Bay's departure LINK: It's way more fun to be the minority party

After Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh's surprise announcement Monday that he will not seek re-election to a third term in November, the Cook Political Report declared the Democrat's seat is now leaning Republican, and the Rothenberg Political Report moved the seat from narrow advantage for Democrats to a "tossup," adding that Bayh's decision "gives Republicans another excellent takeover opportunity."

In some more serious news not regarding clowns on Washington, a hiker died climbing Mt. St. Helens. Hiker's Death. I'm torn on my opinion of this. He apparently had climbed Mt. St. Helens 68 times, so he was an experienced climber. This reminds me of the heartbreaking story of the new father who died in the cave in Utah this past Thanksgiving. Both stories have the rescuers so close to saving the person in danger. Here's where I'm torn: somebody does something dangerous like caving or climbing a mountain, they know there are risks. My practical part says that nobody should be risking their life to do recreational things. Then again, the adventurer side of me says that it's better to die living life how you want then to die an old man who was too scared to do what he wanted to do. I don't have an answer; as for me, I won't risk my life (outside of doing "normal" dangerous things, like driving) until my kids are out of the house.

Lots of talk of Republican's ridiculous use of the filibuster. I like Henry Reid's misunderstanding of history. Reid thinks filibustering is designed to prevent tyranny of majority. I know Wiki isn't used as a reference, but I've heard this before, and I'll let you find better sources:
History of US fibibuster

Here's the important part, if you can handle all the mumbo-jumbo:

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[29] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[29] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other Senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[29]
Contemporary scholars point out that in practice, narrow Senate majorities were able to enact legislation.[30] Majorities were able to prevail because of an implicit threat that the filibuster could itself be changed by majority rule if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority.[30]

Filibustering is a stupid, basically accidental rule. I'm secretly partial to rules that inhibit the Congress from acting fast, but, in all honesty, requiring a 2/3 majority to pass a law is...stupid...although it helped the climax of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Then the Congress had to go and make it boring, by not forcing (simplified version) Senators to actually filibuster.

I'll just steal the words of someone who wrote it better than I could...

Source

Still, the use of the filibuster grew slowly until the 1990s, when Republicans used it up to 80 times per year against President Bill Clinton.
Democrats escalated this warfare against President George W. Bush, using it more than 100 times per year toward the end of his second term.
Kate O’Beirne of the conservative National Review was right when she called the abuse unprecedented.
“Majority leader Bill Frist should call the Democrats’ bluff and bring back the traditional filibuster,” O’Beirne wrote in 2003. “Let Kate Michelman, leader of the abortion lobby, man the cots and wipe the brows of weary Democrats forced to talk ¤’round the clock.”
Then-Democratic Sen. Joe Biden responded that the filibuster was essential for “the protections of a minority point of view.”
Since then, of course, it’s been musical chairs on Capitol Hill.
Republicans who blasted the filibuster during the Bush era used it a record 138 times in Obama’s first year, while Vice President Biden last month called it “a dangerous new roadblock in the way of American government.”
All of this would be comical if it were not so tragic.
Those who oppose the filibuster in both parties are correct. They also are gutless. Like bratty schoolchildren, they hide behind the rule when it helps them and whine about it when it hurts them.
Even by Washington standards, which are perilously low, this is hypocrisy at its worst.
The Founding Fathers did not intend a filibuster. They spelled out in the Constitution exactly where they wanted supermajorities, reserving them for unique matters such as treaties, impeachment and overriding a presidential veto.
Otherwise, they believed in majority rule.


I'm done with politics...


Just watched World's Greatest Dad with Robin Williams. I see why it wasn't a hit, but I liked it just the same. Raises an interesting question: what do you do when your son dies, and your son was really a nasty person? Of course, Robin Williams feels that the world needs to see him naked in this as well (did you catch that in "The Survivors?").

Until Next Time.