It was a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY which cut off funding for Bush's Mexican trucks program

[brentspeak]

With the help of every Democrat in the Senate -- and a few reasonable Republicans -- funding was cut for Bush's newly-authorized scheme to allow Mexican trucks to barrel throughout the nation's highways. This was accomplished largely through the efforts of Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND). But he couldn't have done a damn thing if the Democrats hadn't regained the majority last November.

Furthermore, if it wasn't for the Democratic majority -- and its Senate Judiaciary hearings -- this nation would still be stuck with Alberto Gonzales as its Attorney General, not to mention a whole bunch of other corrupt Bushies who've been carrying water for Bush and Gonzales.

Yes, the Democrats in Congress have disappointed on several fronts. Yes, they've really goofed up on other fronts. I'm not suggesting that we not put the Democrats' feet to the fire.

But give credit where some credit is due. And thank the Powers That Be (and yourselves) that there was a Democratic majority in place to rid the nation of Alberto Gonzales and which is trying to undo Bush's Mexican trucks scam. Who knows? Maybe there's a whole lot more good things to come from this new majority yet.

[robinlynne]

1. excellent! now they can end the war.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Oh, yeah! What about Bill Clinton?

Sorry, wrong forum. Nevermind.

This is a ray of hope. The war in Iraq is a political nightmare, and impeaching Bush/Cheney is virtually impossible. We must continue to fight battles we can win.

Good post. :thumbsup:

[havocmom]

3. Thank you. Posts insisting DEMS on the Hill don't do anything are bogus at best

and probably mole/troll propaganda in some cases.

They aren't perfect, but they are having an impact. The more support WE give, the more people WE can reach, the more the team on the Hill can get done every day.

It is a joint effort and it takes time. The GOP have taken decades to get things lined up for the recent power grabs. We can't expect somebody to fix it in a short period of time.

In a representative democracy, the somebody who gets the job done is We The People. We do it by electing, supporting and communicating with good reps.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. Well, they're not doing anything about the most important issue of our times

which is that the U.S. is committing war crimes.

[havocmom]

11. Until We The People put pressure on the GOP on the Hill,

there isn't much they can do about that. That majority is almost an illusion at present. We MUST make the GOP sweat to get anything more done.

When the GOP in Congress feel the people are after their asses, they might move, but not until they feel the burn. When the people lead, the leaders will follow.

[VP505]

4. As well they

should have cut that funding off, I really hope its the start of standing up for working class Americans.

[FredStembottom]

6. That's 1 in a row.

First time I have felt like my official Dems have stood up to anything as a group. And this even benefits blue collar workers like me!!!!!!

:wtf:

[pampango]

7. It was political pandering at best.

If they don't like the provisions of NAFTA, then vote to withdraw from the treaty or to renegotiate it. It makes no sense to decide years later that some of our concessions are not such a good idea after all. ("Thanks for your concessions in the NAFTA treaty, Mexico, but we have decided that some of the concessions that we made just ain't going to happen. Have a nice day.")

In a treaty negotiation it is common for all parties to make concessions in order to get things from the other side that make the concessions worth it. If a Democratic president is negotiating with North Korea, Iran, China, Russia or anyone else in the future, I imagine the other party might ask whether we intend to live up to the provisions of the treaty. They might fear that we will have the treaty signed by the president and approved by the Senate, but then a few years later we will decide unilaterally that certain provisions need to be eliminated or changed. Rather than renegotiate the treaty we just take a vote and change the part of the treaty that we want to change.

Can the Senate vote that I don't have to live up to the provision in my treaty (contract) with the mortgage company that requires me to make a monthly payment? I know that I signed it and all, but I really don't like having to make that payment every month, so I think I should be able to delete that provision unilaterally.

Look, if the Senate were to vote to withdraw from NAFTA or at least start a renegotiation of its provisions they would get my undying respect and admiration. But, please, a vote to unilaterally delete a provision of an international treaty that has been signed and ratified by the Senate. Well, until you act on my mortgage, I will consider the Mexican trucks vote as pandering.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Thank you

I'd like to see one tenth of the effort expended here attacking Dems be diverted to Republicans.

[Canuckistanian]

9. SO. KENNEDY voted against it?

Use that little piece of information whenever some libertarian calls the Mexican trucking program the "BUSH-KENNEDY PLAN"

[brentspeak]

10. self-kick

:kick:

[brentspeak]

12. more self-kick

:kick: