Democrats & Liberals Archives

209 Republicans & 8 Democrats Walk into a Bar...

Just how stupid does your Representative think you are? The House of Representatives just passed the Republican sponsored “Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act.” The Washington Post called the bill “simply a joke.” If this is a joke, it’s not funny.

The bill, H.R. 4975, passed by 209 Republicans and 8 Democrats, would leave the current gift limits unchanged. Lobbyists would be liable for knowingly offering gifts whose value exceeds the gift limit but legislators would not be liable for accepting them. The bill would suspend privately funded trips for lawmakers, but only until Dec. 15. Just long enough to get them through the election, then the ban would be lifted. The bill calls for mandatory ethics training for all congressional staff, but not for members of Congress. The bill would require administration officials to wait at least two years after they leave office before becoming lobbyists, but no such restriction would be placed on members of Congress.

USA TODAY called the bill a sham.

If the self-righteous incumbents can't do better than this outrageous substitute for needed reform, they will deserve to be defeated in November.

The bill also addresses "earmarks." Lawmakers who insert pork in spending bills would have to attach their names to them. Only bills that did not meet that requirement would be subject to procedural objections in the House. That's it? That is the Republican answer to out of control pork barrel spending?

The bill offers no new enforcement or oversight of ethics rules that are currently being ignored by the House Ethics Committee. Yet, some Republican lawmakers want to set up a watchdog over the federal courts, including the SCOTUS. The bill would direct Chief Justice John Roberts to appoint an inspector general who would report annually to him and to Congress.

I'm all for oversight in government, but shouldn't the Congress be willing to accept the same oversight that they want to put on the Judiciary? What about the Executive? How can one branch of government require oversight on another branch without accepting that oversight themselves?

House Democrats have introduced a tougher version of lobbying reform, including a bill that would supplement the House Ethics Committee with an independent congressional ethics office. However, House Republicans have held it up in committees and won't allow it to the floor for an up-or-down vote.

Republican ethics reform is a joke, but I'm still not laughing.

Posted by JayJay Snow at May 4, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #145288


I’d have to agree with you on all points. My thoughts have been to have a yearly amount that officials can take from lobbyists. I don’t care what the specific number is for the amount, as long as its kept tightly and made public.

There are many good reasons for lobbyists to be taking their cases to the senators and representatives…lets continue to allow this. By shining the light of day on their activities, we can better ensure they are doing the right things and not influencing unduly or improperly.

I don’t know what alternative bills are out there, but I’d hope for one with some actual teeth. This bill seems to have the effect of a toothless old codger trying to gum someone to death.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 2:46 AM
Comment #145293

I don’t see anything wrong with so many GOP Representatives voting this way. They are simply trying to protect their most important supporters. I am sure their other supporters like the Religious Right and the Libertarians would still vote GOP regardless of their behavior. That’s what being Republican is all about.

Posted by: Aldous at May 4, 2006 4:14 AM
Comment #145301

They are counting on a poll which shows of 10 or 12 issues, only 4% of respondents considered Congressional corruption and ethics as a top priority. In other words, the GOP is calculating that doing nothing in the name of doing something will give them bragging rights on an issue that won’t mean much in November’s elections.

Other polls would indicated while ethics may not be hot Nov 7 issue, they can ill afford to alienate that 4% that view it as a top issue. Karl Rove has lost his rhythm.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2006 6:13 AM
Comment #145303

Jay Jay

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

However it cut across both aisles.

Where’s David Remer when you need him?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 4, 2006 6:38 AM
Comment #145304

SE -

But this post is about a single issue: and the score is 209 - 8, that 26X Republican.

I agree that pretty much all parties suffer from the same ailment - absolute power, but in this instance, inferring that REPs and DEMs are the same rings very hollow.

Posted by: tony at May 4, 2006 7:04 AM
Comment #145307

Indeed it does, tony: and this will be made more clear as the Abramoff Indictments begin to mount over the next year or so, and we see the ratio of Conservatives Indicted vs. Liberals Indicted.


Good post, JayJay!

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 4, 2006 7:45 AM
Comment #145311


I know that most—not all—but most Democrats voted against this bill. I assume there was an alternative bill that Democrats wanted. Do you know what it contained? Was it better, worse or more of the same as the Republican sponsored bill?

It would help me better understand the votes to know whether there was anything else out there. I agree the bill sounds pretty weak. If its the only bill out there that’s viable, then its better than nothing. But I’d prefer something stronger, as I’ve said above, with annual limits that can be contributed.

Thanks in advance for the help.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #145317

While the Democrats should offer alternatives to legislation they don’t like(I think it’s likely they did, FYI), The Republican surely can do better than this. They have the power to pass anything they like, so we can’t be blamed if this is what your party line chooses.

For the time being, it’s Republican leadership that decides these things, Republican leadership that’s being soft on corruption and porkbarrel spending, and Republican voters who are responsible for perpetuating both if this is what they tolerate from their representatives.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2006 8:50 AM
Comment #145322

The Repubs are also counting on the likelihood that the democrats won’t make a fuss about it, like they have failed to do on a variety of topics. The Dems actually believe in that standing back and letting the enemy implode thing, but that just puts too much faith in the intelligence of the electorate. Not only will this work out for the corrupt Reps, but the Dems who didn’t vote for this turd will likely end up being blamed when it becomes clear in a year or two that nothing has changed in Washington — the same brilliant electorate that elected a chickenhawk over a war hero on the basis of war and security will probably perceive the failure of ethics reform to be the fault of those Dems who didn’t support the valiant Rep’s efforts to clean up congress. The Reps will even claim that the law itself was the Dems fault — the spin will be that the law is so weak because they tried to create a bipartisan bill for the good of America. “If only the Dems had cooperated, we could have had a much stronger law!”

No human institution can police itself — not the AMA, not the ABA, not the cops, and especially not Congress.

Posted by: Jim C. at May 4, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #145323

Well at least the reform bill wasnt a major step backwards. I know that sounds terrible, but my expectation level for Politicians is at an all time low and they have certainly lived down to it. I saw on the news recently that the CEO of (I think it was) Hyundai,was jailed for allowing someone in the company to give gifts to a South Korean official. That would be reform. Maybe we can learn from the South Koreans.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 4, 2006 9:29 AM
Comment #145326


Usually you offer something more substantive than just pointing the finger at one party. I didn’t see evidence of that in your post above.

we (Democrats/liberals) can’t be blamed if this is what your party line chooses.

It sounds as if you thought I was somehow blaming Democrats—if so, I’m not sure where you got that from. I thought I was pretty clear in taking the bill to task, and considering that it was a Republican sponsored bill that garnered only a few Democratic votes, I’m not sure how that would come across as blaming the Dems. My point was that if there were no alternative bill or alternative language, then this bill would be a small start. I havent seen any alternatives, though I too would assume there is at least one.

Perhaps you’d help me understand what it is you’d like to find in a bill that would make it good. And then perhaps we can see if the Dem alternatives (assuming that there are some) include those items, or whether a Dem sponsored bill would have the same weak, lily-livered components that the current one has.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #145328

Readers -

!An idea!

If your Congressperson accepts these gifts, DON’T VOT FOR THEM !!??

Whaddya say??

Posted by: tim_lebsack at May 4, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #145329

jbod and Stephen,

The GOP measure passed by 4 votes and earlier the same day the Democratic measure was rejected by 3 votes.

The Democratic ethics proposal would have banned lawmakers from accepting any travel from lobbyists and would have prevented ex-legislators and staff from lobbying in Congress for two years after leaving their jobs.

If you look at how many in the House crossed party lines, the Democratic proposal drew more Republicans in favor of it and the GOP proposal had more defections against it.

Posted by: CPAdams at May 4, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #145341

CPAdams, yeah, all but 8 Democrats opposed this bill in favor of more stringent alternatives. But, knowing they have no control over such legislation, it was easy enough for them to call for stringent alternatives which might have caused them cold sweats if they actually had any possibility of passing. I suspect they took the high moral ground knowing they couldn’t hold it in order to reap the Public Relations benefit.

This is politics and that is how politics are played by the two corrupt Janus’ in Congress.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #145343

I was being evenhanded. The thing to keep in mind here is that there’s a natural inequality of power there, and given that inequality, it was the Republican party as an organization that could force any outcome they wished.

That is why I don’t spread the blame on this one. It was a party-line vote, and this is what the party decided: we will make only weak reforms. I would think that in this time where the polls are indicating strong discontent among the voters concerning the party in general and corruption in particular that it would be in your party’s interest to initiate strong reforms.

The ball is in your court. We already did what we could, and your people turned us down. Given their power, that weak legislation was the limits of the lengths they were willing to go to. Does that not make you ashamed of your party? What would it take for them to disappoint you? If you’re already disappointed, why don’t you and people like you start making some noise about it? The only way to take this issue from the Democrats is to make it your own, and outdo us in the pursuit of honesty and accountability in government.

Whoever manages to do that, will have the blessing of the American people on their leadership. Whoever doesn’t will operate under a cloud of suspicion.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #145344

David R. Remer-
I would tell you that you need to have a little more faith in people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #145350


Please read my posts before responding to them.

After you do so, you’ll note that I have said the following about this bill:

“This bill seems to have the effect of a toothless old codger trying to gum someone to death.”

“I agree the bill sounds pretty weak. If its the only bill out there that’s viable, then its better than nothing. But I’d prefer something stronger…”

“whether a Dem sponsored bill would have the same weak, lily-livered components that the current one has.”

How you rationalize my comments into questioning whether I’m disappointed in the bill is beyond me. I have two choices: to assume you are not intelligent enough to understand my comments, or to assume you didn’t read them. If there’s a third option, I can’t think of it.

We already did what we could, and your people turned us down.

This was the gist of my question to tony. You say you, meaning Dems, have done what you could, but you don’t say what that was. According to CPAdams, “The Democratic ethics proposal would have banned lawmakers from accepting any travel from lobbyists and would have prevented ex-legislators and staff from lobbying in Congress for two years after leaving their jobs.”

If that’s truly all there was to the Democratic initiative, then it too was horribly weak and lame. If that’s “all you could do”, then its a pretty sad statement about your party.

But I’m not now slamming either party without the other. Nor have I before. I’m with David on this: neither party is willing to make the kind of changes that are necessary. Why? Because the rules benefit politicians now, and the politicians don’t want to change the beneficial rules. They only want to APPEAR to change them.

My question earlier was what have the Dems proposed. If CPAdams has it correct, then they didn’t propose much. Do you agree with his assessment or is it incomplete?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #145354

The third choice is that I felt you were implying that the Democrats had no strong views on this. That’s what I reacted to. The Democrats have a major barrier in their way as far as getting their legislation through congress. The Republicans do not consult with us with any regularity, and they often knock us down on a party line. I’m sure that if things were to change, then perhaps the Republicans could face the same problem, but for now, that’s a hypothetical possiblity, and your party’s majority power is a reality in place.

Let me say right here that to the extent you think this bill is insufficient, and that more reform is needed, I’m right with you. But right now, because of the way voters decided things, yours is the party that can impose the restrictions quickest if it so chooses. I wouldn’t be averse to to a coalition of Republicans and Democrats getting together on this at all.

Even taking into account your agreement on the insufficiency of this bill, my points remain the same. Moreover, you fellows have had years to push this. The individual rank and file Republicans could get better than this if they pushed for it as a group, if they let their leaders know their dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, you folks have been too busy expressing your dissatisfaction with us, the liberals, and all the institutions we’ve raised, rather than keeping an eye on your people and yanking the leash when they get too feisty.

I guess what set me off was asking whether we had anything better ourselves. I think that’s a passive way of going about things.

How about: let’s push together for better legislation than this. Let’s post on our sites our disatisfaction with this and create a grassroots movement including people from both sides. No more sitting around griping about what one side wasn’t doing. Issues of government accountability are a common concern, and should be treated that way. The past is irrelevant to this. Our choices now are the real concern.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #145365

No one has gotten to the heart of the problem except Tim on the last post. The heart of the matter is true campaign finance reform.

The republicans say, this bill is better than nothing, at least it is a start.

The democrats say their version is better.

Both versions are just as bad as nothing. Neither party is interested in touching the cash cow(special interest money). Therefore both parties will be beholding to those special interests and the people will be without true representation.

What the people need is a champion, a leader with the charisma to convince the people that they will not be truely represented until they are willing to finance the campaigns with their tax dollars.

Until then, what we will get is empty legislation designed to keep the party faithful in line.

Posted by: jlw at May 4, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #145377


Thanks for the clarification. I only wanted to know what the Democrats wanted in a bill, since they en masse voted against the Republican version. If they only voted against something, rather than having a viable solution, then its a weak statement.

I’d agree that the Repubs are being weak on this. I can’t understand why either. It would be in their own best interest to put out a strong—but not too strong—bill, so that they could skewer the Dems with it at election time. I’m NOT suggesting that’s the only reason for it, but given the climate of political gamesmanship, it certainly is one reason for taking action.

I’ve written my reps to say that a bill should have a set limit that lobbyists can give annually, and the amounts given should be made public. In this way, we can see who gives what, and also know that undue amounts are not given. Of course, people can hide what they give, but that can happen under any law. The idea of the law is to hold them accountable when they get caught.

Personally, I couldn’t care less which party comes up with a solution. From a political perspective, I’d prefer it to be the party I am more aligned with, but I’d be in favor of any bill that began solving the problems. I never understood the conservatives who complained about Clinton “co-opting” conservative legislation. Since I was in favor of the legislations, I was in favor of Clinton being in favor of them. It’s been said that amazing things can be achieved if you don’t worry about who gets the credit.

Unfortunately, our politicians care deeply about getting the credit. In fact, they care more about that than they do about the legislation itself.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #145381


So what is a party out of power to do??? If they do not propose strong legislation, they are not defending their constituents. If they do, then it’s a token gesture intended for PR purposes.


I didn’t think the Dem proposal was perfect but I thought it certainly had more teeth than the GOP proposal.

From USA Today’s story:

Government watchdog groups have labeled both [Senate and House] bills inadequate to cure Washington’s influence culture, in which lobbyists use free meals, cut-rate corporate plane rides, “fact-finding” trips and campaign donations to shape legislation.

I thought blocking lobbyist paid travel was a strong step in the right donation. I also thought that adding an additional year’s wait would make the revolving door harder to maintain.

Aside from blocking or limiting campaign donations - the obvious need - what else do you suggest?

Posted by: CPAdams at May 4, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #145382

A strong step in the right direction.

LOL at myself!

Posted by: CPAdams at May 4, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #145390


I think your use of the word “donation” in relation to lobbyists was a Freudian slip. It was actually as apropos as the word you intended. :)

My idea is really simple. You create an amount that an elected official can receive from lobbyists, and you hold them to that amount. If the amount is, say, $10,000, then any gifts, trips, dinners etc begin adding up. I’m not wedded to any specific dollar amount—just an amount that people can openly see which would not be enough to “buy” the politician.

I take people to lunch all the time—I don’t think my buying the lunch “buys” their business. If it does, boy are they underselling themselves. It does give me time with my clients to learn what they need and want, to show them what I have to offer, to understand their personalities, and to become friends with them. All of this is beneficial to both of us. Now, if the lunch happens to include 3 days in the Virgin Islands, then its a bit coercive.

As long as we have an amount, and the ability for the public to see the amounts given, then I don’t care if lobbyists buy meals etc for politicians.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #145400


Great post. It saves me from writing about this.

As a Democrat, I must say I’m unhappy with what the Democrats proposed. Neither this bill nor what the Democrats proposed would make any difference in the way lobbying is done.

Forget about lobbying. Focus on the money. Nothing will change in our system until we reduce the influence of money. We must have PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS!

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 4, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #145414

I find it amusing that when record promoters did this in the fifties it was called payola, and the practice was so rampant that Congress (go figure) passed a law against it.

I suppose the only difference is the phrase “under the table”.

Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #145416

Paul Siegel: Right on!

Here is the opinion of a peon.

1) We need public financing with certain restrictions on spending amounts.

2) It would be excellent if we could create a strong centerist party to force compromise between conservatives and liberals.

3) The airways belong to the people(public airways) and are leased to the corporations. A prerequisite of those leases should be free airtime for some political adds and debates between candidates. If you have a hour long debate, perhaps there could be 10 or 15 minute break between to allow for comercials.

I would be curious to see what companies would air comercials during the break.

Posted by: jlw at May 4, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #145427


You may be correct that the Dems voted on a harder worded bill than did the Reps because they new it wouldn’t pass. The problem is, it doesn’t matter. The Dems offered a tougher bill and it was voted down. The Reps offered a lighter bill and it passed.
You could say the same thing about any Rep that voted against the bill. They are in battle ground states, so they voted against the bill knowing it would pass but being able to tell their district that they wanted a bill with toughter standards. We could say what if all day.
The fact is, the bill that passed is a Rep bill. The Rep are in control and this is all they could give us. No matter how people may want to spin this, the Rep are to balme.. Not the Dems.

Posted by: Rusty at May 4, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #145428

Betty Burke- please don’t confuse Liberal-Conservative with Republican-Democrat. In most cases there is a huge difference.

I had hoped for real reform, even though I am cynical enough after 50 years of observing politics to doubt that there will ever be any meaningful reform. My reaction to the current waste of good paper: “they labored mightily and brought forth a mouse”.

Attention all tree huggers: Think of the thousands of trees that gave thier lives so the campaign finance reform bill could be printed. In your opinion, was it worth it?

Posted by: John Back at May 4, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #145429


Let’s say your right. The Rep bill is a TKO. The Dem bill would be considered a KO. Not much of a difference overall, but one is still better and more convencing than the other. I’ll take the KO anyday.

Posted by: Rusty at May 4, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #145432


No argument there at all. I’m in favor of the better bill, regardless of which party writes it. In this case, from what little I’ve seen, both proposed bills are pretty weak. Kinda like giving a cancer patient aspirin and hoping for a cure.

As David Remer might say, that’s why we gotta vote da incumbent bums out of office.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 4, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #145436


Agreed! The rep plan was a right-cross and the dems was an uppercut. Just a different way to try and get to the same thing…

Posted by: Rusty at May 4, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #145437

Did anyone here really expect anything different?
I was stationed near DC during the House banking scandal and remember the fallout. Nothing was done then and the reps swept into office. Now today the same “moral” people did the same thing. The dems will gain control of congress in nov. Will they stand up, or find new and interesting lobbies to keep them fat, dumb and happy?
I pray for the former and expect the latter.

Posted by: Ted at May 4, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #145445

one representative to another. Almost all of us are unethical. The voters know this. Why waste our time creating a strong ethics bill. The voters know we will just find a way around it anyway. Let’s just concentrate on giving our constituents as much pork as we can and they will reelect us.

Posted by: jlw at May 4, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #145468

Stephen, I extend faith where past action warrants faith. Not warranted on this issue.

CPAdams. Its the system that is corrupt, and Democrats for 40 years in power helped create the corrupt system, which is now being used to Republican advantage. History offers little reason to believe if Democrats take back control, they will bite the lobbyist, special interest, and wealthy donor hands that feed them the money; the money they believe they need to pay PR firms to dress up their actions to appear palatable to the voters.

The Democrats sustained the corrupt system they helped build, Republicans just took the corrupt system to new heights of arrogance and hubris.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #145476

Wow - I keep forgetting who is on whose side. I am not in DC and I am not eligible to heap huge rewards from lobbiests. So I am on side A. I’m guessing most of the liberals posting on this blog are on side A.

But then again, most of the independents have been on side A for as long as they can remember.

Republicans - I know a few, but none of them are within the DC power grid either… sothat puts them on side A.

Side B is for all those who stand to gain huge financial rewards by selling out our government and those of us on side A.

So - why do we on side A insist on dividing ourselves up the way those on side B continue to tell us to divide? That simply benefits them more.

So - then next time you want to reach out and smack someone for the side they represent… think it over a little before tossing out labels…

Posted by: tony at May 4, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #145484


“I’m in favor of the better bill, regardless of which party writes it. In this case, from what little I’ve seen, both proposed bills are pretty weak.”

I’m thinking we should call it what it is.


We should make it illegal. Period.

Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #145557

Dear Red States…

We’ve decided we’re leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we’re taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren’t aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota , Wisconsin, Michigan , Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly:

You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.

We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood.

We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.

We get Harvard. You get Ole’ Miss.

We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states constituents pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition’s, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we’re going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they’re apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don’t care if you don’t show pictures of their children’s caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we’re not willing to spend our resources in Bush’s Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country’s fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation’s fresh fruit, 95 percent of America’s quality wines (you can serve French wines at Blue state dinners), 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90
percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we’re discussing the death penalty or gun laws or wars, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and
61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

Peace out,

Blue States

Posted by: x at May 5, 2006 1:40 AM
Comment #145563


I can count on one hand the number of posts by other people I have cut-and-pasted into Notepad and saved for perpetuity against further need. In fact, I think yours just about doubles them.

That is the single most simultaneously Awesome and Amusing post I have read since I last posted here.

Do come back. Often.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 5, 2006 2:01 AM
Comment #145568

X: Far out man!!

Please hold off until November and give Ohio a chance to save ourselves. If we don’t, I am mooving to Oregon.

Posted by: jlw at May 5, 2006 2:32 AM
Comment #145619

Yes to X, whoever you are. The blue states are in the same position as they were in the early days of the republic.

Immigration is another solution to the problem today, as in the early 1800s, when New Orleans was the main port of entry for ancestors from France, Germany, and Ireland, who settled further north in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois via the Mississippi and other rivers.

New York did not become the main port of entry until much later, Ellis Island started about 1892.

And thanks to the right wing lunatic who reminded me to go out and hug a tree. Trees are good, trees work. Trees help, see the National Arbor Day Foundation at

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #145630

“x”….thanks ! You’ve made my day, and then some. Someone put this person on the payroll…. ;)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 5, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #145764

looks like the source for X’s material. Other interesting topics on that site include:
F*ck the South
Jesusland vs. United States of Canada
One state two state red state blue state

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2006 7:21 PM
Post a comment