harry reid blasts republican senate for not holding the administration accountable.
senate forced into closed session.
frist called it a "slap in the face", an affront to america, and stated that he can never trust reid again. *boggle*. use hyperbole much? can't wait for you to retire.
senate forced into closed session.
frist called it a "slap in the face", an affront to america, and stated that he can never trust reid again. *boggle*. use hyperbole much? can't wait for you to retire.
no subject
on 2005-11-01 22:24 (UTC)$my_opinion =~ s/retire/go to jail for insider trading/;
no subject
on 2005-11-01 22:46 (UTC)There are still things I don't understand about the how the US system works.
Within a parliamentary democracy, the Official Opposition would have bee ripping into this in greatly more colourful language from the very beginning.
no subject
on 2005-11-02 00:02 (UTC)No, I'm serious.
In most democracies around the world, you've got a "Head of State" and a "Head of Government". The "Head of Government" is usually a Prime Minister or some title such as that. The Head of State is a hereditary monarch in Great Britain and the Commonwealth, is an elected President with only ceremonial duties in Israel, and so forth.
We don't have that. TECHNICALLY, our President is a Head of Government, and our Head of State is the Constitution of the United States. But people can't get emotionally behind a document that way, so our President is both a Head of State and a Head of Government.
This is a fundamentally bad situation.
Our President represents and embodies the country in the way that the Queen does for Great Britian. Even though he's not supposed to. So attacking the President, or the President's party is seen as "disloyal" and "unpatriotic."
Note that this never prevented the Republicans from doing so under Bill Clinton -- but their attacks were personal attacks based on the idea that Bill Clinton was morally unfit to be an avatar of patriotism.
no subject
on 2005-11-01 23:30 (UTC)I know Dick Durbin has been pushing for action for awhile now, but many Democrats weren't ready to support that. Seems like now's the time...
no subject
on 2005-11-01 22:34 (UTC)Apparently judicial filibuster is not a Senate tradition.
@%<
no subject
on 2005-11-02 17:52 (UTC)