Take Back the Senate
Keep the House
TOSS OUT THE DASCHLE/CLINTON DEMOCRATS!
Posted on 09/04/2002 5:06:38 PM PDT by PhiKapMom
DEMOCRATS: SECURING THEIR BOSSES, NOT OUR HOMELAND
Democrats Choose John Sweeney Over A More Secure America
______________________________________________________
President Bush: "There are senators who are more worried about the special interests in Washington than they are about protecting the people."
(Adriel Bettelheim, "Congress Changing Tone Of Homeland Security Debate," CQ Weekly, August 31, 2002)
"Senate Democrats will seek a high-profile vote during floor debate on the [Homeland Security] bill to affirm their stance to labor supporters in advance of the mid-term elections."
(Adriel Bettelheim, "Work Rules Throw Wrench In Homeland Security Bill," CQ Weekly, August 3, 2002)
______________________________________________________
PRESIDENT BUSH UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS AT STAKE
President Bush Wants Flexibility When It Comes To Homeland Security Workers. A provision proposed by the President would give the administration flexibility in hiring and firing essential workers, as well as setting their pay scales and evaluating how well they are doing their job.
(Adriel Bettelheim, "Work Rules Throw Wrench In Homeland Security Bill," CQ Weekly, August 3, 2002)
The Current Work Rules Protect Bad Employees And Delay The Ability To Hire And Offer Raises To Good Workers. White House officials say existing personnel rules "are so cumbersome that they prevent managers from being able to reprimand or fire employees in critical positions ¯ or offer bonuses and merit raises to hire replacements."
(Adriel Bettelheim, "Work Rules Throw Wrench In Homeland Security Bill," CQ Weekly, August 3, 2002)
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge: The Country Will Be At Risk Without Workforce Flexibility. "[I]f you limit the ability of the president to move people around within this organization . . . you will not have done everything you possibly can to protect this country and our way of life."
(CBS' "The Early Show," September 3, 2002)
Restricting The President's Ability To Deploy Homeland Security Workers Is "Almost Mind-Boggling." "Kay James, director of the Office of Personnel Management, told the House Homeland Security Committee that it is 'almost mind-boggling' that Congress would restrict the president's ability to make 'quick decisions about management' for the new department while the country is at war. 'This is not a time to diminish that authority,' James said. . . . 'The flexibility the president envisions for the new department is aimed at one result and one result only: ensuring the security of our homeland.'"
("Administration Defends Request For Civil Service Waiver," National Journal's CongressDaily, July 16, 2002)
SWEENEY'S AFL-CIO-THE DEMOCRAT'S "MOST EFFECTIVE WEAPON ON ELECTION DAY"-IS LEADING THE OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN
John Sweeney's AFL-CIO Opposes The President On Homeland Security. The AFL-CIO formally "condemn[ed]" the President's proposal, and resolved to "urge" union members to "oppose" the administration's efforts to achieve management flexibility when it comes to Homeland Security workers.
(AFL-CIO, Resolution On The Department Of Homeland Security, August 6, 2002)
John Sweeney's AFL-CIO Is The Democrats' "Most Effective Weapon On Election Day." "John J. Sweeney has converted the 'union of unions,' representing about 13 million workers, from near-moribund stature into perhaps the Democratic Party's most effective weapon on Election Day."
(Thomas B. Edsall, "For AFL-CIO And White House, The Great Divide Is Deepening," The Washington Post, September 2, 2002)
The American Federation Of Government Employees President Denounced President Bush's Homeland Security Proposal. "[W]hat does President Bush really mean by 'flexibility?' It looks as if he wants the Secretary of Homeland Security to have absolute power to decide all personnel matters on the basis of political patronage, not merit."
("Government Employees Union Charges Bush Wants 'Political Patronage' Leeway In Creating Homeland Security Department," The White House Bulletin, August 28, 2002)
Despite Warnings From A Fellow Democrat, 120 Democrat Representatives Stood With The Unions Over Homeland Security. Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) warned her fellow Democrats "it would be 'very harmful' to the department and to the nation if the antiterrorism agency was rejected by her party." But 120 Democrats "opposed the bill over issues involving workers' rights . . . ."
(David Firestone, "Democrats Say G.O.P. Add-Ons Threaten Bill For Security Dept.," The New York Times, July 24, 2002; Bill Miller and Juliet Eilperin, "House Approves Homeland Security Bill," The Washington Post, July 27, 2002)
90% (108 out of 120) Of House Democrats Who Voted Against Homeland Security Received Donations Totaling $193,925 From American Federation Of Government Employees & National Treasury Employees Union During The 2002 cycle.
(H.R. 5005, Roll Call #367: Passed 295-132: R 207-10; D 88-120; I 0-2, July 26, 2002; The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed September 3, 2002)
SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE PARROTING THEIR HOUSE COLLEAGUES AND JOHN SWEENEY'S AFL-CIO ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Senate Democrats Vow To Oppose The President's Proposal. "President Bush today launches a new push for passage in Congress of a massive department of homeland security, but Senate Democrats say they won't agree to his proposals on contentious issues such as workers' rights and union membership."
(Mimi Hall, "Bush Begins New Homeland Security Push Today," USA Today, September 3, 2002)
Senator Daschle (D-SD) Said The Workforce Proposal Would Give The President "Dictatorial Powers." Daschle "questioned the expanded authority Bush seeks under his homeland security program," and said "Congress should 'not give this president or any president the dictatorial powers . . . .'"
(Scott Lindlaw, "Bush Wants Control Of Homeland Security," The Chattanooga Times, August 16, 2002)
Senator Daschle Called The Proposal "A Power Grab Of Unprecedented Magnitude." "Daschle accused the administration of trying 'a power grab of unprecedented magnitude' over union and civil service rights and said Democrats would not roll over on the issue."
(David Firestone, "Congress Returns From Recess, And So Does The Partisanship," The New York Times, September 4, 2002)
Senator Lieberman (D-CT) Charged That The Workforce Flexibility Plan Is "Uncalled For" And "Unprecedented." Senator Lieberman said the President's workforce flexibility proposal amounts to "tacking on significant but vague new executive powers that are uncalled for and in some cases unprecedented."
(Adriel Bettelheim, "Congress Changing Tone Of Homeland Security Debate," CQ Weekly, August 31, 2002)
Your research is much better than the e-Champion and Team Leader cr@p I get from the RNC ...
... keep up the good work!
I don't think the DEMS care if we get hit again. To them it will just mean that we haven't appeased enough.
I suspect they'll attempt to make the same tortured case for unions that they do for high taxes (i.e. high taxes and unionization = good economy; free enterprise and low taxes = government deficits, which = bad economy). It may be rather fun (and frustrating) to hear them running on the shake & bake your books, alka seltzer bubble 90's economy. But given their penchant for promoting fantasy as reality, I 'spect that's just what we're going to see.
Restricting The President's Ability To Deploy Homeland Security Workers Is "Almost Mind-Boggling." "Kay James, director of the Office of Personnel Management, told the House Homeland Security Committee that it is 'almost mind-boggling' that Congress would restrict the president's ability to make 'quick decisions about management' for the new department while the country is at war. 'This is not a time to diminish that authority,' James said. . . . 'The flexibility the president envisions for the new department is aimed at one result and one result only: ensuring the security of our homeland.'" ("Administration Defends Request For Civil Service Waiver," National Journal's CongressDaily, July 16, 2002)
And yet that is exactly what the RATS are attempting to do. Mine(d) over matter(we the people)
Senator Daschle (D-SD) Said The Workforce Proposal Would Give The President "Dictatorial Powers." Daschle "questioned the expanded authority Bush seeks under his homeland security program," and said "Congress should 'not give this president or any president the dictatorial powers . . . .'" (Scott Lindlaw, "Bush Wants Control Of Homeland Security," The Chattanooga Times, August 16, 2002)
Ahhh, the Oracle of Adephi speaks! Listen to the wind rushing out of that hole.....deafening, isn't it.
Senator Daschle Called The Proposal "A Power Grab Of Unprecedented Magnitude." "Daschle accused the administration of trying 'a power grab of unprecedented magnitude' over union and civil service rights and said Democrats would not roll over on the issue." (David Firestone, "Congress Returns From Recess, And So Does The Partisanship," The New York Times, September 4, 2002)
I'm so glad that we are all behind the welfare of this great nation(need I attach sarcasm tag?). I'm soooo skeeered. The apprehension Dasshoey intends to inculcate the public with here is like the anticipation of a fierce bowl movement after a chili-eatin night when compared to the national threat we face at the hands of our enemies.(/vulgarity)
Apologies if I sullied you thread in any way, PhiKapMom, but that's how disgusted I am with some of the quotes here. Thank you for reminding us how angry we should be.
Get/stay mad! Get/stay Angry! Seek righteous vindication!
Eagles flying high!
KMOKM
That remark should be tattooed on Tiny Tom Daschle's forehead.
Not nearly as much of a power grab as the pinch-faced fascist D'asshole's shady backroom deal with that slimy bastard Jim Jeffords to secure the democrap power hold on the Senate and D'asshole's bogus majority leader status.
Yeah. Right. Government Unions date to the Declaration of Independence. Writ there it was by none less than Tom Jefferson hisself - that Politically Incorrect slave swanger ....
Yeah. Right. "Unprecedented", indeed.
Demos are such *sswipes ... with Jiminy Cricket "LIE-be-da-Man" right at the front of the Prep-H pack.
Yep I heard that and he's right .. Americans won't give a hoot about Dems rules either
It's one thing to raise their taxes .. it's another to play games with their lives ..
And I'm thinking those Soccer Moms will be mighty upset
Surely li'l Tommy grasps the concept of CEO, or in this case president, but his socialist proclivities are showing. "Power grab" yada, yada; "Unprecedented" yada, yada. Great sound bites served up by an adoring media. Smoke and mirrors of unprecedented magnitude delivered by the diminutive Dim. It irks me to no end this guy is breathing my air.
"...over union and civil service rights and said Democrats would not roll over on the issue."
Union and civil service RIGHTS?!?!? WHAT RIGHTS?!?!? The "right" to keep a job they either can't or won't perform? Dasshole is without shame when trolling for union votes. A man without principle, with that much power is scary. Gives me the willies.
If he won't roll over, maybe he could learn to fetch.
Senator Lieberman said the President's workforce flexibility proposal amounts to "tacking on significant but vague new executive powers that are uncalled for and in some cases unprecedented."
Ah, the moral voice of the Senate speaks. I get it, he doesn't understand that executive powers are almost absolute either; that a man in a position of chief executive generally has the authority to surround himself with like minded people working from the same sheet of music. Is Lieberman really that stupid, or was this just more sound bites for the unwashed? I go with sound bites, in which case the moral voice of the Senate is without principle as well.
But we already knew that didn't we?
FGS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.