🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <39q9uc$413@baygull.rtd.com>, <Legion@azol.com> writes:

> To have originally proposed health care in the form of the Clinton
> Health Care Plan was "an affront to the people he's supposed to serve."
  Irrelevant to this point. Dole was not threatening to halt the 
legislation because it was bad, but because he wasn't being allowed to 
have his little hearings and bang on Clinton. It wasn't even about 
accountability or justice - those hearings mean _nothing_ and affect no 
legislation or sentancing. They were just about a republican chance to 
embarass Clinton. Fine, the dems to it too. But to hold up legitamate 
business over it? There is no defense for that.

> Gridlock is the only thing saving us from ourselves.  Legislation that
> gets passed should be based upon a broad consensus--NOT on dragging 
> the VP down to make a 51-50 victory for the administration's position.
  The VP has that vote to break a tie in exactly this kind of case. It's 
no more unreasonable than the veto which you mention in the following 
sentance.

> The veto lets the President force passage by a broad consensus on 
> legislation that he opposes.
> 
> The fillibuster is the only method that lets the minority force a 
> broad consensus be needed to pass legislation they oppose.
  Comparing the veto's purpose with this cowardly tool designed to garner 
favors and pork is insulting to the founders.