Maybe one of them can vote for it before voting against it.

They're only the rules if you accept them as the rules.

5 billion dollars for the IMF? That's what they object to? What the fuck is wrong with these people?

i guess if these types of things were harped on by the msm instead of just here in the intertubes, there'd be a concerned citizenry.

caint have that now can we?

The big difference between the GOP and the Democrats is that the GOP has the guts to fight. They don't give a shit about "supporting the troops". But they managed to scare the Democrats into submission by threatening to make them look bad. Similar tactics don't work on them

It's going to be fun watching the "liberal press" ignore the past few years of Republicans calling the Dems traitors, etc. for not supporting a blank check.

It will be more fun listening to my Republican friends tell me how this is perfectly consistant.

NOT! But it is what I expect to see and hear.

Republicans, the party of "no", the party of "me".

Just like the whole bit about blocking up-and-down votes on judges being unconstitutional, these hard-and-fast rules go right down the memory hole.

But why should we expect anything different? The GOP believes in the bitch slap, not in rules.

Remember from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid:

Butch Cassidy: No, no, not yet. Not until me and Harvey get the rules straightened out.
Harvey Logan: Rules? In a knife fight? No rules.
[Butch immediately kicks Harvey in the groin]

The only thing to do is make them pay for it at the polls, by making sure the voters - who expect at least some consistency on major points of principle - are regularly reminded of what's going on.

Of course, it would help if the Broderellas of the world might take notice of these minor inconsistencies, and without somehow finding a way to pretend that it's equally the Dems' fault.

Republicans are unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers who can't be trusted on national security issues.

This country is completly FUBAR. I'm getting pretty close to shutting down reading and responding to the nauseating back and forth on issues that anyone with half a mind can see which side is attempting to think clearly. Howard Dean just blew a hole the size of Costa Rica (you know Costa Rica. It was an integral component of the Collation of the Willing) to the GOP talking points on health Care. Apparently it's nothing but a game to the two sides and the MSM who will now, undoubtedly use GOP talking points to misconstrue the points you make in this blog. I think I am giving up. Belgium. I'm thinking Belgium, or maybe, Italy where FUBAR is sooooooo comon, it's served as an appitizer...

IOKIYAR - the answer to all these details.

Let them continue their bullshit. The day of their death is fast approaching: November 4, 2010, is only 506 days from now.

Wasn't it Hamlet who said, "Hypocrisy, thy name is wingnut."

Belgium.
You can find decent beer there.
And bicycles.

Grab your partner and swing him around...

I hold this truth of American politics to be self-evident: The only apposite truth is the opposite truth.

Prediction: The Rs will be calling for an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before the year is out. They will move to gut the PATRIOT Act: It is a Big Government intrusion on Americans. They will try to reign in the FBI. They will belittle the Dems for not providing the troops with the latest armor... and so on...

I've seen this contra-dance before:

Grab your partner...
Scoot Back...
Walk & Dodge...
Cloverleaf now...
Do-si-do.

Republican lawmakers are dicks.

Quoting Dean Baker at the American Prospect (references to NPR coverage, which he was discussing, snipped out)

[...]the bulk of the IMF lending at present is going to East European countries, not the developing world.

The basic problem is simple. The West European bankers proved to be every bit as stupid as the Robert Rubin-Citigroup crew in dishing out loans. The main outlet for their bad loans was Eastern Europe, where they made enormous loans denominated in euros.

It is very difficult for the countries of Eastern Europe to maintain their exchange rates against the euro without large amounts of assistance. However, if they let their currencies fall against the euro, then the default rates on the loans from Western European banks will explode.

Of course West Europe is rich enough to bail out its own banks, but the governments in countries like France and Germany know that their people will not stand for this sort of handout. In steps the IMF. [...]

Developing countries only began to accumulate massive amounts of foreign exchange (i.e. savings) after the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. There was no talk at the time about the IMF not having enough money. Rather, the explicit motive of most of these countries was to accumulate enough reserves that they would never need to turn to the IMF for a bailout.

The conditions that the IMF imposed on the East Asian countries, who had previously been the superstars of the developing world, were seen as being so onerous that other countries wanted to make sure that they never were forced to turn to the IMF for help. Therefore they deliberately kept their exchange rates under-valued so that they would run huge trade surpluses, which let them rapidly build reserves.

In short, the IMF's conduct was a major cause of the global imbalances that led to the current economic crisis.

You can read his entire post here:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=06&year=2009&base_name=npr_the_imf_and_the_global_sav&2

Ok, I don't have time to watch all the speeches on CSPAN, and my cable company just took away CSPAN2, but shouldn't their be a designated Democrat whose sole job is to read back the Republican's words to them when they are contradicting themselves and their party?

Your piece, Steve makes it sound like only the Republicans are a problem.

FIFTY Democrats (and only NINE Republicans) voted against the House version of the bill a few weeks ago -- including Barney Frank and John Conyers. The White House is threatening freshmen Reps with metaphorical Siberian careers to make them get in line.

And isn't it just as much of a flip for the Democrats who promised not to vote for war-funding bills that did not contain troop withdrawal timelines to suddenly roll over at the behest of the President? The Democrats are not showing backbone here, and the Republicans have no monopoly on hypocrisy.

Ah, the Grumpy Old Perverts - intellectual heirs of Henry Ashurst (D, AZ) who at least admitted that "the clammy hand of consistency" never rested on his shoulder. To paraphrase another of his remarks - come 2010 we have to make it too late for them to see the light, by making them feel the heat.

It's interesting, then, that these very same Republicans are poised to do the one thing they said responsible, patriotic policymakers should never do.

They're not hypocrites. They're liars.

They're not hypocrites. They're liars.

This isn't a zero sum game. They're both!

I'm a bit shocked that you didn't mention the most salient and effective use of this criticism: it was the entire basis of the Republican criticism of John Kerry. "It voted for it before I voted against it" was literally about the spending bill, and it was the key lynch pin they used to paint him (successfully) as being both a flip-flopper and anti-troop.

They're about to blow apart their entire justification for the 2004 election.

It's interesting to see how the rules of the political discourse change, depending on which party is making the argument.

Yes it is.

It has been interesting for a long time.

Why was the IMF funding included in this bill?

Was it to force the repubs to vote for it?

The 2004 election was soooo five years ago.

That was different.

I can't believe the support this bill is getting on this comment board.

Is there a withdrawal timetable attached to this bill? If not (and I don't think there is), then it should be rejected immediately. Giving a blank check to Obama is just as bad as one to Bush.

Moreover, attaching the IMF provision to this bill is straight outta Bush/Rove's playbook. It has nothing to do with the bill, it's just a way of trying to shame congress into passing it (despite its obvious flaws) because of polotical pressure to support the troops.

Ask yourself why 50 Dems are voting against - because they think it's smart to oppose the Obama administration?

It has been interesting for a long time.

It's good we can always count on you to deliver bad-faith bullshit on behalf of the Republicans, Marler.

Shame on you.

This feels a bit like apples to oranges to me. You're spot-on with their moral objection, of course; if it's a sin against God or something to vote against the troops, then yes, this is hypocrisy. However, the Democrats' objections had to do with complaints about the war itself; they didn't want to fund the war because they wanted a timeline. The GOP's reluctance in this case is not a "we're-not-funding-the-troops" stand but an objection to the utterly unrelated amendment tacked on. I actually agree with them on this one. It's an obvious move by the Dems to stir up just this kind of outrage if the GOP doesn't get onboard with the IMF funding.

Solution: Two bills. Fund the troops, debate IMF money. I know the latter won't pass that way, but these monster-bills with a bundled hodgepodge of unrelated expenses aren't how funding decisions are supposed to be made.

I can't wait to hear the FOX News mouthpieces ripping up the Republicans for not supporting troops in the field. /s

PLEASE GENTLEMEN:
THE ENEMY OF OUR ENEMY IS OUR FRIENDS. A VOTE AGAINST THE WAR IS WHAT WE WANT.

eepU1x