Rudy on the Non-Binding Resolutions...

By mbecker908 Posted in | Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

From the LA Times...

"In the business world, if two weeks were spent on a nonbinding resolution, it would be considered nonproductive," Giuliani told the lunch crowd, setting off a burst of laughter.



He called the concept "a comment without making a decision." America, he added, is "very fortunate to have President Bush."

"Presidents can't do nonbinding resolutions. Presidents have to make decisions and move the country forward, and that's the kind of president that I would like to be, a president who makes decisions."

The last paragraph is precisely why NONE of the gnomes in the US Senate are qualifed to be President. Ditto for the House.

I may have seen something more pathetic than the trail of the NBR's, but it doesn't come immediately to mind.

Thanks for letting us in on this very fine speech, mbecker.

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

I've been waiting for over a day now for you to take the bait and jab at me for suggesting McCain is impressive.

Ah well... I'll try again sometime, I suppose...

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

Even uncaffinated I wouldn't fall for that one. You can do better. I have faith in you...
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Senior Writer

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

Rudy is right on the money with those comments. Presidents have to make and these nonbinding resolutions are just shows of how damned spineless they are in congress. I bet they would have failed by HUGE margins if they were binding. The wimps there wouldn't have the testicular fortitude and/or principles to vote for a binding resolution.

"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain

It should say Presidents have to make decisions and ... (rest of post goes here). Sorry, I need to proofread better.

"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain

But they can make empty promises during a campaign, or in a State of the Union speech, or in any speech.

This isn't directed against Bush specifically, but the Presidency is the most powerful platform ever created for enunciating political positions that won't come to pass or have no reasonable chance of being accepted as policy just to score points.

A non-binding Senate resolution seems kind of pointless in that it doesn't pass a law or anything. But it at least gets the Senators on the record so everyone knows where the Senate is leaning, and gives the administration and public an idea where each individual Senator falls on the issue. That's actually kind of helpful.

Less helpful are the "non-binding resolutions" of any President who announces a policy or position in a speech to gain favor but does nothing to actually follow up and do anything to further it. You can pretty much put any modern President in that category -- maybe all Presidents but I am not a historian.

All in Congress do the same. Remember how we were going to pass ALL the 9/11 Committee recomendations, work in a bipartisan fashion, etc.? So that part's a wash.

Congress passes laws and the President signs or vetoes them. What would be a fair parallel would be if the President could sign something they send up but say it's non-binding.

It's purely a political exercise for the Dems. They have the power to cut off funds but are afraid to do so.

Right on Rudy! What a colossal waste of time and energy these NBR are. I wish that the Dems would put the money where thier mouths are!

VOTE TO CUT OF THE $$ NOW HARRY! Stop the surge now Harry!

Sheesh, our government must be the laughing stock of the world.

who vote for it should define the number of Republican primary challenges in 2008. This will help planning.

The NRSC will be out in full force supporting Senators who have primary challengers.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Senior Writer

or the NRCC re the House.

In my view, for a Republican to lend the cover of bipartisanship to the Dems' political wrecking operation re Iraq is totally unacceptable.

If the Dems want to pull out, fine, that is their prerogative. If a Republican wants to go along, not fine - he/she should just run as a Democrat next time.

None of these resolutions are "bipartisan." Some simply have a few dupes who have joined the lynch mob. I couldn't agree with you more. Let the Democrats put their necks on the block if they possess such moral certitude. And if any Republicans join them in the resolution, they need to know their necks already have been put on the block.

that they feature a permanent link to something that contains the roster of Republicans who vote for the Pelosi resolution?

Is the top of the list of non-candidates. A Senator can debate, pontificate, dare I say lie(?), and change positions at will, with no consequences.

Someone needs to tell Hillary -- There are no mulligans as president.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service