Originally posted by WCCO-TV/APEven in death, Ronald Reagan can't catch a break in Minnesota.
A resolution honoring the former Republican president's birthday caused partisan friction in the state Senate Thursday and passed only after it was retooled to mention the fact he never won Minnesota and tax increases that occurred under his watch.
The Democratic-controlled Senate spent more than 30 minutes debating the Republican-offered resolution, which recognizes Reagan's Feb. 6 birthday. Reagan died in June of complications from Alzheimer's disease at age 93.
Minnesota was the only state Reagan lost in 1984. It went for Democrat Walter Mondale, a native son.
Democrats criticized the original resolution as ideologically skewed. It said, among other things, that Reagan "worked in a bipartisan manner to enact his bold agenda of restoring accountability and common sense to government which led to an unprecedented economic expansion and opportunity for millions of Americans."
The revised version ends that sentence with "not paralleled until the Clinton presidency," a nod to the two-term Democratic president. Democrats also added lines about tax increases under Reagan and hold up his presidency as "a lesson to the current administration in the areas of bipartisanship, economic recovery, and the need for world support in foreign initiatives."
Don't the legislators in Minnesota have something better to quibble about and debate than a mere resolution recognizing the birthday of a recently passed former President? Doesn't Minnesota have real problems to address? Legislative bodies across the country pass a countless number of resolutions honoring scores of people with nary a nay every year. For the Democrats in Minnesota to go ahead and put political statements in a simple resolution(going out of their way to honor Clinton in the process) is simply petty, ridculous, shameful, etc...
Originally posted by GrimisDon't the legislators in Minnesota have something better to quibble about and debate than a mere resolution recognizing the birthday of a recently passed former President?
From what I read, it wasn't a mere recognition of the birthday. A mere recognition of the birthday would be a resolution stating "Let's recognize Reagan's Feb. 6th birthday".
From your own quote, it appears that someone added in the following statement.
Originally posted by WCCO-TVIt said, among other things, that Reagan "worked in a bipartisan manner to enact his bold agenda of restoring accountability and common sense to government which led to an unprecedented economic expansion and opportunity for millions of Americans."
Originally posted by GrimisFor the Democrats in Minnesota to go ahead and put political statements in a simple resolution(going out of their way to honor Clinton in the process) is simply petty, ridculous, shameful, etc...
But for the Republicans to put political statements attributing glory to Reagan's presidency - that's completely appropriate, right?
(edited by Guru Zim on 4.2.05 1331) Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
If it were me, and the resolution were honoring Clinton, or Jimmy Carter, was written by Democrats, and contained a number of platitudes of things done during their presidency, know what I would do?
I would vote for the damn thing to get it out of the way and move on to more important business.
The truth is, the Democrats in the Senate did this for the sake of being pricks. No other reason. Makes me wonder if they understand their responsibility as legislators.
And that applies for any legislator of ANY party who wastes time clogging up the legislative calendar with any resolution recognizing anybody of any party....
Originally posted by GrimisIf it were me, and the resolution were honoring Clinton, or Jimmy Carter, was written by Democrats, and contained a number of platitudes of things done during their presidency, know what I would do?
I would vote for the damn thing to get it out of the way and move on to more important business.
The truth is, the Democrats in the Senate did this for the sake of being pricks. No other reason. Makes me wonder if they understand their responsibility as legislators.
And that applies for any legislator of ANY party who wastes time clogging up the legislative calendar with any resolution recognizing anybody of any party....
So them why didn't you post about how the GOP wasted time clogging up the legislative calendar with this Reagan resolution? If it were the Dems and Clinton your post would have been "what an outrage by the Democrats" and then talk about how the Democrats have nothing better to do than propose meaningless resolutions honoring Bill Clinton and shouldn't they be hard at work trying to tackle REAL problems?
If you really want to try and pass as anything but a completely partisan hack, start a thread about something stupid the GOP does every once in a while. Or at least cop to the equal stupidity of both parties.
(edited by MoeGates on 4.2.05 1744) Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe. - Euripides
Naaa. You pass the resolution and move on. You don't amend resolutions like that to prop up or attack other, living politicians. It cheapens the intend.
On the other hand, the Republicans should have withdrawn the resolution the minute party mudslinging started, instead of pitching in. It cheapened the whole intent, and they are partly to blame for letting it happen.
Whether you liked his policies or not, you can't deny that Reagan accomplished a lot during his terms, and he is deserving of some tribute. Without using such a resolution to prop up either party.
Originally posted by MoeGatesSo them why didn't you post about how the GOP wasted time clogging up the legislative calendar with this Reagan resolution?
A good point as well. I am sure there were much more pressing issues on the table, especially this long after Reagan's death...
Originally posted by GrimisDon't the legislators in Minnesota have something better to quibble about and debate than a mere resolution recognizing the birthday of a recently passed former President?
as Brett Hull said on SNL
Originally posted by HullHull: Well, that's what happens in Canada when there's no hockey. Guys have more time to hang out, talk about their feelings. Next thing you know, they're in love with each other. I've got nothing against it, but I'd rather be playing hockey
Originally posted by GrimisDon't the legislators in Minnesota have something better to quibble about and debate than a mere resolution recognizing the birthday of a recently passed former President?
as Brett Hull said on SNL
Originally posted by HullHull: Well, that's what happens in Canada when there's no hockey. Guys have more time to hang out, talk about their feelings. Next thing you know, they're in love with each other. I've got nothing against it, but I'd rather be playing hockey
in MN they quibble over unimportant legislation
PLEASE don't compare recognizing Reagan's birthday to an insanely complex citizens' rights issue.
DVDs; Blog ~New Our Lady Peace album "Vampires" this March~
Well, I clearly remember a statement regarging British Intelligence standing by their intelligence as true, well after the fact, perhaps in the last 18 months or so.