Re Gore the environmentalist, and with the environmental portfolio from
Clinton:
Who gave the instructions to the US delegatation to the Hague climate
meetings? Was that Gore or Trent Lott?
Gene Coyle
Nathan Newman wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shane Mage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Nathan. wrote on Nov. 25:
> "... on the pro-union side of the ledger:
> .... Support of the Striker Replacement bill (filibustered by GOP
> Senators)..."
>
> >His party controlled the Senate. He himself held the power
> >of the gavel as President of the Senate (his sole constitutional
> >responsibility).
> >But he capitulated to the mere threat of a filibuster. The *first* "stop"
> to
> >pull out would have been to hold the Senate in permanent 24/7
> >session--forcing the spectacle of a real filibuster (and giving the country
> >the chance to see Lott, in character, playing the Bilbo role). And if they
> >kept going after the collapse of Thurmond and a few others, mobilizing the
> >power of the Presidency to demand, incessantly, 'Why are they holding up
> >all sorts of vital (sic) legislation just to keep the Senate from
> >*voting*?'! The whole 'striker replacement' charade... was nothing but a
> >fraud."
>
> A slightly bizarre argument, since the GOP Senators were proudly
> filibustering not only striker replacement, but campaign finance and every
> other Dem initiative in 1994. So the C-SPAN junkies could see a few 24/7
> sessions on TV; big woop. I know, I know - we've all seen Mr. Smith Goes to
> Washington, so the heroic midnight marathon speechaton always captivates the
> public's imagination. Maybe some different strategies in 1994 would have
> broken some of the GOP filibusters but the raw fact is that 40 Senators have
> the ability to block any vote, without needing the drama of longwinded
> speeches.
>
> You can play all the blame games against the majority of Senators (almost
> all Dems) who supported striker replacement legislation, but it's just a
> convenient blinder to support the ideological line that there is no
> difference between the parties, despite the obvious list of differences on
> union issues I listed. A majority in the House backed by the Dem leadership
> passed striker replacement, the Dem leadership and members supported it in
> the Senate, and a Dem President supported it, and it was a minority of GOP
> Senators that blocked it. That's the bottom-line reality and the
> bottom-line reality between the parties on union issues.
>
> The same was true in 1966 when a GOP Senate filibuster defeated labor law
> reform; the same was true in 1978 when a GOP filibuster defeated labor law
> reform; and the same was true in 1994.
>
> The Dems sell-out to corporate interests on a range of issues, but on basic
> labor law votes, the differences between the parties are large and, if
> anything, more dramatic today than in the past.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
>
> Shane Mage
>
> "Thunderbolt steers all things."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
