Rangel Admits Democrats added pork for votes

[JaJae]

There's a video of it here:
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Rangel admits Dems abused war funding bill

I will attach a partial transcript:

Why would the Democrats put that kind of money in such a serious bill?

REP. CHARLES B. RANGEL (D-NY): Because they needed the votes. That bill, we lost so many Democrats, one, because people thought we went too far and others because we didn’t go far enough. And so a lot of things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want in there. But the real question was, were we doing something to stop this immoral war and what could we do instead of doing nothing except do what the president asks us to do? I think the most important thing and the worst thing that’s ever happened to this country in recent history is getting involved in the Middle East, and I didn’t care what was in that bill if there was anything to slow down, to, to say what the American people said in the last election, “Get out of Iraq!”

Here we have Rangel a man who I disagree with in just about every way politically admitting 100% that the reason the Democrats added the pork to the war spending bill is because they needed the votes for it to pass. In other words he's implying it would not have passed had they not had the pork.

I have been saying this all along, it's refreshing to see a Democrat at least admit it. Now the question comes up, he starts talking about morality. Is it moral to buy votes to pass a bill that wouldn't otherwise pass? I have posted quotes from spokespersons and congressmen who said they voted for the bill because of the pork. Is this really what our country is about? Buying votes? It's absolutely amazing that the Democrats can literally buy votes for a bill regarding our troops in Iraq, yet complain about the ethics of a few appointed prosecutors being asked to resign.

We have troops over in Iraq and our Democratic party is a party that literally votes "no matter what's in the bill" and simply because there's pork added on specifically for them; Rangel admits, he didn't care what was in the bill as long as it "slows down" Iraq. Wouldn't you think our Congressmen should care what's in such bills and the means of which they slow down our war effort? We have soldiers overseas and all the Democrats seem to care about is bribing votes and neglecting the means of ending the war so long as they do it. I find it abhorrent. If you don't want our troops in Iraq, present a clean bill to simply bring them home without the extortion.

[ballz2wallz]

Haha, not much to really 'admit' since everyone already knew about it.

[kinggovernor]

I disagree with everything that comes out of Rangel's mouth, but at least he is a straight shooter

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I disagree with everything that comes out of Rangel's mouth, but at least he is a straight shooter

Yeah, I think he does tend to speak his mind and it drives some Dems up the wall!

[tbone]

OMG, OMG, pork was added to a bill? That never happens! It never happened when the GOP had control and it sure hasn't happened since the dems now hold control. Say it isn't so....

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by tbone

OMG, OMG, pork was added to a bill? That never happens! It never happened when the GOP had control and it sure hasn't happened since the dems now hold control. Say it isn't so....

A promise to elminate pork was one of the things that got them elected into office. You mean they lied and it's ok with you that they did?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by tbone

OMG, OMG, pork was added to a bill? That never happens! It never happened when the GOP had control and it sure hasn't happened since the dems now hold control. Say it isn't so....

is this really a good way to conduct foreign policy.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by tbone

OMG, OMG, pork was added to a bill? That never happens! It never happened when the GOP had control and it sure hasn't happened since the dems now hold control. Say it isn't so....

You're one of the guys who constantly criticized the GOP for putting pork in there. Now that its your guys its ok?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You're one of the guys who constantly criticized the GOP for putting pork in there. Now that its your guys its ok?

we need to add a but...but....but GOP smilie

[motivez]

This is news?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

This is news?

It's hypocritical which I believe was JJ's point.

[motivez]

Yeah, but we already talked about this in like two other threads, we know already they did this, most people disagree with the pork

Though, as I said in another thread, if it's the only possible way to bring Bush to the table to compromise and negotiations on his failed Iraq policy, I can't stay mad at them for too long.

At least the goal is a noble one, (bringing about a change in a war that's dangerously off course), unlike some of the shit Republicans were doing it for.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, but we already talked about this in like two other threads, we know already they did this, most people disagree with the pork

Though, as I said in another thread, if it's the only possible way to bring Bush to the table to compromise and negotiations on his failed Iraq policy, I can't stay mad at them for too long.

At least the goal is a noble one, (bringing about a change in a war that's dangerously off course), unlike some of the shit Republicans were doing it for.

compromise was never the goal of this legislation, it was a step above a non-binding resolution. Those in favor of the bill knew that Bush would veto it, they wanted that to happen. So they paid off members to get their vote, even when they knew that the bill is not going to go into affect. So those that were bought off will still not get their pork because the bill is DOA. It was about political strategy and not compromise

[motivez]

Er, compromise is inherit in the political strategy that went into the formulation of this bill.

It is like a giant game of chicken right now.

If Bush veto's, it goes back to the House, which will likely pass similar legislation again.. and then go to the Senate, again.. and then to Bush, where he'll have to decide whether or not he wants to be responsible for cutting off funding to the troops, or if he'll sit down and compromise and hopefully come up with some realistic solutions for his failed war besides "continue forever at all costs."

For it to work, the Democrats are going to have to have a huge sack and not give into the typical Republican bantering about "hating America" or "not supporting the troops" .. the majority of America supports this legislation and the ideas that went into it. Dates for withdrawal, etc, etc.. and they're far beyond giving a rats ass about the idiotic faux-patriotism spewed by the GOP.

[Scrum]

Jesus, this again.


Every bill has pork in it. Shame on the Dems for playing by the GOP's rules, but at least this is forcing something to happen.


I love the reaction to this from people. If the Dems don't find a way to get votes, you guys call them pussies. When they find ways to get the votes to make a statement, you say they are being too pushy. There is no pleasing people.

[motivez]

Oh, and by "continue forever at all costs," we all really know what Bush is doing.

He's simply trying to run out the clock on his Presidency and dump his fuckups on whoever is next (likely the Democrats at this point).

He's not interested in any real solutions, because everyone knows it's not about a military solution in Iraq, it's about a political one, and we can't force the sides to come to the table when they'd rather be killing each other.. they're not tired of doing that, and until the sides have leaders that are, we can't broker peace.

That means we have no good options. Whatever we do will lead to more violence and bloodshed, he just doesn't want to have it happen while he's in the oval office because he's more concerned about whatever pathetic legacy he has left than he is about saving the lives of American troops who'll die needlessly in the middle of their civil war.

[grembert]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

A promise to elminate pork was one of the things that got them elected into office. You mean they lied and it's ok with you that they did?

It is pork and that is not good under any cicumstances. But, at least, it is out in the open and not like someone in the middle of the night adding money to build a tea pot museum in North Carolina to a completely unrelated bill.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by motivez

For it to work, the Democrats are going to have to have a huge sack and not give into the typical Republican bantering about "hating America" or "not supporting the troops" .. the majority of America supports this legislation and the ideas that went into it. Dates for withdrawal, etc, etc.. and they're far beyond giving a rats ass about the idiotic faux-patriotism spewed by the GOP.

This is the heart of the matter. This is what the country wants. No amount of Bush plugging his ears and yelling "LALALALALA" will change that. People finally realize how stupid this war is and they are tired of paying for it with lives and money. They no longer trust this administration to handle things and you can't blame them for that. These guys have been wrong every step of the way.


Thank goodness the "New American Century" will be over in '08.
I don't think we could have survive more than 8 years of such horrible policy.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

is this really a good way to conduct foreign policy.

It's been happening for 7 years.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You're one of the guys who constantly criticized the GOP for putting pork in there. Now that its your guys its ok?

When they do it once to save thousands of lives? Yes.