<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reid-iculous: Why the Senate Majority Leader is Just What Congress Needs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://buquad.com/2010/03/15/reidiculous/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://buquad.com/2010/03/15/reidiculous/</link>
	<description>BU&#039;s independent online magazine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:45:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Deanna Falcone</title>
		<link>http://buquad.com/2010/03/15/reidiculous/comment-page-1/#comment-857</link>
		<dc:creator>Deanna Falcone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:47:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://buquad.com/?p=5736#comment-857</guid>
		<description>Glad to see you&#039;re reading my work, David! I agree that Harry Reid could do better at leading the Republicans as well, but to be quite honest the Republican leadership is making cooperation very difficult. Their continued obstructionism - they&#039;re on track to break filibuster records - of the legislative agenda of the Democrats simply because it is that of the other party is making it useless for Harry Reid and other Democrat leaders to work with them. If they&#039;re just going to filibuster anything supported by the Democrats, why should the Democrats bother to court them? This is the stance I believe Harry Reid is taking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad to see you&#8217;re reading my work, David! I agree that Harry Reid could do better at leading the Republicans as well, but to be quite honest the Republican leadership is making cooperation very difficult. Their continued obstructionism &#8211; they&#8217;re on track to break filibuster records &#8211; of the legislative agenda of the Democrats simply because it is that of the other party is making it useless for Harry Reid and other Democrat leaders to work with them. If they&#8217;re just going to filibuster anything supported by the Democrats, why should the Democrats bother to court them? This is the stance I believe Harry Reid is taking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Solis</title>
		<link>http://buquad.com/2010/03/15/reidiculous/comment-page-1/#comment-844</link>
		<dc:creator>David Solis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://buquad.com/?p=5736#comment-844</guid>
		<description>The statements he made about McCain and telling him to get over it were ones rooted in partisanship as a underhanded swipe for the attention of the press, such as the hill, roll call, CQ politics and Politico. Reconciliation has been done before for budgetary reasons. People cried foul when Bush used it for tax cuts yet that&#039;s budget related. Your fellow democrat Senator Byrd made that rule when the reconciliation procedure was debated. The process is designed to expedite emergency budgetary issues; not legislative ideological issues. It got so bad; your party&#039;s leaders considered passing healthcare reform without ever voting on it in the house. Strong leader; maybe for your caucus. For the institution of Congress.. Not so sure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The statements he made about McCain and telling him to get over it were ones rooted in partisanship as a underhanded swipe for the attention of the press, such as the hill, roll call, CQ politics and Politico. Reconciliation has been done before for budgetary reasons. People cried foul when Bush used it for tax cuts yet that&#8217;s budget related. Your fellow democrat Senator Byrd made that rule when the reconciliation procedure was debated. The process is designed to expedite emergency budgetary issues; not legislative ideological issues. It got so bad; your party&#8217;s leaders considered passing healthcare reform without ever voting on it in the house. Strong leader; maybe for your caucus. For the institution of Congress.. Not so sure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

