if Democrats demand that Republicans vote with Democrats?

What kind of democracy does Chuck Colgan want to have?

A politburo?

...as usual, you've nailed it right on the head!  By the way, we're still waiting for your responses to all our questions about how Ronald Reagan single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union (speaking of a "politburo").

Of course, I never said "singlehandedly" - but the left, as your blog so vividly portrayed, thinks the Soviet Union was just going to fall no matter what.  That just lacks even the basic understanding of what happened between 1981-1989.  The Soviets weren't falling under Jimmy Carter.

But back to THIS thread, why do Democrats in the Senate get angry when Republicans vote?  Colgan screaming that the Democrat budget had to be a unanimous vote was quite pathetic.

Soviet Union was going to fall no matter what?  As I said, the defeat of Soviet communism was the result of a multi-decade, bipartisan foreign policy approach that began at the end of World War II and continued through the Marshall Plan, containment, Korea, etc.  My only point was that Ronald Reagan should be given part of the credit, but only part of that multi-decade, multi-president, multi-Congress approach.  Thanks for continuing to put words in peoples' mouths and simply make things up.

"Reagan's main "accomplishment" had nothing to do with him. He wasn't around when the Soviet bloc collapsed. He didn't set the policies that brought it down;those were set by Truman."

Reading comments helps one to know what they say, Lowell.

If you want to address him directly, please feel free to do so. Just don't assume that because someone else said something on this blog, that it reflects my views. Having said that, I DO agree with Hugo that Reagan "didn't set the policies that brought it down;those were set by Truman."  

I said "your blog" which is where his comments appeared - again, it helps a healthy debate if you actually focus on what I wrote.

And, again, do you honestly believe that Truman set the policies that ended the Cold War, and the Soviet Union would've just collapsed on schedule if Carter won a second term and was followed by Mondale?

You're free to believe that, and the rest of America is free to laugh about it.

What a waste of time "debating" anything with you. I'll try one more time, though:

The Cold War was waged over 4 decades by both Democratic and Republican administrations.  The foundations of the "containment policy" were laid at the end of WWII by FDR and Harry Truman, among others.  This policy was continued, more or less, for several decades afterwards, through Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan (who tweaked it to a more "forward leaning" posture). What ultimately brought down the Soviet Union, however, was not one but many factors, including its own internal contradictions, imperial overreach, its disastrous adventure in Afghanistan, the rise of anti-Communist heroes like Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II, the collapse of oil and gas prices, and many other factors.  The Reagan Administration played a role, although to what extent Reagan hastened the demise of the Soviet Union is open for discussion and debate by historians.  Remember, Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev and was even ready to eliminate all nuclear weapons (before pulled back by advisors and allies who were terrified at the prospect of facing the Soviet Union's superior conventional forces without the U.S. nuclear "umbrella" to counterbalance it).

Anyway, it's incredibly complex, perhaps too complex for your liking.  But it's also called "reality," something that doesn't fit neatly in to a black-and-white worldview in which one man singlehandedly brings down an Evil Empire.  That's just laughable.

again, i never said "single-handedly" - Only you've used that word...but in your list of President's who defeated Communism, you left our Carter :)

Maybe this will help http://blog.reagansgop.com/?p=63

Noonan's article explains what the left never sees.  The Reagan administration didn't just happen to be around when the Soviet Union fell.

President Reagan's ambassador to Moscow and Soviet expert on Reagan's National Security Council staff:

On whether or not he single-handedly defeated communism, as the Economist tried to assert so smugly, Matlock renders a much more ambiguous -- and more accurate -- verdict. He is full of admiration for Reagan's resolve, consistency and determination, and especially for his ability to see that the Soviet Union really could change. But he is also quite candid about the president's limitations, though he generously does not dwell on dysfunctional behavior throughout the Reagan administration -- the grudges among his Cabinet members, the sideshow of Iran-Contra, the president's uneven attention to pressing matters -- that often impinged on the diplomacy Matlock was trying to help conduct. Matlock recognizes the critical parts played in this great drama by the two foreign ministers, Shultz and Eduard Shevardnadze. Emphatically, he gives appropriate credit to the key actor: "It was Mikhail Gorbachev, not Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush, who ended communist rule in the Soviet Union." And he writes that Reagan never had the goal of breaking up the Soviet empire.

Source: Amazon.

Last year Republicans refused to appropriate $10M to keep 10,000 poor kids in subsidized childcare.

In 2006, Republicans refused to appropriate $6M for 1,900 poor kids in Fairfax County subsidized childcare.

And their ultimate slap in the face is the repeated use of debt to pay for current expenditure everything instead of current revenues.  Every time you use debt, you're passing the bill to future generations.  Since Reagan, Republicans have done more to grow our national debt than anyone.  

But hey, picking nits about spelling is much better than substantive discussion.  

Perhaps you express your thoughts in something other than words, but for those of us who traffic in a medium inferior to telepathy words are still important to effective communication.

You'll note that other than the quotation from the main post and the first sentence of my comment, my comment was substantive.

It's odd that Lowell opted to change "Capital" to "Capitol" rather than "capital" in the main post because, as I pointed out, the Capitol is not the building being considered for replacement; the GAB is.

your post could be substantive but the way you correct a common error is by inferring that the site is inferior because of it. Good job...pin a rose on your nose. I'm sure that in typing thousands of pages in your life that you have a perfect record and have not made an error.

And Hamlet dies in the end? Really? Now you've ruined the rest of it...thanks.

The involuntary commitment laws work fine when the people involved do their job.  The Cook Center failed Cho and VT and those government employees were not held responsible for their near total failure.

There are no laws that will protect against incompetence and neglect.

Calling for new laws is a cover up.  Fire the Cook Center Director, now.