What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
genferei ·
Jul 13, 2011 at 2:38pm
So the largely symbolic BULB Act vote failed. Ten Republicans voted against lighting freedom. Are there that many newly tooled-up curly-fry bulb factories?
Rep. Charles Bass [R, NH-2]
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]
Rep. Morgan Griffith [R, VA-9]
Rep. Richard Hanna [R, NY-24]
Rep. Tim Huelskamp [R, KS-1]
Rep. Tom Reed [R, NY-29]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8]
Rep. Scott Rigell [R, VA-2]
Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5]
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
I'm entirely for the return of real freedom bulbs, and want to see this happen, BUT... at the moment John Boener and the Republican members of the House are making history by actually standing firm on a conservative principle.
To introduce a bill that will go absolutely nowhere in the Senate or with the Administration at a time like this is fatuous. How dumb can some congress critters be?
May '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
Not dumb at all, raycon. The House is a 435-headed monster. It can do two things at once.
Can someone explain why the vote had to be two-thirds? That the ultimate result was a "fail" even though it got a comfortable majority dulls the edge, I think.
Nov '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
Republicans enacted the incandescent ban in the first place; President Bush signed it into law. It's just another example of how two terms should rarely be used together: "conservative" and "Republican."
Oct '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
Fredösphere: Not dumb at all, raycon. The House is a 435-headed monster. It can do two things at once.
Can someone explain why the vote had to be two-thirds? That the ultimate result was a "fail" even though it got a comfortable majority dulls the edge, I think. · Jul 13 at 7:42am
The House may be able to do two things at once, but the news media will choose which ones to report on and even ridicule. They can do 10 things at once for all I care, but at the moment that the American public's attention is on a landmark moment, this bill is just plain dumb!
May '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
Raycon is right.
Sadly, I still have conversations with people who are completely unaware of the bulb ban. It doesn't help that it was banned by efficiency standards instead of by name (rhetorical sleight-of-hand).
Oct '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
I'll get the terminology all wrong, but as I understand it the motion needed a 2/3rds vote because it was sent straight to the floor rather than being reported out of a committee.
I agree that it ought not to be beyond the considerable resources of the House of Representatives to do more than one thing at a time. To take Dim-bulb 2, Brian Bilbray, as an example, he seems to have the assistance of a Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, Senior Policy Advisor, Legislative Assistant, Communications Director, Executive Director to the Congressman's Immigration Reform Caucus, Legislative Correspondent and two Staff Assistants. And that's just in D.C. There are another six folks back in the District.
Multiply by 400+. And add the leadership and committees staff. And weep.
Mar '11
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
Correct. This is my answer to the Debbi-Wasserman Shultz's of the world who get on TV and say silly things like "We have a debt crisis, and we're dealing with things like this?". Learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Aug '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
There will be another vote on the light bulb and it won't require a 2/3 ,but a simple majority. It will probably pass.
Another stroke of the executive pen into the neck of the public.
Oct '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
Douglas
Correct. This is my answer to the Debbi-Wasserman Shultz's of the world who get on TV and say silly things like "We have a debt crisis, and we're dealing with things like this?". Learn to walk and chew gum at the same time. · Jul 13 at 10:58am
If you are thinking that DW-S is going to let up on the criticism of dumb moves by a few congress critters, your optimism knows no bounds. Democrats "Demo"gogue. That's what they do. We are being dumb when we make their jobs easy, and distracting from the really important issues OF THE MOMENT, is certainly that.
Lord bless every member of the GOP house who want this light bulb travesty repealed, just use some sense in your timing.
Jul '11
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
I'd love to have a job (I could end my sentence there, but won't) where having more than one thing to do a week (or weeks?) is thought to be "just plain dumb."
Dec '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
I'm getting a "Bulborama" ad on the right hand side. Ha.
May '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
They need to repeal it now to avoid the harm that will be done when the total ban starts phasing in next year. If they don't, the bulbs will completely disappear from stores and nobody will have a license to import them. They have already closed the last American factory that produced them and laid off all the workers.
By the way, genferei, thanks to the graphic accompanying your post, I have to put on a gas mask and rubber gloves, open the windows, get the kids and pets out of the house, clean my monitor with a piece of stiff cardboard and put the debris in a glass jar, then drive down and deposit it at the hazardous waste recycling center.
Edited on Jul 13, 2011 at 4:20pmJul '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
The Republicans had to put this forward at this time because the people who vote Republican and the independents who bother to inform themselves are against this stupid mandate. They knew it wouldn't pass, but when people are forced to buy Algore light bulbs they are going to want to know who in Congress was in favor. Yes, it was passed in the Bush administration. Just another reason to keep Jeb and any other member from that clan from any public office above county supervisor. If you haven't been stocking up on incandescent bulbs before they disappear from shelves you haven't been paying attention. I'll buy more tomorrow.
May '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
There's a reason it's called "the stupid party."
Nov '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
Aaron Miller: Raycon is right.
Sadly, I still have conversations with people who are completely unaware of the bulb ban. · Jul 13 at 9:55am
Me too. Maybe they've heard of it but they haven't internalized it. But don't be sad.
I'm glad this failed because I want to witness the uproar down at the Town Tap when, come January, a $0.22 bulb will be quietly replaced on the shelves by a $4.50 poisonous bulb which looks weird and shines a funny color. Most people have not been paying attention, or have not internalized this upcoming event.
The greens are set up for another fall down at the tavern.
Jan '11
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
The bulb-ban will be reversed. When you combine inefficient, dangerous, and counter productive in a single product, some sufficiency of legislators are bound to notice. On the other hand, Obama stands a chance of re-election, so forget the rationality test.
It does say something about the survivability of dim-bulbs, though.
Apr '11
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
Exactly. The civics-class version of legislation is woefully inadequate. A lot of bills and votes are for education and positioning (aka, preparing the battlefield); in a word, the vote's purpose is political rather than legislative. When the people who voted against the bill go home, they will face electoral opponents, editorial boards, and constituents at town halls asking why.
Nov '10
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
I can't imagine why Scott Garrett voted against this. The guy is as libertarian as anyone in congress!
Jun '11
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
From Scott Garrett's website: “As a cosponsor of H.R. 91, the original version of Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, I support the repeal of the ban on incandescent light bulbs and fundamentally disagree with the federal government trying to restrict consumers’ choice. Unfortunately, the bill we considered today was not the same as the bill I originally cosponsored. When a new version of the legislation was introduced, a provision was added that would prohibit states from creating their own standards on light bulbs. As Chairman of the Constitution Caucus, I cannot vote for a bill that infringes upon states’ rights and is in violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.”
Re: What Was In It For The Dim-Bulb Republicans?
Mark Wilson: ... By the way, genferei, thanks to the graphic accompanying your post, I have to put on a gas mask and rubber gloves, open the windows, get the kids and pets out of the house, clean my monitor with a piece of stiff cardboard and put the debris in a glass jar, then drive down and deposit it at the hazardous waste recycling center. · Jul 13 at 4:15pm
Edited on Jul 13 at 04:20 pm
And even that is easier than disposing a hazardous politician...