SIVACRACY.NET

Is "Repukelican" a tad petty and immature? Sure, but I'm taking my cue from Bush. As the Daily Howler notes:

...Bush has begun, in the past year, to refer in speeches to the “Democrat Party.” (We think this is new for Bush, although we’re not sure.) Plainly, there is something wrong with this locution. The Democratic Party’s actual name is well known. It appears on the party’s letter-head, and it’s featured at the party’s web site. Indeed, the name has been in use, unchanged, since the 1830s; people have had lots of time to commit it to memory. When Bush refers to the “Democrat Party,” he’s engaging in a familiar type of schoolyard behavior—a particular type of childish conduct that others in his party have long sponsored. It’s dumb; it’s rude; it’s stupid; it’s childish.

Now about the Repukelican attempt to eliminate the federal minimum wage (via Thomas):

S.AMDT.116
Amends: H.R.2 , S.AMDT.100
Sponsor: Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] (submitted 1/23/2007) (proposed 1/24/2007)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To afford States the rights and flexibility to determine minimum wage:

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S932

STATUS:

1/24/2007:
Amendment SA 116 proposed by Senator Allard to Amendment SA 100. (consideration: CR S1021-1022, S1041-1042, S1043-1044; text: CR S1021)
1/24/2007:
Amendment SA 116 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 28 - 69.

SA 116. Mr. ALLARD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

``(h) State Flexibility.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to pay an employee a wage that is greater than the minimum wage provided for by the law of the State in which the employee is employed and not less than the minimum wage in effect in that State on January 1, 2007.''

Senators voting in favor of this included both of my Senators, Graham and DeMint. Via Discourse.net.