Macaca
05-19 07:30 AM
A New Reality in Washington, but Can It Last? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/washington/19assess.html) By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) May 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Six months after Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush is learning the rules of a game that, for six years, he seemed to have forgotten: the Capitol Hill edition of �Let�s Make a Deal.�
In the last eight days alone, talks involving cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking White House officials have produced two surprises: a major compromise with Democrats on trade and Thursday�s fragile bipartisan accord on immigration. The question now is whether the sudden burst of deal-making will extend from these easier targets to the most intractable issue in Washington: the war in Iraq.
It is still far from clear whether the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats can be flexible enough to reach an accommodation on war spending � and indeed, the Iraq talks stumbled on Friday. What is clear is that both Mr. Bush and his rivals are shying from the path of confrontation. Democrats, for the most part, are refraining from muscle-flexing, showers of subpoenas and other displays of new clout. And a White House hungry for legislative victories is working hard to negotiate a vastly changed political landscape.
�The president has become belatedly pragmatic,� said Ross Baker, an expert in presidential-Congressional relations at Rutgers University. �I think it took a while for him to recognize that the ground rules have changed, but he seems finally to have come around to the realization that he�s not working with a docile Congress of his own party, but with people who really have decided that they are going to challenge him.�
The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, who is the president�s lead negotiator on the Iraq bill, conceded in an interview earlier this week that it had been difficult for the administration to get accustomed to not controlling the legislative agenda.
Yet despite �a fair amount of substantive tension� in the relationship with Democrats, Mr. Bolten said, the immigration and trade deals have left him feeling encouraged.
�We have some ways to go,� he said, �but there is a process of confidence building that accumulates over time.�
Maybe so, but after six years of being virtually ignored by the administration, many Democrats remain wary. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, complained on Friday that the Bush White House had �never been very interested in anything except the way they wanted to do business.� Mr. Dorgan said he was not impressed with the fact, given the change of party power, that they are talking.
�That gives credit for low expectations,� he said.
Others, less in the thick of things, sounded more upbeat. Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that �an awful lot of blood in the water� would prevent the parties from coming to terms on �low-hanging fruit� like immigration and trade.
In Mr. Panetta�s view, the talks are a good sign. �Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,� he said. �But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you�re going to try to come to a deal.�
Mr. Bush, of course, is not the first president who was forced to come to grips with a new political reality after losing control of Congress. Mr. Clinton did just that after Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994. That loss created the political climate that enabled Mr. Clinton to make good on his promise to revamp the nation�s welfare system.
Likewise, the change in November has made it easier for Mr. Bush to pursue his trade agenda and his long-cherished goal of immigration overhaul.
In the trade deal, the administration�s unlikely partner was Representative Charles B. Rangel, the tough-talking Democrat from Harlem. The White House acceded to his demands for child labor and environmental protections in several pending trade pacts, a move that would have been unthinkable when Republicans controlled the House, because Mr. Rangel�s Republican predecessor as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, would have blocked it.
On immigration, Mr. Bush�s position already seemed nearer that of Democrats than Republicans, and some in his own party are highly nervous about the deal. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, who was majority leader when Mr. Clinton was president, said Republicans would criticize the administration as giving away too much on immigration, just as Democrats criticized Mr. Clinton as giving away too much on welfare overhaul.
�But,� Mr. Lott said, �I would argue that the White House is coming to terms with the reality of the situation in Washington, and they don�t have any choice. We can all get into our partisan crouches and get nothing, or we can go through a process of responsible negotiations.�
Administration officials say both sides seem to be learning as they go. But Iraq is an area where Mr. Bush has been especially unwilling to yield. He has made clear he has little interest in sharing his power as commander in chief.
While Mr. Bush has been trying to strike a conciliatory tone � he said Thursday that he would accept benchmarks for the Iraqi government � the breakdown in talks on Friday was a reminder that Iraq is not immigration or trade, and the president will only go so far.
Some say the trade and immigration deals could actually work against compromise on Iraq. After cutting two big deals, Democrats and Republicans might not be inclined toward another one, for fear that they will look wishy-washy with their respective political bases.
On the other hand, one force pushing toward compromise is that neither side can afford to get blamed for holding back money from the troops. Even so, Mr. Panetta says it is too early to be optimistic.
�There�s some light at the end of the tunnel,� he said, ��but it could get dark real fast.�
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
martinvisalaw
07-17 11:45 AM
You should move this to the Immigrant Visa forum for more responses.
You should notify CIS that you have changed address and ask that the interview be rescheduled. Hopefully you filed the AR-11, change of address forms, with CIS when you moved
You should notify CIS that you have changed address and ask that the interview be rescheduled. Hopefully you filed the AR-11, change of address forms, with CIS when you moved
greyhair
09-23 10:54 AM
Now Congresswoman Lofgren is also supporting illegals. I always thought that she was in support of high skilled. Skip to the 11th minutes to see the interview of Congresswoman Lofgren.
September 22, 2010 - Guillermo del Toro - The Colbert Report - Full Episode Video | Comedy Central (http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/wed-september-22-2010-guillermo-del-toro)
September 22, 2010 - Guillermo del Toro - The Colbert Report - Full Episode Video | Comedy Central (http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/wed-september-22-2010-guillermo-del-toro)
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
number30
04-09 01:54 PM
I filed for EAD (new application) 30 days back along with my AOS applications. Finished my FP on the 25th day.
Normally How long it take to get EAD from Texas Service center. ??
Any idea. ??
Now a days EAD is coming pretty quick. Some one got within a week. So it depends any where between 30 to 90 days.
Normally How long it take to get EAD from Texas Service center. ??
Any idea. ??
Now a days EAD is coming pretty quick. Some one got within a week. So it depends any where between 30 to 90 days.
more...
vhd999
02-13 08:52 PM
We have been applying for advance parole document at NSC for the last few years.
This time we sent our application to NSC on 01/28/2010.
After about 15 days, we received a receipt notice letter from Vermont service center.
The I-131 application instructions specify that I-140 based applications should be sent to either Nebraska or Texas service centers.
I am wondering if USCIS started processing I-131 application in VSC.
Or our application is mistakenly misclassified and sent to VSC.
Any comments?
This time we sent our application to NSC on 01/28/2010.
After about 15 days, we received a receipt notice letter from Vermont service center.
The I-131 application instructions specify that I-140 based applications should be sent to either Nebraska or Texas service centers.
I am wondering if USCIS started processing I-131 application in VSC.
Or our application is mistakenly misclassified and sent to VSC.
Any comments?
kasanski33
01-19 02:15 PM
Hey Glus,
I was hoping when you reply back to these people with the attorney's information you can request them to contribute to IV.
I was hoping when you reply back to these people with the attorney's information you can request them to contribute to IV.
more...
upuaut8
08-15 10:51 AM
This is a simple vault. I rendered (export) it using only basic fills. Then I tweaked those fills in flash. I'll work on posting the wireframe as well.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
jasmin45
08-08 12:19 PM
Do anybody know when can we use AC21?
6 months after I-485 filing or 6 months after I-485 receipt notice or 6 months after EAD
Thanks
6 months after the receipt date. Why create new thread for this question? there are several threads where you can find answers to these very questions.
6 months after I-485 filing or 6 months after I-485 receipt notice or 6 months after EAD
Thanks
6 months after the receipt date. Why create new thread for this question? there are several threads where you can find answers to these very questions.
more...
chrisclick
06-28 05:51 PM
http://img517.imageshack.us/f/shirtdesign.jpg/
I thought I'd might as well do this contest, since I've not really done any haha. Get back into the swing of things on the forum again :P
Hope ya'll like it :D
Pfft, amateur at work ;)
I thought I'd might as well do this contest, since I've not really done any haha. Get back into the swing of things on the forum again :P
Hope ya'll like it :D
Pfft, amateur at work ;)
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
Blog Feeds
06-24 04:30 PM
Tomorrow President Obama meets with members of Congress to talk about kick starting immigration reform efforts. I'm curious about what readers would tell President Obama if they were in the room. Share in the comments section what you would tell the President and members of Congress about immigration reform efforts this year.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/what-would-you-tell-the-president.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/what-would-you-tell-the-president.html)
more...
ramus
07-06 06:21 PM
I think doesn't matter how many times I asked members to do some research and see if thread already exist and if they just add it there, it doesn't matter.. they will create one for every single thing they see..
Go ahead .... create new threads and get confused yourself.
Go ahead .... create new threads and get confused yourself.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
chil3
04-13 01:48 PM
Spillover is minus? How's that possible - genius? So - are they revoking GCs already issued?
Talking abt Spillover...not already allocated..
Talking abt Spillover...not already allocated..
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
NolaIndian32
05-06 09:37 PM
If someone can shed light on why a case would be sent to the National Benefits Center, please advise.
case details:
EB-2 India
PD - Early 2002
I-485 filed July 2007.
EAD and AP rec'd late 2007, FP done 2007
case details:
EB-2 India
PD - Early 2002
I-485 filed July 2007.
EAD and AP rec'd late 2007, FP done 2007
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
visaquery2008
02-11 10:40 PM
Hi all,
I am currently on L1 visa and want to apply for H1 through a small-time consulting company. However, I will decide on joining the new company only after I get the H1 visa.
* Is it get H1 visa and not join the company that has filed for my H1?
* Can I legally continue with my current company even after I get my H1?
* Can I join a third company instead of joining the company that has filed for my H1?
Can people share their experiences?
Thanks.
I am currently on L1 visa and want to apply for H1 through a small-time consulting company. However, I will decide on joining the new company only after I get the H1 visa.
* Is it get H1 visa and not join the company that has filed for my H1?
* Can I legally continue with my current company even after I get my H1?
* Can I join a third company instead of joining the company that has filed for my H1?
Can people share their experiences?
Thanks.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
kirupa
10-22 07:16 PM
What do you mean by "Selection Tile"? Do you mean the Live Tiles?
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
GMKrishna
09-23 05:16 PM
Thank you very much! This is of great help for further analysis.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
pd_recapturing
07-02 07:09 AM
For item 16 what should be the CFR code: is it (c)(9) or (c)(0)(9), since there are 3 parentheses...please help!!!!
my lawyer told me (C)(9)
my lawyer told me (C)(9)
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
spiderman1972
03-01 12:02 PM
.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
easygoer
01-13 02:18 PM
I filed my I-485 in Aug�2007 and my I-140 is approved in EB2. My daughter was on dependent H-4 and her I-485 also was filed in Aug�07 as dependent on my GC. She completed 21 year in June�2008.
My question is if we receive our GC in current year, she will get GC as she already crossed 21 years? Appreciate your answer and thank you in advance.
My question is if we receive our GC in current year, she will get GC as she already crossed 21 years? Appreciate your answer and thank you in advance.
amitga
04-21 06:47 PM
continue working on L2 and try H1 next yr.
san_visa
06-01 02:21 PM
Is there a option to track the I-140 status on the USCIS website using Application Receipt Number ?
Thanks,
San
Thanks,
San
No comments:
Post a Comment