AMERICA - The Right Way!! (Day 1586) [Remember the Trade Center!!]

Do not let the victims of the attacks on New York and Washington, nor the brave members of our Nation's military who have given their lives to protect our freedom, die in vain!!

In trying to put a face on Monday's travesty in the Senate, some are arguing that it is Reid who got the short end of the stick the "the deal". As support for this contention, the argument is posited that three individuals will be brought to the floor for a vote that would not otherwise.

There is a name for this kind of argument. Psychologists who study grief note that this sort of logic rolls around at the end of the process of suffering a loss. It is referred to as reconciliation.

Humans often take the time to reflect on what has occurred, find the positive, and build upon it. That is what we are as a species, builders and doers. We like to get things done, to accomplish, to move on.

Saying we are going to get three Judges on Appeals Courts as a result of "the deal" allows folks to move on, and to feel good about it. It allows us to say, "well, we didn't get everything we wanted, but we got something."

But what did we get? What did we purchase with so much effort, so much political capital being pushed as ante? What did we lay as a foundation to build upon to move forward and to consider the occurrences of May 23, 2005, in a positive light in the future?

Then there is the notion of The Cause, the effort to realign Government after four decades of liberal malfeasance, corruption, and mismanagement of the Nation and people's affairs generally. The notion that we should strive for a Government of the people, by the people, and most importantly for the people once again was paramount to The Cause. People dedicated to the effort have spent much, if not all, of their lives dedicated to the notion of placing conservative Republicans in positions of power in the United States Government to roll back years, nay decades, of largesse and pig fodder foisted upon us by liberal members of the "other party".

Success seemed apparent in January of 2001. Conservatives had conservative President. They had a notionally conservative Supreme Court, albiet by one vote. And they could count majorities in both the House and the Senate, the latter institution, alas, needing the Constitutional requirement of the Vice President's vote to show that status.

Within a couple of weeks, however, Senator Jeffords changed that calculation by declaring himself an independent, leading to the diasporia of the Republicans in the Senate under Daschelle.

Members of The Cause continued to fight, struggling to better the position in the Senate in 2003. Then Republicans could count 51 members--a slight improvement over the situation in the Chamber two years earlier. Yet, a strange thing happened with this majority. There always seemed to be two votes the Minority Leader could count on to frustrate the will of the majority as expressed at the ballot box.

The Cause persevered. The 109th Congress, seated in January of 2005 showed forth a standing of 55 Republicans. Now, at last, it seemed, conservatives would finally have a place in the Sun, flush with the tools to undo the destruction liberals had rent upon America. Now conservatives could handle a defection, and even the loss of a couple of votes, and still show a majority in votes on key issues.

A funny thing occurred on the way to the ice cream store, however. Now there are seven recalcitrant members of the majority party--the party the electorate sent to Washington with a distinct purpose, to NOT perform actions that support the "other party". They were expected to be different, they were expected to promote the notion of a changed America. And they were expected to engage from a position of strength on those things that mattered most to The Cause.

Which goes back to "what did The Cause receive from 'the deal' brokered two days ago?

It's clear. Conservatives will get votes on three of the President's nominees, so the "other party" says.

The Gang of Seven agreed not to change Senate Rules except through the use of standing Senate Rule 22--which requires a two-thirds majority to carry a rules change.

The "other party" agreed not to employ the filibuster except in "extreme circumstances".

That is, however, why we are where we are at. That is how this day became enjoined with this topic. The "other party" has forcefully argued for the last four years" that nominees from the President are "extreme"; that is the basis upon which first Senator Daschle, and now Senator Reid underpin their argument for carrying on a filibuster against the President's nominees.

So, for the price of allowing three nominees to go to the floor for a vote, sometime, and rest assured the "other party" will debate that "sometime" (they already are!), the Gang of Seven have tied the Republicans to avoid anything that will prohibit the "other party" from excersing their "right" to use the filibuster tactic.

Senator Graham argues that he would vote to support the Chair on an rules change appeal (called either the "constitutional" or "nuclear" option, depending on your predilictions) if either a Supreme Court nominee gets entangled in political wrangling, or the "other party" abuses their filibuster right.

The question then becomes, where has Senator Graham been the last four years? That is all the "other party" has done--they have consistently stonewalled each and every one of the President's nominees for Appeals Court.

And for the price of three heads, the Gang of Seven, with the help of Senator Graham, guaranteed they will have the right to do that for at least the next 18 months. Instead of working to ensure just one other Senator voting with the majority conservatives worked so hard to achieve, Senator Graham sought to ensure the Appeals Court level of our Judiciary would continue to weaken (there will likely be more than three vacancies over the remainder of the 109th Congress). This is a strategic blunder of the most collosal nature--for rest assured the "other party," having now been shown the way, will, if they gain the Presidency and the Senate in the future, use the "nuclear option" to fill Appeals Court vacancies. These vacancies will be aplently due to the obstinance of the "other party" today. Talk about "court stuffing," the liberals are engaged in a long-term strategy to do just that. If conservatives think decisions are bad today, just imagine what they would be like if we can't count on reason from such benches as the Fifth Circuit, and others? This IS the long-term plan of folks like Reid and others.

That is why they held a victory celebration last night. Their long-term strategy is in play. They understand how to leverage the present to gain the future, and they have not taken their sights of of it. They want the prize of being able to destroy the America we know.

What did we get in return? We got the ability to see no further than then next vote on the floor of the Senate, to get three heads through on votes.

As for the Republicans, there is an historical precedent we may mind here. The RINO defection is not unprecedented, and by comparision to other times it is a mild one. When parties are amidst a shift in philosophy and/or political fortunes, there come severe divisions that rip between the old and the new directions. Therefrom come reaction and counter-reaction, and, at the most, defection and re-alignment"

Great historical perspective. I'm not much of a studied historian, but earlier today, I was reminded of the Senate in my own life and wrote:

"A small minority of Senators has been acting this way for a great many years... possibly since the founding of our Republic, but I'm not versed enough to say that. The actors have changed, but the dynamics of this "middle ground" is exactly as it has been for a long, long time. For example, during the days of the "yellow Dogs" that middle ground was comprised solely of Democrats who could be split from their leadership on some issues. Prior to that, there were other similar coalitions of these "middle ground" power brokers. Now, for the first time in MY lifetime, that middle ground is comprised largely of R's ... (RINOs) ... it is not a new situation in Senate history - but it is unique FOR US.

"At least NOW we are finally getting toward a majority of representatives who (hopefully) have more respect for the Founders of our Country than has been the case for nearly a century."

It is great to see your post, and CT's, regarding the history of these periods of time, and to be reminded of how these changes occur. It seems that there is always the "mushy middle" problem - and the challenge is always to pull it closer to the position you believe Right.

Trent knows how to get things done, and it probably involves putting his arm around a slimely D and saying nice things about him

Do you remember what happened after the 2002 election. Frist had stupidly told some people that Bush was going to remove Trent and make Frist the majority leader.

Just days after the election Trend called a Republican caucus and had himself elected majority leader for the next congress. That had always been done in January.. not November. That was a clear sign that Trent knew what the president was up to. It thwarted Bush's plan to replace him. Note that took the cooperation of a majority of Republican Senators to elect Trent when they knew the reason for voting in November was to thwart the Presidents wishes.

Trent also took another step to prove to President Bush he could get things done. Daschle at Trent's request called a special session in December in which they confirmed a couple of Bush's appellate court nominations. That was done with the old Senate that the Democrats still controlled. It took the votes of Democrat Senator to get that done. There were only 48 Republican Senators in December.

Bush did not like being beaten to the draw so to speak. So when Trent made some nice remarks to make his 100 year old mentor Strom Thurman feel good, Rove went to Peggy Noonan, Ann Coulter, and a few other conservative columnists and played the race card on Lott. You'll recall that Tom Daschle spoke up for Trent in that matter. Dashle said Trent was just trying to be nice to a 100 year old man near the end of his life. Bush kept quiet as the media did what it took to force Trent to resign his majority leadership. I recall it took several days after the Coulter and Noonan attacks for the MSM to start trashing Trent.

Trent was toast and I think he has just been waiting to get even. Trent accepted his demotion saying nothing negative about President Bush. That is typical of a very angry man waiting his turn to effect revenge. During 2003 Trent talked to Novak about doing an book about the President's relationship with the Senate to be published in late summer of 2004. Novak said it would be very negative. But Lott never wrote one. That may have been a fake jab to cause the President to think Trent was never going to do anything.

Removing Trent Lott was dumb move. The senate is the most exclusive club in the United States. Stick it to one of the guys on the inside and insiders from both parties will make you pay.

President Bush likes Frist and thought he would be a good candidate for President in 2008. Plus there were a couple of things the president wanted to get through congress that Trent was not in favor off putting on the docket.

In any event the administration thought getting rid of Trent was a good idea. Trents efforts to keep Gingrich's zipper from becoming a bigger story than Clinton's zipper, earned Trent the undying anger of many Republicans but the gratitude an loyalty of his fellow Senators. Trent took the heat over the 100 to zip vote to not hear any evidence against Clinton and his fellow senators appreciated it.

The problem for Bush is that nearly all Senators liked Trent and were quite angry at the way he was treated. It is worth noting that no President or party official picked Trent as Republican leader. The Senators who wanted to follow his lead picked him. George Bush picked Bill Frist. There was no ground swell of support for Frist.

But in December of 2002 President Bush had just won the senate back for Republicans. The Republican Senators went with his wishes. They dumped Trent and installed Frist. But Frist has proved incompetent and there is likely anger over the forced change of a leader in the senate.

The senate is famous for senators holding a President's desires hostage in order get what they want. Reagan had several judicial nominations held up by Senator Packwood. The price Reagan had to pay to remove the hold on Judicial nominees was what ever Packwood wanted. Reagan got his judges when the Senator got his way. Senator Packwell of sexual harassment fame did it to Reagan several times. He is not the only Senator to play hostage with bills and nominations. It is accepted behavior in the Senate. There is no downside among fellow senators for making a president of either party pay.

I have also been puzzled why Bush has not gotten involved in the nuclear option situation. If my analysis is right, then the reason is obvious. The president's removal of Lott may the reason the Rinos are leaving the reservation. There is no acceptable way for the president to fix that. That may be why the President is not involved.

All I know is what I see on C-SPAN and read into what senators say and do. But if what I see happening is accurate, Trent Lott has George Bush's private parts in a vice and is squeezing the handle. Betcha the price for instant relief is Bill Frist's head on a platter.

I may be wrong. I often am.. But one factor keeps running through my head. I have been told that Bill Frist would not lie. If he said he had 50 votes he had 50 votes. I do know one thing. No senator will tell his leadership he is going to vote Yea and then vote Nay. It is the one cardinal Senate sin. Just once can ruin a senate career. Any senator who did it would be out in the cold before the sun set. His influence would go to zero. It is THE CARDINAL SENATE SIN.

Yet some people told FRist they were with him.. and then it turned out they were not. How could that be. Only if all Seven of the Senators were in on the take down of Frist, They had to know the other 48 Republicans would not blame them for what they did.

One thing is certain if Frist did not lie about having the support for the nuclear option, then he was lied to by his fellow senators.

I think Frist has to know that a large segment of the Republican caucus was likely in on the deal to screw him.

I know. I'm paranoid .. but just because I am paranoid does not mean they are not out to get me.

Well, I have been working in the yard all day and checking up on the Senate from time to time. I missed Voinovich's crying spell, but I got to see Roberts of Kansas do a most excellent take-down of Dodd, Biden, and Rockefeller. It is near the end of the day, and it was amazing!

Roberts pointed out that Lugar had sent a letter requesting information on an incident that had been discussed in Bolton's hearings. "For some reason," Roberts said, "Senator Rockefeller and I couldn't come to an agreement of the wording of the response. So we ended up sending two letters, one with his opinion and one with mine."

Senator Roberts then pointed out that Biden had read only Senator Rockefeller's letter in the debate, even though he had both.

He then took apart the Senators in the Bolton hearing who had talked about classified information in the public hearings. Dodd got upset and said he was being unfairly targeted, and Roberts all but told him to "talk to the hand." Then Roberts said that in his experience intelligence analysts weren't these milquetoast types who couldn't take criticism, and let it be known that he was dubious about all the whining about Bolton's demeanor.

It was most excellent, and made me proud to be a Republican.

Oh, also, apparently Frist made a good speech tonight at a conservative group. It will probably get posted as soon as a transcript is up.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.