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.

Heh, you good folks!

I've been watching your frustrations over the Senate/ Judges deal, and I appreciate and join the screams.

Thought, though, that I'd give a bump to the idea that it ain't over yet. Many, many mistakes have been made, but we must appreciate that the entire situation has been favorable to the Dims' strategy. Ted Kennedy is immune from public opinion, and likely considers killing the President's judicial nominations as his twilight victory. Something to think about, that, if we were to compare it to the last, twilight-of-the-career feats of Clay and Webster to hold together the Union. Kennedy's plan is quite the opposite, of course. It's a malicious legacy, and I can only hope history will recognize it for what it is. (Doubtful.)

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. The Democrats most recently went through this during the late 1990s. In that case, the old won out, with the party's old school leftists prevailing. That is why the Democratic Party is today the party of reaction.

The Republican Party just now has no such rift. While frustrating and offensive, this current display is protest, not rebellion. Were the RINOs in any serious play, their rhetoric would be that of revolution, and not this weak, mild tone of "conciliation" (be that with the Democratic left). The RINOs have not challenged the party's philosophy; they have challenged, instead, the party's methods to it. That is hardly a contest. It is a bump, surely, but not a true challenge.

During the period I have most closely studied, the TR and Taft presidencies, there were two simultaneous rebellions in the Republican party, only one of which led to a serious shift in the party. The first, a quick rebellion in the House of Representatives against the Speaker in 1909-1910, was in its general support confined to the particular fight with the Speaker over House rules. When the battle was over -- and it was divisive and infuriating to party loyalists -- it was over. During the fight the dissenters were appropriately called "insurgents." When the fight was over, most returned to the party fold.

The more serious event came when those Republican insurgents who fought the Speaker turned their revolt into a general attack upon the party's philosophy and leadership. They aligned themselves with a few like-minded Republican Senators. At this point they dropped the name, "insurgent" and adopted the label "progressive." Doing it they turned the fight from one of procedure (over House rules) to philosophy, and to the very nature and meaning of the Republican party.

It's a long story, and its conclusion comes in the 1912 election, during which the Republican party sets its path for the 20th century under Taft's leadership. It meant that the Republican party would become a minority party for six-eight years, but it secured the party's ideas. Progressivism became democratic, and, ultimately, the New Deal. Without getting into the larger struggle between progressivism and conservatism, I bother you with this to say that what is going on in the Senate today is not on the level of true division and realignment. The RINOs have held their little revolt, and I don't see it going any further.

McCain thinks himself a Theodore Roosevelt. He ain't no TR. He's more of a Bob La Follette, the insurgent/progressive leader in the Senate of 1909/1910, and hardly that. Even La Follette refused to "read himself out" of the Republican party during Roosevelt's 1912 bolt. And even Roosevelt came crawling back a few years after that. While today's Senate "insurgency" may have a basis in ideas, it is neither empowered nor operative by ideas. The fight for ideas is capitulated in the method, which means the ideas don't matter. That is to say that the party will hold, and it will prevail over Kennedy's vile game.

Hope that makes sense. Gonna post-n-run, as I have a concert to git to this evening. I've been thinking this through, and posting this likely helps me more than you... I do hope all are well.

Regards,

Michael

I think Trent wants the Majority leaders job back. There were some hints to that effect in the press last week. I think the President just found out what it will cost him not to endorse and actively support Trent for that position in 2006.

I think Lott wants his bases back...did you see these 2 stories?

“The ultimate option would be to oppose it when the Congress votes on it [the recommended base closures],” Lott said, and vowed, “I ain’t done.”

"I have options on unrelated issues," said Lott, a Republican, issuing a veiled threat to the administration.

Those base closing get finalized in a vote in Nov I think. It will be interesting to see if Dubya gets his judges and Lott gets his bases.

Hi nicollo! I sure hope it isn't over yet...Appreciate your thoughts..

I just love history...American history...the colonial period & Rev. War...

So, it was wonderful to be stuck somewhere yesterday a.m....with the tv tuned to the Today show, Katie Couric, and ....David McCullough talking about his new book:1776

He provided a wonderful quote which is appropriate for the events of the week, and Memorial Day coming up...

McCullough said that with all the fine ideas produced in Philadelphia and so forth that summer, it was the soldier in the field...in Boston, New York, Long Island, and so forth who secured those ideas

Bravo Mr. McCullough!!

Now the cold which attacked me last weekend is back, and seeing Voinovich cry like a baby on the Senate floor didn't help..What a disgrace!

Sniffling off to bed...

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.