Posted on 05/25/2005 4:42:33 AM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail!
Good morning!!
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?
Not much, sad to say.
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 "other party" however, doesn't say when.
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.
The Cause won the battle of getting some votes on nominees.
The Cause is currently losing the War of the Court.
For AMERICA - The Right Way, I remain yours in the Cause, the Chairman.
I told you that I would report what our local paper has had to say about the Memorandum of Agreement.
Aside from an AP article yesterday, they have had nothing to say. Not one word. Not from the editorial staff. Not one article picked up written by any of the commentators. Nothing.
I hope you will be firing off one of your Letters to the Editos about its paucity of news and failure to inform its readers about this current assault on the Constitution.
I have concluded that there is no such thing as a republican or a democrat anymore. They all seem to be just politicians to me, and that is disheartening. The notion that a party that holds the three main elective bodies in this country cannot use their clout to alter the circumstances is indicative that those in office are actually content with the status quo, and that we should not bother to expect more from them.
Perhaps I do not get to watch enough "News" but I haven't seen anyone show passion and principle since Zell Miller last year at the convention. I could however not have ever voted for him for reasons likely similar to why he remained in that despicable party.
There are only two persons who have ever gotten more than one vote from me. One of them is the current president. I am rather certain that I shall never again vote for anyone to be reelected to anything. I happen to believe that all persons shall be required to answer for their deeds, and there are few living politicians that I will envy when that time comes.
I can't bring myself to not vote. Too many people fought, died and suffered to give me the right to do that. Not voting is like slapping at them.
Many of your other observations though, I think are very astute.
When a judge is confirmed to one court can they be moved to another? I think if they can what should happen is when the confirm the three send them all to the ninth circus.
I leaned to spell that on this chat line.
Hopefully John Bolton will receive a full Senate vote today. I surly hope so. The three judges will receive their up and down votes, but how about the rest of our President's nominees?
How's the weather up your way?
I feel a bit surly myself about this mess, tillacum........especially since one of my own Senators is a 3/4 RAT, and the other an idiot who's going against Bolton.
Sigh.............
I always vote. I just do not vote for democrats or incumbents (with a few exceptions.)
I actually have had to pull a couple of blank slates though, as options in my area are often limited.
I personally think all of the asterisked 7 get up/down votes, but not all of them pass. Who knows?
No, they are nominated and confirmed to a specific position.
Think of it as analogous to Bolton and his nomination to be UN Ambassador. Once confirmed, he will not have credentials to negotiate with, say, the United Kingdom, and the UK Ambassador will not be able to argue the position of the United States before the UN, nor can they be swapped after confirmation. That would be a new nomination, requiring new consent.
BTW - Tomorrow I think I'll write about advice and consent. I sense it coming on.
Here's the relevant part of the "deal".
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
So, only three will have a vote, though when appears open to debate. We didn't lock that down either, though it does seem Owens is moving forward.
Judge Owen is confirmed by a 56-43 vote.
Yes!!!
Finally.
The biggest problems with people and our government is most people expect quick results. The founders of our government made it terribly hard to change anything. That is our real strength.
The design of the senate was impossible. The founders wanted to make it very hard to pass a law or change anything. It was designed so the impatient and the passing fad could not get enacted. The house was to mirror public opinion.. the Senate was to only enact long term trends.
Imagine the frustration of Democrats in the 1930s and 1940s. Because of the Conservative Southern Democrats FDR had a heck of a time getting much of his agenda passed between 1932 and 1934. When FDR got bigger margins in both the House and the Senate in 1936 he was able to get a lot more of his agenda passed. He should have because the house and the senate were elected with huge majorities of Democrats.
But then a heck of a lot of what FDR got passed was found unconstitutional by the Conservative Supreme Court. So FDR tried to get a constitutional amendment increasing the number of of justices on the court. FDR proposed to "pack the court" with Liberals. But his own Democrats allied with Republicans prevented his attempt to "Pack the Court." It was mostly Democrats who accused FDR of "Packing the Court." .. FDR had to endure negative names for his plan that were nicknamed by is own parties members. Imagine the anger and frustration of FDR's leftist base at each failure to prevail.
It wasn't until his THIRD term and some conservative justices died and retired that FDR got a lot of his agenda passed,signed and found constitutional by the courts. But a lot of it DINOS would not pass for either FDR or Truman. The Left failed to get a lot of their agenda passed at all.
Much of the liberal agenda conceived in 1932 had to wait until 1965 and 1966 to get passed. It took 33 long years for the left to win.
Imagine the anger on the left as DINO after DINO rose to appose the GREAT FDR. It did not matter that FDR won by huge amounts at the polls. He could not control his own congress and especially those DINO Senators from the South.
FDR did take a liking for a young Texas tough guy named Lyndon Johnson. Johnson wanted to be called LBJ, just as Roosevelt was called FDR. Johnson was nurtured by FDR because LBJ could kick Butt and force people into obedience. Twenty years after Roosevelt died Johnson finally got most of the remaining parts of the FDR agenda passed. They never have gotten the national health care passed... though Hillary tried.
The one thing I admire about the LEFT is they never give up. In the 30s, 40s, 50s, and even 60s Democrats had to beat Republicans and most of the Southern Democrats. And according to the Senate rules Southern DINOS had the Seniority to control most of the Committee chairmanships in both the house and the senate. Imagine having enough Democrats to defeat a filibuster, only to find that half of your Democrats were card carrying DINOs. AND NOT ONLY THAT they were committee chairmen who could bottle up the Lefts agenda session after session. Everywhere FDR looked there was a Zell Miller clone. And you think you are frustrated.
Yet people on our side are ready to quit just 15 years into winning the house and 4 years of the senate and 5 years of the presidency.
One does not win wars by giving up at every Battle of the Bulge. Keep the faith and keep fighting.
Some of you may remember how much heat I took here of FR for opposing Bill Frist as Majority leader. Frist did not have the experience, knowledge or the mean streak it takes to keep 7 or 8 RINOs in line.
I noted in a Senate speech last week Trent Lott, was saying ... "Don't give up on the Senate... Senators always find a way to make a deal. This nuclear option may not happen," Man did that line make my hair stand on end.
My first thought was that Trent was orchestrating a move designed to get him the majority leader's position back. I don't think McCain is smart enough or effective enough to have orchestrated the fiasco... But Trent Lott has forgotten more than Bill Frist will ever know about controlling the Senate. I also know that most of the DINOs have major debts to Trent.
I think there is a good chance that Trent was sending a a message to Bush in his speech last week and in this weeks actions. I think he was saing "You're boy Frist can't control the RINOs, but I can... and just to cover my rump, I let McCain take the credit for screwing you.. But we both know what really happened." 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.
It will be interesting to see what takes place now in the senate and what happens to the leadership position.
One of the never break rules my Daddy taught me was, Never ever demote an able man. Fire him if you want to.. but never let him stay in the organization. He will find a way to put a knife in your back and you will have no choice but to pay his price and his price will be high. Maybe George Bush's Daddy never taught him that rule.
But one thing is certain. EVERY ONE MAKES MISTAKES. The only person who never makes a mistake is not doing anything. One could argue that had FDR done things differently he could have won some battles sooner than 20 years after his death. FDR made a ton of mistakes over the years. He too ticked off people who could and did strike back.
But my point is not just to point out mistakes. The main point is to never give up. Even if your quarterback throws an interception.. keep trying to win.
When I was a young man it was common for boys and men to fight. To engage in fisticuffs over everything from pride to girls. I was born the Nerdiest of Nerds. My Dad, the super athlete, tried to teach me to fight. I was not very good. He finally told me one thing about fighting that did help.. He said,"You will never lose a fight, no matter how many times you get knocked down, as long as you keep getting back up. Sooner but often quite later.. you will be able knock your opponent down and he will not get back up." Like much my Dad taught me, this piece of advice has proven to be true. It has proven true in every kind of fight not just fisticuffs.
The question to ask yourself is, "Do you want to win or do you want to lose?" If you want to win just take one tiny step in the direction of victory. Then take another. When you get knocked down or pushed back, get up... take a tiny step in the direction of victory.. then take another. That is all there is to wining. It never fails.
And - the runaway bride was indicted
Hi prairie. I'm with you, I WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN..I've been one and worked for Republicans too many years to give up now or any time. I may be angry, I may be surly,I may be disgusted with the 3/4 democrats, but I'LL VOTE. I've lost too many good friends while I was in and some very good neighbors in VN, I've seen too much in my years to give up. I'm one hard bottomed Republican who will stick like gorilla glue. I have too much respect for our veterans and men and women now in the military to give up...They put everything they have in their missions and these 7 .... what can I say? I'm disgusted......Arrogant twits.
Ohio, I meant surely, but surly is what I am at the moment. Maybe it was a "slip". How is Eric?
Guenie, how is our little sweetie. I know her pictures are just precious. does she have any taken with her Grammy and Gampa?
kassie, the weather up here is quite warm. I'm in the perspiring stage right now, but know when I go out later I will be in the sweating stage. It's humid today.
Has anyone heard from oldandgray? I haven't seen him here for ages. I do hope he's ok.
Good. She doesn't need jail time, but a hefty fine to pay for the emergency services plus community service seems appropriate.
"McCain, RANK AND FILE....." Yep, the rank and file pressititutes and democrats like him. He's not likeable in the household.
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.