Aiming for the Hill(Two more Senate seats for the GOP?)

National Review ^ | 1/14/2004 | John J. Miller

[kellynla]

I did a search and didn't find this piece already posted. Interesting piece.

[kellynla]

Man would I like to see someone KNOCKOUT BOXER!

[NormsRevenge]

Semper Fi Bump

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

This guy is a pansy.

Republicans WILL pick up at least 4 Senate seats and there is an outside chance of 8 with long Bush coattails.

[lewislynn]

Everyone says Bush will win in a landslide, that may be true but Bush isn't going to be the only Republican on the ticket(s).

If Republicans want to get their core voters to the polls they better re-think Bush's illegal immigration policies...untill they do, I plan on keeping my (donation) money and staying home this November.

[Joe Bonforte]

Yeah, interesting piece. But something's slipped my mind - tell me again why it matters who controls the Senate?

[LasVegasMac]

If Republicans want to get their core voters to the polls they better re-think Bush's illegal immigration policies...untill they do, I plan on keeping my (donation) money and staying home this November.

Kinda like, "if you don't the play the game MY way, I'm taking my toys and going home!"

Just curious, did you qualify for a tax cut refund?

LVM

[Federalist 78]

Testimony of U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing "Judicial Nominations, Filibusters and the Constitution: When A Majority Is Denied Its Right to Consent" May 6, 2003

The United States Senate is the only place on the planet where 59 votes out of 100 cannot pass anything because 41 votes out of 100 can defeat it.
Try explaining that at your local Rotary Club or someone in the Wal-Mart parking lot or, for that matter, to the college freshman in Poly Sci 101. You can't because this silly senate math stands democracy on its head.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, feared some future political leaders would pervert the legislative process in just this way. And he warned in Federalist Paper Number 58 that when it happened, "The Fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule. The power would be transformed to the minority." So what's happening today, I'm sure, has the man who wrote the Constitution spinning in his grave.
And Alexander Hamilton as well, because he agreed with Madison on this. He pointed out in his Federalist Paper #68 that the vice president was given a tie-breaking vote "to securing at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of that body." A "definite resolution, how well put. That's what we need around here: "a definite resolution."
For many years, I taught political science and history at four different colleges and universities, I don't think I ever taught a class without telling the old story about the origin of the Senate.
Thomas Jefferson was in France when the Constitutional Convention was being held and later, the story goes, he asked his friend George Washington, who presided over the convention, about the purpose of this upper chamber, the Senate.
Washington, according to the anecdote, then asked Jefferson "why do you pour coffee into your saucer?" "To cool it," Jefferson replied. And Washington responded, "Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."
But there is nothing said in the Constitution at all about extended debate. Washington, I believe, thought the smaller size, longer and staggered terms, as well as chosen by state legislation, would provide more wisdom, hopefully.
Some constitutional lawyers have argued that any kind of super majority vote is unconstitutional, other than for those five areas specified in the Constitution itself: treaty ratification, impeachment, override of a presidential vote, constitutional amendments and expelling a member of Congress. Nowhere does it say it now should be a super majority on judicial nominations. But that is what we have going on today.

[lewislynn]

Just curious, did you qualify for a tax cut refund?

The fact you have to ask if I qualify says enough, but what does that have to do with anything?...it always was MY money.

[kellynla]

Okay, just ya can't get by with just picking a number. Ya gotta pick the seats that the GOP will pick up! LOL

[Cautor]

If Republicans want to get their core voters to the polls...

My wife and I, my two daughters, and my son-in-law vote a straight Republican ticket everytime. We're part of the Republican core. We'll be there for Bush this time because only a fool would help put a Democrap in office. In this election, you're either voting for our national security, or you're voting against it.

[liberty or death]

Alaska will be tough because even though its a Republican state the party is elitist and does stupid political things like Frank Murkowski (R) (our Governor) sending his liberal daughter to his senate seat in Washington. The Democrats win the Governors seat here all the time because Republicans run loser campaigns and take the conservative base for granted.
I'm hopeing we have a strong challenger for Lisa Murkowski (R-)in our primary because Tony Knowles our former (D)Governor is gonna beat her. Its lib against lib.
The NRA gives Lisa Murkowski a D-. When Tony Knowles (D) was Governor he signed our version of a second amendment into law in Alaska. Good bye Lisa.

[lewislynn]

Kinda like, "if you don't the play the game MY way, I'm taking my toys and going home!"

I guess some people think of it as a win or lose game. I take it more serious than that.

You may not like it but that's the way it's supposed to work here in this country.

They have to earn my vote, that's the only tool I have to work the system. If they (or you) have a problem with that, that would be their/your problem to solve.

[Republic Rocker]

.....6,7,8,9,.,10 your out! BOXER goes DOWN!

[tickles]

I won't stay home, there are other contests on the ballot that need my attention. Whether I vote for the top spot or not....that is the question.

[Clemenza]

I'm stuck with Schumer. Even many in the RINO establishment here support that gungrabbing socialist.

[Clemenza]

Notice, btw, that he didn't even mention the noncontest for Schmuck Chumer's Senate seat.

[LasVegasMac]

what does that have to do with anything?...

Cuz if ya did, you need to give it back.

LVM

[kellynla]

RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! LOL...it's pretty sad when there is not one single GOP candidate in the whole state of NY that could knock off Schumer!

[LasVegasMac]

I guess some people think of it as a win or lose game. I take it more serious than that.

No, you don't. You would rather NOT vote - because GWB pissed you off.

Your logic excapes me.

LVM