[oreolady]

Can someone come up with a rational explanation why GW would cave like this?

[Starve The Beast]

If it were not for his fondness for tax cuts, and his pursuit, however flawed, of the ongoing war on terror, I can't for the life of me think of a good reason to vote for George Bush...

Well, but he is fond of tax cuts, and he is pursuing the WOT with a vigor and courage that few men could match. Boortz is certainly giving voice to an angst that I've felt for a long time, but Dubya still has my vote.

[A CA Guy]

"if the Senators will only do the job they were elected to do."

That is a big IF!

IF they don't, then he appoints maybe?

[Consort]

The Senate was designed to allow obstruction, especially if neither party has a filibuster-proof majority. Bush didn't eliminate the power of recess appoitments, he merely decided to not use them for the rest of this term (a few months) in order to get his judicial appointments approved. If he's reelected, he can again recess appoint, if necessary. If he's reelected with a filibuster-proof Senate, then it's a whole new ballgame. If his nominees are approved, they will be appointed, regardless of who wins the election. If they are filibustered and Kerry gets elected, then Kerry's will name the nominees....and they won't be conservatives.

[Outraged]

Proverbs 25:26 -- "If the Godly compromise with the wicked, it is like polluting a fountain or muddying a spring."

[A Jovial Cad]

I like Boortz, but he's simply wrong here. His argument is with the time Thomas Jefferson spent as the VP (1797-1801). While "presiding" over the Senate, and not doing much else, he wrote a booklet that basically became the Rules & Procedures of the United Senate. The Senate has reaffirmed them, with slight modifications and minor revisions, ever since. They do so under the Constitution's express declaration that each legislative body of Congress will be the final arbiter of their own rules on how procedural business will be conducted in their respective chambers. One of those rules, for the Senate, is the unlimited debate procedure, or "Filibuster." It requires a 60-vote majority to end debate in the Senate on any given issue even *ONE* Senator might wish to drag on until the legislative session ends. It's a "rule" with such long-standing and precedent that it's never likely to go away.
I despise the DemonRat's dishonest use of it today, in 2004 to block valid judicial nominations, as much as anyone. But let's face it: *our* side has used the filibuster to stop a lot of silly liberal legislation that would've sailed right through when the Dims controlled the Senate in the past. So I'm of two minds about the utility of getting rid of the "unlimited debate" procedure in the United States Senate.
Regardless of all that, President Bush has nothing to do with that, one way or the other. He should not be blamed for bending to a 200+ year-old realities of how business is transacted on the floor of the "Upper" Chamber of Congress. Boortz should back off. The *Dims* in the Senate are the problem--not the White House.

[John Lenin]

Hey Neal, vote for Nader.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Bush didn't cave. The ball is in Dasshole's court. If he doesn't give the 25 judicial nominees an up-or-down vote, that's Dasshole's fault, not Bush's. Dasshole wanted to move to other votes, and Bush merely told Tommy "Not until I've got up-or-down votes on this long backlog of judges". Bush is clearly in control. There's no caving in on Bush's part. Neal Boortz is a moron.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

If I were prez, and the Senate ground all business to a halt, you can bet I'd be recess-appointing enthusiastically during the next recess!

[Moonman62]

This is leadership When George W. Bush was sworn in he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He also promised a new tone in Washington. The worst presidential policy I've ever seen.

[John Lenin]

How did Bush cave in ? What was he going to do, use recess appointments ? Neal Boortz has lost his mind on this one.

[3catsanadog]

How did this 60 vote nonsense get passed. Did the Dems vote on this change before the 2002 election? And what RINO a-holes went along with this travesty?

[Democratshavenobrains]

The public just doesn't care enough about the idiotic Dems obstruction tactics. Very annoying.

[highlander_UW]

Bush needs to do some surgery and get a backbone into the Republican party. It's time the democrats understood their illegal actions have consequences.

[beaureguard]

bttt

[LS]

Sigh. We've been over this. Bush gave up NOTHING because he did not plan any more recess appointments (probably because Brown and Owens, among others, didn't WANT them). So he got something for nothing.

It's funny that here on FR, people constantly wring their hands over these "deals," yet NRO (I think) quoted a prominent unnamed Democrat as saying that every time there is a deal, it looks initially like the Dems win, then, by the end of the week, they figure out they've lost. I see no downside to this IF Bush planned no more recess appointments.

[verity]

Neal Boortz loves Neal Boortz!