AHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Posted on 01/04/2005 4:53:00 AM PST by OXENinFLA
IMO Obama is being groomed, or grooming himself, for a Presidential run.
My bet is his was using it as a prop.
I've never liked him. Started following him during his Senate run, I wanted Keyes to win, and there's just something about him that gives me a bad vibe.
I caught some of him and Keyes's debates and watching Obama talk was like watching a snakeoil salesman sell his goods. Yes, even more so than most other dems..
Hastert on over in the House talking about SS.
I couldn't tell you now where I read it, but way back at the first of the year when all of the campaigns started gearing up, I read something about Obama and it was kind of scary. The article indicated that he is waaaaaaaaay left.
He may be "new" Jesse Jackson--quick with speech, saying a lot of words fast so that the person listening doesn't have time to really HEAR what he says---I agree about the snake oil salesman comparison.
Already the dem TV pundits like Alan Colmes and such have been touting him as Hillary's running mate in 2008--and some have even gone so far as to predict HE will run in 2008. PUHLEEEEEEEEEEZE!
Yeah, It's Thursday.............I got this from MoveOn today....
[BARF ALERT!!]
bttt
I don't know if you listen to Rush or not but he has been almost apoplectic about this hearing today---
He made the point (that of course I hadn't thought of) that by even bringing Abu Ghraib and/or Gitmo into the confirmation hearings, the committee will be essentially putting on trial the prisoners.
First of all, the memo Gonzalez wrote was referring to Gitmo prisoners, not the ones in AB, but even so, if they disapprove of his nomination and use the prison memo or anything related, they are in essence telling the world that the prisoners ARE POW's (which they are not by Geneva convention rules) and that they (the committee) have decided that they were mistreated which can't be determined without LEGAL hearings.
Of course those LEGAL hearings would be out the window because all of the evidence, would have been used in hearing and therefore jeopardize a "fair" trial for the detainees---any with the judges we have now, they would prolly all be let go.
I know that is long-winded, but I hope you get the drift---
according to Rush this hearing on Thurs. could have major long term ramifications in the War on Terror-and Iraq.
And the dems--do not care!
"Executive Nomination "
Senate Judiciary Committee
Full Committee
December 20, 2004
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on the nomination of The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to President George W. Bush, to be the Attorney General of the United States on Thursday, January 6, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in Senate Hart Building Room 216.
Senator Specter will preside.
By order of the Chairman
No, I missed Rush yesterday.
I get your point though and I think it's been made before regarding the court cases of the soldiers on trial for Abu Ghraib.
It was during some committee meeting, Kennedy had color photos, of leash girl, naked body plies, the hooded guy, that he kept holding up. Trying to pound whoever he was talking to, could have been Rummy, to get him to admit the "torture" was signed off by the White House.
The citizens are counting on the Senate to make sure public schools are institutions that we as Americans are proud of. The American people are counting on us to make their life better by making medical care easier for them to come by. People are counting on the Senate so a child's ability to go to college will not be determined by how much money the parents have. People are counting on Congress to make sure Social Security is a stable fund they can depend on. People are counting on Congress to make sure the environment is good, so the water we drink is pure, the air we breathe is good. Women are depending on us. They are counting on us to make sure their wages are no longer 75 cents of every dollar we make as men. There is an article in the Washington Post today discussing a problem with more unintended pregnancies than we anticipated. They are depending on us to do something about that. Citizens are depending on us to make sure our fiscal house is in order. They are depending on us to do our work in a bipartisan fashion to effect change in our country to the good. [Snip]
Now there's some lib/dem think for ya!!
DELIVERING SOLUTIONS TO THE NATION'S PROBLEMS -- (Senate - January 04, 2005)
[SNIP] Mr. FRIST. Our first responsibility above all else is to do our constitutional duty. Nothing should come before it. Nothing should stand between it--not party, not ideology, and certainly not politics.
Yet, in the last Congress I believe the Senate failed to perform an essential constitutional duty. It failed to offer advice and consent to the President by filibustering ten judicial nominees and threatening to filibuster another six. These filibusters were unprecedented. Never in the history of the Senate has a minority filibustered a judicial nominee who had clear majority support. This was an abrupt and an unfortunate break in more than 200 years of Senate tradition, of Senate history. This tradition must be restored, not merely because we honor the traditions of the Senate, but because this tradition reflects the proper role for this body, the Senate, as designed by our Framers in the constitutional arrangement.
Next month we will have the opportunity to restore Senate tradition. I will bring one of the President's very capable, qualified, and experienced judicial nominees to the floor. We can debate that nomination. We can vote to support it or to oppose it. And we must offer the President advice and consent by giving this and future judicial nominees who are brought to the floor up-or-down votes.
Some, I know, have suggested that the filibusters of the last Congress are reason enough to offer a procedural change today, right here and right now, but at this moment I do not choose that path.
Democratic colleagues have new leadership. And in the spirit of bipartisanship, I want to extend my hand across the aisle.
I have a sincere hope that we can move forward past difficulties--beyond the past difficulties we saw in the last Congress--and look forward to a future of cooperation.
I seek cooperation, not confrontation. Cooperation does not require support for the nominees. Cooperation simply means voting judicial nominees brought to the floor up or down.
So let me say this: If my Democratic colleagues exercise self-restraint and do not filibuster judicial nominees, Senate traditions will be restored. It will then be unnecessary to change Senate procedures. Self-restraint on the use of the filibuster for nominations--the very same self-restraint that Senate minorities exercised for more than two centuries--will alleviate the need for any action. But if my Democratic colleagues continue to filibuster judicial nominees, the Senate will face this choice: Fail to do its constitutional duty or reform itself and restore its traditions, and do what the Framers intended.
Right now, we cannot be certain judicial filibusters will cease. So I reserve the right to propose changes to Senate rule XXII, and do not acquiesce to carrying over all the rules from the last Congress.
As a public servant who has twice taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, I cannot stand idly by, nor should any of us, if the Senate fails to do its constitutional duty. We, as Senators, have our constitutional duty to offer the President advice and consent.
Although our constitutional duties are paramount, we also have a legislative responsibility to the people we serve and to the Nation. This is our opportunity to take on the challenges that each of us sought public office to pursue. After all, we are here not just to occupy our offices but to lead, to be bold, to take action, and to get things done.
[SNIP]
AHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
How about this as a measurement to show the differences between Republicans and Democrats?
Yesterday when the House voted in a new speaker there was only one person that answered "PRESENT'', Dennis Hastert. [He won BTW.]
Pelosi, on the other hand, voted for herself.
Because she is a self centered arrogant witch
Are you listening to Rush
Apparently back at Thanksgiving .. A bunch of Turkeys were sent to his office to be give to poor folks who had nothing for Thanksgiving Dinner
Well his staff keep them and took them home
Grrrrrrrr
"A bunch of Turkeys were sent to his office"
The Turkey's were sent to Jon Conyers Office
Sorry for the mix up :0(
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.