Posted on 02/10/2005 1:47:39 PM PST by Foolsgold
Brilliant strategy. Your party is in the minority and you threaten the ones you do have, presumably with no backing from the party in the next election. Yeah, that'll regain you your power.
So the democrats will punish their own after we get the votes. Who cares. It will just dwindle the democratic numbers further when these moderates change parties.
Democrats are about BIG GOVERNMENT and doing what's good for you (since you have no idea what is good for you). Go figure...Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Gore, Willie, Dean? LMAO, Kerry, Teddy.....Oh my God, what a lineup. These idiots are getting less and less popular, as minorities realize their "packaged liberal agenda".
Well, maybe this will make the few "sane" Democrats (Lieberman, Nelson of Nebraska) to cross over the aisle to the Republicans.
Bush better do something on this immigration issue that is getting completely out of hand. AS for this congressman, these are times to show courage and moral fortitude.
nick
Any truth to the rumors they'll be beheading those who break the solidarity?
Sounds like the mulahs threatening the Sunni if they dared to vote.
I agree about getting some of the more rational dems to split. Not that I want to water down the GOP with some libs (and most dems are), but I'd love to turn just a few, and have them bring their testimonials of "the party was going to punish me if I did what was right." And bring on the memos, too.
We got our foot on the libs throat...see tagline..
One word: filibuster.
If the Democrats hold party discipline, there will be no tax reform, there will be no social security reform, and there will be no Republican nominees approved to the Supreme or Appellate courts.
The filibuster is an absolute minority veto of absolutely everything that Congress attempts to do.
The Republicans were not willing to change the filibuster rule at the start of the new Congress. So the rule is the rule, alive and well. And that means that the entire content of the President's State of the Union Address was a dead letter the moment he delivered it.
The Democrats have the absolute power to prevent every single thing. And they are determined to use it.
The Republicans missed their one chance to stop them.
So, now the only thing that the Republicans can do is make very populist appeals and popular programs, and have the Democrats shoot down every one of them between now and 2006. Then, to get any of it, the Republicans will need to win FIVE (5) whole seats in the Senate. In other words, of the 34 Senate seats up for grabs in 2006, the Republicans will have to win all of their incumbent seats back AND take 5 of the Democrat seats.
Otherwise, the Democrats - if they maintain party discipline, and if the Republicans will not change the filibuster rule after the 2006 election - will still have the absolute veto power over the entire Republican agenda.
The Democrats figure that they just need to hold out to 2008, when they expect Dame Hillary to win the White House and stave off a conservative judiciary or legislative agenda for another 4-8 years...while immigration gradually tips the electoral balance back left.
Filibuster means no social security reform.
But then, of course, the story would be about how you got the memos, not what their contents are...
This article cites unnamed sources .. and I just can't take that kind of story seriously. Not that the Dems wouldn't do it, but this articles proves nothing, imo.
So they'll be going after Lieberman and anyone who votes yes on any of the president's appointments.
I don't think the Dems will be able to hold party discipline if the Republicans forcefully bring their ideas to the public (like Newt's Contract with America) and they also force the Democrats to hold the floor during a real filibuster. If there is a filibuster, I want to see Klansman Byrd standing and talking for 25 hours straight. Returning the postage paid postcard provided by the Republicans with FILIBUSTER checked is not a real filibuster.
Compared to Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid and Clinton.......... Bin Laden is a boy scout!
These folks are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they work with GWB, he will be even more successful, and they will lose voters.
If they obstruct everything GWB tries to do, they will alienate some voters, but probably not as many as with option #1.
I have a fading memory from my former liberal days when it seemed the Democratic Party had ideas and ideals. Let there be no doubt that we are now seeing the culmination of their complete cynicism and reflexive anti-Americanism.
I wish my Senator, Ben Nelson, would just say "okay", "fu*k you then, im switching parties,"
Dog Bites Man!
Sure, IF the Republicans forced a REAL filibuster, literally shutting down all business and making the Democrats PHYSICALLY hold the floor and PHYSICALLY talk nonstop for 24 hours straight, while always maintaining a Republican quorum to rush a vote if a Democrat faltered, passed out, etc., it might be possible to break it.
I see absolutely no indication that the Republicans have any intention of going back to the old style. They could have avoided the whole thing with a rule change, but didn't do THAT. Why would they now change the new rules that allow continuing business in order to try and physically break a filibuster?
I agree, they COULD.
But we're talking about a domestic political issue here.
The Democrats have as much money, maybe more, to crank out issue ad after issue ad. The country is divided on social issues. Social Security and taxation is not like the war, where there is a clear choice with most people on one side of it. It's much more divided.
Which Democrat is going to break ranks in the Senate? Kennedy? Boxer? Feinstein? Kerry? Clinton? Lautenberg? Corzine? Obama? Leahy? Dodd? Schumer? Jeffords?
That's over 25% of the Democratic delegation right there!
Even if Nelson and Lieberman broke ranks...and assuming that Lincoln Chafee and other Northeastern RINOs stay with the Republican caucus on breaking the filibuster...there would still need to be two MORE Democrat Senators willing to break ranks.
Name four Democrat Senators willing to vote to break a Democrat filibuster. I can't name one. I can name a handful of Republicans who might not vote to break the filibuster.
This is the problem. Byrd can stand up there for three hours, then hand it off to someone else, and they go round robin...IF the Republicans forced an actual filibuster.
Of course, if they actually do THAT, NO other work gets done, and you have the problem of a Republican Congress and President unable to pass ANY legislation.
Now, perhaps folks figure that the Democrats will get blamed for that. And maybe they would. But enough for the Republicans to win something like a full THIRD of the Democrat Senate seats up for re-election in 2006? That's a hard row to hoe.
The Republicans have to go nuclear to pass their agenda.
They show no willingness to do so.
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.