SETBACK FOR REPUBLICANS

The judicial filibuster fight in Washington is getting to be quite a spectacle. Moveon.org has pledged $700,000 for television commercials attacking any rule change that would prevent filibusters. One of the ads shows elephants trampling the congress. Now there's an interesting thought: If you allow an up-or-down vote on a judicial nomination that the equivalent of elephants trampling the congress.

There's a reason why this filibuster fight is so important to Democrats. For the last fifty years liberals have managed to enact more of their agenda through the courts than through legislative action. Where the left fails in legislative initiatives, they often succeed in the federal courts. Examples abound. In California the left opposes a ballot initiative that would withhold certain taxpayer-funded services to illegal aliens. The left loses, and the initiative passes. The liberals immediately rush to the courts to have the will of the people overturned.

The Democrats are filibustering appellate nominees because they know that for the foreseeable future they will need a liberal judiciary in order to have any chance at all in enacting even a portion of their agenda. Any appellate federal judge who believes in a strict construction of our Constitution is a threat to the leftist agenda, and most be stopped.

I know you've heard various stories on this, but never before in the history of this country has there been a Senate filibuster for a nominee to an appellate bench where that candidate had been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and where the candidate had the votes needed for confirmation on the Senate floor.

Ok .. having said all that, the Republicans had a bit of a setback in this particular battle yesterday. I'm referring to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's little satellite broadcast to churches across the nation. The telecast was billed as an event to denounce Democrats as "against people of faith." This "against people of faith" line is a nicer way of saying "anti-Christian."

That's the way things are in today's America. If you ever make any comment or suggest in any way that you don't think that it's a good idea for religious groups to attempt to use the law to promote their religious ideals you are "anti-Christian" and a "Christian basher."

Why do I call Frist's satellite broadcast a setback? Because that little stunt did nothing but reinforce the idea that Republicans are more than willing to serve the goals of fundamentalist Christian conservatives, that goal being to have their religious beliefs codified and made a part of our law. Americans saw that done in the Terri Schiavo matter, and made it very clear that they were less than pleased. Many Americans will view Frist's address to churches over the weekend as a sure signal that his fight against the filibuster is really nothing more than a fight to give conservative Christians control over the nation's judiciary.

A "Vent" in this morning's Atlanta Journal-Constitution expressed that very fear:

"Girls, get your burqas ready. If conservatives succeed in controlling the judiciary, then we really will be on our way to becoming a Taliban Christian nation."

The fight to end the filibusters in judicial nominations should be presented to Americans as a fight for our Constitution and a fight for the clear intent of our founding fathers --- that judicial nominees be approved by a majority vote of the Senators, not as a fight to bring religious ideals to the Congress.

The Republicans in the senate are a complete joke.

The joke is the fact that the Republican caucus has 55 members, but when push comes to shove there are the Olympia Snowes and the John McCains and the Arlen Specters in that number. It's not fair to Frist to complain about him when they - along with the actual Democrats - are the actual problem. Not Frist's fault - or Rick Santorum's - if the actual count of Republicans is lower than the nominal number.
The Democrats style breaking their filibuster of judicial appointments "the nuclear option." In fact, their filibuster tactic applied to all appeals courts is itself the nuclear option - because if the Republicans did the same thing if the Democrats had the White House, there would be no appeals court judges confirmed again. Ever. And that is what the RINOs should be told will be the consequence of any failure of the constitutional action.

What the Constitution requires is constitutional, not "nuclear"

- and it ain't an "option."
The abuse of the filibuster will undermine the filibuster. The Democrats threaten to withhold unanimous consent to normal business operation of the Senate if the Republicans take the constitutional action. That would undermine the tradition of the majority's deferring to the minority on anything.

This is just what we were discussing, and thought you might find this interesting.

For The GOP, A Warning
gopusa ^ | april 25, 2005 | Vincent Fiore

These days, it's hard to tell just who the majority party in Washington really is. But according to the last several national elections, Republicans have won the House, the Senate, and the presidency. As Bush begins his second term with increased majorities in both House and Senate chambers, it seems that the more power Republicans garner via the voters, the less resolve and political courage they display.

If you believe you sense the beginnings of a commentary that may be less than complimentary to the GOP, trust your instincts--you are right. This space is usually filled with anything but hyperventilating rants, as I leave the more exercised and vituperative prose for the posses of the Bush-hating left.

But even dormant volcanoes erupt once in a great while, and normally ground-in-fact writers can otherwise show the occasional adverse effects of frustration.

As Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to move ever-so-stealthily to the right on most every issue that is of consequence, Republicans cannot seem to find their proper voice on nearly anything.

Not just Hillary--though she stands out for the obvious reason of her future presidential run in 2008--but the entire Democratic Party. Like Hillary, the Democratic Party has acted like something they're not, and that is the majority party in Washington.

Sure, Democrats cannot muster the votes to pass their own legislation, but they do a more than credible job on blocking President Bush's agenda. Some of the success of Democrats can be chalked up to incidental events, like the always-helpful op-ed pages of the mainstream media, along with high gasoline prices and low stock market performances.

But the primary reason for the Democratic Party's success to date is its ability to adhere to partisan discipline and unity, and the GOP's unwillingness to engage them as a majority party.

Early successes aside, like the class action tort reform bill and the more recent Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, the Republican-led Congress has had one oar in the water most of the time.

From the alleged wrong-doing of House majority leader Tom Delay, to the botched job of touting Social Security reform, to the breathtaking lack of clamorous support for United Nations nominee John Bolton, Republicans--as a party--have not done nearly enough to refute liberal propaganda and obstructionists actions.

Republicans in Congress have done a wretched job at protecting and supporting the president with regard to Social Security reform. Senate members have been capricious in their support and strategy in changing Senate rules in answer to the Democrats' unprecedented filibustering of ten Bush nominees to the Circuit Courts.

Equally at fault in this widening gap of leadership is President Bush himself. Though the vast majority of Americans want illegal immigration stopped--even to the extent of closing the borders--Bush has developed a political tin-ear on the issue. Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer are now outflanking him by calling for tougher border protection.

I can think of no worse a party-dividing issue and majority-killer as that of America's immigration policy, and President Bush's widely perceived "back-door amnesty" for some 11 million illegal aliens in the country today. Discussions on immigration today are akin to discussions on Social Security 20 years ago: Say the wrong thing, and you may experience the fatal effects of the new "third rail" of politics.

Basically though, there is the expectation of "To the victor go the spoils" that most people are fuming over. Republicans have not had this firm a grip on Washington for over 75 years. The country has gone through a mini-realignment of sorts since the GOP captured the House in 1994. The electorate is decidedly more traditional and conservative in its social demeanor.

So it is hard to come to grips with the fact that the Republican Party--from the president on down--has behaved like a majority-in-denial, content to be acknowledged as the premiere power in Washington, but lacking the iron-will and killer instinct of latter-day Democratic majorities that dominated the American political scene for decades.

What do Republicans in Washington say to the millions who volunteered for the Bush/Cheney 2004 election, giving up their days and nights to go door-to-door and make tens of millions of "get to the polls" phone calls, while donating unprecedented millions to the campaign?

Would they say "Well, we tried, but we were cowed into submission by the op-ed pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post"?

Or would they say that the opposition was "Just too tough to overcome, so we decided to moderate our views instead of fighting upon the mandate given us by the voters"?

Republican political palsy and its effect on the party rank and file are as yet unknown. While some are monolithic in their support for a Republican majority in government, others are becoming increasingly alienated with the party's lack of backbone and its political dithering on core issues. By the 2006 midterm elections, things will be clearer, and Republicans may regret their inactions upon these very core issues.

Last November, 122 million people voted or 60.7% of the voting-age public. That is the highest percentage since 1968. Out of this, some 62 million-plus voted for a Republican president, and increased his majorities in both houses of Congress to work with.

If Republicans do not set their sights on what these millions of voters sent them there to do, they will feel the beginnings of their wrath in 2006, and experience the full measure of it in 2008. A warning to the majority party in Washington: Put up or get put out.

Many Americans will view Frist's address to churches over the weekend as a sure signal that his fight against the filibuster is really nothing more than a fight to give conservative Christians control over the nation's judiciary.

As a conservative Christian, it sure disgusted me.

Boortz, as a libertarian, has an unfounded and ridiculus fear of Christians and should never be confused w/ a conservative. Those posters on this board who likewise think that Christians will somehow undermine conservatism fail to appreciate that no conservative movement in this country would be possible w/o Christians.

No, Christians will not undermine conservatism. The liberals that have joined the party in the past 20 years have already done that along with the misguided marching hordes down in Florida a little over a month ago. I would just like to thank both groups for completely destroying the conservative movement within the GOP. Perhaps now conservatives will wake up and realize neither party has offered much of anything in the past 100 years

In short, w/o Christians the GOP would be as irrelevant and inconsequential as liberatrians. This no doubt goes a long way towards explaining their otherwise irrational fear of our traditional heritage.

As a conservative/libertarian I'm not afraid of our traditional heritage nor shy away from it. Rather I embrace it. But I think many 'conservatives' have a deluded ideal of what our traditional heritage is. It's not one that included calling on Washington DC for an answer to every problem. Once we start to pay these men in Washington the respect and time they deserve, which is none, perhaps we will start to see some returns to the traditional heritage that Republicans claim they desire so much

Here's where the rub lies. There are micro and macro things that religious leaders want codified into law. Things like pro life are the macro. But once they begin to feel their oats, then the Christian right will focus on issues such as salvation, grace and many other micro issues that if one side or the other wins out then we're in trouble, because they will all claim those laws are part of natural law empowered by the Creator.
So do you want emersion or sprinking codified? In the name of Jesus or the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Should the wafer really be considered the body of Christ or just symbolic? What if the Catholic view of Mary were codified and where does that leave Fundamentalists. IT will come to that point ladies and gentlemen. Be careful how much power you give these guys.

That's a slippery slope argument, and it won't fly. If the tendency were as you describe it, we would have slid down that slope a century or two ago. The tendency - as marked by the elimination of prayer and bible readings in government schools - has been in the other direction.

It is conventional to accuse Christians of self-righteousness, and they do have that tendency because they are human, and humans have that tendency. The truth is that left-wingers are the very epitome of self-righteousness precisely because they reject the idea of a definition of righteousness which is above themselves and their own desires.

The Christian may lapse into associating God with what they want - the reverse of the Christian principle of associating your desires with what God wants - but the radical leftist rejects any definition of right apart from what s/he wants.

This will make your blood boil:

Outlook for Bolton nomination grim
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 4-25-05 | Robert Novak

April 25, 2005

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

The White House and Republican Senate leaders have a little better than two weeks to save John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations after last Tuesday's fiasco in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. All that can be promised is that their efforts on Bolton's behalf will be tougher and better organized than they have been so far. That should not be difficult because they could hardly be worse.

Republicans, weak and disorganized, were ground down by the Democratic juggernaut. Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio was so impressed by Democratic demagoguery that he impulsively dropped his support of Bolton, ending the narrow 10-8 committee tally for sending the nomination to the Senate floor. But since Voinovich is notoriously quirky and prone to break his Republican leash, the question arises why the White House was not more attuned to making sure he was safely on board.

Presidential aides have met with Voinovich since he jumped overboard, beginning the difficult task of reeling him in -- as well as Senators Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Republicans who followed Voinovich away from Bolton. Even if the committee majority somehow is restored, Chairman Richard Lugar will have to defeat efforts by Democrats to bring in Bolton for an auto-da-fe.

The grim outlook for Bolton constitutes a major victory for the adversarial style practiced by Senate Democrats, with Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut taking the lead. Bolton's undeniable conservative ideology has antagonized the State Department's liberal cadre and its senatorial defenders. His hard line on Fidel Castro has alienated Dodd, whose long-term goal has been normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations. Yet, Dodd on Tuesday made the astounding statement that his opposition to Bolton "has nothing to do with substantive disagreements," only his personal characteristics.

Dodd, in demanding a postponement of a vote on Bolton, claimed it was "rare indeed for me to express objection to a nominee." In truth, Dodd has been a serial objector to GOP nominees over the years. He has voted against Martin Feldstein (Council of Economic Advisers), James Watt (interior secretary), James Edwards (energy secretary), Raymond Donovan (labor secretary), William Clark (deputy secretary of state and interior secretary), Rex Lee (solicitor general), C. Everett Koop (surgeon general), Kenneth Adelman (arms control director), Edwin Meese (attorney general), Robert Gates (CIA director), Ted Olson (solicitor general), Porter Goss (CIA director), Alberto Gonzales (attorney general), and Supreme Court nominees William Rehnquist, Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. He also opposed Bolton for his current undersecretary of state position and kept the nomination of anti-Castroite Otto Reich as assistant secretary of state from reaching the Senate floor.

The only new element in Dodd's case against Bolton was the claim by Melody Townsel (self-described as a "vocal" outspoken Democrat) that she was mistreated by Bolton in a 1994 dispute in Moscow when Bolton worked in the private sector. Her claims were buttressed by Washington consultant Kirby Jones, and here again the Cuban connection emerges. Jones is described by Newsweek as having "better contacts in Cuba than any other American" and by the New York Times as "the man to see about business in Cuba."

Voinovich admitted he had not attended previous committee hearings on Bolton and what he knew was based only on what he had heard Tuesday from Democrats. Chafee, indicating that he, too, was switching on Bolton, gushed about how thrilled he was to hear a senator change his mind after listening to another senator. Those comments could invite future demagoguery from Democrats.

Republicans always expect the worse from Chafee. But Voinovich took the party by surprise. That surprise validates the opinion of senior Republican senators who consider this administration's congressional outreach the worst they have seen.

The only serious Republican defense of Bolton on Tuesday was by first-term Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota. This passivity not only leads Democrats to believe they will prevent Bolton from going to the United Nations but also shows them the way to replicate this triumph.

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.