Posted on 05/18/2005 4:31:09 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Wuh happened?
Your loyal Today Show reporter sat with keyboard primed, ready with the headline for what was sure to be this morning's lead item: "Today's Kind of Kongressman: Galloway for President!"
I was certain that Today would run with the Senate committee testimony of dictator-loving British MP George Galloway, who tweaked Sen. Norm Coleman and his Senate panel, categorically refuting allegations that he had been on Saddam's oil-for-food pad.
But that dog didn't bark this morning. Not only didn't Today feature the story, but at least in the first half-hour, did not mention it at all, not even in the news recap. Could Galloway, so extreme he was thrown out of the Labor Party, be too much of a lefty crackpot even for Today's taste?
Instead, we were treated to a rather mild-mannered segment on the impending vote on the 'nukular' option.
In to opine was Chris Matthews, and he was of the view that: 1. there will be a vote; 2. Frist probably has the votes to win it; and, most interestingly, 3. he has little to lose even if he does not succeed.
Matthews pointed out that John McCain is on record as saying that he will vote against goin' nukular. So if the vote fails, Frist can blame McCain . . . who just might be one of Frist's major opponents for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.
Matthews agreed with Katie's suggestion that the nukular debate is really about impending Supreme Court nominations, and Matthews pointed out that if the vote carries, the Republicans would be able to confirm one or more justices as early as this summer.
Which should make conservatives reflect on just how momentous is that which is about to happen in the Senate.
Can you imagine how much good can be done for the protection of our constitutional system if W is able to appoint true strict constructionists rather than the kind of watered-down judges able to get past the likes of Kennedy and Schumer wielding a filibuster threat?
Matthews was also frank in admitting that the days of confirming judges based on their competence is long gone.
"Senators might occasionally use an argument based on competence, but nowadays it's all about ideology," he admitted, citing the Bork case, in which of course perhaps the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in decades was turned down.
I have a hard time believing Frist would bring it up w/out the requistie votes...
But of course, he hasn't brought it up yet, so maybe he doesn't have the votes.
The hammer won't fall today. Try to be patient. Frist is going to give the DEMs all the debate they need to make their point. That is figured to take a few days. Starting tomorrow, or more likely Friday, he will start to ask unanimous consent to take the vote.
I speculate that he will never call for cloture, but will ask each DEM who objects to the vote to express why they object to the nominee, and since they know how they will vote on the nominee, it makes sense to move to the vote. No need for cloture if every Senator knows how they will vote on the nominee.
The show has several acts. We are maybe as much as a week away from the finale.
I can remember that whenever anything would come out that could possibly harm the 'image' of the Klintoon administration, Slick would launch a cruise missile or two into unoccupied structures so the media couple divert the sheeple's attentions from a damaging story.
If someone in the GOP commits a bad, I surely want to hear about it. Unfortunately, that rule seems to never apply to the Left.
But fortunately for us, the MSM no longer has a stranglehold on the news. The Left apparently has to learn this the hard way.
If our prayers are answered and the Republicans succeed with the Constitutional option vote, they ought to tie this directly to the defeat of Bork with their comments to the news media. Since Americans have the attention/retention span of an emaciated gnat, every Republican's comment ought to remind the media that this is the fruit of the evil seed planted by the Rats when they gleefully "borked" that well-qualified jurist. The Rats started it, and the Republicans should finish it with this vote.
Galloway was nothing more than a Clymer with lipstick on, spouting bad smelling lies.
For once Chrissy is right. McCain is going to dig his own grave with this vote.
If we win the vote, he outs himself not as a 'Republican Maverick' but an imposter. His credibility as a Republican is shot. All the other RINO's that vote with us will have more influence than he.
If we lose the vote, McCain still loses. He'll be blame for leading this RINO revolt.
It seems to take forever for the Left to learn for reasons of nothing but simple stubbornness rooted in fear of truth that their ideals, concepts, actions just do not merit dignity and honor, and, in that sense, acceptance of their ideals being out in left field, would detonate a total mental implosion in revelation to how the real world actually works and Utopia on this earth is just what it is....... a warm-fuzzy dream. Therefore, deceitful absolute elitist control is what they feel they must have to continue the support of delusions.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I know we are all tired of the same old cup-and-saucer metaphor for the House and Senate, where the House is the cup where all the hot tea is contained and the Senate is the saucer that allows the tea to cool to the point where it can be sipped. Of course, people today are so unfamiliar with the mechanics of drinking tea that it really doesn't make sense to most peole anyway.
But, nevertheless, I will forge on and extend the metaphor past the point of all reason. IMHO, the House is the Cup, the Senate is the Saucer, and the Judiciary is the Tea Tray.
If you will indulge me, please... The Executive Branch is, by nature, the most responsive body of government. It is completely re-elected every four years, and thus has to hue to the passions of the day. Similarly, the House is the more responsive body of the Legislature, since it can change rapidly if it is out of step with the electorate, as in 1994.
The Senate, on the other hand, does not change all at once, and the terms are longer, so it is much less responsive to the passions of the moment. It does, by construction, take the longer view, since it can only change gradually.
The Judiciary is the extreme example of this mechanism. Since the terms are unlimited, and the make-up the Judiciary can only change very slowly, it is the great mass that cannot be moved quickly, if at all. It is, by design, a stable force, that responds to changing trends over generations, not over a course of two or four years.
So to look at what forces are responsible for the gradual change of the Judiciary today, you have to look at the broad trends that have been happening in the country in the last twenty-five to thirty years. What are the broad social trends that are pushing this last, most reisistant, branch of government in a new direction?
The answer, of course, lies in the issues that aroused such passion in the 1970s and 1980s. Abortion and affirmative action, Roe and Bakke: These are the events that triggered the groundswell that, at last, will overturn the prevailing wisdom of the court. Most people can't see it, because it happens over a such long period of time, but these two decisions made the revolutionary change we are in the middle of today inevitable.
"You're a braver man than I, glgb, for watchin' this dreck. Thanks again for the thread!"
I second that! I don't know how he does it, but Mr. Governs sure does keep the rest of us up to snuff (so to speak).
Would you please ping me? I'll be gone most of the day, but would love to follow this thread. Thanks.
I thought this comment by Charles Krauthammer in his column of May 14th was good:
"The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal. They must either stop or be stopped by a simple change of Senate procedure that would do nothing more than take a 200-year-old unwritten rule and make it written.
What the Democrats have done is radical. What Frist is proposing is a restoration."
McCain . . . who just might be one of Frist's major opponents for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination
Riiiight.
These people are such gems, aren't they? Their mindset is so completely foreign to most of us on FR. We have common sense at least. Where has theirs gone? Miserable folks!
Lifting the fog of deception in the battle for man's mind relegates Matthews to the ash heap of history. Life goes on buttressed by freedom buttressed by truth.
Assuming he does. A very big assumption given his Party's past record and his own ideology.
I found this:
http://webreprints.djreprints.com/1231360309215.html
It is a WSJ article on Jay Sekulow's activities on the issue, along with some expectations.
The article says esentially what you said:
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Minority Leader Harry Reid yesterday gave up attempts to reach a compromise on the matter. A bipartisan group of moderates, however, worked furiously to broker a deal that would see approval of some of the stalled nominees in exchange for leaving the current rules intact. Last night, those senators were still trying to hammer out final language on statements that would seal the deal.
If they fail, the showdown is expected to begin when one of the stalled judges—most likely Texas Judge Priscilla Owen—is called up for a final floor vote. Democrats vow to conduct a filibuster. Mr. Frist may allow it to go on for several days. Then Mr. Frist is expected to move to shut it down through a series of parliamentary maneuvers that will end with a vote on whether a filibuster on a judicial nominee violates Senate rules."
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.