Posted on 05/19/2005 6:54:15 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim
Historical perspective
The filibuster has been used historically by the minority party, which can't win with a vote count. Democrats have opposed the filibuster before — in the 1960s, they accused Republicans of using it to block civil rights legislation.
"According to the Senate Historical Office, the record for the longest individual speech is held by the late Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. To keep the floor, he read some of his wife's recipes and passages from novels out loud."
ABC News' Ed O'Keefe contributed to this report.
This is really getting ridiculous!! While we know the MSM does this type of thing constantly, it's really making me mad today. They are again implying Republicans are racists and I'm sick of it.
The typical American actually believes the trash the MSM spreads like manure.
I just reread the report on ABC's web site....I believe they may have changed the paragraph. Can someone else check on this...
I still disagree with the following:
Under the Constitution, the president's judicial nominees need a majority vote in the Senate to be confirmed.
Technically, all the Constitution calls for is "advise and consent", not a majority vote. You could extrapolate that one is necessary to achieve the other but it's the Senate rules that establish this, not the Constitution.
Absolutely!!
Think the advent of live CSPAN coverage was the catalyst? I personally have to believe that we'll never see the days of the Thurmand/Byrd classic filibusters again.
I mean, God forbid that a constituency back home should see their own "elected official" taking a hours-on-end televised verbal dump.
Of course, so much of what is shown on CSPAN confirms that it's all so much C**P anyway.
JMO
THE NEWS MEDIA IS LAZY. I suspect many of the stories they present are based on other 'news' services and other 'researchers' and they just move the words around and make it their own. They might not be lying lying (although some are), but many are using what others have already reported and tossing it with their brand of salad (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.) and presenting it as facts.
Funny how they STILL don't mention that Thurmond was a democrat at the time. Most people think of him as a republican. Yet, they had NO problem blaming the republicans in the previous version. Ugh. Disgusting.
Are there any examples of where the vaunted filibuster has accomplished something good?
They've dug to granite and pulled out a chisel.
Imagine that - Moyers says the Republican Party is captured by extremists. Where have we heard that word before?.. hmmmmmm... from Schumer yesterday over and over again on C-Span, while talking about EXTREMISTS controlling the Republican party. Soros is influencing even what those idiots say.
South Park? Is that a TV program? Sorry, I'm
not up on soaps or weekly comedy/drama series.
It has changed. I sent them an e-mail suggesting that they do a further fact-check regarding support for civil rights legislation. I suspect many others did as well.
Yes, I'm sure there are several who have written. I sent an email earlier, prior to the article being changed. Sent them another stating the change was a good first start...but, they had a long way to go to speak the truth!
You need to work on your reading skills. They were just referring to who spoke the longest, not who was the last one to speak. And they didn't mention party affiliation. Get a grip.
So .. does ABC want to be NEXT ..??
It's historically known that democrats were the ones who filibustered the Civil Rights Act - and it was led by BYRD.
It's the same old stuff .. the liberal media ASSUMES THE PUBLIC IS TOO STUPID TO KNOW THE TRUTH.
ping
The filibuster has been used historically by the minority party, which can't win with a vote count.
But it still mentions Strom Thurmond's filibuster record, and most people will associate Strom with the GOP, even though he was a Democrat at the time.
Perhaps it is YOU who needs to work on your reading skills... like, try reading the post and some of the replies. ABC has CHANGED the website to remove the offensive sentence. It USED to say:
"Democrats have opposed the filibuster before — in the 1960s, they accused Republicans of using it to block civil rights legislation."
Now, a very close reading would allow: ABC didn't accuse the Republicans. ABC simply reported that the Democrats accused the Republicans of such. But, the accusation is untrue. And, by not correcting the record, I submit that ABC is, de facto, making the same accusation.
Someone else must have agreed, since ABC has now removed that sentence. I guess posting here can have a positive impact.
THANKS FREEPERS!!!
They changed it because it was a poorly written and thought through article - kind of like your post.
"The're were a few Southern Rpublicans supporting the filibuster in '64"................You're right. The most prominent Pubbie actually filibustering (and maybe the only one) was our great Senator John Tower of Texas. He was elected in a special election to replace LBJ whe he moved up to VP.
Senator Tower was a real conservative and a loyal Southerner and was the first Republican elected to the Senate from Texas since "Reconstruction". His Dad was a Mehodist Minister. He also graduated from the same High school as I did (Beaumont High School, Beaumont, Texas).
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.