Posted on 05/19/2005 11:16:18 AM PDT by RWR8189
A handful. Especially in the Senate.
I think he's got the end-game already played out.
Small govt conservatism is dead. The killer is George W Bush and his Republican lackeys in Congress. The damage caused by them will be highly auto-correlated.
Here is another thought:
WHAT IS IT ABOUT UN-CONSTITUTIONAL THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ..??
In 2003, Tom Daschle changed the rule for JUDICIAL NOMINEES - from the Constitutional requirement of a majority (51) to an UN-CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF 60.
ALL the republicans are doing is CHANGING THE RULE BACK SO THAT IT CONFORMS WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
This rule change has nothing whatsoever to do with the filibuster rules FOR LEGISLATION - only for JUDICIAL NOMINEES.
The democrats don't want this to change because when these judges are confirmed - the democrats will forever lose control over the courts (now staffed by liberal activist judges) - the only power lever they have left.
So .. your thought is .. why not compromise the Constitution if the democrats can get what they want. And .. if Frist ends up without the votes for the rules change - JOHN McCAIN WILL BE TO BLAME - not Frist. And .. who says Frist won't be able to confirm any ..?? You don't know that.
And .. it appears there are 5-6 DEMOCRATS who will vote with Frist. While only 2-3 repubs will vote with Reid.
They already have two terms: liberal Republicans, RINOs.
Neo-Conservative is a meaningless term. Liberals use it to make Bush, Rove, and Cheney sound threatening, or they'll use it as a euphemism for Jewish conservatives.
RINO. Liberal. Call them what they are, not what they aren't.
I do too - after today - when within minutes the repubs called a committee meeting right after Reid said the dems were going to boycott them.
I thought the move was brilliant - and showed (to me) some pre-planning.
Few details.
Frist may get a few Democrats to vote on cloture, but none of them will vote on rule change. Not one. If 6 Republicans vote against rule change, then I can guarantee you that there won't be any more compromises and he won't be able to confirm any.
Secondly, spare me the occasional cry for the "Constitutional" duty. Both Republicans and Democrats shred the document every day when they vote and pass bills for which they would have been driven out of town a hundred years ago. They compromise the Constitution every single day.
Well keep praying then, but that won't bring back conservatism. Voting for conservatives will. As long as wolves will come in sheep's clothing and claim to be conservatives and your fellow prayee will sell out his principles, we will never elect conservatives. Take a poll in your church and find out how many voted for the alleged conservative.
Well .. somebody has to "cry" for the Constitutional duty - obviously you aren't. And yet you think it's still okay to suvert it .. go figure!
I think what is going on now is the best thing that can happen. The Senate is virtually shut down so the Constitution can rest from being molested. Rejoice until bipartisanship will restore business as usual in DC.
"The Senate is virtually shut down so the Constitution can rest from being molested."
Obviously you still don't get it! The Constitution has already been molested by the Daschle cabal and now we need to fix it.
Yes, there are other Constitutional abuses - but that's for another day.
Difference in opinion. But I would much rather take the stalemate.
"difference of opinion"
You don't agree the Constitution is important - and you don't agree it's been assaulted by the democrats ..??
Then you must be a democrat - or a liberaterian.
I like what you say about "just call 'RINO's' liberals", but the neo-conservative thing seems to have validation. From what I can tell, at least some are Jewish conservatives who are for big government,big spending and possibly overaggressive interference in foreign countries, but they're not flaming liberals because they're value-oriented, not Chistian-averse, and tough on defense and tax cuts.
The neo-conservative label still lacks a meaning. The Jewish conservatives you cite are more likely compassionate conservatives ala Bush, primarily because Bush is responsible for their voting Republican in the first place.
Until people agree on what neo-conservative means, I'll still consider it a straw man label.
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.