Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deal averts filibuster showdown
MSNBC ^ | May 23, 2005 | Associated Press

Posted on 05/23/2005 4:48:12 PM PDT by kennedy

Centrists from both parties reached a compromise Monday night to avoid a showdown on President Bush’s stalled judicial nominees and the Senate’s own filibuster rules, officials from both parties said.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; cowards; filibuster; harryreidisaliar; rats; rino; traitors; ussenate; whimps; whiners; wierdos; wusses
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-431 next last
To: LS
Lot's of knee jerks out on display tonight. So far, no one seems to realize that it is quite possible that Pres. Bush will get most, if not all, of his nominees and good amount of legislation passed in the 109th Congress.

All this deal amounts to is a small fig leaf for the 14 so called "moderates" to avoid having to vote on the constitutional option.

They may have thought they won tonight, but they'll lose in the long run. Just about the only thing they won is more time till their day of reckoning.

As we progress forward with more and more judicial nominees, the gang of 14 will be forced to explain what they mean by "extreme circumstances" -- believe me before it's over, they'll make pretzels look straight in comparison to their "logic."

Worse than pretzel logic doesn't go over very well in red states -- the very color of the states that a good number of the 7 Dem "moderates" are from.

Finally, the Senate will be back in business and I bet we'll pass Bolton and the Energy Bill before long.

381 posted on 05/23/2005 7:49:59 PM PDT by FranklinsTower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: AlGone2001
There already differing interpretations of this agreement. Whether its a good one depends on what follows. But Republicans should understand that sitting on their hands if the Democrats filibuster future nominees is a guaranteed recipe for renewed minority status. The base is watching and if Republicans don't deliver, it'll be over. When the NRSCC doesn't see the checks come in, they'll get the message. Ultimately, nothing in politics speaks quite as loud as money... or the lack of it.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
382 posted on 05/23/2005 7:51:15 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I'll save my outrage until the dems pull off a successful filibuster. Until then I will consider this a win for our side.
383 posted on 05/23/2005 7:56:43 PM PDT by Nyboe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: GEC

Book Marked


384 posted on 05/23/2005 7:58:36 PM PDT by Desron13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

The voters that chose Perot, would have chosen Clinton if not for the 3rd option. Polling showed that to be true. Bush lost because he was not a conservative, and he abandoned his base, and stopped short of knocking of Saddam. IOW a loser.


385 posted on 05/23/2005 8:08:34 PM PDT by jeremiah (Is it not treason, to allow the flow of illegals to be unchecked?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

You mean I have more power than CAIR and La Raza now????? You have got to be kidding me. Our president calls Islam the religion of peace, and La Raza call for open borders. Who has the pull around here now??


386 posted on 05/23/2005 8:12:41 PM PDT by jeremiah (Is it not treason, to allow the flow of illegals to be unchecked?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Archon of the East
We need consistently win battles over years to win the war

But you don't win battles by not fighting. You may make strategic withdrawals, but not when you have the advantage (such as control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency). It's also possible to win all the battles, and still lose the war. In this case by not fighting this battle, we may lose or at best hold the status quo on the Supreme Courts, which stinks. Once the Supreme Court takes a decision, it can take many generations to get it overturned. This was a very important battle, but one for which it's hard to get the general public very interested in, and one which is easily spun. As this case was.

387 posted on 05/23/2005 8:33:56 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Sure...Let's stick with the impotent Republican Party...If the Dems are going to run things when the Repups are in charge, it makes far more sense to vote for the anti-Dems, not their allies with the big R...

Current happenings...need to be seen fully fleshed out.

We shall see, what we shall see.,.,.,.,.

388 posted on 05/23/2005 8:40:31 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Equal rights. Why no equal wrongs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Infidel; devolve; potlatch; PhilDragoo; Smartass
So much for all the "political capital" President Bush earned in the last election... Surely, the Dems are going to look on President Bush as a lame duck now.

Blood in the water. Sharks circling.

389 posted on 05/23/2005 8:42:53 PM PDT by ntnychik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: LS
The idea is that there is not a commitment to the death by all opponents---only a few---and to allow the enemy a way out so that you do not force ALL to fight to the death, but to fritter away and splinter. Sun Tzu. Pretty smart guy.

But when there is commitment to death by enough of the other side, you must annihilate them. Their "sacrifice" (or martyrdom) will inspire still others. They must be hunted down and killed or otherwise neutralized *before* than can martyr themselves. In the case of the democrats, they may not really care that much about reelection of individuals, they can always find another schmuck to take the slot.

390 posted on 05/23/2005 8:45:21 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: kennedy

Hey Frist. Come on down to South East Florida. I'll go out of my way to find you to boooo you there fella.
Thinking of running for president I hear. Forget it ther butthead. You just threw that idea into the toilet.
You suck.
Hey frist yhou couldn't lead a turd down a flushing toilet,
Worthelss jerk.


391 posted on 05/23/2005 8:46:15 PM PDT by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
Polling showed that to be true.

Polls? Ya must be kidding..!!???

I believe polls, like I believe the government is here to help me.

Seriously...I think it plausible that more Pubbies got sucked into the riptide of the Reform Party than...Dummies.

BWIDIK???

392 posted on 05/23/2005 8:47:42 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Equal rights. Why no equal wrongs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: johnpaul
Mc Cain just forfeited any chance of a run in 2008.

He is the biggest loser in this. His friends were already losers anyway.

Frist may well become the hero in this as he stopped a slowdown of the Senate while still most likely getting all or most of the judges through. It is unlikely the Dems can stop the votes now. If they do we throw this agreement right into their faces and Presto RULE CHANGE.

I wouldn't even be surprised if Saad got through. Though he may lose. I really doubt an agreement was made to vote against any nominees by the GOP members of this agreement. If so they will pay a high price come their reelection.
393 posted on 05/23/2005 8:48:46 PM PDT by ImphClinton (Four More Years Go Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kennedy

I should have known this was going to happen. The bottom line issue is the perpetuation of the imperial, "socially progressive" judiciary. And on this point, too many Republicans are pro-abortion, etc. etc. They WANT the imperial liberal judiciary. To-wit: Snowe, Collins, Chafee. Warner is also pro-abortion. McCain is only nominally pro-life, but now simply seeks nothing but his own self-promotion. I don't know about Dewine and Graham; I would have expected them to be more socially conservative. And don't forget, there are more Republicans who are all for the imperial judiciary, but who did not sign on for political reasons - Spector for example, probably Hegel, and others. I fear that the judiciary will NEVER be fixed.


394 posted on 05/23/2005 8:48:56 PM PDT by big time major leaguer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skip Ripley
What shift has occured? Who do they explain that away?

That's easy, and the spin has already begun. They held their noses and sacrificed for the "rules" and "traditions" of the Senate and for "protection of minority interests". They'll come off as very noble while saying that the devil (the Republicans) made them do it.

395 posted on 05/23/2005 8:51:59 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: jabber-jabber-jabber
I say WE WON.

What exactly is so bad about this agreement?

We get the votes that is all we wanted.

The rule goes back to the way is was before Dasshole.

Reid loses BIG TIME. Dems hate him and we hate him for this. He can't lie his way out of this defeat.

Only RINOS signed the agreement. Making it easier to defeat them in the Primaries. We also got Dems help us get rid of a misuse of the Filibuster.
396 posted on 05/23/2005 8:57:07 PM PDT by ImphClinton (Four More Years Go Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: kennedy
Weenies.

Total weenies.

397 posted on 05/23/2005 8:58:26 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devolve; PhilDragoo; potlatch; Smartass

Nelson, Landrieu and Collins on Nightline. Two rats and a RINO. Nelson and Landrieu are still spouting Harry Reid's talking points. Landrieu said we've lost more than a thousand soldiers in Iraq trying to protect the rights of the minority; allowing the minority "to speak" is the least we can do here. Um, were we ending normal debate and discussion? Landrieu says that if the President "would go back to the Constitution" (!!!!) and really ask for advice from the Senate, we could get back on track. Bush gets three judges. Big whoop. Put me on the RNC do not call list.


398 posted on 05/23/2005 8:58:55 PM PDT by ntnychik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: ntnychik; potlatch
Compromise with the DemOcruds = Surrender
399 posted on 05/23/2005 9:03:01 PM PDT by Smartass (Si vis pacem, para bellum - Por el dedo de Dios se escribió)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

If they want to go on record saying that over time, the interests of the Senate became more important to them than defending the rights of millions of their constituents...I say let them do exactly that.


400 posted on 05/23/2005 9:03:46 PM PDT by Skip Ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-431 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson