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

Skip to comments.

7 'extraordinary' idiots(Ann Coulter)
WND.com ^ | June 1, 2005 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 06/01/2005 5:22:42 PM PDT by perfect stranger

Let's not put the seven Republican senators who engineered the "compromise" deal with the Democrats in charge of negotiations with North Korea. I would sooner trust the North Koreans to keep their word than the Democrats.

The North Koreans at least waited for the ink to dry on Clinton's 1996 "peace" deal before they set to work violating it by feverishly building nuclear weapons. After hoodwinking seven Republicans into a "compromise" deal, Senate Democrats waited exactly seven seconds before breaking it.

The deal was this: Senate Republicans would not use their majority status to win confirmation votes. In return, the Democrats promised to stop blocking nominees supported by a majority of senators – except in "extraordinary circumstances." Thus, a minority of senators in the party Americans keep trying to throw out of power will now be choosing federal judges with the advice and consent of the president.

The seven Republicans we're not leaving in charge of the national treasury believed they could trust the Democrats to interpret "extraordinary circumstances" fairly. And why not? It's not as if the Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Oh wait – no, I have that wrong. The Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees.

Hmmm. Well, at least the Democrats didn't wait until Trent Lott foolishly granted them an equal number of committee chairmanships following the 2000 election to seize illegitimate control of the Senate by getting future Trivial Pursuit answer Jim Jeffords to change parties after being elected as a Republican. Oops, no – they did that, too.

The seven Republican "mavericks," as the New York Times is wont to call them, had just signed off on this brilliant compromise when the Democrats turned around and filibustered John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations.

At least it wasn't an important job. But even so, didn't we win the last election? Why, yes, we did! And didn't we win a majority in the Senate? Yes, we did! To be precise, Republicans have won a majority of Senate seats the past six consecutive elections. (And the last six consecutive elections in the House of Representatives, too!)

I think that means Republicans should win. Republican senators support Bush's nominees and Democratic senators oppose them. The way disagreements like this are ordinarily sorted out in a democracy is that a vote is taken among our elected representatives, and majority vote wins.

But sometime after 1993 – which, by eerie coincidence, was the last time Democrats had a majority in the Senate – a new rule developed, requiring that the minority party win all contested votes. The Democrats – the same people the seven mavericks are relying on to play fair now – began using procedural roadblocks to prevent the majority vote from prevailing by simply preventing votes from taking place at all. Senate Democrats do this by voting not to vote, whereas Texas Democrats do it by simply boarding a Greyhound bus bound for Oklahoma.

Democrats tried "Count All the Votes (Until I Win)" – Al Gore, 2000. They tried "Vote or Die!" – P. Diddy, 2004. Those failed, so now the Democrats' motto is: "No Voting!"

The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, thought the party with the most votes should be able to win. (Boy – talk about out of touch! And this guy wants to be president?)

The seven "maverick" Republicans thought a better idea would be to crawl to the minority party and plead for crumbs. If the "maverick" Republicans had a slogan, it would be: "Always surrender from a position of strength."

The deal they struck, this masterful Peace of Westphalia, simply put into writing the rule that the minority party controls the Senate – which will remain the rule until the Democrats aren't the minority party anymore.

No wonder Democrats were so testy about bringing democracy to Iraq: They can't bear democracy in America. Liberals' beef with Iraq's new government was that the Sunnis – the minority sect whose reign of terror controlled Iraq for almost 30 years – wouldn't be adequately represented. Obviously, this did not bode well for the Democrats – a minority party whose reign of terror controlled the U.S. House for over 40 years.

The only way for Americans to get some vague semblance of what they voted for is to elect mammoth Republican majorities – and no "mavericks." (Fortunately, for the sake of civilization and the republic, that process seems to be well under way.)

Chuck Schumer could be the last Democrat in the Senate and the new rule would be: Unanimous votes required for all Senate business. But at least we could count on Sens. Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, John McCain, John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee to strike a deal forcing Schumer to agree not to block the 99 other senators except in "extraordinary circumstances."


TOPICS: Government; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; filibuster; rhino; rino; rinos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: perfect stranger

"No wonder Democrats were so testy about bringing democracy to Iraq: They can't bear democracy in America."

I was going to make this my tagline but, alas, it is too long.


21 posted on 06/01/2005 6:35:19 PM PDT by torchthemummy ("Sober Idealism Equals Pragmatism")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Odear
(I like McCain, but sometimes he makes me wonder who's side he's on.)

Sometimes? The man is the biggest RINO on the savanna! There is no position the Dems take that he will not take up a position further left on, just to get the media adoration and face-time he craves. Additionally, I believe he hates the President after having been beaten by him in 2000.

22 posted on 06/01/2005 6:35:33 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cricket
The Democrats actually retain majority control of the Senate despite (not without or because of) elections that have reduced their "majority" to negative eleven. By disciplining RINOs and winning elections, the Republicans can take back the Senate if they can gain 61 seats and reduce the Democrats' margin to negative twenty-three.
23 posted on 06/01/2005 6:44:24 PM PDT by dufekin (United States of America: a judicial tyranny, not a federal republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
Senator Grassley had a town hall meeting yesterday and I posed the question to him about the 'deal' and what would happen to the rest of the nominees!! That fired him up!! He proceeded to rail about the fact that those 7 could thwart the will of the majority in the senate and that the filibuster was to be used in legislation to eventually come to a compromise, but you CAN'T COMPROMISE A PERSON!! Wow, he got on a roll!! Someone from the back asked if he would say that on the Senate floor and he shot back, "Do you want me to?" And we all said, YES!! His time to speak on the floor got preempted by the deal though, as he was supposed to speak later that evening! He still says Frist has the option open to him of bringing up the rest of the nominees anyway. I think he wants him to!!
24 posted on 06/01/2005 6:50:42 PM PDT by curlewbird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Odear

We got another Republican fundraising call tonight. My husband is so disgusted at the continual caving in they do for the Democrats so they won't lose their "moderate" constituency or SOMETHING that he is not sending more money until they quit wimping out and understand just WHO their constituency is. The Senate "Good Old Boy" Club and the Gentlemen Farmer Republican Senators who play tiddlywinks with the Democrats (who play HARDBALL when they are in power) seem to just simply be playing a game. Some of them even seem to be lightly agreeing that 2008 is "Hillary's Turn".


25 posted on 06/01/2005 7:04:46 PM PDT by Twinkie (Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. Yes, that's all of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Odear
(I like McCain, but sometimes he makes me wonder who's side he's on.)

John McCain is on John McCain's side and no one else's.

26 posted on 06/01/2005 7:26:49 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

Ann - As Always - you are 'Right on'!!

LuvYa Babe!!


27 posted on 06/01/2005 7:50:30 PM PDT by skyhawk9211 (skyhawk921 ( Semper FI - Marine Air))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

Now playing, THE 7 GUTLESS WONDERS OF THE GOP

starring:

Sens. Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, John McCain, John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee

Rated PG-13 Puking Guts-13 times


28 posted on 06/01/2005 8:42:35 PM PDT by tflabo (Take authority that's ours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TYVets

The Seven are not only RINOs....but FRENCH ...yellow flags flying in the wind...and yellow down their backs. Makes me want to puke. Cowards and scum...ok, now let me tell ya how I REALLY feel about the 7 losers... :) Actually, I like the French better, they at least see Chrack head for who he is. Ok, the French are smarter.



29 posted on 06/01/2005 8:46:48 PM PDT by Tess1 (United We Stand, Divided We Fall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta

bttt


30 posted on 06/01/2005 8:47:42 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (DON'T FIRE UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THE CURTAINS THEY ARE WEARING ON THEIR HEADS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

Ann sounds as po'd as me.
Meantime, RNC, my checkbook remains closed until every Bush nominee gets CONFIRMED.


31 posted on 06/01/2005 8:52:04 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog

Really? My high school freshman could do a better job.


32 posted on 06/01/2005 9:52:07 PM PDT by texasflower (Graybeard is a hottie and Rodney King is yummy.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

33 posted on 06/01/2005 10:13:05 PM PDT by John Lenin (Liberalism =Mental Illness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Lancey Howard
RNC, my checkbook remains closed until every Bush nominee gets CONFIRMED.

I'm not even asking that they be confirmed. All I want is for them to get an actual up or down vote in the Senate!
35 posted on 06/01/2005 10:25:05 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (If you must filibuster, it's because you don't have the votes to win honestly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

36 posted on 06/01/2005 10:40:53 PM PDT by unsycophant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
DeWine and Voinovich. I apologize on behalf of Ohio Republicans. It is time to dump them. Blackwell and Boehner?
37 posted on 06/01/2005 11:54:45 PM PDT by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wolf24; Leapfrog
Wolf24,

Thank you for asking so politely about my opinion. I appreciate the good manners.

There are a couple of things that Ann does when she's writing that I find a bit juvenile.

Now, that's just me and many, many are going to disagree. However, I think if more people were actually analyzing her stuff honestly, they might feel the same way.

First of all I think this type of sarcasm is a bit childish. It might be okay every now and then, but she will use this technique several times in each article....

It's not as if the Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Oh wait – no, I have that wrong.

This stuff runs me nuts. She repeats that same "technique" in the very next paragraph. Then she skips a paragraph and then does it again. It's done several more times.

I don't think that takes much creativity and I think she's got more intelligence than that.

This sentence is a bit silly to me also....

The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, thought the party with the most votes should be able to win. (Boy – talk about out of touch! And this guy wants to be president?)

She writes lots of silly stuff like this.

It's much like my daughter used to write a couple of years ago. It's BLOG type stuff, not the stuff of a "major" columnist.

I guess that's it mainly. Most of the time it sound like a Blog written by some "valley girl" or something. It's like 'Duh", sort of stuff.

Not the way I would expect a nationally syndicated columist and Constitutional lawyer to write.

Does that make sense?

Finally, she's EXTREMELY repetitious. She doesn't come to the point. She will ramble all around it her point, rephrasing the same thing over and over (and over) again.

To me, a good columnist will make a point, explain it and then sum it up. Really good ones will teach us something.

Ann writes for her fans. She doesn't appeal to people who aren't rabid (rules, man, Rules) fans and she is so abrasive that she turns off many people who aren't political junkies.

I know the routine, (so while I don't expect you to do it since you asked a sincere question that was respectful), I expect many comments about how I must be jealous of Ann, etc.

Sadly it happens anytime I don't bow to Ann. I'm not remotely jealous but some freepers will drag it on for days, posting nastiness to me.

Like I said you don't appear to be that type and seem to be accepting of the fact that I can hold a different opinion.

In addition to "jealousy" type comments, I will also get plenty of "liberal" comments. I even got called a "commie" the other day.

If I don't get those kind of comments on this thread, it will mostly be because I said I am expecting them. That tends to be a bit of deterent, just to "prove me wrong".

This thread was from last week......Ann Coulter pics from Craig Ferguson's Late, Late Show

I made a comment at post 14. At post 286 I was STILL being flamed for it.

It's not that I have a problem with her being a smart ass....I can be as big of a smart ass as the next person. But I'm not supposed to be some sort of "conservative icon".

Oops, this is very long. Sorry, I'll bet you wished you had never asked!

38 posted on 06/02/2005 12:08:51 AM PDT by texasflower (Graybeard is a hottie and Rodney King is yummy.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

Excellent photo.


39 posted on 06/02/2005 2:40:24 AM PDT by rodguy911 (Time to get rid of the UN and the ACLU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
"Sens. Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, John McCain, John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee
I want to remember this 'magnificent' seven and work to get each and every one of them out of office. To which I would add Voinovich too!"

Don't forget the behinds the scenes ringleader...TRENT LOTT!
40 posted on 06/02/2005 2:49:57 AM PDT by RavenATB ("Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." George Bernard Shaw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 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