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."
Great photos but I don't agree with your take on Ann.
NEW photos!
ANN COULTER joins the U.S. Marines [and L.A. FReepers] at party after "Late, Late Show"
Posted by RonDog
On News/Activism 05/24/2005 9:11:20 PM PDT · 176 replies · 10,749+ views
Ann Coulter pics from Craig Ferguson's Late, Late Show ^ | May 24, 2005 | RonDog [and FRiends]
bump
I strongly disagree- it is EXACTLY that that I love about her articles. As Rush said "illustrating absurdity by being absurd"
bttt
BTTT
Not my photos, but I'm glad you like them and your disagreement with me is politely stated.
Thank you.
There is a time and place for everything. But to me, it's beginning to look like Ann has only one style, only one way of communicating. For the followers of Ann, that's fine.
For some of you she's putting a sarcastic voice on things you would like to say, but can't because you don't have the access.
But for the fence sitters and those conservatives like me who like things to the point, serious, but respectful, Ann turns us off.
I'm a life long republican and nothing is going to change that for me, but Ann is running off some fence sitters.
I can give you examples of that from my own family. My own parents, who are as conservative as you get, can't stand her either. (Actually my dad died right after he voted this year-his story is on my homepage). The younger ones. My young adult nephews can't stand to listen to her and she is one of the ones that they point to as a mean conservative.
The boys all voted dem even though they all came from republican families. True you COULD say that most young people are democrats until they get older, but I had 4 sibling, all republican, who all married republicans, who had other children who became republican. My uncles, aunts, grandparents and cousins are all republican.
People like Ann turn off many of the younger voters surprisingly
We have to get these young voters and keep them.
She hurts us there. She doesn't help.
She's singing to the choir and then rumbling in the alley, with nothing accomplished at all.
I think she is great fun! But, she's not for everyone. Some people are just too serious and dour to enjoy her. If you don't like her, don't read, or listen to her. Of course, if you do that, you'll miss out on your dose of anti-liberalism. That could be bad.
I get the liberal thing quite a bit when I talk about Ann! Some young lady called me a commie when I said I wasn't one of the Ann lovers.....
(You just admitted you're not "one of us."
But "we" figured that out many posts ago!
The Liberal Left and Comrades
Exposed AGAIN and AGAIN here on Free Republic! )
That one actually made me laugh though.
You are absolutely right that I get upset when Franken or Rhodes or Moore or any of those idiots bash her. But I have to admit that at times, they are right when they are talking about her attitude. I know that's not popular either, but she is a bit over the top sometimes. I don't want ANY of us to do down to their level especially, someone as intelligent as Ann.
(Of course those people are indeed the scum of the earth and are the worst sort of slime EVER, so in that way, I hate for them to even say her name.)
She could tear them apart just as easily by using mature and somewhat less haughty dialogue.
She makes for great TV, no doubt about it, but she's so smart and she is almost ALWAYS RIGHT.
I just wish she could get those right ideas out to the fence sitters and passive voters.
Gosh, think about all the people she could motivate to get involved in politics if she made it cool.
She at the right place for that and I believe that if she worked on putting her charm and intelligence out there instead of just a biting wit, she could do much for our side.
But right now, she appeals to the already convinced.
I want to see that beautiful and intelligent woman make the most of what she's got, but she doesn't. She doesn't need the skirts up to her panty line. I'm no prude, but some thing classical and tailored with designer shoes would make you guys swoon even more.)
She'd be more visually appealing and if she used her charm and warmth that I hear she has, instead of the....whatever that is...I think she'd be our best weapon.
So, it's not that I hate Ann. I just wish she would show us what she's really got.
Here are a couple of examples of things that would look more sexy and more conservative than she wears now. What would be wrong with stuff like this?
With shoes like this....
Now, wouldn't that be nice? She would look totally hot dressed like that instead. :-)
Thanks again for talking with me about this.
Yes, she can be great fun. That's why I think she could expand herself more and reach more people. :-)
I have trained my system to self produce anti-liberalism doses ;-)
Hey do you think she'd look good in some of the outfits I posted the post up or so?
Just interested in a guy's opinion.
I hoped you would like that. Those are great shoes! :-)
Bump so I can read this later.
"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."
- texasflower
Nice screen name. I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
Am I supposed to be impressed or upset or what? I'm not trying to sound snippy. I just don't understand what you mean.
Ann is awesome! She has more ca!@#%$ as a female than the combined fabulous men of the peacemaking 7.
Ann - you *go* girlfriend! :)
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.
