Replies

re: moderates are in control of the Senate

Oh, I quite agree, but there are lots of things the president can do to make those moderates who are also members of his party toe the line. The Democrats certainly have no qualms about enforcing their policies when it comes to dealing with members of their party.

As for differing rules for legislation, it takes two to tango, three when you consider the president's role. The House could certainly take some steps to persuade the Senate to go along with some needed changes. All it takes is the determination.

re: Anyone who doesn't comprehend this in their bones has no business discussing politics until they study up.

You don't learn by avoiding discussions, even when you don't know what you're talking about. You learn when you make a silly statement and someone takes the time and makes the effort to educate you. I'll grant you though, some people are simply not candidates for educating!

I think in the end what I meant to say was that we are on the losing end of this ongoing battle not because we are wrong, but because we lack the will to win. Until that changes it will be business as usual in DC, in every statehouse, county commission room and city council chamber.

Rather than rehashing this separately, would you mind taking a look at the exchange that Common Tator and I had with some others on a thread yesterday:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513219/posts
"DeWine and the Filibuster: This Bears Repeating From Yesterday"

I've hashed out other items such as this with some others in the past, too, but I'm not motivated right now to search for it. I'll probably cover some below, though.

The Republican's "will to win" is much greater now than it was even 5 years ago, but if you do NOT HAVE the votes, and can not get them, you have to take what you can get. Sometimes that is simply to slow the march toward the leftist vision, not even to halt it. You have to take that, and then work to slow it even further. Reagan was great at expressing and implimenting this - many of those who aspire to his views simply don't comprehend that major principle, though.

For much of the "conservative agenda", there simply are not enough votes. (Examples: passing a balanced budget amendment, marriage amendment, term limits). That is not because of (for example) Southerners' desire for sure, and they just can't comprehend the problems Blue State Republicans have and why they keep contributing RINOs to the Senate, etc. Their attitude is, "If you're going to elect a Republican, they ought to be voting in support of a conservative agenda at all times." That type of Republican CAN NOT BE ELECTED in far too many states. We can go ahead and nominate them in the primary - but they are very very likely to lose the general election. We MUST settle on what we have, and concentrate on extending our strength little by little, and with great patience.

Neither the President nor the Party have a great deal of clout with these Blue State "moderate" Republicans. THEY are the ones who have much of the power after all, because any time they want to, they can join a coalition with the all-liberal-all-the-time Demodogs, pass (or block) that agenda item, and move on from there without any fear that THEIR constituency will vote them out! In fact, the more often they do that, the more they WEAKEN the remainder of the "majority" because the not-so-moderates get blamed and those are the ones who get hurt by their disgruntled electorate because "they can't get anything good done". Thus, it is important for the not-so-moderates to avoid ruffling the feathers of the moderates as much as possible and keep that weakening from happening. This is a fine balance, and it is why the job of "herding cats" that the Majority Leader has is so difficult. He HAS to work WITH the "moderates".

Committee assignments and agenda control are about the only way the M.L. can adjust attitudes, and that runs afoul of the ruffled feathers stuff above. And as far as the President's power over Senators, it seems virtually unavailable with the ever-increasing power of the incumbency.

Last shot, down and dirty and completely frank about this: if ANY of the "Blue State" RINOs choose to vote against Alito, that choice may hurt THEIR reelection chances, but if conservatives DO exact that penalty and they are replaced by the inevitable Demodog, the conservatives consign that seat to a liberal instead of a RINO, probably for about 20 years. Is such revenge really productive? That puts this nomination in a very tenuous situation indeed, and the President recognizes this far better than most FReepers.