Senate Committee -- Without Democrats -- Votes to Limit Filibusters

Associated Press/Fox News ^ | 6/24 | AP

[Brandon]

I actually don't believe anyone will bail. If ever there was a time to enforce party discipline, this is the time. There are also enticements that can be offered. And I quite frankly don't think that this would have gone as far as it has, if they GOP Senate leadership didn't think they could get the votes.

[RinaseaofDs]

Same here, cured by Rush. Lot of Rush bashers on FR.

He's arrogant, but hey. He's also usually right.

You are right about this being an R ploy - let the dems filibuster and get their vote in the record against hispanics, then do the 'point of order' thing and go to town.

Daschle's in trouble in his own state. The dead will likely have to vote early and often for him to beat Thune. His wife will be no help to him either.

Vote fraud is going to be the big wild card as to whether we get an R Senate in 2004. Everett is a big Democrat town here in WA, and the vote fraud even in school board races is evident. All of a sudden a precinct with 10,000 voters will have 10,456 votes registered - nobody even questions it. At 2AM, the votes in a certain neighborhood will go 93% in favor of a certain candidate.

In my opinion, the D's will stoop to any level to retain power. If we do get an all R government, I would guess thta we are going to start to turn some rocks over to see some pretty low things as houses get cleaned out.

[nyconse]

Schedule a vote everyday. Thus Dems must remain-Repubs don't really have to. They are not winning anyway. You will hear all those dems up for re-election screaming if that happens.

[nyconse]

If you think about it, those letters to Pres. Bush from Leahy and Daschle may have been because they knew this would happen. They knew enough to stay away from the vote.

[jwalsh07]

I don't like handicapping the Senate, because it is such a wild card.

Come on dude, if it was easy anybody could do it. Think of it, a new career as a prognosticator and power broker.

[carenot]

I'll bet there are some cross over votes. The result of Hillary's criminal activity.

I would like for the FBI files to be made public.
What are the Republicans afraid of?

[votelife]

Freepers, rather than waiting to see what happens with Estrada, we need to take the lead. That means presuring Senators, special interest groups, media organizations, etc. This thread is meant to be an ongoing effort to get this man confirmed. For too many years liberals have had their way on the courts. Now, President Bush is in a position to move the courts to the right. The election of '02 showed that the country is with the President. I think it's time to let Daschle, Hillary, and Pelosi know this is Bush country. Are you with me! Let's FREEP these people.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/847037/posts

[Bonaparte]

"If the Democrats are ruled out of order by Dick Cheney, they will challenge that rule at which point it goes to the Senate Parliamentarian."

...who will either rule for Republicans or be replaced with a new parliamentarian who is more favorable to them. They could do that.

[Bonaparte]

"AFAIK, he is still there in the Justice Department..."

Actually, Ashcroft asked him to clean out his desk. He's been gone for two years. He's referred to as former asst. AG for civil rights in this article.

[Bonaparte]

"Frist will lose in the Supreme court 9 to zip and it will go down like Roosevelts attempt to pack the court."

What makes you think the SC will even hear the case? They could cite the separation clause if they wanted to. And besides, FDR won his battle with the SC. Justice Roberts caved. And Hughes, of all people, actually applauded this.

[bert]

....I disagree.....

My post 229 is also in disagreement. I said the Centcom maxim of "at a time and place of our choosing" was being followed. Reagan Man doesn't think the administration has that kind of disipline.

My basic thought was the judicial battle was delayed during the war when I would have been unnoticed. That was battle management as you have suggested.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Reagan Man doesn't think the administration has that kind of disipline.

Don't be puting words in my mouth. This has nothing to do with disipline.

Getting Bush`s court nominees through the process and appointed is a major priority for conservatives and that process shouldn't be put off because the US went to war in Iraq. That is a lame excuse in my opinion.

>>>You wait until you are forced to do battle before you do so.

>>>However in time of war it is not.

Both of these statements show an inadequte understanding of American politics. You don't wait to engage your political opponent on such a critical issue as Supreme Court nominees because we're at war. Republicans can handle both issues at the same time.

If you're both old enough to remember the VietNam War, then you'd also remember that the Democrat majority in the Congress lead by LBJ, didn't wait to push through their Great Society programs, because the US was engaged in military conflict.

The Founding Fathers didn't put aside their internal politics, because they were engaged in a battle for independence from the King of England.

Get real.

[bert]

...If you're both old enough to remember the VietNam War, then you'd also remember that the Democrat majority in the Congress lead by LBJ, didn't wait to push through their Great Society programs, because the US was engaged in military conflict....

This illustrates the point. It is not "80 something, W is not LBJ, and Republicans are not Democrats. Precedent following is not the way to lead. That is the lawyerly, clinton way. What we are currently seeing is the new era and new ways. The old solutions are not solutions. W throws out the old insoluable problems and creates new problems that can be solved.

[Reagan Man]

We're talking American politics here, something, with all due respect, you don't understand. I see you conveniently overlooked my reference to the Founding Fathers and their ability to engage in military conflict with British forces and also remain embroiled in internal American politics at the same time.

>>>W is not LBJ, and Republicans are not Democrats.

American politics don't change from decade to decade, or from century to century. In fact, politics has been part of human nature --- human relations and human behavior --- since civilized society started.

I admire and respect PresBush, however, he hasn't come up with anything new in the way of political gamesmanship. Bush was a student and close friend of the legendary GOP consultant, the late Lee Atwater. Bush has thrown together tried and true methods to create his own personal style, but there's nothing revolutionary going on here.

Bush and his political partner, Karl Rove have taken TR's big stick philosophy, Clinton's triangulation method, along with Reagan's tax cut policy, high moral clarity, strong leadership, integrity and trust to build an agenda that appeals to a wide range across the entire political spectrum.

PresBush is an astute politician, but he should of had his "man" in the Senate, Bill Frist, pressing the issue of his judicial nominees, war or no war!