Posted on 05/23/2005 4:18:39 PM PDT by jern
Announce Filibuster Compromise
Not without a reason to.
They have given us committee chairs and the majority vote on national security issues (Patriot Act) and they're still one hell of a lot better than any democrat, save for Zell Miller. Think about the chit Jefford's caused when he jumped ship.
I go with RWR on this.
McCain, DeWine, Snowe, Warner, Chafee, Collins need to be double teamed by Frist and the President. The President needs to use the bully pulpit, instead of wasting time talking blah blah at Calvin College.
I'm in Hamilton County right now, so I lose either way.
Nope, the president can NOT do that. Screwy scenario and one which proves that you haven't any understanding, nor knowledge of how anything works.
There are exceptions and you have just cited one.
Maybe they'll come up with a gun control bill just to be certain there's nobody who isn't p.o.'d at them before the next election.
You assume tha the agreement is worth the paper it is written on. I'm not saying that for sure it isn't, but I won't surprized to see it torn up. Senators are NOT honorable people.
I disagree with your interpretation, if there is a clear violation of the spirit of the agreement to not filibuster then the deal is off. Graham and Dewine both said this at the presser. I expect this will be clarified tomorrow.
Is it possible for you to make your points without poersonally insulting people? You come off as a supercilious smart-aleck. It detracts from your arguments.
Hell, most of those "moderates" are gun grabbers. McStain, Warner, DeWine, Snowe, Collins,
ts as though a football game was played and both sets of fans are pissed at the end. I think we won, not a final victory yet, but a good move in the right direction.
If my team of 55 players looses because six or seven players gave away the game to the opponents, it wouldn't make sense for me to blame the whole team. Blame the six or seven, not the players or team captain who played their hardest to win.
You pose a good question about why the Dems are better at party discipline than the GOP. There are at least 4 reasons.
First, and as explained in my earlier post, an insufficient number of FReepers and other conservatives actually contacted their Senators or took other tangible action. In contrast, the loony left got all their people into the act of lobbying their Senators to block the nuclear option.
(You and I were the exception in terms of actually taking actions. Among other actions, I went to the March for Justice II and the turnout of conservatives was pathetically low. Our side was outnumbered by leftist counter-protestors, another example of how leftists with their backs to the wall per fourth point below are more likely to get active than complacent conservatives or GOPers.)
Second, the GOP is in the majority and majority status increases the tendency of Senators of either party to make a name for themselves as a power by breaking rank & making deals with the opposite party (ala McCain, among others).
Third, if a GOPer breaks ranks, the media give him hero, maverick status (e.g., McCain). In contrast, if a Dem breaks ranks, the media assign base motives and slime him (e.g., Zell Miller).
Fourth, the Dems have lost so many elections lately, they have their backs to the wall. A group is more likely to be cohesive if each member fears political annihilation could result from the person breaking ranks.
Sorry. I meant that last post to be postitive.
What good have the so-called Republicans done you in New England? It allows you to pretend you control the Senate when you really don't? I don't need that kind of feel-good
illusion. For Heaven's sake, then let the Demorats control the Senate if it means having to count on RINOs for their votes. It's not worth it, because you're just kidding yourself.
Put up ONLY conservative candidates in every state, and take your chances. You might be surprised at the results.
The reason Reagan was so popular was not necessarily that everybody agreed with him, but people knew where he stood on key issues, and respected him for it, and that's why he got so many Demorat votes.
I couldn't disagree more.
You, like others, are taking Dems at their word. That's foolish.
You just made two incredibly ridiculous statements: "each of Bush's nominees will get a vote...". Really? Looks like only three.
"The bar is high for future filibusters". Again, really? By whose standards? Yours? You forget these are DEMOCRATS and they have no bar. Do you not understand their use of "extraordinary circumstances" is a big enough loophole of a definition to drive six million trains through?
Are you going to tell me you trust Democrats to not define "extraordinary circumstances" as something trivial? These are people that call Pat Owen "extreme" and "controversial" because she upheld Texas law on parental notification for a MINOR getting an abortion.
Then you make the ridiculous assumption that the same seven RINO's will, after being stabbed in the back by the Dems yet again because they were stupid enough to believe them in the first place, will stand up for principle. Are you high? They'll pull the same crap when we try to push the issue yet again. Especially if it's a SCOTUS seat because then we'll be forced to hear about how important a Supreme Court justice is, blah, blah, blah.
And what happens to the recent renominations of 20 previously stalled judges Bush recently announced? Huh? Ever think about that?
Do actually believe the Dems aren't emboldened by the fact they can peel off cowardly pubbies by using rhetoric and pressure? Do you think this will stop at judges?
No my friend, you are sorely mistaken. This is a horrible, horrible defeat for Republicans. They've shown their weakness to the enemy that will do nothing but continue to take advantage of their fecklessness. All while the base will be so disgusted they again will pull their support.
You obviously do not understand the fragile nature of the conservative base. Don't forget this is the once "silent majority" that normally just vote without getting really involved. But they did during the 1980's and topped it off in 1994 only to be repeatedly disappointed and taken for granted like the blacks in the DNC.
And they will again pull support, stay home, quit sending money and take care of their communities and families and do what they can to buffer their ever increasing tax burden, remove their kids from rotten public schools, shelter and protect their businesses, etc.
Ayn Rand had it right - Atlas is shrugging.
I agree that Graham and DeWine can't be legally held to this agreement and they might agree to go nuclear if the filibuster is abused. However, they did NOT put this option in the agreement! If they do go back on it then charges of bad faith by the 'Rats would have some merit, which I would hate.
Frist stinks and that's that.
There ya go falling into their trap. They and the MSM are the ones that defined them as "most extreme" or "controversial".
Accept their language, accept their premise and then define victory on their terms. That's not a win.
The seven RINO's haven't been double teamed by Frist and Bush? Tell me how you know this?
Your line of thinking: The president went to Calvin College. Therefore the president couldn't have double teamed the RINO's.
I don't come to that conclusion.
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.