Filibuster deal: Freepers, please "hold your powder"

n/a | 05/24/05 | jdsteel

[jdsteel]

Before we explode in disgust about the RINO defectors, please consider this: IF the nominated judges get an up or down vote, we win. If a nominated judge gets blocked by filibuster again, we can still "pull the trigger" on the constitutional option...this time with "betrayed and outraged moderates" leading the way. As much as I want to just respond to this emotionally, I am trying to show patience to see how this pans out over the next month. I also am looking forward to seeing how the DUmmies seeth as judges are nominated. So, please, "hold your powder" but keep your eye on the target.

[mathluv]

I guess we will have to wait and see if these three judges do get confirmed, and what happens next.

[Walkingfeather]

You are a F**L.

This is about foreground and background. The idea is to get you not to react to what just happened. The game is to get the majority to push their immeditate reaction from the foreground ( did what I think just happened really just happen?) to the back ground ( We all need to wait and see how this plays out, cooler heads will prevail, lets not go off half cocked) then, they have time to spin it and appease you.

They play to your sense of good will toward them and then play you like the mark that you are. You see time is on their side and they know they can get you to forgive them before the next election. Mealwhile your ignorant and polyanna advice send people down the river, waiting .... and waiting.... and they do not have time to react once they are over the falls.

YOU NEED TO WAKE UP. YOU JDSTEEL need to ACT. You have been raped last night and you think because they gave you bus fare home instead of walking, it wasn't so bad. Tell me when, WHEN will it ever be bad enough for you to react? HUH?
You don't get how politics works. Don't try to calm justifiable anger just because you think acting in anger is wrong. These guys need to be taking out on a rail. Not sat down with to try to understand them more.

THEY MOCK YOU AND YOUR " lets take the slow approach here" YOU GET IT, THEY LAUGH AT YOU in washington at their lobbyist partys. The Game is to do just what they did, to see how far they can get away with and have you still vote for them in the next election. They get off on that. And you are providing the juice by your very actions. It is no different than the man that has the affair and gets more and more bold in his actions with his mistress. It is how close you play the line that adds the excitement. The mote they can screw you and then manipulate you back into voting for them the higher the sense of pride they have. They consider you schmucks to be taken advantage of. Congratulations.

[myrabach]

The problem I have is that the voters have spoken and put Republicans in power. We have done that so we can finally have things go our way.

We have not put them into power to cave to the dems. We don't want the liberal agenda. What is so difficult to understand? What makes the pubs so spineless?

I truly do not get it. Do they not have faith in their own voter base? Well, they are going to lose this voter base very soon if they do not shape up and vote as directed. And I mean directed by the people who put them in office!

[goldstategop]

We'll wait and see. But the old adage still applies: talk's cheap. I'm not convinced of the veracity of double-crossing RINOs.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[katieanna]

*It seems the democrats who will determine who is "extreme" will be the seven 'moderates'. Surely Nelson, Pryor, Salazar et al have a different view of what extreme is than Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy et al.

**Think of it this way: Owen, Brown and Pryor are getting up and down votes and these three were considered unacceptable before. That raises the bar substantially, does it not?**

[Cboldt]

         E. Benjamin Nelson (D-NE)   John McCain (R-AZ)
         Mike DeWine (R-OH)          John Warner (R-VA)
         Joe Lieberman (D-CT)        Robert Byrd (D-WV)
         Susan Collins (R-ME)        Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
         Mark Pryor (D-AR)           Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
         Lindsey Graham (R-SC)       Ken Salazar (D-CO)
         Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI)      Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)    

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

If a nominated judge gets blocked by filibuster again, we can still "pull the trigger" on the constitutional option...this time with "betrayed and outraged moderates" leading the way.

How naive are you? How many times must the Republican'ts beat you over the head and scream, "WE ARE LIBERALS!"

Part of the deal is two nominees will not go to vote and Bush will be forced to nominate another Ruth Marxist Bader Ginsberg to the next Supreme Court opening.

You need to spend more time reading a dictionary. Start with entries on "denial" and "naive".

Wake up. The Marxists control the Senate. STOP looking at the "letter R" and start looking at actions. Realize that the Republican'ts are RAT-like. They are in bed with the RATs, the act like RATs, they vote like RATs and they are RATs in disguise as Republican'ts.

[Lazamataz]

Laz-I seem to recall you making a similar statement when CFR was passed and Bush signed it

I felt Bush redeemed himself a lot by letting the Assault Weapons ban die.

But hey. You are right. I should have bailed back then, no matter what peanuts were thrown my way. We lost an important 1st Amendment right, and since then I wasted money and time on a party that really doesn't have my best interests at heart.

[Dave S]

"The Dems promised to only filibuster in EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES.

And the Republicans promised not to vote for the nuclear option UNLESS they felt the Dems were filibustering in non extreme cases. Nothing has changed except we have gotten the three most conservative judges guaranteed a seat on the bench. Now if the three conservative judges are not fillibusterable, someone really has to have some flaw other than ideology to be be considered an extreme case. The Dems may have have some cover for their backing away but they have made it harder to filibuster in the future.

[Sloth]

If a nominated judge gets blocked by filibuster again, we can still "pull the trigger" on the constitutional option...this time with "betrayed and outraged moderates" leading the way.

Bull. "Moderates" rarely care about anything enough to get outraged, and it's never outrage at the left. We had a chance to stop filibusters -- it's gone now. The constitutional option will *not* be implemented in this congress.

[ElPatriota]

listening to cspan I heard what the left calls these 7. "Socially Moderate Republicans," and you know what that means. Pro-Homosexual, pro-perverts and thus, just happy with the activist judges we have today.

[ShowMeMom]

I agree 100% with "no money" for the RNC. RNC stands for RINO National Committee.

My money will now go to PAC's and to individual REPUBLICAN candidates.

Their Rat opponents are unthinkable.

[Cboldt]

Only if two of the seven RINOs vote for them.

'mornin! It'll be real interesting to see the votes and Committee hearings play out on the 12 judges now in the hopper. I give at least 80% odds that some DEMs, not necessarily the ones who signed onto the deal, will stall taking a vote on at least one of the 12.

[DesScorp]

No sir, I will NOT hold my powder. This was pure betrayel, nothing less, for personal gain on the part of 7 Judas senators. No matter how much lipstick we put on this pig, it won't be pretty. The team was sold out by a small group that wanted to be in the spotlight. I say we put them there; by kicking them out.

Enforce Discipline Now.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Robert Byrd, a "centrist peacemaker"??????

The Republican'ts stoop this low to deal with this Marxist?

Republican'ts deserve our wrath, not our support.

[JCEccles]

we had the Democrats on the ropes and we let them go

We really didn't, and that's the problem.

Until we have a reliable 60 votes in the Senate (like the Democrats had for almost half a century between the 30s and the late 90s), we won't have the Democrats "on the ropes."

The only rational, unemotional, and workable solution is get out there and work hard to increase the number of reliable conservative votes in the Senate in 2006 and 2008.

[MEGoody]

"I don't understand what the hell is going on here."

The Republicans got what they wanted, the Dems saved face and have the chance to act like cry babies again later if they get bored with doing real work.

[NCLaw441]

You said: This is a true turning point. Expect Democrat wins in 2006 and 2008, and probably for a long time after that.


I have to disagree. The public was largely disengaged on this issue. Those of us who follow FR are in vast minority. Most people have a vague, if any, idea of what a filibuster is, and frankly, what a federal judge is. The niceties of filibuster over legislation vs. nominations goes right over most heads. This won't be an issue in 2006 or 2008, because it is too hard for the "masses" to get interested in. Try talking about this to your mail man or your grocery clerk, and watch their eyes glaze over 15 seconds into the conversation. Now, if we can these judges seated and making decisions, perhaps one of the cases will cause a stir, and THAT might create an election issue. But the nuclear/constitutional option? It just don't resonate with the public.

I have a good friend whose favorite saying is "Average is pretty stupid." Sadly, I agree.

[Josh in PA]

So are we getting Saad and Myers?!?

[Kaisersrsic]

One half-full analysis is as follows:

The key is the Supreme Court. Some of the Republican Seven are claiming that they will know when "extraordinary circumstances" are triggered. We know that Rehnquist is likely done after this summer, moving Scalia to Chief Justice and putting another conservative on the Court does nothing to change the balance of power between conservative and liberal justices, and so it won't be extraordinary. Further, that is a fight that is only a couple of months away -- too soon to allow the deal to fall apart.

"Extraordinary circumstances" will almost certainly be triggered if the 85 year old Stevens retires (and maybe for O'Connor). The democrats will have to treat a change in the balance that risks Row v. Wade as "extraordinary" and use the filibuster. That is GREAT for the GOP, if Bush holds onto Garza, Estrada, and Gonzales to fill such a vacancy. Nothing could be better for the GOP's long term success than having the democrats try to filibuster three straight Hispanic nominees to the Supreme Court, a fight the democrats cannot win. Nothing better. Really, nothing better.