Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Live Filibuster Thread Tuesday
CSPAN ^ | May 24, 2005 | AliVeritas

Posted on 05/24/2005 6:55:47 AM PDT by AliVeritas

FReepers be prepared for surprises today.

(Excerpt) Read more at c-span.org ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 109th; filibuster; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,701-1,7201,721-1,7401,741-1,760 ... 2,581-2,599 next last
To: Chuck54

Per Howard Dean-Bernie Sanders is not really a Socialist--more of a Liberal Democrat.


1,721 posted on 05/24/2005 12:43:22 PM PDT by babaloo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1717 | View Replies]

To: babaloo

OMG you are right. I had almost forgotten.

LOL


1,722 posted on 05/24/2005 12:44:51 PM PDT by Chuck54 (Real courage is when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway. - Harper Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1721 | View Replies]

To: Chuck54
I may be missing something here but looks to me that at least 3 of the Democrat 7 would have to join a filibuster.

Take the 7 out of the mix and you only have 36 Democrats, 1 Independent and 1 Socialist.

Takes 41 to filibuster.

Exactly right. And only 2 of 'our' 7 (Graham and Dewine) would have to join in the nuclear option.

Everybody get it yet?

1,723 posted on 05/24/2005 12:44:57 PM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1717 | View Replies]

To: Chuck54

Yes, it would take 3 and, according to Graham, the deal is off if 1 of the 7 filibusters. You see the point?

What matters most to me is that Frist is not a signator to this deal; nor is the President bound by it. That's all I care about. the deal means nothing. Frist controls the floor schedule and he can bring any nominee to a vote that he chooses to.


1,724 posted on 05/24/2005 12:45:11 PM PDT by katieanna (My Redeemer Liveth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1717 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

Without 3 of the 7, they couldn't pull it off.


1,725 posted on 05/24/2005 12:46:10 PM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1720 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Sounds like Graham and Dewine are declaring themselves a sub-cartel of the moderate control group.

Keeps getting interestinger.

1,726 posted on 05/24/2005 12:46:38 PM PDT by Oliver Optic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1698 | View Replies]

To: conservativebabe
Graham - "It's tough to disagree with your friends."

Oh, is he disagreeing w/his 13 new friends? And is he resigning from the cabal? Has he broken w/McCain and seen the light...of not being re-elected?

Are we supposed to nominate him for his profile in courage now that he has most definitely disagreed w/his constituents?

Does he HAVE any friends in SC now?

1,727 posted on 05/24/2005 12:47:16 PM PDT by Carolinamom (US Senate: UN on the Potomac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1714 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
I'm back now after short thunder storm and w/music in background to sooth my savage breast

Sounds like you were taking a Harlequin Romance break.

1,728 posted on 05/24/2005 12:47:23 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Forget Blackwell for Governor! Blackwell for Senate '06!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1704 | View Replies]

To: babaloo

Dean is an absolute lunatic. I don't see how even his own party can take him seriously.

Of course as Savage says, Liberalism is a mental disorder.


1,729 posted on 05/24/2005 12:47:23 PM PDT by conservativebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1721 | View Replies]

To: katieanna
What matters most to me is that Frist is not a signator to this deal; nor is the President bound by it. That's all I care about. the deal means nothing. Frist controls the floor schedule and he can bring any nominee to a vote that he chooses to.

Ding, ding. A winner.:-)

1,730 posted on 05/24/2005 12:48:05 PM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1724 | View Replies]

To: defconw

I know this is going to go over poorly here, but I listened to DeWine in the news conference with Hatch and Spector, and he sounded reasonable. And his quotes in the paper are consistant, that he expects this agreement will END the filibusters, and if it doesn't he will join the nuclear option group.

The nuclear option was NOT (for most of us) the END. It was a MEANS to an end, and frankly not a good one (it was necesary, but not good). The END was to end the filibuster and get votes.

And at the moment we have votes. We will have to see how many, and whether the agreement will hold (Spector or Hatch called it more of a truce than an agreement). It may turn out to be a terrible deal, but it sounds like at least two of the 7 republicans are ready to dump the deal if it doesn't end the filibusters.

If that is the case, we just traded NOTHING (a vote we weren't sure of which had consequences we couldn't predict) for votes on judges.

It's like we wanted someone to let us cross a bridge. They said no. We argued for a while. Then we said "If you don't let us pass, we will hit you in the nose". Then they said "We will let you pass now, but in the future we might change our mind."

Some against this deal would argue that we didn't get to hit the obstructionist so we lost. I would argue that we didn't really want to hit him, just to get passed, and we did that.

Santorum admitted that one guy wasn't getting a vote. I'm sure it was Saad. Saad committed the ultimate crime for a nominee -- he spoke evil of a Senator (in an e-mail). The Senate is like a country club of stuck-up narcissists. They stick together, and they don't like uppity nominees or witnesses.

There is a reason nominees stay silent. Senators are snobs.

If we end up with a vote on Myers, we will have lost only the nominees who dropped out, and the nominee who messed up. That looks a lot better than it looked a week ago when we had no certainty of getting votes on ANY nominee.

I will concede that those for whom the goal was to crush the opposition, this was a bad deal. I think we need to keep our eyes on the goal. Don't let the other team's trash-talk distract from our scoring opportunities.

Let's fill the vacancies with judges who practice judicial restraint.


1,731 posted on 05/24/2005 12:48:17 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT (http://spaces.msn.com/members/criticallythinking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1705 | View Replies]

To: conservativebabe

Sanders is a SINO.


1,732 posted on 05/24/2005 12:48:43 PM PDT by babaloo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1729 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom

I think he just screwed himself pretty good.


1,733 posted on 05/24/2005 12:48:48 PM PDT by conservativebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1727 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

Some of us "get it", and we have worked very hard to get majorities in our legislatures both state and federal to make sure that pro life Judges who are almost 100 percent "follow the Constitution" types. Our hard work has been nullified by 7 pieces of human debris.


1,734 posted on 05/24/2005 12:49:11 PM PDT by samantha (relax the grownups are in charge (I think).....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1688 | View Replies]

To: defconw

Oh, my, did you just yell at me?


1,735 posted on 05/24/2005 12:49:28 PM PDT by Txsleuth (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1707 | View Replies]

To: samantha
... if you are quoting Graham exactly,it does not compute. How are they going to get a vote if the NO is not implemented and if it is, that is changing the rules. This is like a Lou Costello double talk "who's on third" routine.

Yeah. It's called Senator-speak.

Other posts right around this vicinity have covered the ground better than I have, but basically, Graham will consider a DEM filibuster as violation of the agreement. If they filibuster, then he will vote with Frist on the nuclear option.

It doesn't matter what words he puts to it. All that matters is the vote. ;-)

1,736 posted on 05/24/2005 12:49:56 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1719 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats

I have NEVER read even one of those trashy books! Never will.


1,737 posted on 05/24/2005 12:50:04 PM PDT by Carolinamom (US Senate: UN on the Potomac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1728 | View Replies]

To: conservativebabe
I say, people just blaze the phone lines at Frist's office urging the good Senator to make a public statement that he DID NOT sign off on this deal and he still expects a vote on ALL nominees, as his office is appearantly telling callers.

He did this already on the floor of the senate.

1,738 posted on 05/24/2005 12:50:13 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1710 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

You, my fellow Nutmegger, are 100% correct.


1,739 posted on 05/24/2005 12:50:30 PM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1731 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

OOOOH Good! Haven't seen any T.V. today.


1,740 posted on 05/24/2005 12:51:01 PM PDT by conservativebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1738 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,701-1,7201,721-1,7401,741-1,760 ... 2,581-2,599 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson