Posted on 05/24/2005 6:55:47 AM PDT by AliVeritas
I knew this the minute I heard the deal.
Anyone that spins this as good is either a liar, a fool or too naive to be involved in politics.
As I've been stating, they staged a coup of the Government. they must be defeated NO EXCEPTIONS.
I'm not explaining anything, I'm stating what the words of the agreement say. Read it for yourself, and point out where what I've said about the words that the 14 signed onto is incorrect.
I guess I'm also examining the implications and possibilities under those terms, but I've tried to separate my enumeration of the terms from those implications.
The agreement says what it says. The "spirit" of an agreement binds no one who chooses not to be bound, the words of an agreement mean something and are what those signing onto the agreement are to be held to. You are relying on the oral representations of those who have an interest in hiding or spinning what they signed onto. Try that with the guy who holds the note on your vehicle.
It's not subject to a filibuster, it's not something before the Senate, but rather a private side agreement. In effect it's a contract. I don't where it's enforceable, but you can bet the Dems and the MSM will try to enforce the "no rule change" provision in the court of public opinion if nowhere else. They've been given a big stick and they will use it.
Nope, it says you must be a natural born citizen. That includes various categories of persons born outside the US of American parents. Most specifically Military serving outside the country and also diplomats, and other citizens temporarily outside the country. The birth must be registered with the US embassy, IIRC.
My brand new house in Texas is about 1550 sq. ft, the smallest in the neighborhood. It cost $92,500. Of course over the years, the air conditioning, and to a lessor extent electric heating, bill will make up much of the difference. :)
That's because Frist is not a party to the agreement. He can schedule such a vote, but the slimy seven are pledged to vote against any such rule change until the end of the 106th Congress.
More importantly, they are natural born citizens. Not all citizens are eligible to be President, only natural born ones. Naturalized ones, like Arnold, or Henry the K, are not.
Given the difference between what he says the agreement allows and what the words on paper actually say, I wonder if he just signed the second page and didn't read it.
He can read, can't he?
In DFW, that's true. But DFW has higher than average housing costs, for Texas (although not as high as Houston or Austin), and Texas has an ocean (well the Gulf of Mexico, which is part of the world ocean), beaches, both ocean and lake types, and even mountains of sorts. The mountains aren't large, compared to the Rockies, but are pretty nice I'm told. We also have the Hill Country, which is both pretty and historically interesting.
He's contradicted himself and what's in the compromise and the memo, at least 4 times, that I know of.
Then why did they sign on to an agreement that included no provision for them to "get around" their pledge not to support rule changes, especially with the example of the "extraordinary circumstances" of the no-filibuster provision? They are either stupid, or liars. Either way, we don't want them around.
????? Anyone can run for President if they are over 35 and a natural born citizen. Even Red Ron Dellums could have. He didn't have a clearance, but as as a Congress Critter, he was given access to whatever he asked for, including compartmented information. But he did have to ask very specifically.
The 180 can be filled out in such a way that the release is limited. You can even have your records released only to yourself. (I still need to sign one to get a copy of transfer orders to the retired reserve). If he signed an earlier SF-180, it's possible that the records were only released to some limited group. That group could not then release the records without his permission.
Geez, a little victory and they think they can take over the world!
np: I don't know what is true here.
What Graham said, he said. It seems he believes the Demodogs. He also seems to have a "trust but verify" attitude on this, and he claims to be very ready and willing to nuke them. For my part, I am going to take a similar stance - "trust but verify" - but I'm willing to say I'm wrong if it doesn't pan out as hoped during the next few months. Frist still has his handle on the trigger, and I 'believe' that it will be even easier for him to muster the votes needed if the Demodogs don't play nice.
I wish that the votes had been available to immediately demand that every nominee gets a vote on the floor of the Senate... no unConstitutional blue-slipping or killing in committee, etc...
I have to fly now...
later.
Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
The introduction makes it explicit that the commitment following it is conditional upon both the "spirit" and the "continuing commitments". These provide both a subjective condition and an objective condition.
As to your second question, why did Graham stumble when trying to explain what he wrote? First, I heard the "interview" and it was more of an intergation and a venting by Hannity so the atmosphere was not conducive for good dialog. Second, Hannity as you are doing are starting your questions on a wrong premise. When that happens its hard for the 'expert" to find common ground in which to explain things.
So if the "gang of 14" went that far, why on earth to you believe they would have supported the constitutional option?
McCaine and the Dems were working sub rosa. Evidently many of that 14 had lied through their teeth to Frist. LIEberman was supposedly on board and there was at least 1 more Dem, who would have voted WITH Frist and the GOPers.
That's my point. Neither you nor anyone else knew for sure how many votes Frist had in his pocket. It would have been a roll of the dice in any case.
There is NO "proof" at all that any nominee, had the nuclear option been put into motion, won the vote. I never claimed that, unlike YOU, who has claimed that ALL THREE ON THE TABLE NOMINEES will win. Where is YOUR proof for saying that? It most assuredly is NOT in the compromise.
It is no less certain than if the "nuclear option" had been called for. I am merely working off the same betting odds you are. If Owen's up or down vote fails, why do you think it would have passed after invoking the nuclear option? You seem to demand "PROOF" from me, but can only provide conjecture yourself.
There is absolutely NO assurance, whatsoever, from any of the 14, that they will separately or together, follow, to the letter, what the compromise states. And since it appears that you not only trust the gang of 7, but believe deep in the recesses of your heart, that they will call for the nuclear option, if and when a single Dem counters the "agreement", then, I pity you.
Trust me, my life will continue quite well without your pity. In any case, I have no idea what the 7 Republicans will do if and when the filibustering continues. I only know that they will be under far more pressure after the compromise to do something than they appear to have been under the past two years. And nothing prevents Frist from calling for a vote at any time, any more than previously.
The wind has been completely taken away from Frist's sails. He might call for the nuclear option, with cause; however, getting it passed now, is far from a certainty.It probably will fail. And THAT hands the Dems and the craven GOP gang of 7 another VICTORY.
So in your logic, the 7 Republicans are now better positioned to fight Frist than before? Before there was no standard by which to set up for a constitutional vote, but now there is. But as you say, your grasp of reality is perfect....
As to "bloviating", I don't, you do, and FYI... I AM NOT A "SIR".
My apologies for using a mark of respect toward you. It was obviously undeserved.
I was taught vote counting by the best, I don't wear rose colored glasses, and my grasp of reality is far better than yours
Your vote counting may be great; your communicative skills go begging, however. You seem to feel it necessary to attack a complete stranger simply because you disagree with him. Your time spent learning how to count votes could have better been spent in learning basic civility.
Guess what you are telling me is there are good filibusters (Republican) and bad ones (Democrat). I do notice that Leahy is telling a different story:
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/nominations/pastfilibusters.html
Regardless, however, any Republican use of the filibuster seems to cloud the issue of right and wrong.
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.