Posted on 06/01/2005 11:49:06 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
no its 2/3 to change the rules, which is what you have to do to perm end filibuster for judicial nominees
The ACU-rating, fairly I suppose, reflects votes only. The deal brokered with the crats counts for a whole lot more than A VOTE. But it won't be reflected.
Not to mention that he's balked at or made little of just about everything Bush wants to accomplish. AND HE STOOD UP FOR JOHN KERRY against his own classmates and cell-mates. "Dishonest and dishonorable." Sorry, that's unforgivable.
I see. I guess I am in the (extreme) minority pro-McCain camp.
In regard to "the deal", it wasn't a given that the repubs had the votes to change the rules. Looking at it from that perspective, he was responsible for getting Owens et. al. confirmed.
As to MCCain and Bush, there were all these bad things to say about McCain when Bush gladly accepted his support in the campaign...
But in regard to the vet thing, I honestly don't mind if they stick up for each other. I'd rather expect it.
"No. And there is no need for it. but to imply that because someone was a POW, they shouldn't be able to serve, makes you no better than stalin after WWII, who wouldn't trust the troops that just won him the war."
LOL, Fudd...check this individual's comments.
Moral relativism from a so called "republican".
What does that have to do with morals? It has to do with you being wrong.
It's apparent that you have a severe intellectual deficit.
Your chances are much better than McCain's...
Kitties in Heck want ice milk.
And they stand a better chance of getting what they want than you do, McKeating...er, McCain.
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.