Posted on 06/21/2014 9:40:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Because NOBODY has the guts to stop them.
This is Valerie Jarrett and Obama’s field day. They are having a ball! Regulating Christians and Jews. Rewarding Islamists.
They get away with it, because this country no longer has any honorable politicians.
Al Goreghoul let the democrat strategy out of the bag when he spittled ‘there is no controlling legal authority’
Compare Eric Holder to John Ashcroft.
Ashcroft was considered by all to be an honest and devout person, and yet his confirmation was extremely contentious from the Democrats.
Remember, Ashcroft lost a stolen Senate race when his opponent Mel Carnahan of Missouri was killed in a plane crash a few weeks before the election. Playing on the memory of Carnahan, the new governor declared that if Carnahan's name won the election, he would appoint his widow, Jean Carnahan, to serve.
Right off the bat, a vote for a deceased candidate should have been a wasted vote. There is no such thing in the Senate as voting for a pick to be named later. The candidate must be a living resident of the state, and sad as it was, Carnahan was not. When Carnahan's name won the election, Ashcroft graciously conceded instead of fighting the legality of it.
President Bush decided to name Ashcroft as his nominee to Justice, and even the widow Carnahan, after Ashcroft let her take the Missouri Senate seat uncontested, immediately sided with the Democrat party on this and voted against Ashcroft's appointment. Ashcroft was appointed by a vote of 58-42.
With Holder, he had come off of the scandal of the Marc Rich pardon. He was confirmed by a vote of 75-21.
See how the Republicans play as represented by the Holder confirmation, and how the Democrats play symbolized by the Ashcroft confirmation?
Back to the Carnahan election, Republicans would never try an aggregious switch like that; at least I can't think of a time when they did. One also has to look to the New Jersey election with Robert Torricelli. Democrats swapped a losing Torricelli at the last minute with retired Frank Lautenberg, even though absentee ballots had already been sent out and voting begun. Democrats claimed that they should be entitled to change their failed candidate because it was in the interest of the voter to have a "competitive election," as if Democrats must always have a strong candidate in every election in order for it to be legitimate. Republicans opposed, weakly, and the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed the switch. The United States Supreme Court refused to get involved, still stung from the criticism over stepping into the Florida Supreme Court actions re: Bush v. Gore.
Meanwhile, simultaneously over in the House, Democrat Represented Patsy Mink had died a month before the election, and Democrats were arguing over there that Mink's name should stay on the ballot and that if her name won then the governor should call for a special election to replace her. As expected, her name did win and Republicans lost out on another seat won by an invalid candidate.
Five examples of how Democrats fight and Repbublicans do not: Torricelli, Carnahan, Mink, Ashcroft, Holder.
If there had been no 17th amendment, the Torricelli and Carnahan/Ashcroft situations would never have arisen, as the legislatures would have picked their Senators outright.
-PJ
As good a time as any to repost
How about this? How about we stop the “nothing’s gonna happen” meme that dominates this board? I am sure it makes some feel smart and smug. But, that steady stream of demoralizing comments, thread after thread, day after day, is actually aiding and abetting. Someone correct me and defend the strategy of constantly declaring defeat in the midst of the battle.
Rats play to win. Pubbies go along to avoid being called mean, a fool's errand.
As for Torricelli, Carnahan, Mink, Ashcroft, one of the selling points of the 17th Amendment was how it would eliminate corruption.
True, yet in the bigger picture it is congress which refuses to do its job.
In recent decades we have become used to thinking of government in terms of two parties. In actuality they have far more in common rather than differences.
It means something approaching a Uniparty, a self-serving governing clique which recognizes no limitations is in charge. Its purpose is to increase its wealth and power and nothing else.
Until power is once again divided between the states and the government they created, there is no hope for the restoration of freedom.
-PJ
Mink . . . yes, my oops.
An interesting perspective on that possibility: John Boehner's Dog and Pony Show
All that most people care about is if their party gets elected. They saw Obama get elected, so as long as it’s not their party getting the bad end of the stick, they don’t care, or probably cheer at it.
People need to remember that while Watergate was about taking down a President, it was also about learning how to prevent a President from being taken down.
The core lessons learned were to circle the wagons, dig in heels and make sure no on breaks. A secondary lesson was to distract the public away from the scandal.
Nixon lost because not only did his own Administration people abandon him/give him up, but his allies in the Senate had as well. IF there had been no revellation of the tapes, and IF they had been destroyed, and IF his advisors hadn’t turned states evidence and IF Goldwater, Baker, etc hadn’t threatened to vote to remove in an impeachent trial, Nixon would have finished out his term.
Further, if Nixon had released the files on what Kennedy and Johnson had done in office, the GOP woundnt have been damaged by what he did.
They definitely learned how to engage in a criminal conspiracy to suborn perjury, destroy evidence, obstruct justice, etc. Hope the conspirators from top down all learn first hand the penalties for such criminal behavior.
It’s Prisoners Dilemma, right? If everyone keeps their yaps shut, everyone walks away scot free.
Except in Prisoners Dilemma the prisoners are isolated from one another. They don’t have the ability to communicate, let alone coordinate, let alone conspire and intimidate and bribe to ensure silence. The ability to remain silent is bolstered by the reduction and even elimination of risk that someone else will ...
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.