Skip to comments.
The Democrats' Threat: A Bush nominee is confirmed -- but the vote is a message to the White House.
National Review Online ^
| November 20, 2002
| Byron York
Posted on 11/20/2002 7:33:18 AM PST by xsysmgr
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
1
posted on
11/20/2002 7:33:18 AM PST
by
xsysmgr
To: xsysmgr
Bring it on.
2
posted on
11/20/2002 7:37:45 AM PST
by
Credo
To: xsysmgr
Does anyone know how many of those 44 Demorats lost their seats? And how many of them were independents?
3
posted on
11/20/2002 7:38:48 AM PST
by
Governor
To: xsysmgr
The message should be the President only needs 51 votes on any judicial nominee.And if Dems continue to obstruct it will cost them more in 2004.But if that is thier strategy, well it sure will be intresting
To: xsysmgr
The Senate Democrats still think they can pick and choose President Bush's judicial nominees. We have to write our state's US senators and tell them to support or at least not filibuster the nominees. Remind them "advise and consent" means pass qualified nominees and not look for litmus test ideology such as abortion as a standard.
Write especially if your senators are Democrats as they are the ones that need the message. Write if your senators are the closet Democrats such as Snow, Chafee and that other New England female Republican senator whose name I forget.
5
posted on
11/20/2002 7:43:31 AM PST
by
RicocheT
To: Governor
Very good point!
6
posted on
11/20/2002 7:43:44 AM PST
by
Warren
To: xsysmgr
Let them filibuster away. I hope they do. Lots of it. Then the public will view them as "obstructionist" and "disrupting the government" - which is what did in Gingrich and pals. So - if they want to hang themselves, I'm sure there is plenty of rope.
7
posted on
11/20/2002 7:43:50 AM PST
by
dark_lord
To: lexington minuteman 1775
That's why they are now known as the "Dumb-O-Insects", like some insects that keep flying into the zapper, they never learn.
It's going to be fun watching the insects destory themselves because they can't learn from their mistakes.
8
posted on
11/20/2002 7:45:05 AM PST
by
chiefqc
To: xsysmgr
ROFL! Filibuster away,if Democrats flex their muscles filibustering on every issue, 2004 is gonna kill them.
Lott should shove every Bill and nomination onto the floor in a continuous rolling wave until they cry uncle, and then torch them with a USSC nomination.
9
posted on
11/20/2002 7:45:14 AM PST
by
ijcr
To: xsysmgr
Haha! That's a pretty weak message!
What a warning: 'we can't organize a filibuster to stop this now...but in theory we could, maybe, and we might be able to do so in the future'
There is a big difference between holding 41 votes in the Senate cloakroom, and orchestrating a public filibuster to stop the most popular President in history in wartime and recession.
Any filibuster will put extreme political heat on certain Dems, and Bush will only need to peel off a few to get his way.
To: chiefqc
You are absolutely correct - the DemocRATS just don't get it!
To: xsysmgr
Not as bad as all that. Going through the vote summary, it would have been at least 58-42 in the next Senate -- The seats that will be taken over by Barkley, Carnahan, and Cleland, all voted Nay and will be replaced by Republicans, who I assume would vote Yea. Murkowski was absent, as he's preparing to become governor of Alaska; as Republican Gov., he'll appoint his replacement. I'm assuming that Pryor of Ark. would vote Nay, whereas Hutchison voted Yea. So that's 3 switches from Nay to Yea, one from Not Voting to Yea, and 1 from Yea to Nay.
If Terrell pulls the upset it Louisiana, that would be 59-41. If I'm wrong in my assumption about Pryor and he turns out to be of the Zell Miller wing of the Dems (not entirely out of the question), that would make it 60-40.
A working filibuster-proof majority of the GOP and Zell Miller Dems is not out of the question.
To: xsysmgr
If the Dems start filibustering judicial appointments, will the administration at last start making recess appointments to the bench?
By the way, it's interesting that Biden -- having threatened to vote for Shedd in committee -- voted against Shedd in the vote on the floor last night.
To: lexington minuteman 1775
The message should be the President only needs 51 votes on any judicial nominee.And if Dems continue to obstruct it will cost them more in 2004.But if that is thier strategy, well it sure will be intresting Yep. The response to this threat is clear: Make them actually conduct filibusters. Make them stand up there in front of the cameras for hours and days on end, talking, talking, talking, preventing the Senate from doing anything. Hold daily cloture votes, and force the Dems to go on record as favoring obstruction. See how long they can keep going, and how often they're willing to try it, under those circumstances.
14
posted on
11/20/2002 7:56:23 AM PST
by
Brandon
To: xsysmgr
I disagree on two points. Landrieu's vote doesn't show that she thinks she has enough votes to win. It only shows that she calculates that the risk of offending her base is greater than the risk of offending independents. So she did what her pro-abort base demanded.
Also, we already knew that the Dems can filibuster on issues they consider critical. But it remains to be seen whether they can prevent Bush and Lott from offering deals to moderate Dems on key votes that would enable them to achieve cloture. I'm thinking of a tax cut bill, for instance. And it remains to be seen how many Senators will be willing to filibuster against a popular president. Byrd did some token filibustering, evidently, but the Dems decided it wasn't worth fighting the Shedd nomination. On the one hand, they need to keep their pro-abort base happy. On the other hand, they need to avoid giving the voters the impression, already pretty widespread, that they are a bunch of angy obstructionists. If they filibuster against all judicial appointments, how well can they expect to do in 2004?
15
posted on
11/20/2002 7:58:06 AM PST
by
Cicero
Comment #16 Removed by Moderator
To: xsysmgr
"The message was, We can stop anything you want," says one Republican. "That was a goal of the Democratic leadership."It has always been the Dems goal, tie up everything because they have NO ideas. I say allow them to filibuster all they want and make sure it's a GOP RANT on every soundbite so the people know the Dems are obstructionists holding up progress and putting the chillren in jeopardy abd at risk.
17
posted on
11/20/2002 8:07:44 AM PST
by
1Old Pro
To: 1Old Pro
The Democrats certainly have the votes to obstruct. What they don't have is an alternative to offer the country that would make people prepared to listen to what they have to say and to vote for them.
To: Governor
Does anyone know how many of those 44 Demorats lost their seats? And how many of them were independents? Dems voting yea included:
Hollings
Graham (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Inouye
Byrd
Lincoln
Miller
The 44 nays (only 42 Dems, btw) included:
Dems
Landrieu
Breaux
Carnahan
Cleland
Independents
Barkley
Jeffords
Jesse's Folly, Max & the Widder are already out the door. Landrieu will be gone in 2 weeks and Breaux only voted nay as a feeble attempt to give her small political cover.
In addition to Breaux, Miller, Ben Nelson, Bob Graham, Lincoln and newcomer Mark Pryor (all Southern Dems except for Nelson of Nebraska) will not necessarily vote along partisan lines - especially regarding judicial appointments.
Hollings, Byrd and Inouye normally vote along party lines. Who knows which way Jeffords will go on any issue?
Counting a Terrell victory, the GOP will have 53 votes. They only need 7 Dems to break a fillibuster. At least 6 are possible on many issues.
Hollings, Inouye and Akaka are just a stroke away from giving Dubyah a fillibuster proof Senate.
Tread carefully, Mr. Daschle.
To: aristeides
I think that if Nov. 5 had not gone his way he would have made dozens of appointments this during this recess.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson