Posted on 05/25/2005 5:50:13 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
Guests and topics on Tony's show today include:
Senator Lindsey Graham, (boo-hiss!) will be on to explain why the “deal” struck by 14 Senators is just wonderful for America.
Senator Hillary Rodham Rodham won’t be on the show, but apparently Tony had a bit of a run-in with the jr. senator from NY over the launching of Soldier Ride. Could it be that Hillary just isn’t interested in helping wounded soldiers??
Damages to the GOP majority since the betrayal of 7 RINO’s and the possiblity of difficult reelections for them will be discussed by Tony.
You can find out more information about the line-up, stream Tony's show, find local radio stations as well as other fun stuff off his website.
CLICK HERE and follow the "Listen Live" link to stream the show which runs from 9 AM est to noon.
moongriffon.com streams the show every day from 3:00 to 6:00 PM (EDT).
WMET airs Tony’s show on the web from 9-12 EST.
Another way to hear Tony’s show is by streaming it at 7pm CST on klif.com
Yet another source of the show is at 1190wamt.com which streams at least part of Tony’s show during its regular air time.
To call the show and talk to Tony dial: 1.866.408.SNOW
By the way, if you miss anything, the show is streamed again immediately after the three hours.
Please feel free to add thread narrative about what is aired on the show as a group effort is helpful to get more of the content posted and is much appreciated by those reading the thread later.
If you’d like on or off the Tony Snow Show ping list, please post a request. All requests happily honored.
Traitor Lindsey Graham is a guest on Tony's show today.
Good morning and ping.
Do you know what time?
Thanks for the ping. I may have to fortify myself w/hard liquor to bear hearing more of his "I'm a Conservative" lies.
The deal is very disheartening. Whatever Senator Graham thinks he's negotiated, the reality is that the Democrats are free to filibuster at will and will still be in compliance of the agreement.
BeldarBlog is a great source for legal analysis, and he makes a compelling case that the Republican 7 did not comprehend that even though there is language about whether the Republicans "feel" that the agreement has been violated, in fact the only ones who have the right to end the agreement is the Democrats.
Key quote here:
Beldar cites Ed Whelan of NRO
"Any agreement must be read against background contract principles. One of the most elementary principles of contract law is that a material breach by one part excuses continued performance by the other. So there is, I submit, no question that a Republican signatory is not bound to his promise to oppose cloture reform if the Democrat signatories do not live up to their end of the bargain."
That's absolutely right, and that's where Mr. Whelan stops his analysis. Some staff advisor to the Republican signers could and should have insisted that this proposition be expressly written into the MOA. The Dems couldn't have opposed such a demand with a straight face — "No, we insist that we can breach and you're still bound!" isn't something you can say. But I agree with Mr. Whelan that the common law, and public common sense out of which this common law developed, both give the Republican signers this "right" whether the agreement says so explicitly or not.
But that's not where the analysis or the action will stop when the Dem signers refuse to support cloture. My whole point (which others, e.g., Bradford Berenson and Andy McCarthy are also arguing, more succinctly than I have) is that would-be wafflers on the Republican signers' commitment have to say why the "Democratic signatories [have] not live[d] up to their end of the bargain." Because of the subjective "good faith" standard built into the agreement, no such argument could ever be proved, or even persuasively argued, even in the loosey-goosey court of public opinion.
At 9:45am: Back on the Senate floor, Lindsey Graham is still insisting that he reserves the right to vote for a rule change in the 109th Congress if he thinks the Dems are misbehaving. Well, great, Lindsey — except that's not what the document that you signed says. The document takes that discretion to grade the Dems' sincerity away from you, and expressly gives it to the Dem signers themselves. Plain English, short words, fits on one page. Teddy's gonna eat your lunch on this, Lindsey, and that's awfully pathetic.
Here's the link
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/05/liveblogging_th.html
Cute graphic. I need some encouragement today.
I presume Graham will be early on, but not sure exactly.
I haven't been this mad and this discouraged in a good long while. Think I'll try to stick with mad, feels better than discouraged, LOL!
Ping.........
If what that posts said is true, I am discouraged....Graham is a lawyer!..
Your choice! ;^)
Thanks for the ping ...
listening in.
I can't take it anymore...!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHH
Oh the humanity
The real fact is that Frist doesn't have to abide by the agreement, he didn't sign it nor did the other 85 senators left out of the loop, therefore he can drop the hammer on the constitutional option whenever a Dem filibuters a nominee. Anyone who thinks 14 senators can speak for the whole senate just isn't thinking and Frist said as much yesterday, several times, once on Hannity.
LOL! How's this......"Courage. Courage.....Courage."
;^P
I missed hearing Frist yesterday, I hope that's true. Thanks.
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.