Posted on 06/01/2005 5:22:42 PM PDT by perfect stranger
Let's not put the seven Republican senators who engineered the "compromise" deal with the Democrats in charge of negotiations with North Korea. I would sooner trust the North Koreans to keep their word than the Democrats.
The North Koreans at least waited for the ink to dry on Clinton's 1996 "peace" deal before they set to work violating it by feverishly building nuclear weapons. After hoodwinking seven Republicans into a "compromise" deal, Senate Democrats waited exactly seven seconds before breaking it.
The deal was this: Senate Republicans would not use their majority status to win confirmation votes. In return, the Democrats promised to stop blocking nominees supported by a majority of senators – except in "extraordinary circumstances." Thus, a minority of senators in the party Americans keep trying to throw out of power will now be choosing federal judges with the advice and consent of the president.
The seven Republicans we're not leaving in charge of the national treasury believed they could trust the Democrats to interpret "extraordinary circumstances" fairly. And why not? It's not as if the Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Oh wait – no, I have that wrong. The Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees.
Hmmm. Well, at least the Democrats didn't wait until Trent Lott foolishly granted them an equal number of committee chairmanships following the 2000 election to seize illegitimate control of the Senate by getting future Trivial Pursuit answer Jim Jeffords to change parties after being elected as a Republican. Oops, no – they did that, too.
The seven Republican "mavericks," as the New York Times is wont to call them, had just signed off on this brilliant compromise when the Democrats turned around and filibustered John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations.
At least it wasn't an important job. But even so, didn't we win the last election? Why, yes, we did! And didn't we win a majority in the Senate? Yes, we did! To be precise, Republicans have won a majority of Senate seats the past six consecutive elections. (And the last six consecutive elections in the House of Representatives, too!)
I think that means Republicans should win. Republican senators support Bush's nominees and Democratic senators oppose them. The way disagreements like this are ordinarily sorted out in a democracy is that a vote is taken among our elected representatives, and majority vote wins.
But sometime after 1993 – which, by eerie coincidence, was the last time Democrats had a majority in the Senate – a new rule developed, requiring that the minority party win all contested votes. The Democrats – the same people the seven mavericks are relying on to play fair now – began using procedural roadblocks to prevent the majority vote from prevailing by simply preventing votes from taking place at all. Senate Democrats do this by voting not to vote, whereas Texas Democrats do it by simply boarding a Greyhound bus bound for Oklahoma.
Democrats tried "Count All the Votes (Until I Win)" – Al Gore, 2000. They tried "Vote or Die!" – P. Diddy, 2004. Those failed, so now the Democrats' motto is: "No Voting!"
The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, thought the party with the most votes should be able to win. (Boy – talk about out of touch! And this guy wants to be president?)
The seven "maverick" Republicans thought a better idea would be to crawl to the minority party and plead for crumbs. If the "maverick" Republicans had a slogan, it would be: "Always surrender from a position of strength."
The deal they struck, this masterful Peace of Westphalia, simply put into writing the rule that the minority party controls the Senate – which will remain the rule until the Democrats aren't the minority party anymore.
No wonder Democrats were so testy about bringing democracy to Iraq: They can't bear democracy in America. Liberals' beef with Iraq's new government was that the Sunnis – the minority sect whose reign of terror controlled Iraq for almost 30 years – wouldn't be adequately represented. Obviously, this did not bode well for the Democrats – a minority party whose reign of terror controlled the U.S. House for over 40 years.
The only way for Americans to get some vague semblance of what they voted for is to elect mammoth Republican majorities – and no "mavericks." (Fortunately, for the sake of civilization and the republic, that process seems to be well under way.)
Chuck Schumer could be the last Democrat in the Senate and the new rule would be: Unanimous votes required for all Senate business. But at least we could count on Sens. Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, John McCain, John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee to strike a deal forcing Schumer to agree not to block the 99 other senators except in "extraordinary circumstances."
Bump
Set
Spike.
bttt
Ann,please get rid of the ad with the Brutus Beefcake humping the floor on your site. Thx.
Hot damn, Ann. That was a good one.
Kill!!!!!
The 7 'extraordinary' idiots should move to France.
Chirac seems to be having his troubles these days.
Ann was being too kind when she called the 7 RINOs extraordinary idiots.
bttt
Excellent read and nice meeting the picture rule right off the bat.
Now I don't think that being just a smart ass is enough, but being intelligent, good looking , quick to the quip and a smart ass is a God given talent.
It's just got to drive perky infobabes crazy...hahahahahahaha.
Ann in good company!
Rules, Rules, Rules!
Thereby changing control of the Senate without anything so messy as an election. They really do hate democracy don't they?
Ann Coulter wins my vote. . .
As for the Repubs. . .the 'seven' . . .and the rest who make the 'seven' possible; I am left with trying to control my temper and my contempt.
Awesome article. I love Ann Coulter.
RINOs like those "mavericks" should be kicked out of the Republican party. I'm sick of all this liberalism under the guise of "bipartisanship". We won the election fair and square and they lost. We now control the congress, and the congress should vote to decide laws. We should vote for our agenda and they should vote for theirs. We shouldn't water down our beliefs, and if moderates like John McCain don't like it, they can join the Democrats instead of being a burden on us. (I like McCain, but sometimes he makes me wonder who's side he's on.)
Liberals think they can use diplomacy for everything, even when they're talking to a power-hungry mad-man. (Or maybe their communist sympathies lie with Kim Jong Il, you never know) The only way to get rid of a menace like Kim Jong Il is to threaten China with economic sanctions if they don't stop siding with him. If China ever expects to be a democracy instead of a savage Maoist oligarchy, it needs to prove it.
I want to remember this 'magnificent' seven and work to get each and every one of them out of office. To which I would add Voinovich too!
Yes.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
"No wonder Democrats were so testy about bringing democracy to Iraq: They can't bear democracy in America."
I was going to make this my tagline but, alas, it is too long.
Sometimes? The man is the biggest RINO on the savanna! There is no position the Dems take that he will not take up a position further left on, just to get the media adoration and face-time he craves. Additionally, I believe he hates the President after having been beaten by him in 2000.
We got another Republican fundraising call tonight. My husband is so disgusted at the continual caving in they do for the Democrats so they won't lose their "moderate" constituency or SOMETHING that he is not sending more money until they quit wimping out and understand just WHO their constituency is. The Senate "Good Old Boy" Club and the Gentlemen Farmer Republican Senators who play tiddlywinks with the Democrats (who play HARDBALL when they are in power) seem to just simply be playing a game. Some of them even seem to be lightly agreeing that 2008 is "Hillary's Turn".
John McCain is on John McCain's side and no one else's.
Ann - As Always - you are 'Right on'!!
LuvYa Babe!!
Now playing, THE 7 GUTLESS WONDERS OF THE GOP
starring:
Sens. Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, John McCain, John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee
Rated PG-13 Puking Guts-13 times
The Seven are not only RINOs....but FRENCH ...yellow flags flying in the wind...and yellow down their backs. Makes me want to puke. Cowards and scum...ok, now let me tell ya how I REALLY feel about the 7 losers... :) Actually, I like the French better, they at least see Chrack head for who he is. Ok, the French are smarter.
bttt
Ann sounds as po'd as me.
Meantime, RNC, my checkbook remains closed until every Bush nominee gets CONFIRMED.
Really? My high school freshman could do a better job.
Do you have any specific feedback on the content, grammar, etc.? Not attacking you----just curious.
Thank you for asking so politely about my opinion. I appreciate the good manners.
There are a couple of things that Ann does when she's writing that I find a bit juvenile.
Now, that's just me and many, many are going to disagree. However, I think if more people were actually analyzing her stuff honestly, they might feel the same way.
First of all I think this type of sarcasm is a bit childish. It might be okay every now and then, but she will use this technique several times in each article....
It's not as if the Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Oh wait – no, I have that wrong.
This stuff runs me nuts. She repeats that same "technique" in the very next paragraph. Then she skips a paragraph and then does it again. It's done several more times.
I don't think that takes much creativity and I think she's got more intelligence than that.
This sentence is a bit silly to me also....
The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, thought the party with the most votes should be able to win. (Boy – talk about out of touch! And this guy wants to be president?)
She writes lots of silly stuff like this.
It's much like my daughter used to write a couple of years ago. It's BLOG type stuff, not the stuff of a "major" columnist.
I guess that's it mainly. Most of the time it sound like a Blog written by some "valley girl" or something. It's like 'Duh", sort of stuff.
Not the way I would expect a nationally syndicated columist and Constitutional lawyer to write.
Does that make sense?
Finally, she's EXTREMELY repetitious. She doesn't come to the point. She will ramble all around it her point, rephrasing the same thing over and over (and over) again.
To me, a good columnist will make a point, explain it and then sum it up. Really good ones will teach us something.
Ann writes for her fans. She doesn't appeal to people who aren't rabid (rules, man, Rules) fans and she is so abrasive that she turns off many people who aren't political junkies.
I know the routine, (so while I don't expect you to do it since you asked a sincere question that was respectful), I expect many comments about how I must be jealous of Ann, etc.
Sadly it happens anytime I don't bow to Ann. I'm not remotely jealous but some freepers will drag it on for days, posting nastiness to me.
Like I said you don't appear to be that type and seem to be accepting of the fact that I can hold a different opinion.
In addition to "jealousy" type comments, I will also get plenty of "liberal" comments. I even got called a "commie" the other day.
If I don't get those kind of comments on this thread, it will mostly be because I said I am expecting them. That tends to be a bit of deterent, just to "prove me wrong".
This thread was from last week......Ann Coulter pics from Craig Ferguson's Late, Late Show
I made a comment at post 14. At post 286 I was STILL being flamed for it.
It's not that I have a problem with her being a smart ass....I can be as big of a smart ass as the next person. But I'm not supposed to be some sort of "conservative icon".
Oops, this is very long. Sorry, I'll bet you wished you had never asked!
Excellent photo.
Great photos but I don't agree with your take on Ann.
NEW photos!
ANN COULTER joins the U.S. Marines [and L.A. FReepers] at party after "Late, Late Show"
Posted by RonDog
On News/Activism 05/24/2005 9:11:20 PM PDT · 176 replies · 10,749+ views
Ann Coulter pics from Craig Ferguson's Late, Late Show ^ | May 24, 2005 | RonDog [and FRiends]
bump
I strongly disagree- it is EXACTLY that that I love about her articles. As Rush said "illustrating absurdity by being absurd"
No need to worry about me coming over the top at you for simply critiquing Ann (this includes calling you a 'commie'--yikes!).
Personally, I enjoy reading Ann's columns and books but I don't get too worked up about criticism such as yours especially since it comes from our side of the aisle.
There are plenty of things that people like you and me and other conservatives can get rightfully angry about without attacking each other over the topic of Ann Coulter.
I like her---but I understand why some people don't enjoy her (your post is a pretty good summary, I would say) writing as much as I do.
Am I right, though, in guessing that it angers you when people like Franken and other leftists visciously smear her?
There is a big difference between criticism of her style by conservatives and the smearing and viscious attacks made by leftists.
Have a good one and thanks for the thoughtful response.
bttt
BTTT
Not my photos, but I'm glad you like them and your disagreement with me is politely stated.
Thank you.
There is a time and place for everything. But to me, it's beginning to look like Ann has only one style, only one way of communicating. For the followers of Ann, that's fine.
For some of you she's putting a sarcastic voice on things you would like to say, but can't because you don't have the access.
But for the fence sitters and those conservatives like me who like things to the point, serious, but respectful, Ann turns us off.
I'm a life long republican and nothing is going to change that for me, but Ann is running off some fence sitters.
I can give you examples of that from my own family. My own parents, who are as conservative as you get, can't stand her either. (Actually my dad died right after he voted this year-his story is on my homepage). The younger ones. My young adult nephews can't stand to listen to her and she is one of the ones that they point to as a mean conservative.
The boys all voted dem even though they all came from republican families. True you COULD say that most young people are democrats until they get older, but I had 4 sibling, all republican, who all married republicans, who had other children who became republican. My uncles, aunts, grandparents and cousins are all republican.
People like Ann turn off many of the younger voters surprisingly
We have to get these young voters and keep them.
She hurts us there. She doesn't help.
She's singing to the choir and then rumbling in the alley, with nothing accomplished at all.
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.
