Posted on 06/07/2005 11:20:53 AM PDT by PolishProud
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has placed a "hold" on President Bush's nomination of Julie Finley as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Mrs. Finley is well qualified. She has been a strong and active advocate in Washington for the expansion of NATO, the integration of Turkey into the European Union and the spread of democracy to countries of the former Soviet Union.
But on the grounds that Mrs. Finley is pro-choice on abortion, Senator Brownback has exercised the Senate's "Polish" procedure and figuratively cried "I oppose".
One senator can hold up a nomination by just noting his or her objection. As did Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) when she put a hold on the Bolton confirmation.
The holder's identity is supposedly secret and his or her motive need not have anything to do with the nominee's qualifications.This arcane practice does have a precedent in history. James Michener, in his book Poland, writes, "The incredible Liberum veto, by which one man in a Seym (parliament) of hundreds could negate and prorogue the entire work of the Seym by merely crying ' I oppose' was a major cause of Poland's disappearance from the map of Europe."
You might say the U.S. Senate has become a "Polish Joke."
The Wall Street Opinion Journal has an interesting op-ed regarding the Senate. "hold."
Pro-abortion creeps should not be representing this country anywhere. Brownback is right.
Did you read the article? You have the people's views backwards.
We don't need an abortion cheerleader in that seat.
What does her position on abortion have anything to do with the job at hand?
It's people with your narrow mindset that neuter the Republican Party.
Is President Bush pro-life or not? If Mrs. Finley was a racist, she would not have been nominated by President Bush.
I wouldn't call Mrs Finley a left wing covert, I disagree with her views on abortion, but as far as I know, she does have an underlying left wing agenda.
I also don't think she is fighting the President, she is his pick.
An advocate of legalized murder should be representing other murderers and no one else.
Abortionists are the fruit you want to blossom out of the GOP?
I'm sorry I should have said does NOT have an underlying left wing agenda.
As a person of Polish descent, I must take offense at this title. Please don't compare our great jokes to the Senate again.
A pro-life Republican Party won the White House, the House and the Senate.
The wishy-washy pro-abortion Republican Party of Gerald Ford was neutered.
Wake up.
Then you need to oppose about half his cabinet appointments and the President himself. He refuses to tell us his views on Roe v Wade.
I know. I believe that pro-life should be a litmus test of all presidential appointments. The President is doing a great disservice to his political base by trying to imitate Kerry.
A Trial lawyer, a Pole and a US Senator walked into a bar...
Apparently she thinks Europe would be a better place if it were further flooded with islamists. How would that be beneficial to our security? Even Europeans realize it was a self-destructive plan.
No, thanks, Mr. President. Next.
Amazing thinking...simply amazing.
I'm getting awfully confused. When the Dems put holds on a presidential nominee, or filibuster a nominee or otherwise oppose a nominee, most here say that a president's nominee should be respected and approved as long as they are well qualified. Isn't it the Dems who have been applying litmus tests to Owen, Brown and others?
So, this prio-abortioninst is an "active advocate in Washington for the expansion of NATO, the integration of Turkey into the European Union and the spread of democracy to countries of the former Soviet Union."
So what?
Anyway, who the hell wants NATO expanded? Not me.
And who gives a crap whether Turkey is integrated into the EU. It fact, that's a stupid idea on Europe's part. It would be like having Mexico admitted as the 51st state - total national suicide.
In other words, ErnBatavia thinks that all that pro-death rhetoric by the Democrats has helped them electorally over the past thirty years.
ErnBatavia believes that the evangelical Christians and Mass-going Catholics who won the election for President Bush didn't matter in the last election.
Keep ignoring history, EB - enjoy your Rockefeller Republican fantasies.
You come from a moral equivalence position that only cares for the rules of the game. I, on the other hand, care for the outcomes. The President should not be nominating anyone pro-abortion, period. If the Democrats block pro-life nominations, they should face their electorate at home, as, I am sure, Senator Brownback will.
That would be the best situation, but as of right now the left is still selectively holding up nominations so why shouldn't conservatives do the same? Otherwise we're putting ourselves at a disadvantage.
Your opinion is of no consequence.
Guess I am going to have to run for Senate.
That is an idea. ;-)
Perhaps, though I suspect both sides believe in their respective positions. I suspect most of America simply wants well qualified nominees to be confirmed and get the Senate back on the job with such apparently non-important issues as social security, energy, 13 appropriations to run the government, deficit reduction, the war on terror, etc.
The President should not be nominating anyone pro-abortion, period.
I'm not aware of anyone the President has nominated that failed the most important litmus test, How well qualified is the individual? Perhaps we can just have James Dobson pick all of the President's nominees....
If the Democrats block pro-life nominations, they should face their electorate at home,
I agree. I think anyone standing in the way of the Presiden't nominees for any reason other than the individual's conduct or qualifications should be challenged by the voters.
Not sure I follow the logic. The Dems are holding up the conservative President's nominees, so we should do the same? Sort of shooting ourselves in the foot, isn't it?
True.
But please, use the shift button occasionally...
What is this person, a bone to the rats we weren't supposed to notice?
I see no reason to not play by the rules. Just because I support changing those rules is no reason to allow the other side to play by them while I stand by wringing my hands and whinning about how high-minded I am not to sink to their level.
Maybe we should all just... MOVE ON!
The ideal environment would be when no blocking mechanisms exist and the appointees get a full Senate vote. Since this is not what we have, both sides can and should play the blocking game.
The "is she qualified?" test is not as clear-cut as you seem to think. It is true that I don't care if the plumbers and electricians are pro-abortion or pro-life as long as they can fix the pipes and the wires. This woman is slated to be an ambassador. What are her qualifications supposed to be, drink martinis? She will inpluence policies and she will be representing the United States. I don't want her, and neither should this president. She is not qualified on the basis of her moral philosophy, and her views on Europe are not salutary either.
Lastly, the President is wrong in nominating pro-abortionists, and I applaud anyione who is willing and able to teach him a lesson.
No, the left wing nominees regardless of who nominates them.
I am talking about the Senator who says he is a Republican.
The Senator, by fighting the President has shown his true colors.
She should be opposed not only for advocating the murder of babies, but for espousing the inclusion of Turkey into NATO and the EU. I haven't forgotten how they stabbed us in the back when we were trying to bring our troops to Iraq before the war. We owe that bunch of two-faced Muslims nothing and should never, ever trust them.
I think you will be surprised by things you hear for some time to come.
That being the case, every nominee must be blocked. No one can be anything other than either pro-choice or pro-life. Your statement approves of the blocking of any nominee who is either pro-choice or pro-life, therefore, everyone.
This woman is slated to be an ambassador. What are her qualifications supposed to be, drink martinis?
Her qualifications should include experience and demonstrated knowledge in the field of diplomacy, foreign service if possible, geopolitics, history, and above all, a strong supporter of the policies of the government and administration putting forth the nominee. In this case, she appears to be a strong supporter of the Bush policies concerning NATO and the expansion of democracy. Her personal views on abortion seem rather inconsequential when looking at the position.
She is not qualified on the basis of her moral philosophy, and her views on Europe are not salutary either.
I would leave that to President Bush to decide, but I was not aware of any of her undesirable views on Europe. That might be a problem for me.
Lastly, the President is wrong in nominating pro-abortionists, and I applaud anyione who is willing and able to teach him a lesson.
I cringe at the extreme religious right trying to teach President Bush any lessons. He has liberated 50 million oppressed people, killed Kyoto, cut taxes, put forth sensible energy proposals, and accomplished a host of other well grounded initiatives. To try and pull the rug out from under him over an issue that most Americans could care less about seems very narrow minded.
The extreme left has captured the Democrat Party, and likely caused its defeats in the past couple of elections. Hopefully, the Republican Party will not fall into the same trap.
Are you saying that anyone who is pro-choice is a leftist?
Your position, that "personal views on abortion" should not be a factor is public policy, is Kerry's. The views on abortion are a primary qualifying factor in judgeships and ambassadorships. Pro-abortion candidates should be blocked, and better yet, not nominated. There is no moral equivalence.
Cringe away.
Aren't our ambassadors were supposed to represent the interests of the U.S., (although in practice, the denizens of foggy bottom usually don't). Furthermore, one of the reasons cited for the recent rejection of the EU constitution by the European voters was the fact that Europeans do not want a Muslim country joining the EU.
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.