Skip to comments.
Ventura names Barkley to succeed Wellstone
Star Tribune
| 11-4-02
| N/A
Posted on 11/04/2002 8:50:10 AM PST by Temple Owl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
To: Temple Owl
Temple,
This move sucks period. If the GOP gains control, Coleman is one of the seats that on taking the oath would give the GOP ASAP. It also can be done w/ the MO seat. But Jesse just pissed on that, a pox on both you house so I will screw you both.
With all due respect to his service as a Navy Seal, this bald headed moron just ticks me off more and more with every political move he makes, I can't wait for him to leave the stage, what a jerk.
To: Seruzawa
I guess you got me on that one...
42
posted on
11/04/2002 10:13:09 AM PST
by
Russ
To: Wolfstar
Direct election of senators, along with the income tax and prohibition were the worst Constitutional amendments ever. Bump
To: Temple Owl
Help me out here....
Doesn't this mean that the Senate is now composed of 2 Independents; 49 DemocRATS; and 49 Republicans? Since the Vice President cas't the "tiebreaking" vote...does this now mean that the Republicans control the Senate?
Personally, I look for the RAT Jeffords to make the switch fully to DemocRAT late this week.
To: taildragger
With all due respect to his service as a Navy Seal, this bald headed moron just ticks me off more and more with every political move he makes, I can't wait for him to leave the stage, what a jerk. I completely agree. Yet, I would rather have him as Governor of Pennsylvania than Ed Rendell who really makes me sick.
To: Seruzawa
Oh, and like the US Senate isn't already a big joke?Sure it is, it's just not a funny joke. The joke is on us.
The joke is on anyone who thinks anyone in the Incumbent Party cares about their rights or the constitution.
To: Wolfstar
So the 16th, 17th, and 18th amendments were the worst?
My mother says the 19th was the worst.
To: iconoclast
"
but would you have preferred that he appoint a big D Demonrat?" Not at all. As I tried to say, I would have preferred that he appointed the independent "garbageman" that received all the publicity. I think it would have been a proper signal to the politicians/media.
To: martin_fierro
Hes a Republican you know.
49
posted on
11/04/2002 10:58:27 AM PST
by
weikel
To: Temple Owl
Give 'em hell, Jesse!
The Ventura Press Conference is worth a listen. He says that the people who organized the Senatorial candidate debate held over the weekend (which Mondale skipped) should have stuck a cardboard cutout of Mondale on the set and asked it questions.
50
posted on
11/04/2002 11:37:04 AM PST
by
ravinson
To: sittnick
Was he really? Gad.....you're right, he's a liberal leftist activist no less.....
To: anniegetyourgun; sittnick
I wouldn't be so quick on the draw. Barkley just said that he was a strict constructionist on the law! (on Fox News)
52
posted on
11/04/2002 2:48:52 PM PST
by
F-117A
To: Russ
But he doesn't NEED a big staff. He doesn't need to do any fundraising, or have a schedule filled with all sorts of events (who cares if the Temporary Senator comes to visit your high school?), all he has to do is cast his vote.
53
posted on
11/04/2002 2:51:38 PM PST
by
xm177e2
To: TBP
Will Barkley caucus with Republicans, Democrats, or neither? Barkley just said he's in the catbird seat and will do what's best for Minnesota. He also said he's a strict constructionist on the law! Hopefully he'll go GOP and get those judges appointed!
54
posted on
11/04/2002 2:51:55 PM PST
by
F-117A
To: Temple Owl
Just heard this guy on MSNBS. He says he is a strict constructionists and is against judicial activism and could support Bush's judicial
appointments. Democrats will have a cow.
To: The Other Harry
You mean the GOP could have 2 months to ram through as many judicial nominees as they can if they lose this election? LOL!
56
posted on
11/04/2002 2:52:50 PM PST
by
xm177e2
To: grumpster-dumpster
That breakdown wouldn't change the committee ratios. For those to change, per S. Res. 8, one of the parties would have to have a majority of the
whole number of Senators.
Doesn't this mean that the Senate is now composed of 2 Independents; 49 DemocRATS; and 49 Republicans? Since the Vice President cas't the "tiebreaking" vote...does this now mean that the Republicans control the Senate?
To: F-117A
He can't get judicial nominees out of the judicial committee....he won't be sitting on it. My guess is he won't do anything but vote with Dems.
To: anniegetyourgun
People seem to think the Senate is going to become a very active, proficient, fast moving legislative body.... LOL. Heck they can't even get the normal scheduled work they have to do done and now are faced with a lame duck session just to get the funding, etc. passed. They will complete the selected items they are returning for on Nov. 12 in the lame duck session and then adjourn sine die, imo. One Senator can tie that body up in knots for a long time should they want to.
It took them some 20 days or so just to complete their rule making and organizing when they began the 107th Congress in Jan. 2001. I'm not sure what the Senate rules say but I'd bet there is no way to bring a Judicial nominee to the floor without it coming from or through the Judiciary Committee.
59
posted on
11/04/2002 4:14:08 PM PST
by
deport
To: anniegetyourgun
He can't get judicial nominees out of the judicial committee....he won't be sitting on it. My guess is he won't do anything but vote with Dems. If he cauceses with the Republicans, the nominees will come out of committee.
60
posted on
11/04/2002 4:19:12 PM PST
by
F-117A
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 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