Posted on 05/10/2003 4:56:02 AM PDT by Mia T
|
|
|
|
hyperlinked images of shame |
|
|
by Mia T, 4.6.03
Mia T, THE ALIENS
Al From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."
Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.
From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.
That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.
When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)
Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.
With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.
With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.
The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11. |
The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime
Q ERTY8Either THEY are obsolete… or civilization is bump!
|
www.washingtontimes.com
Judicial filibuster rule change faces high hurdle in SenateCharles Hurt Published May 10, 2003
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist yesterday proposed changing Senate rules for filibusters of presidential nominees before the chamber to allow a simple majority to override such obstructions. The filibusters Democrats have against two of President Bush's judicial nominees are "unfair to the nominees, unfair to the president and unfair to the majority of senators who stand ready to confirm them," Mr. Frist, Tennessee Republican, said on the Senate floor. Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, rebutted the need to change the system, saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Mr. Daschle said Mr. Bush's nominees have been confirmed at a rate of better than 98 percent so far. [98.4 according to the gargantuan numbers on Daschle's silly chart.] Of Mr. Bush's nominees, 124 have been confirmed and two are being filibustered by Democrats. At the White House, Mr. Bush marked yesterday, two years to the day since nominating the filibustered nominees, with a Rose Garden speech about the "crisis in our judiciary." Nominees "wait for years while partisans search in vain for reasons to reject them," he said. "Meanwhile, vacancies on the bench and overcrowded court dockets are causing delays for citizens seeking justice." Mr. Frist's proposed rule change — initiated by Sen. Zell Miller, Georgia Democrat, who has consistently voted with Republicans to end the filibusters — would lower the threshold needed to close debate on judicial nominees, from 60 to 51. Because of the way Mr. Frist introduced his plan yesterday, it must be considered in the Senate Rules Committee and receive support from 67 senators to pass. "It is my preferred approach to work through the system to change the Senate rules," Mr. Frist said. "I want to see what the response is." Democrats are filibustering the nominations of Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Mr. Estrada and Justice Owen have support from a majority of senators, including some Democrats, but supporters lack the 60 votes needed to end debate on their nominations so that a final vote on their confirmation can be taken. Mr. Miller joined Republicans at the White House yesterday to mark what Republicans called "Democrat obstruction day." "The people on Main Street U.S.A. don't understand why anyone would have to wait this long to be voted up or down," Mr. Miller said after Mr. Bush's speech. Mr. Frist also credited Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut for a similar resolution they introduced in 1995, which failed. Allison Dobson, spokeswoman for Mr. Harkin, was quick to point out differences between her boss's plan and Mr. Frist's. "The majority leader has found a way to pervert what Senator Harkin proposed," she said. The primary difference, she said, is that Mr. Frist's plan would apply only to presidential nominees, and Mr. Harkin's plan would have applied to all Senate business. Mr. Harkin "still supports that for all matters," Miss Dobson said. "But there's a big difference between all matters and just those that suit [Mr. Frist´s] purposes today." Mr. Frist noted on the floor that the first vote he cast in the Senate was to block the Harkin-Lieberman resolution. If Mr. Frist's proposal does not make it out of the Rules Committee, Mr. Frist and other Republicans say they will consider making the changes through the "nuclear option." Using parliamentary procedures, Republicans believe that they can change the rules with support from a simple majority. Such a maneuver has been tried twice in Senate history, former Parliamentarian Bob Dove said. |
It says:
My rectal temperature renders Democrat
Obstruction of Bush's Judicial Nominees
Constitutional
"With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity."
Oh Mia T, you are so brilliant.
I had a bit of trouble making out the font text, and misread his post. hehe !
Ya'll have a lovely day !
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.