Posted on 06/02/2005 3:30:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Pardon me while I wipe the egg off my face. Last week I was one of only a handful of conservatives praising the Senate compromise on judicial nominees, which preserved the filibuster while guaranteeing several of President Bush's most conservative nominees an up-or-down vote. I argued that Democrats would be chastened into using the filibuster judiciously -- only "under extraordinary circumstances" in the words of the compromise itself. Boy was I wrong. In less than a week, the Democrats were back to their old tricks, this time filibustering the nomination of John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
It's a shame that Senator McCain and his cogorts can't seem to relate to a lesson I learned in football. The quarterbacks and running backs may get the acclaim, but the best of them understand that the linemen deserve the credit - and they make sure to give vredit where credit is due.
McCain and his bunch decided to run a different play, fumbled, and claimed the opoonent lost yardage when they recovered the ball. None to swift, IMO.
Strategically, the moderate seven jumped solidly in the middle of the cowpie, but haven't yet noticed the smell.
Welcome aboard!
We found out who in the Senate we can trust, and who we can't.
I read in Human Events, Lindsey (SC) is getting all kinds of heat from the people.
Bush is not going to let the Senate Democrates control the agenda.
What I think you and Coop may fail to see is The CO doesn't negate the fact that when the vote comes up the debate will be on what the meaning of "EC" is, not CO!.
It's straight out of the Clinton playbook and it allows the dems to control the subject of the debate.
Over the past 15 years the repubs better have learned something about how dems/rino's operate...You can not negotiate with liars and ppl that have basically no moral compass!
Now I know that sounds harsh, but think about what dems believe and why they would be honest about anything...look at their past behavior!
Thats the whole point; nothings changed! It's a matter of principle panty waist RINOS refuse to grasp. Allowing something improper to continue breeds acceptance and complaceny; and will eventually become the defacto law.
The true measure of a conservative is reverence for the entire Constitution; not just the paragraphs that coincide with his personal values.
Thats the whole point; nothings changed! It's a matter of principle panty waist RINOS refuse to grasp. Allowing something improper to continue breeds acceptance and complaceny; and will eventually become the defacto law.
The true measure of a conservative is reverence for the entire Constitution; not just the paragraphs that coincide with his personal values.
I tend to agree with you. I think accepting the status quo (although they were hoping to squeak through three judges and Bolton) tends to reward the corrupt Dems. I personally would have preferred the deal not been made.
That's it, that's your argument?
Well, you're right about one thing, nothing has changed!
I'm sorry. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Click here for clarification.
It's the same thing. Debating what exceptional circumstances are leads to invoking the constitutional option.
It's straight out of the Clinton playbook and it allows the dems to control the subject of the debate.
I think you are being a wee too bit paranoid. I am not going to argue that the GOP senate doesn't have too many wimps, but the situation has not been changed by this. And I really think by going through this, the GOP will pick up a couple of votes from the RINOs for the Constitutional Option.
"IMHO, Linda Chavez never believed the Donks would honor the deal. Last week's praise was just so she could be shocked... shocked!... that there was gambling going on at Rick's Americain Cafe."
So either she's stupid, or she thinks we're stupid. Neither gives her much credibility with me.
Roger that Coop. I see no downside from the deal for the Republicans except that we got a lot of goodwill in coming off like the "good guys" in this episode. Now when we drop the nuclear option on the Dems when the vote comes up for Bush's first SC nominee we can claim that we tried everything to avoid it but the Dems just wouldn't compromise.
BUT THAT'S THE POINT!!!! You're debating the DEMS terms, not ours!
I see what getting at, but it just gives another chance for the RINO'S a chance to weenie out!
Listen, if anything the dems will not just give in, there has to be a fight and we LOST a crucial battle because the McPrick 7 can't stay true!
So in your mind Priscilla Owen's confirmation was a horrible (crucial) loss?
Expecting present day DemocRats to abide by anything other than the absolute letter of any agreement is naive beyond description. Even with the absolute letter, they'll dispute the meaning of every word, including "is", "will" and "shall".
The spirit? They don't believe in any steenking "spirit".
yup , and our Congresscritterzzzz get "The Beltway Disease" and all it's many symptoms , ... its like they're Through The Looking Glass and they don't hear us after a while
It does not if the slimy seven RINOs keep to the letter of the deal, in which they committed, unconditionally,to vote against rule changes affecting judicial confirmations. (IMHO, the "In light of the spirit" phrase, doesn't condition that commitment any more that the similar "well regulated militia", phrase of the second amendment restricts the RKBA to the militia)
No matter how docile - you should never pet a rattlesnake.
The Constitutional option still exists.
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.