Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feinstein’s flip sends Southwick to the floor (Feinswine losing it?)
The Hill ^ | 8/3/07 | Alexander Bolton

Posted on 08/02/2007 5:56:40 PM PDT by LdSentinal

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: So Circumstanced

I just sent her a fax thanking her for allowing the full Senate to vote and hoping that she will continue to support the nomination. It would be great to see this move forward!


21 posted on 08/02/2007 6:23:57 PM PDT by bt_dooftlook (Democrats - the "No Child/Left/Behind" Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Nah. Somebody’s got the goods on Feinstein

Exactly...... that was my first thought, as well.

22 posted on 08/02/2007 6:26:37 PM PDT by LaineyDee (Don't mess with Texas wimmen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

“Every now and then, Feinstein will exhibit some reason. She’s not as moonbatty as Boxer is.”

Especially if you illegally got your husband military contracts and the inquisition of the AG by the left isn’t panning out the way you expected it to.


23 posted on 08/02/2007 6:27:21 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (The Democrat Party: "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ontap
The decision inflamed liberal activists for its pointed use of the word “homosexual” instead of “gay.”
It doesn’t take much to get these people mad.


What happens when you call them sodomites?
24 posted on 08/02/2007 6:29:22 PM PDT by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Don't think for a second that Feinstein exhibited a brief flash of lucidity. There were gears turning behind the scenes in this den of poltroons. The RINO contingent probably agreed to cave on another issue that's simmering on the back burner, in exchange for her vote. That's why Congress has been a pool of stagnant water for decades.


25 posted on 08/02/2007 6:30:07 PM PDT by Viking2002 (Fred in '08. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ontap
The decision inflamed liberal activists for its pointed use of the word “homosexual” instead of “gay.”

It doesn't take much to get these people mad.

Truth to a liberal is like sunshine to a vampire.

26 posted on 08/02/2007 6:32:14 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
The decision inflamed liberal activists for its pointed use of the word “homosexual” instead of “gay.”

To the gallows with him!

27 posted on 08/02/2007 6:36:32 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

I think this was a move purely to avoid energizing the GOP base. It was possibly made in consultation with the Clintons. It also could have been that she was in fact chosen by the Dims in the Senate as the committee member who could most afford this vote.


28 posted on 08/02/2007 6:44:12 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bt_dooftlook

Nice touch of you to do so.

I don’t know what has got into her lately, but one hopes that maybe she will be encouraged enough to actually seek even more praise from us.


29 posted on 08/02/2007 6:54:32 PM PDT by So Circumstanced
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JLS

She’s minding her P’s and Q’s in hopes of staying out of the pokey for enriching herself with military contracts.


30 posted on 08/02/2007 6:57:21 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JLS

She’s minding her P’s and Q’s in hopes of staying out of the pokey for enriching herself with military contracts.


31 posted on 08/02/2007 6:59:30 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002

Whatever her reason for this vote, it is a safe bet that it is self-serving. Principles didn’t come into it.


32 posted on 08/02/2007 7:02:05 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

I suspect she’s trying not to get her house raided like Stevens, with FBI looking for stuff on the military construction contracts.


33 posted on 08/02/2007 7:29:20 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
The decision inflamed liberal activists for its pointed use of the word “homosexual” instead of “gay.”

Wow, the queers and fagots homosexuals are real sensitive, aren't they.

34 posted on 08/02/2007 7:32:11 PM PDT by upchuck (The Hildabeaste fears Fred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevio

Yes she does, and I emailed her, and thanked her :)


35 posted on 08/02/2007 9:07:50 PM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (If the families still ran Las Vegas, Harry Reid would be napping at the bottom of Hoover Dam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
“The Democrats’ obstructionism is a disgrace and is an example of politics at its worst,” said Giuliani in a statement on Democratic opposition to Southwick. “Our courts should not be compromised because of partisans who are forgoing their Constitutional responsibilities in order to pursue a political agenda.”

I am sorry to all Freepers, but this as close to what I would say as any candidate got.

36 posted on 08/02/2007 9:12:40 PM PDT by normy (Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite
" Somebody’s got the goods on Feinstein."

Or promised her something.

37 posted on 08/02/2007 10:04:09 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
Over the past several weeks, senior Republican members of the Senate Appropriations Committee have put pressure on Feinstein...

Wow, this is a tough one. Not! Appropriations? Think about it. It's simple vote-trading, probably to funnel more federal money into her husband's CA businesses. At the extreme, maybe she's playing nice to avoid some awkward ethics quesions on the same subject.

38 posted on 08/02/2007 10:31:30 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson