Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Here is a re-cap of a Real Filibuster Chops. Ol’ Strom was quite a character.

Of course, he also landed a glider on the cliffs of Normandy back in June of 1944. That at the age of 41 (he volunteered two years earlier at 39).

Sorry I screwed up the link Real Filibuster

Thanks

I have been trying to understand this for weeks now. I remember the guy used to have to do the Jefferson Smith thing and I didn’t see anyone doing it.

By all means. Bring back the old filibuster. I would pay money to watch Teddy Kennedy stand up for more than a couple of minutes.

Seriously, in that case they would really be standing for priciple instead of sitting in the way of progress.

“By all means. Bring back the old filibuster. I would pay money to watch Teddy Kennedy stand up for more than a couple of minutes.”

Have you seen congressional paychecks? You ARE paying money for it!

Wouldn’t it be nice for Teddy Kennedy to actually have to EARN that money for a change? :-)

Bring back the old filibuster!

I am pleased Chops that you did non introduce the Constitution into this discussion, which both sides are trying to wield erroneously. If denying an up or down vote is unconstitutional, then as Talking Points Memo points out, Congress has been acting unconstitutionally for over 200 years by not letting nominees out of committee. The Filibuster has been Constitutional and as you point out, it is subject not to the Constitution, but to the rules of each body to dictate.

Yes,
Bring back the old filibuster, or end it.

Ending it would be preferable.

Trying to fix the filibuster is like putting gold fixtures in an out-house.

Such rule changes are indicative of more deeply rooted problems.
All such unnecessary, convoluted, over-complicated, confusion should be eliminated everywhere possible, and we should all learn to recognize and reject such dilatory diversions.

Thanks for the comments - I’m glad that at least one political forum in this country can agree to avoid extremes.

And David, thanks for pointing out the irrelevence of the Constitution to this discussion. Unless the Senate were to block most or all nominees, they are given broad leeway to frame debate in their own terms.

As I taught my students, parliamentary procedure is a tool in debate, and you have to use it to your best advantage. Both sides are simply vying for a politically advantageous use of the rules. However, this isn’t a collegiate competition, this is the U.S. Senate, and any destructive changes they make endure to subsequent generations and issues.

This issue, despite being called nuclear, won’t destroy the Senate’s effectiveness either way, but I think the middle way (the old way) would be better for the American people than either extreme.

The statement that

Democrats have set a new precedent in partisanship by filibustering judicial nominees

ElliotBay -

Fair enough. And the Dems tried (and failed) to filibuster Rehnquist. So I should revise my statement to apply to lower courts, which I think are qualitatively different. I frankly wouldn’t fault Dems for using every means short of force to fight for the Supreme Court - it’s the land’s highest body. But the idea that the minority can habitually have a say in judicial approvals is novel.

Hey, people…just got in an email from the Democrats that might be entertaining. See what you think (my observations are in bold text.

email starts here

Thursday, May 19, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

REID STANDS WITH CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS AGAINST REPUBLICAN ABUSE OF POWER

CBC delivers letter to Frist urging to preserve Checks and Balances

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

I am honored to stand with my fine colleagues from the House to signal our unity in opposition to the nuclear option.

So if you belong to the CBC, you’re against the “nuclear option”? OK, that’s fine.

This week, we marked the 51st Anniversary of the Brown verses Board decision.

Wait a minute…are you starting a racial arguement?

It’s a case that reminds us how our nation’s judges and courts have often been the last resort for minorities seeking redress from inadequate or unfair laws.

OK…that’s a given…

As you know, the Senate is currently engaged in a fierce fight over the future of our courts and seven radical judges.

AHA! So now you’re saying that these 7 judges are against Brown v Board of Education?

Republicans want to throw out over 200 years of Senate rules, so they can approve these right-wing judges:

Well…not EXACTLY 200 years. More like 100…but go on…

- One who opposes helping housing discrimination victims.

- Another who prefers to side with corporate interests over consumers.

What about the OTHER 5 judges???

Senate Democrats are united in our opposition to Republicans who want to turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for the radical, right-wing.

So what you’re saying is that EVERY Republican is a radical. Is that it?

The rights of all Americans are at stake.

read: all lunatic fringe LIBERAL Americans…

The Republican leadership reminds me a little of the Roman Emperor Nero, who is famously accused of fiddling in the hills over Rome while the city burned.

Actually sounds like the Democrat plan for Social Security…but I digress.

We have gas prices well-above two-dollars, but instead of focusing on an energy plan, the President continues to do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil

We have a pension system that faces financial challenges today. But instead of focusing on that, the Republican leadership insists on a Social Security privatization plan that will actually make the situation worse

and your plan is…???

We have an education system that needs our attention, but all Senators want to do is debate seven radical judges.

…because one party wants to…what? Did I hear the word “filibuster”?

The American people entrusted us with power to tackle the challenges facing this country – not to advance our own political agendas.

You mean…like the one above???

Radical judges like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rodgers Brown don’t deserve our attention, the American people do.

So the other 5 RADICAL judges are OK???

This is the kind of doubletalk we in the media (Yes…I am a member of the media) have to put up with these days. Insinuations…like above…are just the tip of the iceberg. Hate, bias and outright bigotry are now the politically correct components of modern politics and are utilized to the max by the “party out of power”. Do ya think we could fire everyone in Congress and start over?

By all means. Bring back the old filibuster. I would pay money to watch Teddy Kennedy stand up for more than a couple of minutes.

Seriously, in that case they would really be standing for priciple instead of sitting in the way of progress.

As I understand it, this isn’t up to the whoever is carrying out the filibuster. It’s up to the rest of Congress. When, for example, the Democrats say, “We’re just going to filibuster this,” the Republicans have been saying, “Oh, jees, so what’s the use? We give up.” If they didn’t concede, then the Democrats would be forced into a “real” filibuster. Does anyone else have a different understanding of how it works?

I am supprised that the one thing that no one has brought up is that while they are involved in this debate they aren’t spending any time spending our money.

Hell, let them debate this forever.

Much has been said about “right wing radical judges” that the president wants to put into the several locations throughout the country. Maybe we should revist past approval of those “left wing radical” judges that were approved. Why is it so important to not allow this president to have his choices voted on? It seems to be to be a knee jerked response by senators on both sides. The swimming and diving champion from MA was crying that there is no longer going to be debate on SS, energy, and on and on. One could easily come to the conclusion that he is lying or propagandizing, or spinning the truth, or other considerations. Both sides of the aisle have made statements on fillibustering of candidates. They together have said it would be a extremely bad choice to fillibuster candidates. So it appears that a majority of the senators agree that candidates should not be
fillibustered. Time should not be wasted on this debate. But, when did the senate last show an abundance of wisdom.

The old fillibuster is the only way to go. It revises the commonly used phrase to “If you walk the walk, you must talk the talk”. Politicians would actually have to stand up for what they believe in. Then, they would have to prove that they can carry a conversation. Also it would be great practice for them when they get huge sums of money for giving speeches at various functions.

Q: Why don’t Republicans keep the Senate in round-the-clock session to force Democrats to conduct the type of filibuster shown in Frank Capra’s 1939 movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”?

A: It’s more convenient merely to have a test vote to see if they have 60 votes and then move on to other issues if they don’t. Republicans also say a round-the-clock filibuster debate wouldn’t bring them any closer to a vote on the nominees themselves.

The above quotation comes from an AP story written by Jesse Holland. It appears from this that it’s the Republicans rather than the Democrats who are wimping out on the old-style filibuster.

Appropriate quote, Reed. Too bad those here who blame the end of the dinosaurs and other such items all on liberals have no use for such contradictory facts and data. If they ignore it, maybe no one will repeat it.

It’s more convenient merely to have a test vote to see if they have 60 votes and then move on to other issues if they don’t. Republicans also say a round-the-clock filibuster debate wouldn’t bring them any closer to a vote on the nominees themselves.

:-) :-) :-)

Reed -

An interesting point. Do you have any documentation (such as the link to the Jesse Holland story) for the view that the majority party can indeed force a stand-up filibuster? I’m unconvinced.

The Senate rules are silent on the issue, as far as I can tell.

Prof. Ronald Rotunda writes in a partisan piece for Cato that it’s the minority party who can opt to filibuster sitting down.

Likewise, the About.com article I linked to as a source explicitly states that the minority party is not obliged to filibuster standing up.

Scott Shane wrote in the NYTimes last fall (reprinted at HNN and on the Indiana Law Blog)

At about the same time, the Senate created a two-track process that allows senators to block action on a piece of legislation merely by invoking the right to filibuster, without actually having to stand before the chamber and drone endlessly on. Meanwhile, the Senate can take up other business.”

Anyone who is really curious about this can shell out the $1.99 to read TIME’s article on the filibuster reform, published March 17, 1975.

Last - and best - some serious researchers (Gold and Gupta in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy) dug into the Congressional Records, and found that the real culprit, according to statements from Sen. Cranston in 1975, was the previous implementation of a two-track system, which was the work of Robert Byrd. Unfortunately, it isn’t clear whether the majority can require the minority to talk endlessly.

Their article (here, in PDF) is a trove of information on this debate though. Read pages 48 through 56 for a full play-by-play of the 1975 drama. The authors demonstrate why the label “Constitutional Option” is appropriate. David and I are correct in saying that the filibuster itself is not a constitutional issue. However, Senate Rule XXII states clearly that it cannot be amended without 2/3 approval from the Senate. This is where the Constitution comes in, because unless the Constitution trumps this 2/3 rule, then filibuster statute can’t be changed. However, as Gold and Gupta document, it has been ruled unconstitutional in the past, most notably in the 1975 reform. Thus, the rule change - not the content of the rule - is the Constitutional issue.

What I’ve been confused about is if these judges were proposed and filibustered before, why would they be brought up again? The same exact ones. Are there no other qualified conservative judges? Or is the administration setting up the Dems to appear obstructionist? To me it seems really obstinate and bound to result in exactly what has been happening. If they all do get an up or down vote, and they do have the Republican support guaranteeing they are confirmed, wouldn’t that be a 100% appointment rate? Is this the Republican idea of compromise? Has any other president had a 100% appointment rate for judges? Personally, I don’t care whether the judicial filibuster survives or not, but it would be nice to understand just what the Republicans are up to, because it seems that their idea of bipartisan cooperation is that the Dems should just shut up and accept that they can’t do anything about being steamrolled by the Republican majority.

Some Notes from Watching C-SPAN2

Robert Byrd (who is hilarious to watch, btw) notes that the “nuclear option” was in effect from 1789 to 1805, when the Senate was run under previous parliamentary conventions. However, when the rules were codified in 1806, the “Motion for the Previous Question” was left out, on outgoing V.P. Burr’s recommendation, as it had only been used once during his four years. It was, in other words, a waste of paper. So the Republican proposal is to return the Senate’s function to the way it was when it was inhabited and run by those who wrote the Constitution.

John Kerry, who is more eloquent than ever, blames the majority for not letting them do a stand-up filibuster, so apparently it is the fault of Frist et al. What’s more, Kerry said that TV cameras and bloggers would bring down the filibuster if it was indeed unwarranted. HE SAID THE WORD ‘BLOGGERS’ ON THE SENATE FLOOR!!

President Clinton had 374 out of 375 that were voted on in the senate. That’s 99.73%. When the dems are in majority, the same thin occurs. Nothing new there. The interesting thing to examine is the political leanings of those judges. One would probably find a near split of 50-50.

Chops,

A link to the Holland article can be found here, though I’m not sure that alone would have settled the point. That’s for citing C-SPAN and Kerry.

Tom,

Could you cite your sources for that 99.73% figure? I keep reading that Clinton couldn’t get at least 60 nominees out of committee due to obstructionism at that level.

Chops,

“What’s more, Kerry said that TV cameras and bloggers would bring down the filibuster if it was indeed unwarranted. HE SAID THE WORD ‘BLOGGERS’ ON THE SENATE FLOOR!!”

Eh, better than the f-bomb right? ;)

Chops
It is true 60 some did not make it out of committee.
Those that did get to the senate floor amounted to 375 and one of them did not get enought votes. I don’t remember which one.

Who shaysh I can’t shtand up and filibushter! hic

Tom -
I think it’s accurate that 60 Clinton appointees were held up in committee, but it’s apples and oranges. The majority party is, by definition, in control of the Senate. As long as they operate within the limits of the Constitution and laws, they can pass any legislation they want, and they’re given leeway to vote yea or nay on appointees, etc.

As Robert Byrd pointed out on the floor last night, very few executive appointees are disapproved, because it’s understood that a president needs to have a team that agrees with him. A reasonable number of judicial appointees are rejected, whether in an up-or-down vote of the whole Senate, or by being held in committee. This is something that only a Senate majority can do.

What’s different about the current scenario, and what Kerry and Byrd completely glossed over in their speeches, is that they want checks and balances by the minority party. There is no provision for that in the Constitution.

America’s voters broke the trend in 2002 and 2004 and returned a sitting president larger majorities of his own party. This is no accident. South Dakota recalled Tom Daschle, despite his political power, because he was obstructing the president’s agenda, which most South Dakotans support. Clearly, based on their votes, a majority of Americans in a majority of constituencies want Republican legislation as well as Republican executive. The Democrats are about to lose the one courtesy that a minority party is granted because they abused it, filibustering twice as many judges during Bush’s tenure as had been filibustered in the preceding 200+ years.

Chops, when you say checks and balances for the minority is not in the Constitution, that is technically not true.

First, the very composition of the Senate with two reps from low populated states and two reps from dense populated states is, in fact, a constitutional check and balance that favors the minority. The founding fathers had an eye on what could have been a tyranny of the majority and specifically tried to check that potential by giving an equal voice to minority populations in largely rural states by this design.

Thus, the principle of checks and balances against a majority and in favor of the minority which would force compromise that would further the interests to some degree of All Americans, is found in the Constitution by the design of Senate representation. Hence, the filibuster, being in line with this principle is probably a rule the founding fathers would have approved of in a two party system. (Remember, political parties did not yet exist when the Constitution was drafted).

That’s a good point, David. The “minority” Democratic senators actually represent more Americans than the “majority” Republicans. Every state gets two senators, even if those states that are virtually empty compared to New York, California, Florida, etc. The Senate is, in fact, firmly founded on the concept of minority rights.

The original intent for the senate was to have each state represented by two senators. There was to be more interface with each and separate state administration.
The house of representatives was to represent the citizens of each and separate states. I don’t know where the concept of the senate to to represent both the citizens and the state directly changed. The whole idea was to allow states that were larger and states that were smaller to be equal in the senate.

Also the standiing committees have rules that they operate under. Those rules must be in accordance with senage rules. There are also separate rules according to the purpose of the committee. For inistance, a committee charged with investigations has some rules that differ from a committee dealing with regulatory issues.

David -

You’re right that the Senate itself is a means of guaranteeing the rights of the minority of the general population, but my point stands that nothing in the Constitution gives a minority of the Senate special rights or privileges.

Also, don’t go talking about what the Founding Fathers would have done. What the did in fact do was leave the “nuclear option”, which is a normal part of parliamentary procedure, in the original Senate rules. It was only used 10 times between 1789 and 1806, so they ignored it when they codified the rules in the latter year.

Forget the Constitution for a minute. Everybody talks about it like there’s some magic answer there. There’s not. Countries are ultimately based on culture, not paper. The U.S. is really based on our ideal of America.

Each of our institutions has its own spirit. The Senate has always been, like it or not, about minority rights. Yes, minority rights of the parties as well as the population. They go hand in hand.

Something that gets no press is that there’s been an erosion of civility and etiquette in the Senate in recent years. For instance, back in 2003, Republican Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch decided to go ahead and hold hearings on Bush nominees even if those nominees were opposed by senators from the nominee’s home state. This went against a very long-standing tradition in the Senate, and it helped spark the overuse of filibusters in judicial nominations.

Yet, those old-fashioned gentlemen’s agreements are the kinds of things that hold countries together. You mess with them at your own risk. We ought to be really, really careful in this country about now.

Nobody did much about minority rights for a long time. Minority rights were headlined during the 20th century and brought to a new level of understanding. Before that there was not much said or done about minority rights. I do not understand a statement about the senate was, whether we like it or not, for minority rights. I do not see it that way. The minority has always had some form of protection, but in the last 60 years it has come to better action on the part of government to realize those rights.

“Also, don’t go talking about what the Founding Fathers would have done. “

Ya know, I’m getting a little tired of arguments based upon what the Founding Fathers would or would not have done. We’re a nation of/for/by the People, which generally means the living people (except maybe in Chicago ;> ). Last I checked, most of the Founding Fathers weren’t allowed to vote in the last election. And, as one person on the ‘blog recently said, if you don’t vote don’t bitch.

The Founding Fathers could have built a Constitution hard-coded with their principles. Instead, they built a Constitution that could be adapted and amended to the principles of the people through the years. They recognized that opinions and values change, and that the government should reflect the CURRENT population, not some idolized PAST population.

Remember that these same Founding Fathers intended for a black man to be worth 3/5 of a white man, and for a woman to be submissive to her husband. They were revolutionary for their day, but their day was over 200 years ago. A lot has changed since then.

Right Chops. What we are talking about here is protecting the rights not of the minority. Rather, they are trying to protect the rights of the minority party (Democrats) to affect legislation or in this case advise and consent.

This is all just a cart load of bull… I mean politics, and has nothing to do with the Constitution or the protection of checks and balances.

If it did, who determined that 40 votes equals the minority representation of the populace? Why not 35, or 30, or 49.99? My understanding is that the Democrats set cloture at 60 because that’s how many Senators they had at the time. I’m sure Byrd would know.

Reed -

Forget the Constitution for a minute. Everybody talks about it like there’s some magic answer there. There’s not. Countries are ultimately based on culture, not paper. The U.S. is really based on our ideal of America.

Yikes! Please, for the sake of all that is good, read some history. Our Constitution exists precisely because it’s impossible to keep justice when a country is based on culture.

Look at the Terri Schiavo case: our culture has flip-flopped around that issue like a fish out of water.

Look at the Red Scares of the 1950’s. Look at the Jim Crow laws. Look at the corrupt cops and politicians all through our history. It is a darn good thing we have a piece of paper that we elevate above our culture. Without it, we’d simply be a bunch of people drifting along whichever way the media or the current biases tend.

Be objective: you’re judging your own time by the standards of your own time. This is as foolish and unjust as asking a criminal to sentence himself. Be objective, and look at history, and tell me what has been a better guarantor or justice: culture or law?

guarantor of justice.*

Apologies.

A book written about 40 years ago titled “Of Men and Not of Law”. It talks about the shift to man and all his quirks becoming more important that the law. Excellent book.
Chops
You are so correct about that piece of paper called our Constitution. We have gone thru crises and trials and tribulations that many other governments would have fell from. Yet the thing that keeps us ticking is not the exciser bunny but our dear and precious constitution.

chops and tom,

You misunderstand. I’m not arguing against the wisdom of having and respecting the Constitution. I’m saying that it’s simply not enough to help us through this particular crisis. Don’t delude yourselves into thinking that worshipping at its altar will keep the nation safe. It won’t. That’s why we had to fight a civil war despite the wonderful doc. America is an ongoing exercise in democracy. You can’t just squeeze wisdom into a document. You need to have wisdom TODAY, or it’s all for nothing. Arguing about the exact meaning of “advise and consent” will not help us avoid a crisis or a badly divided nation.

I don’t consider this a crises. It is a bump in the road. You either hit the bump and continue or you can steer away from the bump and continue. But, continue we must. The word gay has been prostituted in meaning so much so that many people cannot use it any longer. Other words fit the same mold. Advise and consent provision in the constitution still means the same as it did when the document was written. There are those who would like to change its intent and they are working hard to do so, but have not succeeded yet.

There was an interesting exchange in the Senate a couple days ago between Senators Specter and Leahy,

“The Senate now faces dual threats,” one from the filibuster and the other from the “nuclear option” of changing the rules, Specter said. Both amount to “mutually assured destruction,” he added, borrowing a Cold War term for the U.S.-Soviet nuclear standoff.

“Senators, with our leaders, must take charge to craft a way out,” Specter said.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said that if left to their own devices, he and Specter could probably resolve the dispute “in an hour.” But he said Frist “has decided to trigger the nuclear option.”

It’s also interesting that court cases are being heard at a faster rate now than during the Clinton years, and a full third of empty judicial positions are unfilled because Bush just hasn’t gotten around to nominating anyone.

Also, Reid wants to go ahead and appoint four of the nine judges Frist is making a big deal over, but Frist won’t let it happen - bad politics, I guess. He’s hoping to make the most of the “obstructionist” charge rather than get on with the people’s business.

Another part of the four of nine judges is that Reid would approve the four if the others were dropped for consideration. That’s not a good deal. Frist needs to move on with the nominations and if they are voted up, ok; if they are voted down, ok. But vote and get on with the business of the senate.

Lets see..the DBC is united to fight for the fillibuster, that was used by the very same party they belong to, to block civilrights laws to give themselves equal rights?

I’m sure with just the right spin someone could convince people that this makes sence?

I guess if you can convince the same group that the grand knight of the kkk, Senator Byrd, should be treated like a rockstar, that would be easy.

Rocky,
Last week I had to agree with David, Now I have to agree with you. As long a the senate is debating the fillerbuster, they don’t have time to spend OUR money.

Why is Bush so fanatical about getting these choices through? Is it to satisfy the religious right component of his constituency, or is it to make some point? If it’s not because of their strict religio-conservatism then what could his point be?

I think you either trust Bush43 and think that giving him and the GOP unchecked legislative power is a good thing, or, you don’t trust him and instead pray for common sense to return to the moderate Republicans.

The recent comic strip by Toles in the Washington Post says it very well:
Elephant: We need to end the filibuster to get the judges we want.
Donkey: You might have a different opinion about the filibuster if voters return Democrats to power.
—-pause—-
Elephant: By then we should have judges who will stop you dead in your tracks.

Of course, by then it will be too late…Welcome to the American Inquisition.

I don’t consider this a crises. It is a bump in the road.

Sure, it’s a bump: the corpse of what was once the Senate.

Dave,

Perhaps someone should tell Toles and the Washington comPost that the “donkey” isn’t in power now for a reason?

Who forced the issue of a fillibuster?
Who is making all those dire prophesies?
Who is charging these judges with being out of the mainstream?
The answer to all three questions is left-liberal-democrats who want to make hay while the sun shines.
The the charges of what will happen are pure speculation. I find it hard to comprehend how the liberal state of California can return a judge to their highest court at a 76% rate if she is really a dangerous judge.

Who forced the issue of a fillibuster?

Actually, the Republicans are as responsible as the Dems on this one. They did it by failing to give the Clinton nominees up or down votes, getting rid of the blue slips, and otherwise failing to keep the Senate civil.

Who is making all those dire prophesies?

Is it really necessary to quote Specter, Hagel, and an assortment of other Republicans on this? The “prophesies” come from wise people on both sides who actually work in the Senate.

Who is charging these judges with being out of the mainstream?

Yes, the Democrats are actually doing this one.

Who forced the issue of a fillibuster?

Beagle said: “Lets see..the DBC is united to fight for the fillibuster, that was used by the very same party they belong to, to block civilrights laws to give themselves equal rights?”

Beagle, do you really think that line of rhetoric rings true? Anyone who understands political shifts in the 20th century knows that the Southern DixieCrats who opposed Civil Rights are now Republicans. Quite a badge of honor for the GOP, and no wonder the GOP can’t get their act together on immigration reform. Half the party can’t stand the idea of any darkies coming in legally or not. The other half is actually trying elevate the values of the GOP. Y’all wanted to be a big tent party. Rejoice, you have arrived.

David~
you are really hard to respect- on one side you criticize the right for being so critical and labeling the left and then you whole heartedly turn around and do it yourself! That was a horrible statement w/ no justification for it! Many a slave owning southerner are lefties also!

scratch that last comment- slave owners are DEAD!!

David,

Has anyone ever ran for office useing “dixiecrat” as their home party?

I searched and couldn’t find a registered dixiecrat party anytime in history ?

Beagle~ They’re struggling but there are issues with the confederate flag!

Beagle,

As I posted, I dont believe the RNC is in charge because of their “win at any price” approach to politics. Not because of any inherent value to their philosophies.

Do you deny the trend of no-disention allowed?

Dave

Dave,

Both sides allow deisention in their party, up to a point, this is nothing new.

I missed the part where Reid told Dem.’s in his party…vote however you feel, we’ll never hold that against you.

Anyone can hold whatever beliefs they wish, on any issue, I respect that, whatever is working, go with that.

When you seperate issues from partys, groups, race ect., you have something to debate, its called politics and I love that.

Gentlemen,

The word is “dissension”.

And Dave, you’re absolutely right: the Republican Party has been tough on dissenters in the past few years. This is to counteract the tendancy of a ruling party to splinter into factions, who each feel entitled to using their collective power to reach factional goals. And frankly, there’s nothing wrong with Republicans enforcing internal discipline: you can always pursue the Jeffords option if you feel too pressured.

However, I think most Republican legislators and lobbyists are grateful for the party discipline: it’s allowing them to meet more goals, albeit a little slower.

Dissension is not punished among Democrats, but Dems seem to have difficulty grasping that they are now the minority party, and as such, have a secondary role. They should study the English motif, which has well-defined and effective means of using the minority status to communicate the minority agenda and offer voters an alternative. Instead, Dems are simply using all their political capital and power to put the brakes on the Republican administration.

Of course, punishing dissension in the public sector is something else. I personally dislike the vetting of people who go to Bush events and a few other extensions of the public relations side of the White House into previously non-politicial realms. But the Rove White House is only learning from the master: Bill Clinton made even his illicit sex life a public relations victory.

Chops-
The British system is all or nothing. Either you are part of the majority, and do what you like, or you’re part of the minority, and all you can do is talk. Here the president can be of any party. There, the Prime Minister is a member of the majority party in parliament.

Since Bush will only be there for the next three and a half years, and an election is coming up where we might make gains, we have absolutely no interest in sitting down and getting use to our minority status. Especially not the way your party has treated us as a minority.

Today on the news John McCain seemed to say he will vote no on useing the “Byrd” option next tues.
When asked if if that will hurt in his nomination chances in 2008, his reply…he is loved by conservatives every where he goes??

Good luck John, pick Jeffords for your running mate, it wont hurt your chances one bit!

On another news program, Chris Matthews predicted that Bill Frist will come out the winner in this debate, in the eyes of voters.( just who the hell has been feeding him smartpills lately?)

Beagle/Chops

This White House is the most secretive since the paranoid days of Nixon. The concept of transparency in Gov’t has almost dissapeared, just look at the legislation written by industry lobbyists with the so-called advisory panels being kept secret. We talk about party loyalty, but what about real patriotism; loyalty to the country and it’s fundamental ideals?

The point: When the decision making process is kept secret, and when even intraparty dissention is punishable by public flogging, we, the public, are in deep deep doo doo.

Comparison to the opposition is like saying “It wasn’t me” in kindergarden. It’s irrelevant. We’re talking the GOP here, not the Democrats, not the British. The GOP is consolidating power at a dangerous rate, to a dangerous degree, to the detriment of America. When there is no dissention or debate, and government is opaque, there is no democracy. And that, it seems, is the Frist/DeLay goal.

Dave,

That statement could be said of both partys.
Its just politics, its in play for both partys. Dem.’s are angry because they have lost control, I understand their frustration, but its not for lack of intellect or understanding how to play the game, its platform and the issues embraced by it that have caused the shift in power, IMHO.

I often offer honest advice/reasons for the shift in how people vote, but its based on issues and how well they sell to the general population.
In polls, most voters believe the judges should get an up/down vote, frame the question differently and you can get different results, but if any issue, put in simple terms, is presented to voters and they choose that, you can’t later at the voting booth, blame them for siding with the clear intent on an issue.
If polls on an issue were always put into laymans terms that voters could understand, you would get a better measure of how they will vote on election day.

Howard Dean proved that the internet was a great fundraising tool, however, every political party needs to understand that it’s also a great research tool, nolonger can someone say something and mean another if voters can look up how they have voted on issues in the past.

Beagle,

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I don’t care about the rhetoric concerning up-down votes for judges. I’m not even talking about what Bush43 had to do to this country in order to get re-elected. I’m talking about marginalizing the minority party, removing their voice, and some fears about what comes next.

The only reason Frist wants to eliminate the fillibuster is to appoint rightist judges who will block liberal moves when he loses the legislative majority and chief executive seat. Maybe he can even get in 3 supreme court picks before 2008. But that is still just one small tactic in the overall strategy to consolodate power. Other parts of that process involve dividing America along religious and monetary class lines. It’s a long term plan that, if it works IMHO, will pervert this country. Have you seen “The Handmaids Tale” ? Maybe it’s doom and gloom, but religion has started more wars than any other reason I can think of and religion is what is driving the so-called conservative movement.

Dave,

I’m not sure what I presented in opinion to invoke that much anger, whatever you precieved it to be, I apoligise, I guess ?

Beagle,

I wasn’t angry. Reading my post I could see where you might see that so I apologize for the rave.
I was aiming for “humorous frustration” (reference Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke, just before he gets shot).

Dave,

Yes I’ve seen that movie and knew where the quote came from.

If you liked that, watch “scarecrow”, or “Hardcore” with George C. Scott, but rather than turn this thread into movie reviews, I would direct everyone to “seagull and eggbutts”(whatever they call themselves) website for professional opinions about movie reviews.

And yes, this post was entirely humor!