shotbanner.jpeg

May 23, 2005

Note To Bill Frist: You Suck

To: Bill Frist, US Senate.
From: Mitch Berg, Schmuck Citizen and pissed-off former GOP contributor
Re: Your Infinite Cretinism

Senator Frist,

Mitch Berg here. You probably don't know who I am; I'm a typical schmuck. I write a blog, and I try to pitch in on GOP activities around Minnesota.

And on behalf of the entire GOP, I'm having a hard time seeing an upside to this deal right now. At first - and second, and tenth - glance, it looks like you've sold out your party.

No, not just the party; not just the assembly of suits and climbers and hangers-on that no doubt surrounds you at work every day. No, I'm talking about all of us who busted our asses overcoming a full-court media press (and continue to do so), and gave of our time and money until it hurt - hurt our wallets, our families, our relationships, our equilibrium. We gave them all with enthusiasm because we knew what was at stake; a whole generation of Supreme Court decisions.

So we gave. And you took.

And today, you looked us all in the face, and spat.

Reading Michelle and John and Ed, I'm about as depressed as I can be.

We won you a majority, pinhead. What the hell good is it? You think the Democrats are going to abide by your little gentleman's agreement? You got conned. You entered into an agreement with a Klansman, a drunk machine hack and a party bag man. You are the Neville Chamberlain of my generation.

I don't believe in Karma, but I believe what goes around comes around. And I guess you demonstrate it, Frist. The Democrats elect a pinhead doctor to lead their party - I guess it's only fair we did, too.

Thank God for Tom Delay. The least you could do is make it hard for the Dems to neutralize you, rather than walking off the cliff into the kool-aid vat on your own.

Captain Ed is right. Not one more dime. You have made me ashamed to be a Republican.

Oh, I'll bounce back. We all will - most of us, anyway. We'll have to. Because you showed us today - the grass roots have got to do it for themselves; we'll get no help from hamsters like you.

Sincerely - go back to medicine.

Mitch Berg
Saint Paul.

UPDATE 10:48: I toned down one bit of, er, slightly overheated rhetoric from last night.

But just one.

UPDATE 1:51: I can see why all the fuss about the Freepers. All the overwrought, semi-literate people with no lives...

...and that's just the lefty hecklers!

UPDATE 16:46 27 May: I reserve the right to gratuitously edit the comments of the more pinheaded anonymous commenters.

Posted by Mitch at May 23, 2005 08:45 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Mitch, what are you talking about? As a Democrat, I think Bill Frist is a great guy to be leading the Republicans.... ;)

(Seriously: if I was in your shoes, I'd be livid tonight. The GOP was completely wrong about this, but still....)

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at May 23, 2005 08:53 PM

I'm torn here. I see two ways to react to this:

1. Throw up our hands and say, "What's the f***ing point?!"

2. Get even more fired up and realizing that it's apparently going to take, what, 75?, maybe 80?, Republican Senators before we're going to act like we have a damn majority!

#2 is probably the right way to think - hike up the belt and get back to work, but right now, my frustration is dragging me back towards #1.

Posted by: Dan S. at May 23, 2005 09:10 PM

Nice title for the post, btw.

Posted by: Dan S. at May 23, 2005 09:13 PM

As a Democrat sympathetic to the Republican/conservative argument in this instance, I am wondering if you and others who are decrying this deal might want to hold your powder till you sleep on it. I think you were so geared up for war that it is painful to roll back the tanks. But jeez. You won a huge concession from the Dems. If they filibuster over ideology, that's a deal breaker and you can go back to where you were yesterday. They can only filibuster to prevent an unqualified (as rated by ABA) or unethical nominee...and do you think Bush will appoint such? Or, if he did, you'd want to die on that hill?

The original versions of this deal had Janice Rogers Brown a filibuster victim. Such obvious race-carding by the Dems...well, they had to give it up. Implicitly, the Dems have admitted their past practices on filibusters were wrong.

Being in a majority does not mean you never have to compromise. It wasn't clear that the 'constitutional option' had a majority anyway, given the moderate Reeps' obvious queasiness about it.

So at the end of the day, you get most of your judges, you get the Dems promising not to filibuster a qualified Sup. Ct. nominee, and you give up nothing, but a judge or two that maybe wasn't going to win anyway.

Sleep on it, and see if I'm right.

Posted by: dzzrtRatt at May 23, 2005 09:47 PM

I agree Mitch. If the "leaders" don't have the balls to go the walls then they should sit on the shevles instead of their hands.

Posted by: Eye of the Storm at May 23, 2005 09:49 PM

Man, there are so many F bombs here, it looks like the Democratic Underground site..

But I agree with the sentiment.. not one more dime. Why do we bother...?

I never heard a coherent explanation from any of our side's "leaders" about how the Dem filibuster was against the Senate tradition, and slapping it out of their hands would RESTORE Senate tradition.. they just rolled back on their heels and let the media own the point, and then rolled back some more and let the Dems win.

I'll wait forever if I wait to see how the Dems explain that Janice Rogers Brown really wasn't actually an extremist, in spite of them saying for the past six weeks that she is one. The media won't hold them responsible for an explanation.

Why do our guys give up like this?

"Our Guys".. hah... not anymore. I hereby stop donating, stop campaigning, stop voting, and say the hell with it. There are no "our guys". Not for me. They're just weasels, all of 'em.

Posted by: dave at May 23, 2005 09:58 PM

Amen brother. How the Republicans could allow the "extraordinary circumstances" provision is beyond me. What isn't extradordinary to Democrats?

Posted by: The Aggressive-Voice at May 23, 2005 10:05 PM

I really don't know why you're blaming Frist. If a group of senators wants to make an end run around their party, then there is really nothing the majority leader can do about it. Frist tried to stick to his guns. Blame the Sellout Six.

Posted by: Gregory Martin at May 23, 2005 10:05 PM

I really don't know why you're blaming Frist. If a group of senators wants to make an end run around their party, then there is really nothing the majority leader can do about it. Frist tried to stick to his guns. Blame the Sellout Six.

Posted by: Gregory Martin at May 23, 2005 10:05 PM

Mitch, you hit it right on. Yeah, its emotional disgust right now. And you are right, most of us will settle down because we know we have to. But but as a Republican and a financial supporter some things have got to change. Not one thin dime has got to be not one red cent for Frisk and the trators, but bucks for any viable challenger to these Judases come their next primary. And hopefully the Conservative blogosphere will find those viable challengers and join together to support them and send Frisk back to joint practice with Dean, McCain back to Arizona permanently, and the rest of them in well earned forced retirement.

Posted by: Saganashkee at May 23, 2005 10:09 PM

From FoxNews:

"Even so, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., noted he had not been a party to the deal, which fell short of his stated goal of winning yes-or-no votes on each of Bush's nominees. "It has some good news and it has some disappointing news and it will require careful monitoring," he said."

Posted by: Gregory Martin at May 23, 2005 10:09 PM

The Republicans have betrayed every grassroots activist who donated their money, effort, and time to work hard for a majority so that judges could be confirmed. Judges were the number 1 cause for concern of every campaign rally where President Bush spoke. Now, the Republicans have destroyed their supporters' confidence, and mocked them as fools for believing in a false hope.

The Republicans just became the minority party today. And it will become evident in 2006 when the party faithful just decides that voting for them doesn't fucking matter.

Because it doesn't.

Posted by: Sydney Carton at May 23, 2005 10:14 PM

Mitch:

If you'd like to use the domains I just bought -- UpOrDownOrZero (.com and .org), let me know.

No contributions to any of these clowns who won't do their part to guarantee an up or down vote on EVERY nominee who clears the committee.

Thanks,

Jack Risko

Posted by: jack risko at May 23, 2005 10:31 PM

I'm from Nebraska, the reddest state on the map. Our pretty-boy preening Republican, Hagel, is grinning ear to ear, and our Democrat, Nelson, was a member of the Power Lunch Bunch that proved it only takes 12 (not 41) to screw the president we supported.

Posted by: Lynn Allen at May 23, 2005 10:38 PM

I'm from Nebraska, the reddest state on the map. Our pretty-boy preening Republican, Hagel, is grinning ear to ear, and our Democrat, Nelson, was a member of the Power Lunch Bunch that proved it only takes 12 (not 41) to screw the president we supported.

Posted by: Lynn Allen at May 23, 2005 10:39 PM

Yeah, I'm done. No more money. They do this time and again-it's really no surprise in a sad sort of way. Psychologically, what in hell is the matter with Republicans?

Over on Lucianne, they are almost one voice saying: NO MORE.

Posted by: Colleen at May 23, 2005 10:43 PM

My first reaction is no more money for the RNC and these traitors however, as I read comments on many blogs, i think what we need to do is organize a blockade of these dealers and look for their replacements now. I live overseas and contributed to many individual Republican senatorial candidates and will continue to do so but I think we should have any candidate we decide to support sign a pledge to support the "Constitutional Option". If they won't then refuse to back them. We must ensure this issue does not melt away and is a defining note for all candidates.

Posted by: okilou at May 23, 2005 10:57 PM

Mitch I couldn't agree more. I'm sick about it.

I can't stop posting about it.

Posted by: triple_a at May 23, 2005 11:04 PM

The Republicans should test the Dems by re-nominating Miguel Estrada. Immediately.

Posted by: Sav at May 23, 2005 11:11 PM

There's only one way to justify this deal from a GOP perspective-if the moderate Republicans blackmailed their party by saying "Accept this because we won't support the nuclear option." and had six votes. If this was the case, we're obligated to hunt them down and beat them in their primaries.

Posted by: Don Lokken at May 23, 2005 11:16 PM

Funny, I thought they were gerbils....

Posted by: Eva Young at May 23, 2005 11:17 PM

There are so many things frustrating about today's breakdown that I don't know where to start. First - Frist is the loser here. He was not party to the gang that concocted the deal that pulled the rug out from under the Repubs, but the fact that his opposite, Reid, was, means that he should have known that something was afoot. He may have and could nothing about it? Then that is as daming of his inability to marshall his party to support ( or at least appear united )the political strategy that had taken so long to unfold on this issue.

Second - this issue is one of fairness, it should have been a slam dunk. Predictably our party has showcased its inability to get it's point across, and we do not win this battle concerning the judiciary, it matters little what we do as the majority. It took the Dems 40 years to build the Courts in the fashion that suits them, we must approach every battle in this arena serious enough that anything less than victory within constitutional framework is failure.

All nominees deserve an up or down vote, we failed to ensure that for the promise of restraint when it comes to blocking future nominees. That is something like the frog who accepted a ride across the river from the snake on the promise that the snake would not eat him. When there were halfway across the snake turned around and started devouring the frog, who exclaimed " Your breaking your promise! Why are you eating me?" The snake's reply was simple, " I don't know, it's just my nature..."

Posted by: Shane at May 23, 2005 11:18 PM

There are so many things frustrating about today's breakdown that I don't know where to start. First - Frist is the loser here. He was not party to the gang that concocted the deal that pulled the rug out from under the Repubs, but the fact that his opposite, Reid, was, means that he should have known that something was afoot. He may have and could nothing about it? Then that is as daming of his inability to marshall his party to support ( or at least appear united )the political strategy that had taken so long to unfold on this issue.

Second - this issue is one of fairness, it should have been a slam dunk. Predictably our party has showcased its inability to get it's point across, and we do not win this battle concerning the judiciary, it matters little what we do as the majority. It took the Dems 40 years to build the Courts in the fashion that suits them, we must approach every battle in this arena serious enough that anything less than victory within constitutional framework is failure.

All nominees deserve an up or down vote, we failed to ensure that for the promise of restraint when it comes to blocking future nominees. That is something like the frog who accepted a ride across the river from the snake on the promise that the snake would not eat him. When there were halfway across the snake turned around and started devouring the frog, who exclaimed " Your breaking your promise! Why are you eating me?" The snake's reply was simple, " I don't know, it's just my nature..."

Posted by: Shane at May 23, 2005 11:18 PM

Strike one for me was the $849 Billion Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Strike two for was me was selling out four more appellate court nominees and agreeing to unilaterally disarm on using the Byrd option to stop any future filibustering of judicial nominees.

Strike three will be if Social Security reform doesn’t happen with a PRA option and without a tax increase (and that includes Lindsay Graham’s proposal to raise the FICA cap), in which case I will seriously reconsider any future affiliation or involvement with the Republican Party.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at May 23, 2005 11:22 PM

But for those who wish to focus their ire on a few specific targets:

Senator DeWine (R-OH) - up for reelection in 2006
Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) - up for reelection in 2006
Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) - up for reelection in 2006
Senator John Warner (R-VA) - up for reelection in 2008
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - up for reelection in 2008
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) - up for reelection in 2008
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) - up for reelection in 2010

Posted by: Thorley Winston at May 23, 2005 11:25 PM

Bravo, Sir!

We have sat by for four months as Frist and his Senate apologists have asked us to wait, one more week, two more weeks, three more weeks, next week, tomorrow. And tonight we got shafted. Senate Republicans gave Democrats four months to abuse some of the finest statesman this nation has produced, sitting by and allowing them to be semantically raped daily by the insane Left in media, special interest thugs and by Democrat Senators on the floor. What success did that time by him, them or us?

You bet we lost tonight. Regardless of the details of this particular deal, Good men and woman have been effectively abandoned. In payment for tolerating unconscionable and humiliating abuse, fine citizens like Pricilla Owen got to hear the malevolent Mr. Byrd hiss the self-serving soundbite, "The Republic is saved..." What good man or woman will ever allow themselves to be dragged through the Senate confirmation process after watching that atrocity. What good Executive would ask them to do it.

And that afterall was the goal.

Posted by: Mr.Atos at May 23, 2005 11:34 PM

Bravo, Sir!

We have sat by for four months as Frist and his Senate apologists have asked us to wait, one more week, two more weeks, three more weeks, next week, tomorrow. And tonight we got shafted. Senate Republicans gave Democrats four months to abuse some of the finest statesman this nation has produced, sitting by and allowing them to be semantically raped daily by the insane Left in media, special interest thugs and by Democrat Senators on the floor. What success did that time by him, them or us?

You bet we lost tonight. Regardless of the details of this particular deal, Good men and woman have been effectively abandoned. In payment for tolerating unconscionable and humiliating abuse, fine citizens like Pricilla Owen got to hear the malevolent Mr. Byrd hiss the self-serving soundbite, "The Republic is saved..." What good man or woman will ever allow themselves to be dragged through the Senate confirmation process after watching that atrocity. What good Executive would ask them to do it.

And that afterall was the goal.

Posted by: Mr.Atos at May 23, 2005 11:34 PM

This is crazy. This deal is good for Republicans, not bad. We give up--maybe--two nominees in return for the Dems promise that they won't filibuster our future judicial nominees unless there are exceptional circumstances. And if there the Dems do filibuster, then we can use the Nuclear Option against them. That is the agreement. And we get far more than the Dems gave up. We will get our SCOTUS appointments, and the Dems have given up their chance to filibuster them.

Now if you don't trust the Dems, I understand, I don't either. But we still get to "Nuke 'em" if they break the deal.

So why all this screaming and gnashing of teeth? If you don't understand compromise and want nothing but total victory, at any cost, then you don't understand politics. Get realistic. And get a life. This is a good deal, and you need to accept it and rejoice in it.

Posted by: MeD8R at May 23, 2005 11:39 PM

Well, from all the anger I am seeing I have to say that as a moderate to liberal democrat it certainly is refreshing to see otherwise cool and calculating Conservatives taking personal vows to forget how to count next November. Bravo! We may get some moderates who aren't at war with half the country.

I dare say this actually saved you a defeat. Nuclear option means Senate bills stalled, meaning no money for roads and suddenly Joe Average pays attention. And despite what gets said about it, there's enough blame all around that conservatives are going to get tarred with the obstructionist label in the popular imagination no matter what just from sheer force of historical habit (you haven't been in power long enough for the scales to mentally shift the other way).

When partisans of either side are angry and bitter that generally puts me in a good mood, so here's a raspberry from a guy who DELIBERATELY doesn't listen programs or to or hit websites whose politics he generally agrees with because he's deathly afraid of becomming a koolaid drinking monkey.

Oh, and Mitch, if you're still needing a laptop in 2 or 3 weeks I should have my T22 Thinkpad back from my brother; I won't be needing it until my Oracle DBA classes start up next fall.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at May 23, 2005 11:48 PM

My first reaction was anger--but now I'm not so sure.

If we'd used the nuclear option, we'd have gotten some lower court judges through now, but the media backlash would have been extremely intense and the Dems would have pulled out ALL the stops to derail any upcoming Supreme Court nominee. There are procedural obstacles besides the filibuster, you know. For me, the real show is the Supreme Court.

On balance, I acutally think tonight's deal makes conservative Supreme Court nominees much more likely. To stop them, Dems will have to publicly break a deal, which would shift attention to THEIR behavior. Much better, I think, than the Republicans being accused of using the badly named "nuclear" option. If the dems stoneweall, we still have the nuclear option actually, and the public will see clearly that it's being used on fanatics and liars.

Posted by: Phil at May 23, 2005 11:51 PM

Mitch cool off a bit.

Yeah, I'm mad enough to "crew neutroium" too.

I don't blame Frist for this, except perhaps the timing. I have lots of other reasons for why I think Frist should step down as Majority Leader, but the first order of the Republican caucus is to stomp these bastards, McCain, Warner, Graham, Chaffee, Collins, Snowe, and DeWine.

Up in smoke tonight, the Presidential aspirations of Frist, McCain and Hagel (and any other RINO leaning Senator). Also up in smoke, the Presidential aspirations of all Democratic Senators (this includes Sen. Clinton) as I'm dying to know exactly how this side of the isle will explain how they let "radical extremist judges" (their language) like Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor pass to the federal appellate bench.

I predict Allen v M.Warner, a Virginia matchup.

Posted by: Neo at May 23, 2005 11:51 PM

here is my letter to Sen. Frist

Dear Senator Frist,
I have just read about the deal that you permitted to happen regarding judicial filibusters. I cannot begin to express my outrage and disappointment. This deal is awful on many levels, but most of all it gives the appearance that judicial filibusters are acceptable, and more importantly a legal tactic.
The judicial filibuster is clearly an abuse of Senate rules effectively giving the minority a veto over any judicial nomination. Now that you have, in effect, allowed the validaion of this tactic, how long will it be before it is applied to other nominations that the chief executive sends to the Senate for consideration? Will it be the next secretary of defense? Perhaps the secretary of state? We see hints of this already with the nomination of Mr. Bolton to be our ambassador to the United Nations.
We put our faith in you. We trusted you. You have failed us and your duty to defend the Constitution.
Respectfully,

Posted by: tim at May 23, 2005 11:59 PM

The Republicans need two things (three if you count "a spine"): 1) A much better memory for how "dealing" with the Democrats works out (e.g. give them a huge say in the education bill and watch as they stab you in the back regarding it as though they were forced to accept what they knew was a bad bill). 2) Better public relations... but that's a whole other issue. Although it may include someone standing up and explaining why you're right when you are, and getting your own people (read: McCain, et al) to both realize you're right and to back you up. It's really hard for me to believe that they are going to allow the Dems to define what's extreme, while promising not to slap their ass down when they do what everyone knows they're going to do: anyone right of Jesse Jackson is "extreme".

Posted by: irishlad at May 24, 2005 12:30 AM

The Republicans need two things (three if you count "a spine"): 1) A much better memory for how "dealing" with the Democrats works out (e.g. give them a huge say in the education bill and watch as they stab you in the back regarding it as though they were forced to accept what they knew was a bad bill). 2) Better public relations... but that's a whole other issue. Although it may include someone standing up and explaining why you're right when you are, and getting your own people (read: McCain, et al) to both realize you're right and to back you up. It's really hard for me to believe that they are going to allow the Dems to define what's extreme, while promising not to slap their ass down when they do what everyone knows they're going to do: anyone right of Jesse Jackson is "extreme".

Posted by: irishlad at May 24, 2005 12:30 AM

Re: "The Deal"

The 7 Democrat Senators promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees, except in "extreme circumstances", meaning ethics violations.

Last week, there were news reports that there are several Liberal political operatives who are doing research on the financial dealings of potential Conservative Supreme Court picks.

Does anyone want to bet that sudden, false ethical charges (see DeLay) mysteriously erupt around anyone the President nominates for the Supreme Court? Want to bet that the 7 Democrats use this as an excuse to filibuster?

Of course, this assumes that Democrats are negotiating in bad faith. Gee, what are the odds?

Posted by: Jasyn Jones at May 24, 2005 01:16 AM

This is why I left years ago and moved to the Libertarian Party.

Posted by: Rick at May 24, 2005 01:36 AM

Mitch,the more I read and hear the traitors enjoy their moments in the sun, it pisses me off. Most of the traitors are RINO's anyway, did we ever have a majority in the first place?

Posted by: Rick at May 24, 2005 01:48 AM

Mitch -
You sent your email to the wrong Senator. McCain should have been number 1 to have received your venom. Yes, Frist didn't hold the party together, McConnell, as Whip, couldn't hold 5 in line. But the real culprit is McCain who announced early on that he would vote with the Democrats. And McCain is loyal only to himself. So, aim your anger at him. And he wasn't doing this for principle or tradition. He was doing this to ruin Frist's chances at a Presidential bid. He was also thumbing his nose at President Bush.

Then after you go after McCain, go after Lindsey Graham who seems to be modeling himself after McCain. Then Jim DeWine, who's up for re-election by the way. As for Collins, Snowe, and Chaffee, well, they've always been RINO's. But Chaffee and Snowe are up for re-election and I've pledged to contribute to whoever opposes them. As for Warner, he may be retiring when his term is up in 2008.

Now is not the time to withdraw support from the Republican Party. Now more than ever we need to support the party and elect those who have an actual spine and don't care if they're loved by Dems and the media.

Posted by: Karen at May 24, 2005 01:56 AM

I don't understand the outrage.

When Clinton was President, a large number of his judicial nominees were blocked. It seems to me that if it's ok for one party to block nominees it should be ok for the other to do the very same thing.

Not trying to start trouble, just saying is all.

Posted by: J at May 24, 2005 02:28 AM

I will nor send in another cent to the RNC

Posted by: Mike L at May 24, 2005 04:42 AM

I will nor send in another cent to the RNC

Posted by: Mike L at May 24, 2005 04:42 AM

The letter I sent my senator this morning at 3am, after giving up trying to sleep through the bile boiling in my gut...
Dear Sen. Brownback,
I have just read with great dismay how a craven half dozen of your Republican collegues have finally ground to dust the mandate the conservative electorate gave your party. The risk-averse leadership (particularly Frist), with a tepidly bellicose posture, silently encouraged the McCain/Graham cabal to sellout me, the conservatives who helped elect this Senate, the President and the Constitution.

I am disgusted with this "compromise". I thought last November was a great victory. When Sen. Specter was seated as chair of the Judiciary, I began to have misgivings. The Rice hearings were appalling. The Bolton hearings absurd. Now this.

My cynical friends say the parties are two sides of the same coin. I will no longer argue with them.


Posted by: Miles at May 24, 2005 05:20 AM

I have seen the emails noting not one more dime to the Republican Senate Caucus, but I agree with those above who posted not one more dime to the RNC. I will only support specific candidates and not give to the organization until the party exerts some control.

The consequences of this betrayal must be felt. Republicans are only in the Majority (for what its worth) because of the conservative base -- not the moderate middle.

Ironic that McCain was a war hero for what he did fighting for this country and now he betrays the values he fought for -- just so a klansman (who filibustered civil rights) can be lionized by the media!

Posted by: Michael at May 24, 2005 08:29 AM

Mitch - YOU GOOFED ! Frist isn't one of the Sellout Six. Go after THEM.

Posted by: guseee at May 24, 2005 08:38 AM

So many responses to do, so little time.

Quseeeeeee - Frist is the leader. He and McConnell needed to get the Sellout Seven in line.

Posted by: mitch at May 24, 2005 08:49 AM

Jesus, are you a whiny asshole, or what? I'm damn glad I'm not you.

Posted by: Memo to Turner at May 24, 2005 08:58 AM

If I were a Republican, I think I'd just shoot myself and get it over with. Life just wouldn't be worth living. Please feel free to give it a try.

Posted by: erasmus at May 24, 2005 09:22 AM

If I were a Republican, I think I'd just shoot myself and get it over with. Life just wouldn't be worth living. Please feel free to give it a try.

Posted by: erasmus at May 24, 2005 09:22 AM

Mitch, you are right to blame Frist. He refused to make this a "partyline vote". If he had only used the power of his office to keep these spineless RINO's in line, then he could have used no support for elections, no powerfull committee assignsmens, etc. Since he is such a wuss we have lost this battle.

Posted by: Linda from Whittier, CA at May 24, 2005 09:36 AM

Turner: I'm glad you're not him, either. Mitch would sure be a prick.

Erasmus: you're a Kos fan, right?

Posted by: Josh at May 24, 2005 09:38 AM

As a liberal democrat, I should be as upset about this as most of you are, but I'm not. Unlike Congress, most Americans occupy the middle and this deal represents them well I think. I also think and will write my 2 (Dem) senators, that 1) judicial nominees should have to have 60 votes period when they come up for a vote on the Senate floor...and 2) when in committee, they must have at least one vote from the opposing side to be sent out of committee.(as it used to be) I say this even if the Dems have majority in the Senate, even a large one. The Senate is not the House and the minority should always have a say, no matter which party it is. Judicial nominees would be best chosen if they are more representative of all Americans, not just the right or left wings of the parties. I'm pretty far to the left, but I passionately support middle of the road judges. Thanks

Posted by: Patrick at May 24, 2005 10:00 AM

Shorter Mitch:

"Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Bwaa bwaa bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

PS: Of all the angry little eruptions in your puerilt little rant, Mitchiepoo, I most enjoyed the deceptive and dishonest "Klansman" slur.

Ever feel like you've been CHEATED, child?

Posted by: Buckhead at May 24, 2005 10:03 AM

Shorter Mitch:

"Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Bwaa bwaa bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

PS: Of all the angry little eruptions in your puerile little rant, Mitchiepoo, I most enjoyed the deceptive and dishonest "Klansman" slur.

Ever feel like you've been CHEATED, child?

Posted by: Buckhead at May 24, 2005 10:04 AM

Mitch,

This is all about the Lawrence decision, isn't it? It's the issue that got all you manly, manly, brave, he-man, keyboarders all worked up.

Look at it this way: While Straight White Male privilage deteriorates, you'll have the opportunity to compete in the marketplace of merit like the rest of us. Free markets are good, right? Those of us whose names were never called when choosing sides for basketball have been living with it all our lives. Welcome to the club.

You are in good company, however, the Hindraker also gets a little salty when he doesn't get his way.

Meanwhile, back in the reality-based world, Little Timmy Pawlenty (buff bruiser that he is, huh?) is in trouble with ol' Grover Nordquist, the foreign agent in charge of the Republican politicians around here. There are also some legal questions about your little blog party at the mansion. The knock on your door might be a subpoena.

PS Do you really think that this whiney, profane little missive helps your cause? Think again. I always thought you were a big jerk waaaaaay out of your depth. This letter proves it.

There's a reason why the status of "bloggers" is in the lurch. Y'all can't be trusted to follow even the most minimal standards of decorum, decency, accuracy, fairness, or anything else. And why should you? Your heroes Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Micheal Savage, Michelle Malkin, etc. are never held accountable for their accuracy either. Their audience of bigots and morons doesn't know any better.

You will never be held accountable from the safety of you pajamas in the rec room of your split-level house. You can print what you want (same goes for the rest of the Northern Alliance of Bigots) without every having to answer for anything you say. This is a much lower standard than you apply to Dan Rather or Newsweek.

Viva the Republic. Damn the Imperial Presidency and the Chorus of Synchophants in the Governor's Mansion.

Posted by: blogesota at May 24, 2005 10:06 AM

Blogesota,

I could care less about Lawrence.

"Buck"head,

Your *what* hurts?

Posted by: mitch at May 24, 2005 10:27 AM

MeD8R,

“This is crazy. This deal is good for Republicans, not bad. We give up--maybe--two nominees in return for the Dems promise that they won't filibuster our future judicial nominees unless there are exceptional circumstances. And if there the Dems do filibuster, then we can use the Nuclear Option against them. That is the agreement.”

I posted the text of the “Deal” up in my diary at Redstate and it clearly states that:
“B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, WE COMMIT TO OPPOSE THE RULES CHANGES in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.”

In other words while Democrats have the discretion to determine what constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” in using future filibusters, the Republicans who signed onto this have agreed to oppose the Byrd Option for the rest of the session. Which means that Democrats can pretty much do what they’ve already been doing, they merely have to say it’s “extraordinary circumstances,” but the 7 GOP Senators have committed themselves to oppose the Byrd Option NO MATTER WHAT.

How is this a “good deal for Republicans” again?

Posted by: Thorley Winston at May 24, 2005 10:37 AM

So, when are you guys leaving the country? Do you need help packing?

Posted by: epoh at May 24, 2005 10:50 AM

I obsess over gay issues. They're all I care about. I'm really Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by: blogesota at May 24, 2005 10:55 AM

Epoh,

Nobody's going anywhere. We've won this country back before, we'll do it again.

Posted by: mitch at May 24, 2005 10:57 AM

I'm a Dem and I have to say that, if I were a Republican I would be as pissed as most of you seem to be. I thought you had us by the short and curlies on this one.

You have a 10 vote majority and, despite the fact that I think it was more than a little hypocritical that Repubs were bitching about 10 nominees who didn't get a vote when Clinton had somewhere around 60 who didn't get a vote, I actually kind of admired the Repubs in principle. My first thought was, well, why the hell didn't the Dems kill the filibuster for judicial nominees when we were in power? I guess I was just jealous that the Repubs got there first.

But, thank God for Bill Frist! I mean, I thought Trent Lott was ineffectual, but this Frist is really something. He had it all: Presidential support, public apathy and perhaps support for the principle (depending on the poll you read), a 10 vote majority and he fumbled on the goal line.

I'm quite impressed with Harry Reid. I think he played Frist for a sucker on this one.

For all those thinking that this is just kicking the can down the road for the inevitable USSC nomination, I have news for you. Think about all the effort the Repubs went through to amp up their PR machine for this effort to kill the filibuster. Now, think about how willing you think Repubs are going to be to give their support the next time this issue comes around, knowing how this effort ended. Think people are going to want to throw their money to the RNC again? I doubt it.

All in all, a good day for the Dems. Not a win exactly, but when you're a 10 vote underdog, you take what you can get.

Posted by: N. Osborn at May 24, 2005 11:09 AM

I'm in Arizona, and I tell you, I've had it with Mc Cain. Someone else gets my vote in the future.

Posted by: Sick/Tired at May 24, 2005 11:18 AM

Thank goodness for sane, rational Republicans. The "traitors" are nothing of the kind. They have the wisdom to see Frist/Dobson's path is folly.

The entire "up/down vote" nonsense is just so much hypocrasy -- which I freely admit is shared by some Democrats.

I guess you guys just can't handle independent thought in your party. My way or the highway. Big tent, my ass.

Posted by: Jeff S. at May 24, 2005 11:22 AM

In your next rant, please remember to call him a "Kitten Killer" (http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=14308 ). There are cat-loving Republicans as well as Democrats, so that should hit him where it hurts.

Posted by: True Blue Liberal at May 24, 2005 11:28 AM

Oh boo-fucking-hoo, Mitch. Grow up and put on your training pants. And just note.. Frist may have a hard time going back to medicine. The American Board of Internal Medicine is considering revoking his board certification for the little Terry Schiavo stunt he pulled on the floor of the senate. See physicians don't take kindly to another physician diagnosing a patient they have never examined NOR even seen! And it really pisses them off for him to say the patient's neurologist had misdiagnosed her when having no proof or neurology training. Funny thing ethics, can't use'em just when they're politically convenient.

Posted by: Melinda at May 24, 2005 11:33 AM

Jeff S.,

I supposed if you DID approve of us, we'd have reason to be nervous. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not hold the entire process hostage. There's nothign hypocritical about it.

Posted by: Mitch at May 24, 2005 11:38 AM

Mitch,
Keep those legs spred dude, all of you morons who voted Republican need to learn that Bush & his ilk aren't interested in you or anything you think important ... it's oil that's driving this bus & they'll promise anything as long as money is involved. You're all going to get the chrome pipe up the chocolate highway & then the bastard's are going to break it off & leave you bleeding. Suckers....

Posted by: Geo at May 24, 2005 11:54 AM

Mitch, I feel your pain, but I don't quite agree...yet. Those who say you should direct your anger at the traitor 6 have a partial point. They are the ones who sold out. This isn't Frist's deal. He didn't write it, didn't agree to it and didn't sign it. They are the ones who are wrong today.

However, Frist and McConnell have an obligation as party leaders. They have failed. Miserably. However, there is a chance, a slight chance, that they can redeem themselves. Frist should stand by his position yesterday...every nominee gets an up or down vote. And he should make it party line. Tell the traitors, "Vote with the party, or lose every position of influence in the party, including committee seats." Frist should (not that I think he will) be willing to do this...because the issue is Constitutional. The Constitution they all swore to uphold and defend is at stake. The Senate doesn't decide the rules. The Constitution does.

Frist has given no indication that he has the various anatomical parts necessary to do this. But I will give him the chance. A few days. Then I will be as angry as you.

Posted by: Blanknoone at May 24, 2005 11:58 AM

hey when is that autopsy coming out on mrs. schiavo? and when is rush getting perp walked?

Posted by: ramone at May 24, 2005 12:26 PM

We are past civil discourse on this. Bill Frist is the minority leader of the Senate. If he is not at fault, who is?

Posted by: Ralph at May 24, 2005 01:02 PM

(When Clinton was President, a large number of his judicial nominees were blocked. It seems to me that if it's ok for one party to block nominees it should be ok for the other to do the very same thing.*

Blocked ? Via fillibuster ? Who/where ?

My recollection is that Clinton's judges got an up/down vote. I do not dispute that Republicans may have VOTED against his nominees, however, they did not use stall tactics to delay a vote. You need to understand, the entire issue is whether a vote should be had when there is a clear majority. The democrats, as a minority party, believe because they are the minority party, they should have equal or greater power over judge's then actually is the case. Just ask Ted Kennedy- his quote was "We may be the minority party but we represent the majority"- its these type of drunken ramblings that the liberals grasp hold of and run with.

Posted by: Matt at May 24, 2005 01:10 PM

And today, you looked us all in the face, and spat.

Don't worry. You don't really need to run out and get an AIDS test.

Posted by: james at May 24, 2005 01:44 PM

And today, you looked us all in the face, and spat.

Don't worry. You don't really need to run out and get an AIDS test.

Posted by: james at May 24, 2005 01:45 PM

"And today, you looked us all in the face, and spat."

Don't worry. You don't really need to run out and get an AIDS test.

Posted by: james at May 24, 2005 01:45 PM

The Clinton nominees that were voted down were voted down by the majority - the way the Senate is SUPPOSED to work. Being the majority has its advantages.

It was not a minority holding up the majority by using a tool - the filibuster - that traditionally applies only to legislation.

Posted by: mitch at May 24, 2005 01:51 PM

So holding over 60 nominees "hostage" in committee doesn't count I guess. They never got an up or down vote either, but that's OK when it's Republicans calling the shots.

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with either tactic. But ignoring one then screaming bloody murder on the other is highly hypocritical.

Posted by: Jeff S. at May 24, 2005 01:57 PM

McCain won't get a sniff at the GOP nomination, true. But he and H Clinton would make a formidable (and highly likely) third party "save the republic" ticket. Of course a victory by said ticket would be catastrophic.

We need a party in this country that isn't morally bankrupt and, unless the RINOs bolt, it can't be either of the existing parties.

Posted by: Gregg the obscure at May 24, 2005 02:02 PM

Jeff S.

"So holding over 60 nominees "hostage" in committee doesn't count I guess. They never got an up or down vote either, but that's OK when it's Republicans calling the shots."

OK or not, it's the majority voting. Not the minority abusing a filibuster, which has only been used on judicial nominees under extreme circumstances in the past.

"For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with either tactic. But ignoring one then screaming bloody murder on the other is highly hypocritical."

If the situations were comparable. They're not.

Posted by: mitch at May 24, 2005 02:34 PM

“When Clinton was President, a large number of his judicial nominees were blocked. It seems to me that if it's ok for one party to block nominees it should be ok for the other to do the very same thing.”

Really now, please name for us ten judicial nominees that were blocked by Senate Republicans who were not later voted up or down in a following session of the Senate.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at May 24, 2005 04:09 PM

Jeff S wrote:

“So holding over 60 nominees "hostage" in committee doesn't count I guess. They never got an up or down vote either, but that's OK when it's Republicans calling the shots.”

Really, please name ten of those nominees for us so we can check the veracity of the claim that they “never got an up or down vote.”

Posted by: Thorley Winston at May 24, 2005 04:10 PM

I'm in AZ as well, I voted for this pinhead before but never again. He's done, stick a fork in him. What a pandering, ass kissing, loser.

This deal will come back to haunt these imbeciles, mark my words. Not another dime until we get rid of the R.I.N.O.'s and Frist, he has shown he's as weak kneed as Lott.

I'm done with all of them until then.

PS If Jeff S. is who I think he is...say hello to NiteHawk for me! If not, disregard.

Posted by: Pegasus at May 24, 2005 04:16 PM

Schmuck citizen is correct, and how wise of you to admit it!

Love, Helena

Posted by: Helena Montana at May 24, 2005 04:27 PM

Thorley:

Ok. All of the following judges were nominated by Clinton during the 106th Congress. All received an ABA rating of "well-qualified". None got an "up or down vote". The first nine were outright rejected by committee and never made it to the floor. The last (Justice Snyder) got a committee hearing but also never made it to the floor for a vote.

H. Alston Johnson, nominated to 5th Circuit, April 22, 1999
James E. Duffy, Jr., nominated to 9th Circuit, June 17, 1999
Kathleen McCree Lewis, nominated to 6th Circuit, September 16, 1999
Enrique Moreno, nominated to 5th Circuit, September 16, 1999
James M. Lyons, nominated to 10th Circuit, September 22, 1999
Robert J. Cindrich, nominated to 3rd Circuit, February 9, 2000
Stephen M. Orlofsky, nominated to 3rd Circuit, May 25, 2000
Andre M. Davis, nominated to 4th Circuit, October 6, 2000
J. Rich Leonard, nominated to U.S. District Judge, March 24, 1999
Allen R. Snyder, nominated to U.S. Circuit Judge, September 22, 1999

And this is just a selection of "well-qualified" nominees. Around 60 followed exactly this pattern, despite ABA ratings.

Mitch, given this, how can you possibly say with a straight face that these judges were stopped by the "majority voting"? What twisted logic leads you to believe that a handful of Senators blocking a full vote by filibuster is ANY different than a handful of Senators blocking a full vote via committee rules?

Pegasus:
I'm clearly not who you think I am, "NiteHawk" doesn't mean anything to me. Sorry.

Posted by: Jeff S. at May 24, 2005 05:01 PM

I just heard Frist say that he still retains the right to launch on the Dumbo's if they start playing games again. Let's see if he really means it or is just trying to save some face.

A special shout out to JoeButler53, wherever you are!

Posted by: Pegasus at May 24, 2005 06:25 PM

Ok, sorry dude. I have a Liberal buddy on another board that goes by the same exact handle, so I thought perhaps.

Now, on your point above. Many of those people were "Blue Slipped". A practice that was ended with Republican support. All should be allowed vetting in the Committee, and once approved, a straight up or down vote, IMHO.

Nice to meet ya!

Posted by: Pegasus at May 24, 2005 06:28 PM

Jeff S,

Time to get some new factoids.

Cindrich, Orlofsky, and Davis were each confirmed by the Senate and received a judgeship which makes their inclusion on the list of “blocked” nominees rather riduclous.

Also thank you providing the dates of their nominees it provides a necessary frame of reference to diffuse the “blocked nominee” meme that has been thrown about. The 1999 Senate calendar ran from January 24, 1999 to November 22, 1999. I’m sure that it hasn’t escaped anyone else’s notice that four of the supposedly “blocked” nominees were each submitted in mid to late September of that calendar year which was one of the complaints made by the Senate that then President Clinton stalled on submitting his nominees. Apparently if you wait until the end of the Senate calendar to send your nominees, the committee is less likely to be able to have time to schedule hearings.

In the case of Enrique Moreno, he admitted that his nomination failed because the Advisory Group which vetted him recommended 10 to 5 (with 16 abstentions) AGAINST his nomination. Apparently they thought that someone being nominated for a position on the Court of Appeals ought to have actual experience as a judge first.

The same was true for Duffy, Johnson, Lyons, and Lewis who were also nominated for appellate court positions without any prior judicial experience. Lyons BTW in addition to being a late nominee also withdrew his own nomination.

So what we have here are actually (a) nominees who received an up-or-down vote, (b) who were submitted at nearly the end of the session, and/or (c) who were nominated for appellate court positions without having served as a judge before. The only one that could POSSIBLY qualify as a “blocked” nomination of a qualified candidate would be Judge Leonard.


Posted by: Thorley Winston at May 24, 2005 08:11 PM

Mitch, it's all about comprimise. Don't you get it, yes you won by a technical majority but it was not a landslide, not everyone shares your ultra-conservative values, just like not everyone shares another's ultra-liberal values. No single party or ideal should **EVER** shape the entirety of politics.

Personally I am a middle of the road independent, fiscal conservative social liberal, and if the nuclear option was exercised it would have been SUICIDE for the GOP. The closeness of the election should be proof alone that we are a country closly divided, without many options from what the politicians give us.

This is not a country that is consumed by ultra-ideals, most people are just middle of the road Janes and Joes. I applaud those that remembered that extremism will be the downfall of any party and any politician.

Posted by: Lou Paris at May 25, 2005 07:54 AM

"Mitch, it's all about comprimise. Don't you get it, yes you won by a technical majority but it was not a landslide,"

Doesn't need to be. There's a majority of ELECTED Senators. Your pointillistic quibbling about the presidential election is off point.

" not everyone shares your ultra-conservative values, just like not everyone shares another's ultra-liberal values. No single party or ideal should **EVER** shape the entirety of politics."

Right. But the judges involved are only extremists in the sense that the Dems want you to think they are - and many liberals are dutifully parroting it.

Posted by: mitch at May 25, 2005 08:42 AM

Mitch,

This "compromise" isn't necessarily a bad deal. The dems may later filibuster a SCOTUS nominee anyway, claiming that even the possibilty of overturning Roe v. Wade or Affirmative Action constitutes "extraordinary circumstances." In such a situation the Nuclear/Constitutional Option could be used anyway.

If and when that time comes, the RNC leadership should make it clear to any RINOs that party support for their future campaigns will be in jeopardy.

Posted by: Paul S. at May 25, 2005 08:51 AM

My heart goes out to you. You and your Brownshirts might have to wait for another day...but, then again, I suspect you have had your high water mark and and you and your kind will just be remembered as a nasty shanker on the face of America.

Posted by: Corbett Johnson at May 25, 2005 10:46 AM

It's spelled "Chancre".

Posted by: mitch at May 25, 2005 11:00 AM

We invite you all to stop giving donations to the Refuglicans. That way they will no longer win elections and no longer be able to foist these extremist judicial imbeciles on the American people. Heil and thank you. The word is canker.

Posted by: adolph at May 25, 2005 12:45 PM

Dear Mitch,

Are you Jewish? Because you will never be truly a part of the Republican party until you accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Until then, we're just taking your money and voting the way we want. Seriously.

Posted by: John Lindy at May 25, 2005 01:10 PM

Didn't Minnesota go for Kerry? And isn't Frist from Tennessee? What did you "win" Bill Frist exactly, Mitch?

Posted by: Alan at May 25, 2005 01:18 PM

"Adolph"

Both are actually correct. "Shanker" is not.

Lindy:

Normally, I'd not bother to answer such a clumsy troll. However, "Berg" is a very common northwest European name, by no means exclusively Jewish. I'm not Jewish.

Alan,

"Didn't Minnesota go for Kerry? And isn't Frist from Tennessee? What did you "win" Bill Frist exactly, Mitch?"

I was speaking nationally.

Posted by: mitch at May 25, 2005 01:44 PM

Thorley:
I stand corrected. Must find the time to dig further when called to research.

Although I don't really have the time at the moment, I suspect that among the other 50-odd nominees you will indeed find several blocked in committee and never afforded a full vote. I hazard a guess that they number at least as many as were stopped by filibuster.

Mitch:
Aren't you so glad you were crossposted to Free Republic? Now you will see a massive upsurge of both right- and left-wing trolls. Whee!

Posted by: Jeff S. at May 25, 2005 02:22 PM

Jeff S.

Oy, oy, oy indeed.

Posted by: mitch at May 25, 2005 03:45 PM

Thorely:

Ever heard of the "blue-slip" system? It allows a nominee's home state senator to purposely delay, and possibly prevent, a judge's appointment by neglecting until the last minute to submit a blue slip of paper needed for the process to go forward. This would prevent a hearing from taking place.

It would explain why so many of the judges were only submitted so late in the senate year.

http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2001/05/11/fp2s2-csm.shtml

Posted by: JJ. at May 25, 2005 04:28 PM

Thorely:

Ever heard of the "blue-slip" system? It allows a nominee's home state senator to purposely delay, and possibly prevent, a judge's appointment by neglecting until the last minute to submit a blue slip of paper needed for the process to go forward. This would prevent a hearing from taking place.

It would explain why so many of the judges were only submitted so late in the senate year.

http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2001/05/11/fp2s2-csm.shtml

Posted by: JJ. at May 25, 2005 04:28 PM

JJ,

The dates that Jeff S provided were the dates that the POTUS submitted his nominees to the Senate and has nothing to do with any blue-slip holds. The decision to submit nominees that late in the Senate session were at the discretion of the POTUS and opposition by a home State Senator has no bearing on the date.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at May 25, 2005 05:22 PM

God's official party is the Republicans. God will punish those girly Democrats and Republicans that betrayed us!

Ganklin Smith

Posted by: ganklin at May 25, 2005 05:36 PM

God's official party is the Republicans. God will punish those girly Democrats and Republicans that betrayed us!

Ganklin Smith

Posted by: ganklin at May 25, 2005 05:36 PM

Chancre it is. You are the expert. Have you had your pen checked. Senator Frist will be curious after that sophisticated outburst.

Posted by: Corbett Johnson at May 25, 2005 06:50 PM

Howdee.

Please pardon me if this has already been covered..
(didn't read all the comments)
but...how did Frist sell out the Republicans?
His lock-step, jack booted style of what some call 'leadership' drives liberals like me insane.
I mean...not many people other than Tom DeLay have come so close to Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 'undermining American principals' contest.
Since the NeoCon meter for success is how crazy people like me are driven by the actions of your boys...Frist should be getting your praise.
Between violating the ‘separation of powers’ rules and involving the Senate in the Schiavo case…a blatant violation of government involving itself in a private matter…to chomping at the bit to change 200 year old Senate rules without the usual methods…as it takes 2/3 votes to change those rules..not just a simple majority (did any of these people actually take a civics class?) but here they are.
Inches from it.
I mean...it's really sort of bad for you guys that one of the last real Republicans (McCain) then out-gunned Mr. Frist on the filibuster issue.
He basically handed Frist his balls, (I’ve never seen him so cheerful at a press conference) while at the same time got the good doctor a pass with the Evangellical-Christo-Fascists like James Dobson...all because he had nothing to do with said compromise.

-Chuck

Posted by: Chuck at May 25, 2005 08:20 PM

Howdee.

Please pardon me if this has already been covered..
(didn't read all the comments)
but...how did Frist sell out the Republicans?
His lock-step, jack booted style of what some call 'leadership' drives liberals like me insane.
I mean...not many people other than Tom DeLay have come so close to Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 'undermining American principals' contest.
Since the NeoCon meter for success is how crazy people like me are driven by the actions of your boys...Frist should be getting your praise.
Between violating the ‘separation of powers’ rules and involving the Senate in the Schiavo case…a blatant violation of government involving itself in a private matter…to chomping at the bit to change 200 year old Senate rules without the usual methods…as it takes 2/3 votes to change those rules..not just a simple majority (did any of these people actually take a civics class?) but here they are.
Inches from it.
I mean...it's really sort of bad for you guys that one of the last real Republicans (McCain) then out-gunned Mr. Frist on the filibuster issue.
He basically handed Frist his balls, (I’ve never seen him so cheerful at a press conference) while at the same time got the good doctor a pass with the Evangellical-Christo-Fascists like James Dobson...all because he had nothing to do with said compromise.

-Chuck

Posted by: Chuck at May 25, 2005 08:20 PM

It's amazing to me how often Republicans stand up and whine when the Democrats use their own tactics against them. Where was the "up or down" mantra when the Senate held up Clinton's nominations in committee? Where was the "everyone deserves a vote" ideology then?

Republicans speak as though they've never threatened a filibuster anything before...

"Say it loud and often enough and maybe people will believe it's true."

Thanks for the last few days...first laugh I've had since November!

Posted by: ProgJohn at May 25, 2005 08:51 PM

You people are very close to the Taliban. Your one sided arguments are scary. God help America!
We need balance in this country, and you people are extremists!!

Posted by: Roid at May 25, 2005 09:14 PM

I think if you catch Senator Frists remarks at the GOPAC dinner on CSPAN (replaying Thursday 5/26 at 4:44 AM) you might find some newfound respect for the man.

He describes the constitutional issue at stake here as the most important issue to come before the Senate in our lifetime. (I'm paraphrasing... if anyone can find a transcript, PLEASE drop me a note at Mike's America).

He points out that Senator Byrd, as Majority Leader, used the Constitutional option FOUR TIMES, and the Senate did not self destruct.

He went on to say that he remains committed to an up or down vote for EVERY nominee. And found a rather clumsy but humorous way of expressing all our confusion over this deal by consulting a Magic 8 Ball to see whether we will have that vote on Kavanaugh, Myers or Saad.

I said recently that he wasn't much improvement over Senator Lott, but after hearing this address, I am going to re-examine my view.

Posted by: Mike on Hilton Head at May 25, 2005 11:48 PM

"I think if you catch Senator Frists remarks at the GOPAC dinner on CSPAN (replaying Thursday 5/26 at 4:44 AM) you might find some newfound respect for the man."
Posted by: Mike on Hilton Head at May 25, 2005 11:48 PM"
----------
Were we watching the same thing?
First off, I love how the Neo's are backing away from their own term. "Nuclear Option". This so-called "Constitutional Option" is once again trying to put an Orwellian name to the death of our checks and balances.
Mike, do some research before you post, please.
The filibuster rule has NEVER been disbanded.
It's over 200 years old and has served this nation well (over all).
Further, it only takes 60 votes to over-turn a filibuster. This is all happening for only 2 reasons. #1. The NeoCons can't get the votes. #2. To clear the way to put a radical on the Supreme Court.
You can have a glowing opinion of Frist if you like, but it's clear that you don't understand very much about the guy, his politics, his actions, or about the Senate process in general.
For example: To change a Senate rule, Senate rules state that you have to have a 2/3 majority. Not a simple 49%/51%. That's because when you change rules like that, the effects last for decades. Hence, the big deal over this Owens chick. Do we really need more pro-big-business, Enron lackeys on the bench?

Here...I'll help with that one.

No.

-Chuck

BlackWednesday.org

Posted by: Chuck at May 26, 2005 08:22 AM

"I think if you catch Senator Frists remarks at the GOPAC dinner on CSPAN (replaying Thursday 5/26 at 4:44 AM) you might find some newfound respect for the man."
Posted by: Mike on Hilton Head at May 25, 2005 11:48 PM"
----------
Were we watching the same thing?
First off, I love how the Neo's are backing away from their own term. "Nuclear Option". This so-called "Constitutional Option" is once again trying to put an Orwellian name to the death of our checks and balances.
Mike, do some research before you post, please.
The filibuster rule has NEVER been disbanded.
It's over 200 years old and has served this nation well (over all).
Further, it only takes 60 votes to over-turn a filibuster. This is all happening for only 2 reasons. #1. The NeoCons can't get the votes. #2. To clear the way to put a radical on the Supreme Court.
You can have a glowing opinion of Frist if you like, but it's clear that you don't understand very much about the guy, his politics, his actions, or about the Senate process in general.
For example: To change a Senate rule, Senate rules state that you have to have a 2/3 majority. Not a simple 49%/51%. That's because when you change rules like that, the effects last for decades. Hence, the big deal over this Owens chick. Do we really need more pro-big-business, Enron lackeys on the bench?

Here...I'll help with that one.

No.

-Chuck

BlackWednesday.org

Posted by: Chuck at May 26, 2005 08:32 AM

heh...

Looks like this blog engine hates Firefox. I've noticed several other 'double posts' on this site.
What gives?

-Chuck

BlackWednesday.org

Posted by: Chuck at May 26, 2005 08:36 AM

HHHHAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
bWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Even with total numerical dominance, all the money in the world and then some, and a raft of Nazi clothing and paraphernalia, we left wing wife beating child rapers still piss and moan. Ohh, I'm soo sad the world isn't exactly like I want it to be. It must be somebodies fault cause I can't admit I'm a lame, worthless piece of human garbage! We had our one party totalitarian state, next the Jack Booted thugs ( you remember, the union thugs that roughed up the campaign workers last year) will take your guns, draft your kids, fuck your asses and wipe their dicks off on their overweight, no self esteem wives (who seemed so hot back when they were yapping college radicals, but went to seed very quickly - or so I assume, since I've never had a date and all things related to s*x are purely hypothetical) and down low gay lovers (because we Kos fans are into equal opportunity desperation sex. I'm 5'4 and 300 pounds). HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, a brain injury would be superfluous, and I snack on lead paint chips!!

I am Captain America, and my penis is half an inch long at full tumescence. Which is why I usually take it up the ass; I'm a "bottom". But don't tell my mom, or she'll kickme out of her basement. )

What do I do now, Kos? Kos? Are you reading this?

Posted by: Captain America at May 27, 2005 04:07 AM

Chuck:

I'm glad you are "here to help." But perhaps before you suggest again that I "do my research before posting" you might want to take a civics class.

"Checks and Balances" that you refer to are between BRANCHES of Government, NOT PARTIES. The Senate is under no obligation under the Constitution to permit a minority to define how nominees will be confirmed. As Senator Frist pointed out in this speech which you claimed to watch, the constitutional option has been called the "Byrd" option since that old ghoul used the tactic FOUR TIMES when he was Majority Leader.

Obviously Senator Byrd has had a change of heart now that he is in an every shrinking minority which can do little but obstruct and delay.

Please dont' lecture your betters on the nature of our constitutional government.

Posted by: Mike on Hilton Head at May 27, 2005 10:43 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi