gop to kill the filibuster?

[zimv20]

nytimes op/ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/opinion/28sun1.html?ex=1102647815&ei=1&en=5209e88079bcf038)


Mr. Smith Goes Under the Gavel

Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. But the greater their power, the more they have focused on one of its few limits: the Senate filibuster. They are so concerned that Democrats will use the filibuster to block a few far-right judicial nominees that they are talking about ending one of the best-known checks and balances in government. Rather than rewrite the rules of government for a power grab, Republicans should look for ways to work with Democrats, who still represent nearly half the country.

The filibuster is almost as old as America itself. In 1790, senators filibustered to prevent Philadelphia from becoming the nation's permanent capital. In the centuries since, senators have used their privilege of unlimited debate to fend off actions supported by a bare majority of the Senate, but deeply offensive to the minority. In 1917, the Senate adopted a formal resolution allowing senators to delay actions unless debate is cut off by a supermajority, which Senate rules now set at 60 votes.


Now that Republicans are doing the appointing, they see things very differently. Dr. Frist recently declared on "Fox News Sunday" that preventing votes on judicial nominees is "intolerable." Among the proposals Republicans are floating is the so-called nuclear option. According to Senate rules, changing the filibuster rule should require a two-thirds vote. But in the "nuclear option," Vice President Dick Cheney, as Senate president, would rule that filibusters of judicial nominees could be ended by a simple majority.

That would no doubt put the whole matter in the courts, an odd place for the Republicans - who are fighting this battle in the name of ending activist courts - to want it resolved. The Republicans would have a weak case. The Constitution expressly authorizes the Senate to "determine the rules of its proceedings." That is precisely what it has done.

If it came to a vote, it is not at all clear that the Republicans would be able to command even a majority for ending the filibuster. Senators appreciate their chamber's special role, and much of its uniqueness is based on traditions like the filibuster. Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat who has led the opposition to extremist judicial nominees, says as many as 10 Republican senators could vote against changing the rule.

The Republicans see the filibuster as an annoying obstacle. But it is actually one of the checks and balances that the founders, who worried greatly about concentration of power, built into our system of government. It is also, right now, the main means by which the 48 percent of Americans who voted for John Kerry can influence federal policy. People who call themselves conservatives should find a way of achieving their goals without declaring war on one of the oldest traditions in American democracy.

[Chip NoVaMac]

It seems that the Republicans are thinking they will have control of the White House and the Capital for the end of time. Very shorted sighted rule changes that will come back and bite them big time.

[Thomas Veil]

Dr. Frist recently declared on "Fox News Sunday" that preventing votes on judicial nominees is "intolerable."
Um, no...that's the Constitution at work.

Republicans sure had no problem with this procedure when it was they who were blocking Bill Clinton's nominees.

And if Cheney tries to declare himself dictator of the Senate, you bet your sweet a** this'll go to the Supreme Court. (Not that I have any confidence in that institution either when push comes to shove.)

[pseudobrit]

they will have control of the White House and the Capital for the end of time.

heh

[stubeeef]

I guess then that it was OK when Sen Harkin and Sen Lieberman proposed to eliminate the filibuster in 1995, and it was held in stay by Sen Dole.

All that glitters is not gold.

[3rdpath]

I guess then that it was OK when Sen Harkin and Sen Lieberman proposed to eliminate the filibuster in 1995, and it was held in stay by Sen Dole.

ANY attempt to eliminate the checks and balances of our government are ill-conceived, regardless of party affiliation.

so, you guessed wrong.

[stubeeef]

ANY attempt to eliminate the checks and balances of our government are ill-conceived, regardless of party affiliation.

so, you guessed wrong.


Just be thankful that there was a conservative republican to coral those wacky democrats in 95! :p

[Xtremehkr]

In a move so quiet no one remembered it, two Democrats floated the idea of removing the filibuster. It obviously was not taken into serious consideration as it lacked support from the party and public, as well as media. I am sure someone else here would have heard about it before it hit the AM wavelengths in defense of what is being proposed now.

But since two Democrats tried it once, it is now ok for the Republicans to undertake a serious effort to make this happen. That kind of logic works for those who care little about Democracy and more about fulfilling their own vision of how they would like the country to be.

I like the point made about ruling from the bench in order to stop ruling from the bench. It is a succinct and astutely made point.

However, that old dead horse is being whipped again as the public reaction to this will be subdued at best. Those destined to be most negatively affected by moves like this are too a large degree calmed by the GOP salesmen who spin it in a positive way daily. A victory against liberals they will call this, those liberals, the root of all of your discontent.

[stubeeef]

X, that was beautiful! (applause)

You should be a pro-spinner, cause you are goood!

[Taft]

X, that was beautiful! (applause)

You should be a pro-spinner, cause you are goood!

Mr. Boortz, is that you?

You wanna know why you get jumped on around here? Its because of smarmy comments lacking in substance, just like this one.

Taft

[Taft]

Laugh (LaughAtLiberals.com)

What an uplifting site! From their about page:

Why launch this site? Liberals lie and call it truth. They spew vitriol and hate, yet claim to be compassionate. Liberals say you should do one thing, and then they do just the opposite. They’ll accuse you of doing something wrong, when you are not. Then they will do the very thing that they accused you of doing and deny that they are doing it. If you can’t laugh at that, you just can’t laugh! Besides, if I couldn’t laugh at some of the things that I’ve heard and seen and read, I’d go insane. I thought you might feel the same way, so that’s why I launched this site.

Look around you, Stu. Look at the ideological hypocracy that is so pervasive in most politicians these days. Do you really think that this overblown generalization is more applicable to liberals than it is to conservatives? Are conservatives REALLY the knights in shining armour while liberals are lying traitors to the flag?

Do you really think this rhetoric helps? Do you really think this website is doing a service to our country or our system of government?

Taft

[pseudobrit]

-Kill the filibuster.
-Insert partisan judges.
-Redistrict.

Anyone else see the connections and the aim?

They're burning the Reichstag.

[stubeeef]

Do you really think this rhetoric helps? Do you really think this website is doing a service to our country or our system of government?
Taft

Recent beuts from this website, ......

"how a majority of americans could goose-step behind this near fascism is even further beyond me."

"I can't help blaming the neo-cons for that, and if there is one single evil influence that is driving apart America, I think it is that the Republican party has pretty much been taken over by its nutcases."

"Drunk with power indeed. Just plain evil."

"From the desk of our illustrious leader, the respected and pious Dubya"

"indeed. i forget, what's the timetable for bush to have the military take a loyalty oath to him personally?"

And of course this great example of enlightened discourse..

http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/F-You-President-Bush.jpg

[Taft]

Recent beuts from this website, ......
...[various nasty quotes]...


Some of those are pretty extremist. I also acknoledge the fact that there are many extremist leftist websites out there. And I probably should hold all of them to the same standard I hold you (we should all probably work on that one). But is any of that an excuse for YOUR lapses in civil discourse? Or is this the equivalent of a cable "news" screaming match, where no low-blow can go unanswered and the "winner" is the most obnoxious.

The high road is now overgrown, but it is begging for some traffic. May I humbly suggest we take that less-beaten path.

Taft

[stubeeef]

But is any of that an excuse for YOUR lapses in civil discourse? Or is this the equivalent of a cable "news" screaming match, where no low-blow can go unanswered and the "winner" is the most obnoxious.

The high road is now overgrown, but it is begging for some traffic. May I humbly suggest we take that less-beaten path.

Taft

You are very correct in many ways. But, as no one else thought it mattered with each other, I too have fallen. I will attempt to be a good'un. ;)

Just do me one tiny favor, point that shiney, ever so bright light at ALL that transgress please. As I have no excuse, so is there not one for most here, taft included.

[Xtremehkr]

Those are the worst you can find?

Considering his actions I think they are being nice, not inaccurate.

[stubeeef]

Those are the worst you can find?

Considering his actions I think they are being nice, not inaccurate.

Not at all, If you would like I will look for more than the 5 minutes it took me to get them.

I consider them sophmoric at best, idiotic atleast, extremist as usual.

Taft thought little of them, maybe the two of you can chew on it some too.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Recent beuts from this website, ......

"how a majority of americans could goose-step behind this near fascism is even further beyond me."

"I can't help blaming the neo-cons for that, and if there is one single evil influence that is driving apart America, I think it is that the Republican party has pretty much been taken over by its nutcases."

"Drunk with power indeed. Just plain evil."

"From the desk of our illustrious leader, the respected and pious Dubya"

"indeed. i forget, what's the timetable for bush to have the military take a loyalty oath to him personally?"

And of course this great example of enlightened discourse..

http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/F-You-President-Bush.jpg

Sorry, but the Republicans are reaping what they have sowed. They did nothing to stop the likes of Limbaugh spewing "hateful themes". So is it surprising that Democrats, including myself, are now giving back the same?

I am sure that you will remind me of recent Democratic actions that seem to have set back the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as Bush and the his fellow Republicans seem to have done so far.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Not at all, If you would like I will look for more than the 5 minutes it took me to get them.

I consider them sophmoric at best, idiotic atleast, extremist as usual.

Taft thought little of them, maybe the two of you can chew on it some too.

Maybe you can expand on the "good" that G. W. Bush has given the US and the world. So this way we might see a different side of the man, than what we have seen and expanded on in somewhat negative ways.

[Xtremehkr]

Not at all, If you would like I will look for more than the 5 minutes it took me to get them.

I consider them sophmoric at best, idiotic atleast, extremist as usual.

Taft thought little of them, maybe the two of you can chew on it some too.

I was hoping for some sweeping generalizations attacking conservative ideology en masse. Not ones that distinguish Bush as being a radical within his own party who has aligned himself with other radicals.

Maybe some suggestions of violence against Bush style conservatives.

Considerably more examples of pure ad hominem attacks.

Maybe some handy misquotes showing how Bush style conservatives are evil and lying to prove it doesn't matter.

Maybe some links to websites that just attack Bush styles conservatives ideology endlessly based on flimsy evidence and questionable logic?

Oh, NeoCon is not an insult, however derisively it is stated sometimes. NeoCon is a term coined by many within Bushs Administration who direct policy and have decided that a new approach was needed.

I think it helps distinguish the fact that there is a difference within the republican party.

[stubeeef]

Maybe you can expand on the "good" that G. W. Bush has given the US and the world. So this way we might see a different side of the man, than what we have seen and expanded on in somewhat negative ways.

women voting in Afghanistan!

I was not the one complaining about the tone of the forum, taft was. I simply tried to show him a mirror. He is correct in what he says, only I doubt few here will change. How about you chipster-you think those here are a bit juvenile in there expression? If so do you think you need to take a higher road? Or do you think that taft is wrong?

[Xtremehkr]

Have you read this book Stu?

How to talk to a Liberal (if you must) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400054184/102-3278013-8827348?v=glance)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1400054184/ref=dp_primary-product-display_0/102-3278013-8827348?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Her other books, Slander and Treason, are just as vitriolic.

Or this book?

Deliver us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060582510/qid=1101753000/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-3278013-8827348)

His other books are also very mature.

Maybe this book

The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785261028/qid=1101753119/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-3278013-8827348)

It's blatantly hypocritical to call other immature for doing exactly what you have been doing. And if you wanted to clean things up, I would start with the whole GOP media machine.

[IJ Reilly]

It's all well and good to challenge each other to take the high road in our debates, but I think it undoes any good which might result to pose this challenge as a taunt. FWIW, I'm not picking on anyone in particular here, just noting it as a general trend.

[Xtremehkr]

Customers who bought those books also bought this one...

The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060520612/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-3278013-8827348?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance)

Makes them sounds like pets or something.

Hey, if things are going so well in Afghanistan, why are they again the leading producer of Heroin who need an occupying force there to keep law and order?

[IJ Reilly]

Hey, if things are going so well in Afghanistan, why are they again the leading producer of Heroin who need an occupying force there to keep law and order?

Unfortunately the way the question was originally asked allowed the answer to distort the issues. Yes, women can vote in Afghanistan now, but only the women (and men) who aren't in the position to be intimidated by the thugs and warlords who are the de-facto government in most the country.

[stubeeef]

MR Taft, please notice, in a jesture to your higher ground, I have removed my sig link to laughatliberals.com.

At least you are trying!

stu

[stubeeef]

It's blatantly hypocritical to call other immature for doing exactly what you have been doing. And if you wanted to clean things up, I would start with the whole GOP media machine.

X, did you read this thread? Cause you have managed to twist this in to something I have a problem with. I am not the person saying there is a huge problem with the tone of discourse, taft was, I mearly answered his question. get it? or are you just wanting to taunt? I know I am sometimes sarcastic and harsh, the question is - does anyone else here realize their tone too? Taft does.

I have not wasted my time on those books, how about you? I haven't watched f911 or read frankens book, o'reilly's either. Have you read any here (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Resourcesframe.htm) ?

Cause you ASSUME that I would read those books, maybe I should assume things about you!

[Chip NoVaMac]

women voting in Afghanistan!

I was not the one complaining about the tone of the forum, taft was. I simply tried to show him a mirror. He is correct in what he says, only I doubt few here will change. How about you chipster-you think those here are a bit juvenile in there expression? If so do you think you need to take a higher road? Or do you think that taft is wrong?

Well, I was hoping for more than one example. And with the elections in Afghanistan, they seem to have their own issues with candidates opting out at the last minute. Sure, we captured Saddam, but at what cost, both in money and human terms? Has not the action in Iraq created more future terrorists, if not for the US, but the rest of the world? What about the US stance on ignoring all the other dictators we have helped support, that are just as evil as Saddam was? Or the "stretching of the truth" in order to invade Iraq, to get at Iraq? Now that we have had some time with the USPA, why is Bush and Republicans not seeing the faults in a law they rushed to pass? We know that Democrats did so as to not appear weak, compared to Republicans.

With 3% of the popular vote, how does this equate to a "mandate" for Bush? In terms of the Senate and Congress, it does seem to be a "mandate" IMO (meaning somewhere between a 10 to 20% shift). But in these two houses, we have members on both sides that are moderates to their party. Bush seems to me to be anything but moderate. [As a note in the '93-'95 term in Congress the count was 258 - Dem and 176 - Reb and in the Senate the breakdown was 57 - Dem and 44 - Reb]; with Clinton getting almost 10% more of the vote over Dole and Perrot in 1996. So there was a mandate then, not now.

I also will go on record that I never supported the limitation of the filibuster. No matter what party. To me it is part of the checks and balances of our system. If you look at the numbers above, we should have lead to a more "liberal" nation. But we did not. One is the overall balance in the Democratic Party at the time, but also the checks and balances we had in place.

So how is that for the higher road?

[Xtremehkr]

X, did you read this thread? Cause you have managed to twist this in to something I have a problem with. I am not the person saying there is a huge problem with the tone of discourse, taft was, I mearly answered his question. get it? or are you just wanting to taunt? I know I am sometimes sarcastic and harsh, the question is - does anyone else here realize their tone too? Taft does.

I have not wasted my time on those books, how about you? I haven't watched f911 or read frankens book, o'reilly's either. Have you read any here (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Resourcesframe.htm) ?

Cause you ASSUME that I would read those books, maybe I should assume things about you!

It may also have been your smarmy answer to what I said.

I believe I ASKED you if you had read them.

I don't understand your link to a socialist website in the UK? an inappropriate gesture?

[stubeeef]

Muy bien chipster!

Lucid for sure, not a naughty bit about either!

I would be happy to list many of things I consider accomplishments, some here would find repulsive failures. Let us agree to disagree.

I am not for the removal of filibuster either, but this is not just a R or D thing, it is a power thing.

I can't ever remember saying the election was a mandate, I don't think it was. It was a strong win, due to the changes in congress, changes that clinton didn't get a bunch of. Clinton never got 51% of the votes in an election either. W has support of a lot of "voters" and that is the difference.

[stubeeef]

X, maybe I assume you would like to read those books, uk or not.

Not wasted my time on those books means: I have not read them. Does that help?

[blackfox]

umm...isn't this a thread about filibusters?

Personally, I do not want to see it go. whether it is the GOP or the Democrats attempting it's removal is beside the point to me.

Does anyone have any opinion about the utility of the filibuster, as a function of government?

Look, I am not a fan of the GOP as of late, but they have earned that distinction by their activities.

There is a difference between thinking "Party X is Bad, therefore most anything they do must be bad" and " Action X is bad, so perhaps I should criticize Party X appropriately."

This is beyond Party Politics, this is the very structure of our government.

[IJ Reilly]

I can't ever remember saying the election was a mandate, I don't think it was. It was a strong win, due to the changes in congress, changes that clinton didn't get a bunch of. Clinton never got 51% of the votes in an election either. W has support of a lot of "voters" and that is the difference.

Clinton won 50.1% in 1996 in a three-way election. Is 0.9% of the electorate the maker of a mandate?

[stubeeef]

Clinton won 50.1% in 1996 in a three-way election. Is 0.9% of the electorate the maker of a mandate?

I don't think so.

According to chip it might be?
with Clinton getting almost 10% more of the vote over Dole and Perrot in 1996. So there was a mandate then, not now.

[pdham]

Does anyone have any opinion about the utility of the filibuster, as a function of government?


Hmm... I recognize the filibuster as an important check and balance to our system. I am not sure if it would actually promote comprimise in this instance however. (just an opinion no info to back this up) I feel that with the current political makeup the action of filibustering to kill a judicial nominee will only cause more tension and a deepening divide along party lines. That being said, if a dem does kill a nominee by filibustering the GOP will have to address it in some way, but I guess I am saying don't expect compromise. I wish this wasnt the case, because I think it is imparitive that something forces the repubs to cross party lines and comprimise.

What do you all think; would a successful filibuster really be successful?


Paul

[stubeeef]

bfox,

slate has a discussion on it here (http://slate.msn.com/id/2084031/) .

[pseudobrit]

Yes, women can vote in Afghanistan now.

Let's qualify that statement properly:

(Some) women can vote (in select areas in and around Kabul) in Afghanistan (if they're not busy working the poppy fields that day) now (if we should withdraw, it would probably not last, since we've failed to dismantle the Taliban).

Yay democracy!

[Taft]

MR Taft, please notice, in a jesture to your higher ground, I have removed my sig link to laughatliberals.com.

At least you are trying!

stu

And you, too! It's a regular love-in around here. :p

:)

Taft

[stubeeef]

Let's qualify that statement properly:

(Some) women can vote (in select areas in and around Kabul) in Afghanistan (if they're not busy working the poppy fields that day) now (if we should withdraw, it would probably not last, since we've failed to dismantle the Taliban).

Yay democracy!

It would seem you could find all the transfat in a birthday cake, too much sugar in the icing, and too many carbs in the cake.

So let me restate, there aren't women being beheaded in the soccer stadium, I hope! :rolleyes:

[Chip NoVaMac]

Muy bien chipster!

Lucid for sure, not a naughty bit about either!

I would be happy to list many of things I consider accomplishments, some here would find repulsive failures. Let us agree to disagree.

I am not for the removal of filibuster either, but this is not just a R or D thing, it is a power thing.

I can't ever remember saying the election was a mandate, I don't think it was. It was a strong win, due to the changes in congress, changes that clinton didn't get a bunch of. Clinton never got 51% of the votes in an election either. W has support of a lot of "voters" and that is the difference.

First, thanks. I generally try not to resort to "rants", unless provoked.

Second, much like your mention of women being allowed to vote in Afghanistan. To be honest, this can be good or bad, depending on your view point. I think that most in a Western view, see this as a good thing. But in a Muslim view, this is a step backwards. As a "liberal" Gay American, I view this as a positive. Yet when I look at the limitations of the that "conservatives" want on my right to "marry" or have a "civil union" with, in order to have equal access to the laws and rights, I find some of it to hypocritical.

As one that believes in the "right" of the "people", many of the issues of today seems to go against what I was raised with. By birth, my parents should have been part of the "liberal New England Democrats". Yet, my parents showed me that there are two sides to the coin. And with my Dad, with his military background, showed me the "nationalism" or "patriotism" that guides me today. I personally see us going back to that some deserve to be in the "back of the bus". i supported 'welfare" reform. Though i question a 5 year lifetime limit to benefits, particularly in light of our current economy. [To that end does it make sense that our government gave benefits to those that lost their lives in 9-11, without a "means" test?

I guess it depends on what your definition of constructionist is. We can agree to disagree here. Yet, at the same point the filibuster is some assurance that the "people" will be heard.

You can not look at the Clinton victory in a narrow scope. Clinton got 49.2%, Dole got 40.7%, and Perot got 8.4%. Close to a mandate in my definition of 10%+ of the vote. Never-mind that 8.4% of the voters did not find favor in either candidate. So given my numbers, Clinton had a "mandate"; that the Democrats never used.

I guess it is a scope of the Democrats that tried to expand the scope of what America is supposed to, compared to the Republicans that try to limit that scope. And there lies the difference between the two of us.

[Chip NoVaMac]

umm...isn't this a thread about filibusters?

Personally, I do not want to see it go. whether it is the GOP or the Democrats attempting it's removal is beside the point to me.

Does anyone have any opinion about the utility of the filibuster, as a function of government?

Look, I am not a fan of the GOP as of late, but they have earned that distinction by their activities.

There is a difference between thinking "Party X is Bad, therefore most anything they do must be bad" and " Action X is bad, so perhaps I should criticize Party X appropriately."

This is beyond Party Politics, this is the very structure of our government.

The filibusters has a great place in the the checks and balances that many of us were brought up with. As the nation grows younger I see less a need for the "balances'. They did not grow up with "Schoolhouse Rock", or the civic classes. They only know what the "news" sources tell them "after" the government gave way to profits over the truth.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I don't think so.

According to chip it might be?

To be honest, I discount the Perot vote. Just as Bush's people would have today. Until we eliminate the "party" differences in the campaigns, there are those of us that will find fault in the "election results". Lets face it, far more Perot supporters found a home in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.

I was comparing only the popular vote for the D vs. R parties. That was a mandate according to GWB.

[stubeeef]

Just a note, but I believe women voted there before the taliban. So it was restoration. Afghanistan was not backward before the storm came their way, women were professionals and voted.

I understand what you want and why, I'm sure that you had a wonderful upbringing. But chip, it is a falacy to believe it is just the conservatives that thwart gay marriage. I believe most within the Democratic party are of the same mindset.

I don't know the official definition of mandate, but the only one in my life time that I am aware of is Reagan-84, but I understand Nixon in 72 was large. I don't think W or Clinton (obviously Bush I) had a "mandate". I think that W has some strong clout, but not a mandate.

[skunk]

Just a note, but I believe women voted there before the taliban. So it was restoration. Afghanistan was not backward before the storm came their way, women were professionals and voted.
Ah yes, but only under the Najibullah regime: Russian-supported, democratic, egalitarian. Those were the days! Probably one of the reasons the Russians weren't too popular among Afghan males...

[Lyle]

A somewhat amusing sidebar to the New York Times editorial quoted by zimv20 in the post that started this thread: There's some evidence (http://patterico.com/archives/003107.php) that the editorial's author lifted some of his "facts" directly from a Democratic Policy Committee talking points page about Republicans' use of filibusters, without checking to see how relevant those facts were to the point he was trying to make:
Contrary to the clear implication of the editors, the quote from Senator Bond has nothing to do with judicial filibusters. It related to his participation in a filibuster to block President Clinton's economic stimulus package. Here is the full context for the quote:

This month, the Republican minority used their unity and Senate rules to block Clinton's $16.3 billion economic stimulus package. "On important issues, I will not hesitate to join a filibuster," declares Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., who offered four amendments and orated as part of the Republican campaign.
You might well wonder: where did New York Times editors get the idea to include this irrelevant quote from a 1993 article in a St. Louis paper? A quote that has nothing whatsoever to do with filibusters of judicial (or even cabinet) nominees?

Wonder no longer. A Google search of that quote yields two results: today's NYT editorial, and a Democratic Policy Committee page of talking points about judicial filibusters, titled "The Republican Flip-Flop on Filibusters."

Ouch. The New York Times editors simply swallowed the Democrat talking points whole, rather than checking out this material for themselves.

[Chip NoVaMac]

It would seem you could find all the transfat in a birthday cake, too much sugar in the icing, and too many carbs in the cake.

So let me restate, there aren't women being beheaded in the soccer stadium, I hope! :rolleyes:

Hey Stu, you were talking about the "high-road". It is "difficult", isn't it? Nothing is as "black and white" as we would want it. You seemed to overlook the fact that most "candidates" backed out of the "election" in protest.

[pseudobrit]

A somewhat amusing sidebar to the New York Times editorial quoted by zimv20 in the post that started this thread: There's some evidence (http://patterico.com/archives/003107.php) that the editorial's author lifted some of his "facts" directly from a Democratic Policy Committee talking points page about Republicans' use of filibusters, without checking to see how relevant those facts were to the point he was trying to make:

1: I fail to see how one could claim the quote was taken out of context and misused

2: Some evidence is not proof; how some biased blogger doing a Google search becomes proof of a biased left-wing media conspiracy is beyond me.

3: We're now talking about the NYT's alleged bias instead of the importance of filibuster. Mission Accomplished.

[Chip NoVaMac]

A somewhat amusing sidebar to the New York Times editorial quoted by zimv20 in the post that started this thread: There's some evidence (http://patterico.com/archives/003107.php) that the editorial's author lifted some of his "facts" directly from a Democratic Policy Committee talking points page about Republicans' use of filibusters, without checking to see how relevant those facts were to the point he was trying to make:

I guess for some it matters only what impact the choices have on the future of the nation when it does not involve "money". Shame on all politicians that don't look towards the "people" for their guidance.

[stubeeef]

Ah yes, but only under the Najibullah regime: Russian-supported, democratic, egalitarian. Those were the days! Probably one of the reasons the Russians weren't too popular among Afghan males...

If true, I was mistaken then.

[mactastic]

All I can say is that if the GOP kills the fillibuster it will come back to bite them in the ass later. Even if it takes 20 years, some day a GOP senator will again be faced with a majority of Democrats and his/her only recourse to prevent being steamrolled by something they find horribly offensive will be gone. And they will have no one to blame but their own party.

And Bill Clinton of course. :p

[Chip NoVaMac]

All I can say is that if the GOP kills the fillibuster it will come back to bite them in the ass later. Even if it takes 20 years, some day a GOP senator will again be faced with a majority of Democrats and his/her only recourse to prevent being steamrolled by something they find horribly offensive will be gone. And they will have no one to blame but their own party.

And Bill Clinton of course. :p

Amen...

[Xtremehkr]

At least Clinton got the popular vote both times. And there was no voter fraud on the scale of Broward county either.

So what if GWB got 51% this time, he won on a SC decision the first time. If it weren't for that he would never have been able to run for a second term which is the first time he has been elected.

[stubeeef]

never mind, it is academic.

[IJ Reilly]

never mind, it is academic.

It may be "history," but it's certainly not "academic."

[Xtremehkr]

never mind, it is academic.

how so?

[stubeeef]

Sorry, I was going to go into the whole who won the 2000 election, then deleted it. I forgot to put it in the edited info, sorry. Too tired for that one.

If you want to, cause I don't really want to, and I am sure it has been beaten like a worn rug, here is a good link to start with. (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)

On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.


Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

I hate that this looks like a hit and run, but I am going to bed, get up at 4am and start a 9 leg 2 day trip. I wasn't meant to be, but the other post looks funny if I don't. SORRY.

PS the study was not definative, but one of the better ones IMHO.

[Xtremehkr]

I was thinking more of the felon list that was targetted to disenfranchise a specific group of Democratic friendly voters. Regardless, it doesn't change who won the popular vote.