Well duh!

[FromTexas]

Democrats deny they are holding up progress. Rather, they criticize the president for what they say is his unwillingness to reach compromises with the minority party and his insistence on his own proposals.

Its called a mandate from the voters! Sheeesh! Republicans wouldn't be getting such broad support if we didn't want his proposals!

[rraley]

FromTexas...it's "broad support" eh? 51% means you are the absolute winner? Winning the electoral votes of one state means you have an amazing mandate? Meanwhile, this is done against a whacked out fella from Massachusetts who hasn't talked to a real person in 20 years or more. This means that 100% of your agenda should be passed without dissent?

I think not.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...what's your take on this article?


http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...3255-4107r.htm

[FromTexas]

Originally Posted by rraley

FromTexas...it's "broad support" eh? 51% means you are the absolute winner? Winning the electoral votes of one state means you have an amazing mandate? Meanwhile, this is done against a whacked out fella from Massachusetts who hasn't talked to a real person in 20 years or more. This means that 100% of your agenda should be passed without dissent?

I think not.

Broad support.. Take a look at America and how much is red and how much is blue by county! Our legislative process is being held captive by a few densely packed bastions of liberalization. Republicans have been gaining ground the past few elections in dramatic fashion.

When are democrats going to stop whining? "He didn't really win, Gore won!" "Oh! Fine! He won now but its not a mandate!" "You must listen to us even though we keep losing ground in elections!"

Fine, we listen. Bush's change to the social security plan is a sign of that, but, when Republicans have listened and the Dems still can't take the stick out of their collective arses that they don't have the power they wish they had, then we should have the right for a straight up and down vote to represent the elected mandate we were given.

This is nothing major. Eliminiating the fillibuster isn't "nuclear" or much more or less than any of the hundreds of other rule changes over the years.

So, in short, its a mandate... and a growing one at that.

[rraley]

First to comment on Larry's article....

First of all

But the Senate Democrats stand in the way of nearly every nominee the president sends over

Wow, this is a terrible overstatement based on hysteria and anti-liberal positioning. It has nothing to do with facts. President Bush has nominated over 200 federal judges, and only ten (that's right ten) have been filibustered. That's a confirmation rate of over 95%. I guess that since it isn't 100%, liberals and Senate Democrats are "standing in the way of nearly every nominee the president sends over."

He doesn't agree with U.S. policy on Cuba. Instead of filling some important posts in an important government department, he's aiding the Castro-Chavez axis.

This is a terrible piece of logic here. The USA trades with Red China, which Richard Nixon recognized, and did so with stronger support from Republicans than Democrats. Furthermore, for Mr. Kudlow to claim (earlier in the article) that Democrats would filibuster CAFTA is just plain wrong. The Democratic Party is no longer anti-free trade and liberalism does not hold anti-free trade positions as a tenet. That cuts more across party lines than many other issues.

Why do you think John Bolton is having such a tough time being confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations?

Because Colin Powell does not see him as fit to serve in that capacity and three Foreign Relations Committee Republicans have severe enough reservations to hold his nomination while a fourth is also cautious. Has nothing to do with Democrats.

It's time for the president and the GOP to enjoy the mandate they earned in the voting booth last fall.

Republicans won six new Senate seats, all in deeply red states. There are more red states than blue states, but they have less people. Democratic senators actually represent more people population wise.

MOre later...

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

You say:

only ten (that's right ten) have been filibustered

The article says:

exactly one judicial nominee was filibustered on the Senate floor in the 20th century: the ethically challenged Judge Abe Fortas. Five years in, there have already been 10 such filibustered nominees in the 21st century.

One in the ENTIRE 20th century vs. 10 in the last 5 years. 1 in a 100 vs. 10 in 5. What don't you get about this?


Further...

Because Colin Powell does not see him as fit to serve in that capacity and three Foreign Relations Committee Republicans have severe enough reservations to hold his nomination while a fourth is also cautious.

Damn, where is my copy of the Constitution? I must have missed the Powell requirement. Could you direct me to it? I had thought that the requirement was 'advice and consent' of the Senate, which, correct me if I have this wrong as well, would be established by a floor vote, yes? Or does it say 'unanimous consent' and I just missed that one to?

Maybe it simply says "the President shall, with the advice and unanimous consent of the minority party who shall then be afforded unanimous consent of the majority party..."


And then, what's this?

Democratic senators actually represent more people population wise.

By your logic, that shouldn't matter one wit. You're arguing that the minority party should have every right to get the candidates they want, Constitution be damned, yet then you go on to argue, that in complete defiance of every inch of our democratic system, that, somehow, whomever represents the most people based on population of their states, nevermind the people in those states who voted against them, should be in charge?

What's happened to you here of late? I've never seem you toss out so much non-sense before.

[rraley]

Larry, you didn't wait for me to finish...I started this post in school today...

To rebut your second points (not the article), I was not commenting on the historical precedence of filibustering nominees. I was commenting on the statement that "Democratic senators stand in the way of every nominee the President sends over." That is just an out and out exaggeration and I daresay a lie...like I said 95% confirmation rate of President Bush's judicial nominees. This 95% confirmation rate crushes Bill Clinton's 81% confirmation rate...the GOP decided to leave nominees in committee rather than have them come to the full Senate chamber. I "get" the historical precedence concept, but so what? There's a first time for everything.

As for the Bolton confirmation, I'm not saying that the Constitution requires Colin Powell's support. I don't think that you were thinking when you went off on me about this one. The Constitution requires the "advice and consent of the Senate." One line. The Senate works through a committee system and a full chamber. In order for legislation to pass the Senate, a bill must pass through a committee and pass on the floor; nominations are the same thing. If Republicans can bottle up nominations in committee, then they can be defeated in committee as well.

And nowhere am I saying that there needs to be unanimous consent. Once again, you are way overboard here, sir. Sometimes I wonder if you are serious/balanced when you go off the deep end like this. I am saying that he needs a majority of the votes. There are nine Republicans and eight Democrats on the Foreign Relations committee; eight Democrats oppose, three Republicans do now and a fourth may...that's 11 or 12 senators who oppose this man's nomination. There are allegations about his handeling of subordinates and his actions with foreign leaders in the past are highly questionable. So, why is it so bad to hold back on this? Especially when Republicans, including the chairman of the committee, are helping?

Now back to my point regarding the Senate and its make-up. Democrats don't do well in smaller states anymore, but these states have disproporionate power in the Senate (where representation is equal). Because of that, Republicans enjoy a natural advantage in the Senate, which is more representative of political dynamics rather than a concrete "mandate." We need to take that into consideration whenever we discuss these matters.

Now, Larry, I am not saying that the minority needs to be bowed to, but I am not going to suggest, as you, that the majority's complete will needs to be met fully. There is a thing called dissent and opposition in this nation. The opposition, whether it is Democratic or Republican, should not lay down and just say go ahead do it. Our system is not meant for that (this isn't a parliamentary form of government), and I don't think that going nuclear is going to help our nation. The minority must have a say in government, and getting rid of the filibuster will keep that from happening.

In any event, if Republicans do go "nuclear," I hope that Democrats reinstate the right to filibuster when they take back power in the Senate.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Sometimes I wonder if you are serious/balanced when you go off the deep end like this.

It's been a kinda tough one but, now I'm smiling.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by rraley

FromTexas...it's "broad support" eh? 51% means you are the absolute winner? Winning the electoral votes of one state means you have an amazing mandate? Meanwhile, this is done against a whacked out fella from Massachusetts who hasn't talked to a real person in 20 years or more. This means that 100% of your agenda should be passed without dissent?

I think not.

That's a great point RR, but it raises a question that I think should be given some consideration. You make the case that a majority group of 51% should not be able to dictate to a minority group of 49%. I am assuming that you feel this is an important issue because the minority 49% should not be forced to accept the edicts of the 51% majority because the numbers are so close. So I would ask, at what level does it become acceptable for a minority to be forced to accept the edicts of the majority? If the split were 70%/30%, could the majority be expected to exercise "majority rules" rights? How about 60%/40% or 99%/1%?

So I would ask you first, at what level of majority/minority divide does the acceptance of edicts and mandates become acceptable for the minority?

Second, at what point of divide does it become acceptable for the minority to refuse to accept the edicts/mandates and take illegal or inappropriate action to combat the majority?

And lastly, if you feel that there is a legitimate level of divide where the minority need not be compelled to follow the majority, then should we just ignore the process of majority rule?

[rraley]

I think that the minority should seek to exercise as great of political power as possible (within the law). Filibusters have been a tradition in the Senate, and it should be utilized by Democrats on agenda items where there is great passion and a great controversy in America. Bruzilla, do you believe that George W. Bush was elected because of every single one of his campaign planks or do you think that he was elected because of weak opposition, the dynamics of a foreign war, and because of a recent military attack on the United States? Or do you think that he was elected because Americans want private accounts for Social Security benefits and because they conservative judges and because they oppose abortion, etc. etc.?

Let's keep this all in perspective...George Bush won because Americans do not bounce chief executives during wartime. They did not elect him to redefine the judiciary. So, in essence, in regards to your first question: the minority should accept the dictates of the majority in most instances, except in rare cases in which the majority is truly out of step and truly acting out of arrogance and the belief in absolute mandates. Filibustering 10 out of over 200 judicial nominees is an example of not taking things to an extreme. 95%, people, where the hell is the crisis?

As to your second question, I believe that the minority should refrain from taking violent action unless serious, violent acts are executed against the minority.