Hypothetical Conversation with Sen. Byrd...

[Larry Gude]

In todays Post, the good Senator has moved from comparing the GOP to Nazi's and on to comparing efforts on the part of the GOP to give judicial nominees a fair vote to 'nuking free speech'.

To wit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5692-2005Mar3.html

If I could speak with the Senator:

Sen Byrd:

A "nuclear option" is targeting the Senate. No, this isn't some terrorist plot. Rather, some in the Senate are considering dropping a legislative bomb that threatens the rights to dissent, to unlimited debate and to freedom of speech.

LG: "Oh my God Senator! That sounds horrible! Is this one of those suitcase bombs we've heard so much about?"

SB:

Shut up, punk. President Bush has renominated 20 men and women to the federal bench, seven of whom the Senate rejected last year. To force a vote on these nominees, some senators are hoping to launch a parliamentary weapon aimed at the heart of open and extended debate. By a simple majority vote, a Senate filibuster on judicial appointments would be "nuked" for all time.

LG: "Senator, do you mean the 'Senate' rejected or 'a handful of Senators' rejected? And does this parliamentary weapon preclude the right to vote the old rules back in or are you being, shall we say, a tad colorful, to make your point?

SB:

Don't quibble with me, boy. I was hyperboling before you were shitting yellow. It starts with shutting off debate on judges, but it won't end there. This nuclear option could rob a senator of the right to speak out against an overreaching executive branch or a wrongheaded policy. It could destroy the Senate's very essence -- the constitutional privilege of free speech and debate.

LG: "So, there will be no debate whatsoever? Is there any concern about over reaching Senators having wrong headed policies?"

SB:

For crying out loud, yes there will still be SOME debate, but not the way I like it. To understand the danger, one needs to understand the Senate. The Framers created an institution designed not for speed or efficiency but as a place where mature wisdom would reside. They intended the Senate to be the stabilizer, the fence, the check on attempts at tyranny. To carry out that role, an individual senator has the right to speak, perhaps without limit, in order to expose an issue or draw attention to new or differing viewpoints. But this legislative nuclear option would mute dissent and gag opposition voices.

LG: "Senator, do you think the framers would consider your comparisons of the GOP to Nazi Germany as 'mature' wisdom? What of rules changes being compared to nuclear weapons? Do you think they expected 'mature' wisdom to include your versions of fillibuster where you stand in the well like a petulent child hoping everyone else will get tired before you do?"

SB:

You better be glad I'm not a younger man. We used to know how to deal with uppity people like you. We have heard the president call for an up-or-down vote on his judicial nominees. But nowhere in the Constitution is an up-or-down vote -- or even a vote at all -- guaranteed, and the president cannot reinterpret our nation's founding document to achieve his political goals. Only I can do that. Those who disagree with the president in this matter will be labeled "obstructionists," but nothing could be further from the truth.

LG: "Doesn't the Consitution give the Senate a roll to 'advise and consent'? Or does it say 'only with the advise and consent of EVERY Senator'? It would seem that a simple vote of the Senate would either give or deny the consent of the Senate, yes?"

SB:

I'm tiring of you young man. You'll respect your elders or feel the back of my cane, sir! A federal judge is selected for a lifetime appointment. Senators must apply their best judgment to each selection. If a senator believes a nominee should not be confirmed, that senator has a duty not to consent to confirmation. Yet, for the temporary goal of confirming a handful of objectionable judicial nominees, those pushing the nuclear option would callously trample on freedom of speech and debate.

LG: "I'm sorry if my free speech offends you Senator but wouldn't a Senator simply voting 'no' signify that you don't consent as a Senator just as a majority voting 'aye' would signify the consent of the Senate as a whole?"

SB:

If senators are denied their right to free speech on judicial nominations, an attack on extended debate on all other matters cannot be far behind. This would mean no leverage for the minority to effect compromise, and no bargaining power for individual senators as they strive to represent the people of their states.

LG: "So, filibusters, like the 14 hour one you're so famous for are 'debate' and not stalling tactics?"

SB:

Are you German boy? Whose side did your people fight for? Yes, Americans believe in majority rule, but we also believe in minority rights. Our liberties can be truly secure only in a forum of open debate where minority views can be freely discussed. Leave it to the House to be the majoritarian body. Let the Senate continue to be the one in which a minority can have the freedom to protect a majority from its own folly.

LG: "Thanks for asking Senator, but my people got here in 1850 and my grandfather dropped bombs on Japan. Back to the point. So, you'd like the Senate to no longer count votes in the majority, but whatever the minority decides goes, is that correct?"

SB:

DOn't make me get my hood out, boy. What the hell do you think I've been trying to say? It's the Untied States of whatever Bobby Byrd says, boy. You reading me? I am Ceasar! I am Master of this Chamber! Ahahahahahaahaahahahhhh!!!!!

End.

 

[Lenny]

LG: "Thanks for asking Senator, but my people got here in 1850 and my grandfather dropped bombs on Japan. Back to the point. So, you'd like the Senate to no longer count votes in the majority, but whatever the minority decides goes, is that correct?"

SB:

End.

This is the most creative thing I've seen in months. When will the sitcom be broadcast?

 

[Larry Gude]

You know...

...we got Hollywood doing any number of movies to flat out keep Clinton from getting impeached, Primary Colors, Wag, the Dog et al along with Martin Sheen as President and we got 'That's my Bush' day one of W's Presidency. Did I mention Farenheit 9/11?

I do not think what is left of the Democratic party could stand a TV show or a movie that took an adversarial or even critical look at the other side of the aisle.

In relation to Byrd some commentator stated, as fact, that the right ditched Lott for his inane comments so as to combat the image of consevatives as racist, bigots et al.

No chance it was because it was the right thing to do? Not enough to establish credentials as a fair minded party by nominating Justice Thomas? Secretary Powell? Director Rice and now Secretary Rice? Mineta? The whole crew?

The Demcoratic party lives on its illusions and they'd come crashing down if ever examined with a critical eye.

 

[rraley]

The Demcoratic party lives on its illusions and they'd come crashing down if ever examined with a critical eye.

The same could be said for the GOP as for the Democrats. Both have hypocrisies, misguided positions, members who do not act entirely within the the most favorable system.

 

[Larry Gude]

No...

The same could be said for the GOP

...no it can't. We're good. You guys bad. Howard Dean said so. He called us the enemy, therefore, he's our enemy, thus 'the bad guys'.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ps...

...did you at least laugh a little from the Bryd 'interview'?

 

[rraley]

...did you at least laugh a little from the Bryd 'interview'?

Indeed I did Mr. Gude. You have quite a knack for humor and political satire I must say.
I hope that your rebuttal to my statement was meant in humor too.

 

[Larry Gude]

No...no...

...you guys are pretty much the root of all evil. Gingivitis. Thinning hair. Erectile disfunction. Tsunamis. The DH rule. Boy bands...

 

[rraley]

...you guys are pretty much the root of all evil. Gingivitis. Thinning hair. Erectile disfunction. Tsunamis. The DH rule. Boy bands...

Haha, hey what's wrong the DH rule? Who wants to see the pitcher hit? I mean honestly, easy out or a lame ass bunt.

 

[Larry Gude]

strategery my boy...

...strategery.

National league pitchers are ball PLAYERS. They gotta bunt or hit and run, move the runner over, something. They also have to run the bases. It is supreme strategery for the manager when to pull a pitcher based on game situations.

The funny part? I used to think as you do about dh's.

Ah, old age.

 

[Tonio]

...you guys are pretty much the root of all evil. Gingivitis. Thinning hair. Erectile disfunction. Tsunamis. The DH rule. Boy bands...

You forgot Scott Baio, the Antichrist of teen idols. He's probably a devoted Michael Moore fan.

BTW, you're "misquoted" again in my sig.