27-04-2005 21:15									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: If the Republicans were simply out for their own power they would indeed be looking to nuke the filibuster in every instance rather than only for presidential nominees. Then they could run things like they do in the house. But they aren't trying to do that, they are simply trying to keep the president's nominees from being denied a vote by the minority party. This is a new phenomenon which apparantly requires a new rule to ensure that our courts can function in the long run.

1. This is certainly not a new phenomenon. See above.
2. Legislation and non-judicial nominees are transient, and can easily change with a new Congress or President. Judicial appointments are far, far more powerful. And that's what Frist and co. are after.

quote: Filibusters can't trump the constitution. They shouldn't be capable of blocking the senate from fulfilling any of its enumerated duties.

Where in the Constitution does it say that a simple majority of the Senate confirms a nominee?

	27-04-2005 22:49									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

WTF?!? The Democrats get their way and the GOP caves like girly men. This isn't supposed to happen

Has anything gone right polically for the GOP during the last couple of months?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5042601295.html

quote: GOP to Reverse Ethics Rule Blocking New DeLay Probe January Change Led Democrats to Shut Down Panel By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01 House Republican leaders, acknowledging that ethics disputes are taking a heavy toll on the party's image, decided yesterday to rescind a controversial rule change that led to the three-month shutdown of the ethics committee, according to officials who participated in the talks. Republicans touched off a political uproar in January by changing a rule that had required the ethics committee to continue considering a complaint against a House member if there was a deadlock between the committee's five Republicans and five Democrats. The January change reversed this, calling for automatic dismissal of an ethics complaint when a deadlock occurs. Democrats rebelled against that and other changes -- saying Republicans were trying to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) from further ethics investigations -- and blocked the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics panel is officially known, from organizing for the new Congress. Republicans on the committee say they will launch an investigation of DeLay's handling of overseas trips and gifts as soon as the impasse over the rules is broken. The Washington Post reported last weekend that Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff charged DeLay's airfare to London and Scotland to his American Express card in 2000. House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists. DeLay said that he will meet with the committee chairman and the ranking Democrat, and that his staff is assembling documents to turn over to the committee. The panel admonished DeLay three times last year for what it deemed inappropriate official behavior. The officials participating in talks about restarting the committee said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has agreed to ask the House to vote later this week on a rollback of the rule change. A Republican adviser said the decision "is the speaker's way of trying to put this behind us and get us back to regular order." "There will be a [political] cost to this, but if he had not done this, the cost would continue to increase," said the adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Hastert had not announced his decision. This morning, at a weekly meeting for all House Republicans, Hastert will present options for the rollback package, officials said. The officials, who demanded anonymity because the negotiations were confidential, said the proposal will include a reversal of the January rule that would automatically dismiss an ethics complaint after 45 days if the committee is deadlocked. "It's gone," an official said of the automatic-dismissal rule as he emerged from the negotiations. A House Republican leadership aide said that the automatic-dismissal rule is "the rule that is most commonly believed to be designed to protect Tom DeLay" and that it was "impossible to win the communications battle" on it. Leaving his office last night, Hastert would not say what form his recommended changes will take and suggested that one option might be to lengthen the time before the automatic dismissal occurs, to perhaps 90 or 120 days. "Sooner or later, there has to be a resolution -- people can't be dangled out there forever," Hastert said. "I think [the January changes] were good, fair things for the Congress -- everybody. But, you know, that is the point of contention. We can't move forward, we can't organize, we can't do the work that the ethics committee needs to do." The ethics committee's top Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), said that if the Republicans rescind all three rules changes made in January, Democrats would vote to let the ethics committee operate. "That would return you to rules that were fashioned in a bipartisan way," he said. Without a full reversal, Democrats will demand creation of a bipartisan ethics task force, he said. The ethics committee's chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), will support a vote on rule changes because he believes it is the only practical way to get the committee functioning, sources said. Hastings recently sought -- and received from the GOP leadership -- a large increase in the committee's budget and staff. The vote planned for later this week will mark the second time in four months that House Republicans have changed a rule but then changed it back under public pressure because the changes were perceived as designed to protect DeLay. Last November, Republicans rewrote an 11-year-old party rule that required a party leader to step aside if indicted, and instead made it possible for such a leader to maintain the party position. A grand jury in Austin was investigating the campaign finances of a political action committee created by DeLay and his political associates. After public objections to the maneuver, DeLay asked his party colleagues to rescind that change when they returned to Washington on Jan. 3 for the 109th Congress, and they did. The next day, the full House approved -- on a largely party-line vote of 220 to 195 -- changes that Democrats contended would make it harder to launch investigations and would undermine their effectiveness. A congressional aide said that changing the rules will mean "a couple of great days for Democrats" but that Republicans have calculated this will deny them long-term use of the ethics issue heading into next year's midterm elections.

	27-04-2005 23:09									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Bosh WTF?!? The Democrats get their way and the GOP caves like girly men. This isn't supposed to happen Has anything gone right polically for the GOP during the last couple of months? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5042601295.html

This has been a bad spring for the Republicans. Also, to respond to the idea that the Democrats are being wimpy about the filibuster debate, I give you

quote: by kos Tue Apr 26th, 2005 at 12:33:11 EST So Frist says: "Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure Senate confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees." Reid just engaged Frist in a game of chicken, and Frist blinked first. Reid has been extremely effective in whipping up opposition to the Nuclear Option, garnering strong grass- and netroots support, editorial board support, and popular support (as the latest polls show scant appetite for ending the filibuster). But in order to avoid looking like obstructionists, Demcorats had to make efforts to "find a compromise", lest the chattering class get the vapors from such Democratic intransigence. Had Frist accepted the offers for compromise, Bush would've gotten the majority of his judges through, and Democrats would've gotten -- who knows what. All published compromise offers didn't seem to give our side anything. So Democrats would've faced a sea of criticism from our own side for snatching defeat out of the hands of victory. Frist and Co. would've finally gotten a procedural victory against Reid (who has run circles around them thus far). And all that good will Reid had built in the netroots over the past four months would've evaporated in one fell swoop. It was one heck of a gamble, but the Senator from Nevada played his cards right. Frist painted himself into a corner, having whipped up the forces of wingnuttery into a froth, he could not back down without damaging his White House aspirations for 2008. He's banking on the crazies to get him the nomination. So Reid got the Democrats to look conciliatory, forcing Frist and his Republicans to look even more inflexible than before. Damn the guy is good. I'm glad he's on our side.

	27-04-2005 23:09									#64
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Regarding Senate rule changes and the effect in the past 30 years.

1975 - Change from 2/3 to 3/5 supermajority to end fillibuster completed via majority senate vote - responsible party Dems

1977 - Change to eliminate post cloture fillibusters via Senate majority - responsible praty Dems (Byrd)

1979 - Limitation of Amendments to Appropriations bills via Senate majority = responsible party Dems (Byrd)

1980 - Precedent for consideration of nominations (order of executive calendar) via Sente majority = responsible party Dems (Byrd)

1987 - Change in voting procedures (essentially elimination of delay tactics) via Senate majority = responsible party Dems (Byrd)

quote: CONCLUSION Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the Senate to “determine the Rule of its Proceedings.” In 1917 and on many occasions since 1917, the Senate has debated whether this constitutional rulemaking power allows a simple majority to alter the Senate’s Standing Rules at will. At least four times, changes to the Senate Standing Rules were influenced by attempts to use the constitutional option. And throughout Senate history, a simple majority has changed Senate procedures governing debate by setting precedents or adopting Standing Orders that altered the operation of the Standing Rules without amending their actual text. Over two centuries, the Senate’s constitutional rulemaking power has been exercised in a variety of ways to change Senate procedures. As Senate parliamentary process further evolves, this power plainly will be exercised again. At issue is when, how, and to what effect. 433. Id.; see also 146 CONG. REC. S11,856 (2000) (statement of Sen. Byrd). 434. Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 903 (2000), 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-198. 272 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Volume 28

	28-04-2005 00:24									#65
	Inflate your Upload Space

Speaking of boneheaded GOP moves, how about Bush threatening to veto the highway spending bill?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04...tion=cnn_latest

First, Bush has never vetoed anything, so threatening such--twice--is bound to make headlines. But the kicker here is that the bill is extremely popular, passing a Senate procedural vote 94-6. There's a veto-proof majority that supports to bill.

So threatening the veto was politically stupid. Either it will be overridden, further driving home the image of Bush as a lame duck, or he'll have to renege and sign it, which would make him look even more foolish. Was this Rove's idea, or was Bush off script again?

	28-04-2005 00:27									#66
	Increase Your PM Length

With respect to filllibustering in times past and the political posturing:

NY Post

quote: April 26, 2005 -- IN 1955, William F. Buckley Jr. famously declared that the purpose of conservatism was "to stand athwart history, yelling 'Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." That astoundingly witty remark was a rueful acknowledgement of the uphill challenge facing the nascent American right, half a century ago — trying to halt the forward movement of a self-confident liberal left that was utterly certain it could make the world a better place through government action and forced social change. Who could have imagined, reading Buckley's words in 1955, that 50 years later the liberal left would have adopted Buckley's screaming "Stop" as its mantra? Only there's nothing whimsically philosophical about the Democratic "Stop," as there was in Buckley's case. Rather, there's something primal about it, something desperate, something heartbroken and enraged. Judges appointed by a twice-elected president who received the greatest number of votes in American history? STOP! Find new sources of domestic oil to combat our dependence on Middle East petroleum? STOP! A nominee for U.N. ambassador who has been confirmed four times previously by the Senate and whose views clearly dovetail with the president who nominated him? STOP! And on and on it goes. How else to explain the wild enthusiasm, indeed the almost romantic praise, expressed by Democrats and their cheerleaders in the media for the Senate filibuster — a legislative maneuver created by a quirk in Senate rules that was most famously used to block civil-rights laws in the 1940s and 1950s? After all, the filibuster is the ultimate "stop" — a device that has no other purpose and no other effect other than to halt the passage of a piece of legislation or a nomination for high office that has succeeded in getting through a Senate committee and has the support of a majority of senators. It's a sensible tactical approach in some ways. The Democrats find themselves with an 11-seat deficit in the Senate, a 30-seat minority in the House of Representatives, and they face a Republican president who won the first absolute majority vote in 16 years. They have no hope of getting through legislation they would like. Negativity is one of the few ways they have to express their policy views — or, let us say, to express their disapproval of Republican policy views. It's a classic approach for a minority party. At times that negativity can be a powerful rallying point, as it was when Republicans in Washington decided they were going to do everything they could to kill the 1993 Clinton health-care proposal — and used the momentum from that negative victory to create the conditions for the landslide midterm election in 1994 when they took control of the House and Senate. Certainly, Democrats and liberals will be thrilled and emboldened if they succeed in their disgraceful and repellent efforts to torpedo John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador through venal acts of character assassination. But Bolton's defeat will only lead the ornery Bush to appoint someone else Democrats might despise even more — and they will only be able to rally their energies to this cause once. Certainly they will be thrilled if Senate Republican leader Bill Frist is unable to muster the 50 GOP senators he will need to rewrite the rules and end the ability of Democrats to filibuster judicial nominees. But what will they have to show for it? The defeat of the Clinton health-care plan depressed and debilitated Democrats and the Clinton administration. The defeat of Bolton and the continuing filibuster of judicial nominees will only serve to enrage the Republican base — and Bush won't change his foreign policy because Bolton isn't at the United Nations to help advance it. The difference between Democrats in 2005 and Republicans in 1993 is that the GOP did more than yell "Stop." Yes, they defeated the Clinton health-care bill. But they also offered a highly detailed series of proposals for reform in Washington that offered voters a sense that Republicans weren't just reacting against Clintonism but were ready to supplant it with something better. By contrast, Democrats and liberals are screaming themselves hoarse as they yell "Stop" continuously. And when it comes to explaining, advancing or even imagining positive, forward-thinking policies for change, there's only silence. All that yelling is leading to a potentially terminal case of laryngitis. E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com

Summation:

Difference today vs. yesteryear when the evil Repugs fillibustered, obstructionism only has long term benefits if followed by the minority party with ideas/proposals of their own.

	28-04-2005 00:42									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Summation:

Difference between well-reasoned, honest editorials vs. the NYPost.

	28-04-2005 00:43									#68
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Summation:

One trick pony response.

	28-04-2005 00:47									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Excellent summation for that editorial of yours.

	28-04-2005 00:50									#70
	Support Apolyton

Obviously clueless as well considering my summation was not a RESPONSE but moreover a paraphrasing of the article.

Try again. Somehting more intellectual along the lines of your rubber I'm glue might fit the motif.

	28-04-2005 01:01									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

NY Post.

Anyway, I seem to remember a lot of Dems complaining when Reid became Majority Leader... saying he wasn't really liberal and thus would compromise too much. I guess they don't think the same way anymore .

	28-04-2005 01:05									#72
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I don't know how the Oped has anything at all to do with the filibustering of judical nominations. I'm sure that the Senate Democrats have a plethora of moderate suggestions if Dear Leader actually consulted them. But he doesn't listen to anyone who disagrees with him.

Bolton was delayed in Committee with moderate Republican opposition (see Hagel and Voinovich). What does this have to do with the filibuster? And character assassination?

Dunno what orifice they're pulling AWNR from.

Clinton's Health Care proposal wasn't a judicial nomination either. The Dems have policy proposals as well for a wide variety of issues, BTW. Including SS. They just aren't negotiating unless Shrub takes privatization off the table. Not unlike the Republican position in 1993-94.

And I loved this gem:

quote: Judges appointed by a twice-elected president who received the greatest number of votes in American history? STOP!

How 'bout extremist right-wing judges appointed by a President who lost the popular vote the first time, and won re-election by the narrowest margin an incumbent has since the 19th century, and only through character assassination?

Summation: worst editorial ever. Reading it kills your brain cells.

	28-04-2005 01:12									#73
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Obviously clueless as well considering my summation was not a RESPONSE but moreover a paraphrasing of the article.

Duh. You need to work on your English comprehension skills.

	28-04-2005 01:23									#74
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I don't know how the Oped has anything at all to do with the filibustering of judical nominations. I'm sure that the Senate Democrats have a plethora of moderate suggestions if Dear Leader actually consulted them. But he doesn't listen to anyone who disagrees with him.

Because my brain cell dying one, its talking to fillibustering in general regardless of whether the topic is executive calendared items or legislative items. But nice try at the parsing.

Regarding counter proposals: Any make the press? Any Dem leader go to the floor with a counter proposal? Hiding behind the facade that "I'm sure they have ideas no one listens" is laughable. Do they have ideas maybe who knows, but they sure don't have the guts to lay them out on the table.

quote: Bolton was delayed in Committee with moderate Republican opposition (see Hagel and Voinovich). What does this have to do with the filibuster? And character assassination?

While technically true, Voinovich & Hagel going wobbly was not of their own accord. Dem pressure and the success in the polls made these two spineless.

quote: Dunno what orifice they're pulling AWNR from.

Nor I since it passed albeit with much threatening at fillibuster by the Dems.

quote: Clinton's Health Care proposal wasn't a judicial nomination either. The Dems have policy proposals as well for a wide variety of issues, BTW. Including SS. They just aren't negotiating unless Shrub takes privatization off the table. Not unlike the Republican position in 1993-94.

Well then, rather than being the spineless cowards they are they need to get them on the table. But my guess is Joe Q Public isn't gonna like to hear the need for SS tax increases, no?

And back in 1994 it was common knowledge the repubs were working on the contract with America and was the basis of that election year.

quote: And I loved this gem: quote: Judges appointed by a twice-elected president who received the greatest number of votes in American history? STOP! How 'bout extremist right-wing judges appointed by a President who lost the popular vote the first time, and won re-election by the narrowest margin an incumbent has since the 19th century, and only through character assassination? Summation: worst editorial ever. Reading it kills your brain cells.

Loverly, could you work up your ire a bit more, the hackery wasn't quite thick enough to cut with a knife.

Summation: The brain cells apparently were dying long before you read the editorial.

	28-04-2005 01:25									#75
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Ramo 1 - Ogie 0

Sory, Ogie, it's a crap editorial.

	28-04-2005 01:29									#76
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: Obviously clueless as well considering my summation was not a RESPONSE but moreover a paraphrasing of the article. Duh. You need to work on your English comprehension skills.

Response - a written or spoken retort.

editorial of yours - Doesn't really exist now does it. I do however have my written paraphrasing of a NYPost editorial

not the same as:

NYPOST Editorial - Property of NyPost and written by Podhoretz. Not MY editorial.

Try stem cells maybe they can replace a few of those dead brain cells.

	28-04-2005 01:30									#77
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Ramo 1 - Ogie 0 Sory, Ogie, it's a crap editorial.

You are of course entitled to your opinion wrong as that may be.

	28-04-2005 01:52									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Because my brain cell dying one, its talking to fillibustering in general regardless of whether the topic is executive calendared items or legislative items. But nice try at the parsing.

No, brain cell dead one, the point is that the argument makes absolutely no sense wrt judicial nominations (and nominations in general). Absolutely none. Which is what Frist's proposal is about.

quote: Regarding counter proposals: Any make the press? Any Dem leader go to the floor with a counter proposal? Hiding behind the facade that "I'm sure they have ideas no one listens" is laughable. Do they have ideas maybe who knows, but they sure don't have the guts to lay them out on the table.

How 'bout, like the vast majority of nominees that DO get through? Folks like them. You do realize how absurd your argument is that the Dems do nothing but obstruct judicial nominees without positive suggestions, when the vast majority of judical nominees sail through the Senate without a filibuster?

quote: While technically true, Voinovich & Hagel going wobbly was not of their own accord. Dem pressure and the success in the polls made these two spineless.

You realize that Hagel's from Nebraska, don't you? Unlike most Republicans, he actually has some integrity. Voinivich might have been motivated by electoral concerns, though. Still don't see how this has a single thing to do with the filibuster.

quote: Well then, rather than being the spineless cowards they are they need to get them on the table. But my guess is Joe Q Public isn't gonna like to hear the need for SS tax increases, no? And back in 1994 it was common knowledge the repubs were working on the contract with America and was the basis of that election year.

The Contract With America was about government reform, not a comprehensive health care agenda (and generally avoiding policy). I guess the GOP were too spineless to have a real health care debate.

quote: Loverly, could you work up your ire a bit more, the hackery wasn't quite thick enough to cut with a knife.

Nice job totally missing the point. Notice what I was quoting?

quote: Response - a written or spoken retort. editorial of yours - Doesn't really exist now does it. I do however have my written paraphrasing of a NYPost editorial not the same as: NYPOST Editorial - Property of NyPost and written by Podhoretz. Not MY editorial. Try stem cells maybe they can replace a few of those dead brain cells.

In this context, the response referred to the editorial. Duh. It's rather pathetic that you're arguing with me over this point. Shows how badly you've been pwned on substance.

	28-04-2005 02:11									#79
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ramo How 'bout, like the vast majority of nominees that DO get through? Folks like them. You do realize how absurd your argument that the Dems do nothing but obstruct judicial nominees is without positive suggestions, when the vast majority of judical nominees sail through the Senate without a filibuster?

Great some have common ground. Whoop di freakin doo. Has there been any suggestion along grounds of the advise portion of their responsibilities for specific counter candidates for ones objectionable. (not that anyone can bring them to debate in the first place to find out the supposed reason they are objectionable) Nope not one.

And where pray tell have I said Dems do nothing but obstruct judical nominees. (Point of the matter is they obstruct all kinds of things without meaningful alternatives offered. )

quote: You realize that Hagel's from Nebraska, don't you? Unlike most Republicans, he actually has some integrity. Voinivich might have been motivated by electoral concerns, though. Still don't see how this has a single thing to do with the filibuster.

Big picture time. Obstructionism be it via fillibuster, the ultimate obstructionist practice, or otherwise without meaningful alternative.

quote: And back in 1994 it was common knowledge the repubs were working on the contract with America and was the basis of that election year.[/q] The Contract With America was about government reform, not a comprehensive health care agenda (and generally avoidn policy). I guess the GOP were too spineless to have a real health care debate.

Big picture time part 2. Contract with America was supposedly about reducing the governments size and role in America. Part and parcel of that meant no nationalized health care system.

quote: quote: Loverly, could you work up your ire a bit more, the hackery wasn't quite thick enough to cut with a knife. Nice job totally missing the point. Notice what I was quoting?

Sure but Podhoretz hackery doesn't even come close to yours.

quote: quote: Response - a written or spoken retort. editorial of yours - Doesn't really exist now does it. I do however have my written paraphrasing of a NYPost editorial not the same as: NYPOST Editorial - Property of NyPost and written by Podhoretz. Not MY editorial. Try stem cells maybe they can replace a few of those dead brain cells. In this context, the response referred to the editorial. Duh. It's rather pathetic that you're arguing with me over this point. Shows how badly you've been pwned on substance.

An editorial I may point out that is not MINE.

In the context of One Trick Pony responses tho' the monicker is all yours with the patented Ramo "Your source is a right wing hack job site" style response.

	28-04-2005 02:30									#80
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Great some have common ground. Whoop di freakin doo. Has there been any suggestion along grounds of the advise portion of their responsibilities for specific counter candidates for ones objectionable. (not that anyone can bring them to debate in the first place to find out the supposed reason they are objectionable) Nope not one.

I'm sure there have been. I'm not privvy to correspondence between Reid and Dear Leader. Do you have any legitimate reason to think that the Democrats aren't pushing moderate replacements for extremist nominees, considering moderate nominees sail through the Senate? Any at all?

quote: Big picture time. Obstructionism be it via fillibuster, the ultimate obstructionist practice, or otherwise without meaningful alternative.

Really ****ing Obvious Time. I'm sure the Democrats would love to pick who would be the UN Ambassador. Do you seriously think that they have no preferences? You really think that some of the moderates in State (like Armitige) haven't been pushed by the Dems? Your hackery is impressive.

I find it astounding that you're saying there's no meaningful alternative to John Bolton.

quote: Big picture time part 2. Contract with America was supposedly about reducing the governments size and role in America. Part and parcel of that meant no nationalized health care system.

Really ****ing Obvious Time Part 2. That's not a specific alternative. If that's a "solution," the Democrats have a far more extensive solution for SS.

quote: Sure but Podhoretz hackery doesn't even come close to yours.

The difference is that my sentence wasn't meant to be taken seriously. It was poking fun at how much of a hack Podheretz is (and thus, you, for posting it).

quote: An editorial I may point out that is not MINE.

No ****. That wasn't meant to be taken literally. Christ, you're dense. As I said, that you're arguing over this, shows how badly you've been pwned on substance.

	28-04-2005 02:47									#81
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Your theory for Democratic behavior simply doesn't make sense. At all. If they were simply obstructionists to Bush's nominees, there wouldn't be a 95% confirmation rate. If 95% of Bush's nominees are tolerable to Senate Democrats, why shouldn't the Dems push for the other 5% to be replaced by moderates? You're attributing an absurd behavior to the Dems, not grounded in reality, and whining about said behavior.

	28-04-2005 02:48									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I'm sure there have been. I'm not privvy to correspondence between Reid and Dear Leader. Do you have any legitimate reason to think that the Democrats aren't pushing moderate replacements for extremist nominees, considering moderate nominees sail through the Senate? Any at all?

Why should I or for that matter anyone in the electorate? Absence of action is more telling then promises and hints of things that might be done or said.

quote: Really ****ing Obvious Time. I'm sure the Democrats would love to pick who would be the UN Ambassador. Do you seriously think that they have no preferences? You really think that some of the moderates in State (like Armitige) haven't been pushed by the Dems? Your hackery is impressive. I find it astounding that you're saying there's no meaningful alternative to John Bolton.

Actually I suspect if and when Bolton is fillibustered down. Dubya will pick a second equally frightful candidate to force the issue. The Senate majority repubs may have little spine but Dubya won't back away as evidenced by him holding to the 10 judges.

quote: Really ****ing Obvious Time Part 2. That's not a specific alternative. If that's a "solution," the Democrats have a far more extensive solution for SS.

You really are clueless of course it was and is. Keeping the health care private is and always was a viable option.

As for the Demonrats alternative to SS, they refuse to put any details out because the chickenshits know it either means cutting benefits and losing AARP support or increasing SS taxes. Yum either way. Let the repubs do all the heavy lifting and handle that big pile of festering doo.

quote: The difference is that my sentence wasn't meant to be taken seriously. It was poking fun at how much of a hack Podheretz is (and thus, you, for posting it).

Considering your historical use of histrionics, your post was not out of character. How would I know you were just 'joking'?

quote: No ****. That wasn't meant to be taken literally. Christ, you're dense. As I said, that you're arguing over this, shows how badly you've been pwned on substance.

Substance?

Let me know the next time you post substance, it will be a first in this ongoing conversation.

	28-04-2005 02:53									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Your theory for Democratic behavior simply doesn't make sense. At all. If they were simply obstructionists to Bush's nominees, there wouldn't be a 95% confirmation rate. If 95% of Bush's nominees are tolerable to Senate Democrats, why shouldn't the Dems push for the other 5% to be replaced by moderates? You're attributing an absurd behavior to the Dems, not grounded in reality, and whining about said behavior.

Ohhh please, the 95% figure is so bogus. It's the appelate judges that matter and you know it.

quote: Myth vs. Fact Myth: The Senate has confirmed an overwhelming percentage of President Bush’s judicial nominees; therefore it is not problematic that a Democratic minority has blocked 10 nominations from receiving a floor vote. Fact: President Bush has the lowest first-term appellate confirmation record of any modern President. While Democrats claim they have confirmed more than 200 of President Bush’s judicial nominees, 10 of the 52 nominees to the circuit court of appeals were filibustered. (Jesse J. Holland, “Senate Confirms First Judge Of Bush’s Second Term,” The Associated Press, 4/11/05) President Bush’s confirmation rate for appellate judges is the “lowest” of any modern president. “A better figure would compare Bush’s four-year appellate confirmation rate to recent presidents. According to the American Enterprise Institute’s John Lott Jr., Bush’s four-year rate was 69 percent, the lowest of any modern president. Bill Clinton’s rate was 74 percent.” (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, “Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibuster,” The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

	28-04-2005 03:30									#84
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Why should I or for that matter anyone in the electorate? Absence of action is more telling then promises and hints of things that might be done or said.

What absence of action? The vast majority of Bush's nominees sail through the Senate. Even the super-majority of circuit cout appellate nominations sail through the Senate.

quote: Actually I suspect if and when Bolton is fillibustered down. Dubya will pick a second equally frightful candidate to force the issue. The Senate majority repubs may have little spine but Dubya won't back away as evidenced by him holding to the 10 judges.

It's questionable that he'll make it through committee or even an up and down vote.

quote: You really are clueless of course it was and is. Keeping the health care private is and always was a viable option.

Appaarantly not as clueless as you. Keeping Social Security as it is, is a viable option for this Congress and the next one, and the next one. Things'll only have to change in 40 or 50 years when the surplus dries up. At which point 70% of benefits could be funded, or taxes would be raised.

And a legitimate argument could be made that health care reform is absolutely necessary, and can't wait half a century. Hell, the Republican Congress passed and a Republican President signed the prescription drug benefit.

quote: As for the Demonrats alternative to SS, they refuse to put any details out

So the Rethugs can stew in their own political disaster.

quote: because the chickenshits know it either means cutting benefits and losing AARP support or increasing SS taxes. Yum either way. Let the repubs do all the heavy lifting and handle that big pile of festering doo.

Most people support raising the income cap on SS. So it's politically viable. What they're doing is a little strategory to prevent SS from being privatized and win the '06 election.

quote: Considering your historical use of histrionics, your post was not out of character. How would I know you were just 'joking'?

Coming from the guy who posts hack NYP editorials.

Anyways, the way you know is common sense. See what I was quoting. Generally, it helps to follow an argument.

quote: Ohhh please, the 95% figure is so bogus. It's the appelate judges that matter and you know it.

Now you're arguing appelate justices only? That's horseshit. Bolton isn't being nominated as an appelate justice.

Secondly, Clinton's second-term confirmation rate for appelate justices was far lower than the first-term. It's absurd to compare the least obstructionist Clinton term to Bush's term.

Thirdly, if a 69% confirmation rate constitutes negative obstructionism, surely a 74% confirmation rate constitutes negative obstructionism. So you've pwned yourself.

	28-04-2005 05:24									#85
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Ever time I hear a conservative claims the LA Times is a lefty paper I can't help but laugh.

Well, I'm a moderate saying that the LA Times is a shitty paper...

quote: You realize that Hagel's from Nebraska, don't you? Unlike most Republicans, he actually has some integrity.

	28-04-2005 06:26									#86
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Well, I'm a moderate

	28-04-2005 07:19									#87
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Appaarantly not as clueless as you. Keeping Social Security as it is, is a viable option for this Congress and the next one, and the next one. Things'll only have to change in 40 or 50 years when the surplus dries up. At which point 70% of benefits could be funded, or taxes would be raised.

Fine by me. Privatization likewise would be a viable option. Its just a shame the Dems want nanny state to prevent individuals from actually having a say in their retirment investments.

Yay for the government of the government and for the government. But then again you've always been in favor of unions holding the purse strings on pensions too, so go figure.

quote: And a legitimate argument could be made that health care reform is absolutely necessary, and can't wait half a century. Hell, the Republican Congress passed and a Republican President signed the prescription drug benefit.

One of the primary reasons I refused to vote for Dubya.

quote: quote: As for the Demonrats alternative to SS, they refuse to put any details out So the Rethugs can stew in their own political disaster.

This answer truthful and reflective of my same answer below

quote: quote: because the chickenshits know it either means cutting benefits and losing AARP support or increasing SS taxes. Yum either way. Let the repubs do all the heavy lifting and handle that big pile of festering doo. Most people support raising the income cap on SS. So it's politically viable. What they're doing is a little strategory to prevent SS from being privatized and win the '06 election.

This answer is a Ramo dreamy dream land answer.

BBBBRINGGGG! Alarm clock. Wake up sleepy head.

quote: quote: Considering your historical use of histrionics, your post was not out of character. How would I know you were just 'joking'? Coming from the guy who posts hack NYP editorials.

I wouldn't mind this so much if it weren't for the complete lack of originality. You'ld think a college kid would eventually get a new line or meme.

Where's the inspiration? Almost all your insults are merely copies of mine. You can do better my insipid uninspired friend.

If your not going to give new material, this will get old quite quickly. As I indicated before, give me something to work with, something of substance, challenge as that may be for you.

quote: Anyways, the way you know is common sense. See what I was quoting. Generally, it helps to follow an argument.

Why should I consider common sense to come into play considering the general lack you have shown in your entire history of posting?

quote: quote: Ohhh please, the 95% figure is so bogus. It's the appelate judges that matter and you know it. Now you're arguing appelate justices only? That's horseshit. Bolton isn't being nominated as an appelate justice.

Why are you even mentioning Bolton? The quotation I gave you made no mention of it. It referered to judicial nominees.

quote: Secondly, Clinton's second-term confirmation rate for appelate justices was far lower than the first-term. It's absurd to compare the least obstructionist Clinton term to Bush's term.

Puhlease again. By that time GOP was majority in Senate. Actually under rules of majority would have struck Clintonian appointees down without Minority obstructionist practices. The fact they held them up in comittee vs. giving them an up/down vote was immaterial and if truth be told more expeditious for actual senate business.

quote: Thirdly, if a 69% confirmation rate constitutes negative obstructionism, surely a 74% confirmation rate constitutes negative obstructionism. So you've pwned yourself.

I never said it didn't. It might have very well been obstructionist as well, and as I said, much of the obstuctionist tactics the Repugs did, caused me drop from the Repub party and go indie.

So sorry. I hope you didn't pwn yourself too hard. Might have to put some ice on that.

	28-04-2005 07:37									#88
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I never said it didn't. It might have very well been obstructionist as well, and as I said, much of the obstuctionist tactics the Repugs did, caused me drop from the Repub party and go indie.

Dude, the original thesis of the Post article was that while the Democratic opposition is obstructive, the Republican opposition was constructive. Thanks for confirming that it's indeed crap, thus definitely pwning yourself, and ending this idiotic argument.

quote: Why are you even mentioning Bolton? The quotation I gave you made no mention of it. It referered to judicial nominees.

I was referring to all nominees. Because you thought Bolton was somehow relevant to this argument. Then you constrained this to appellate nominations, and I was asking why.

quote: Puhlease again. By that time GOP was majority in Senate. Actually under rules of majority would have struck Clintonian appointees down without Minority obstructionist practices. The fact they held them up in comittee vs. giving them an up/down vote was immaterial and if truth be told more expeditious for actual senate business.

Puuhhhleeese yourself. You were the one claiming obstructionism is obstructionism - see Bolton held up in Committtee. What hypocrisy.

	28-04-2005 07:53									#89
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: I never said it didn't. It might have very well been obstructionist as well, and as I said, much of the obstuctionist tactics the Repugs did, caused me drop from the Repub party and go indie. Dude, the original thesis of the Post article was that while the Democratic opposition is obstructive, the Republican opposition was constructive. Thanks for confirming that it's indeed crap, thus definitely pwning yourself, and ending this idiotic argument.

No the entire thrust of the Post arguement was that while the Repubs were obstructionist they also posited a new agenda of reform. Something the Dems have as always failed to do. Nice try at reframing it tho'. NOT.


I also refer you back to my original summation of the article:

quote: Summation: Difference today vs. yesteryear when the evil Repugs fillibustered, obstructionism only has long term benefits if followed by the minority party with ideas/proposals of their own.

The fact was they the repubs were obstructionist a point I objected to and in fact pointed out.

quote: quote: Why are you even mentioning Bolton? The quotation I gave you made no mention of it. It referered to judicial nominees. I was referring to all nominees. Because you thought Bolton was somehow relevant to this argument. Then you constrained this to appellate nominations, and I was asking why.

Point of the matter was I never raised the issue of Bolton at all 'cepting within the context of the original Post article. YOU otoh felt the need to make issue of it whereupon I responded in Berz-like fashion in a point by point response. The matter of appelate judges IS the overriding concern as the higher the court appointment the larger the import. And please don't try to act cute or shocked shocked I tell you that this is news.

quote: quote: Puhlease again. By that time GOP was majority in Senate. Actually under rules of majority would have struck Clintonian appointees down without Minority obstructionist practices. The fact they held them up in comittee vs. giving them an up/down vote was immaterial and if truth be told more expeditious for actual senate business. Puuhhhleeese yourself. You were the one claiming obstructionism is obstructionism - see Bolton held up in Committtee. What hypocrisy.

If you don't see the difference in a minority obstructionist tactic and will of the majority being observed thats your problem.

One uses guile to its effect, while the other has the force of majority requiring the executive to plan and compromise accordingly.

	28-04-2005 08:05									#90
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

What the hell does the "agenda for reform" have to do with judicial nominations? The answer is nothing. Thus, the Post article is retarded.

quote: If you don't see the difference in a minority obstructionist tactic and will of the majority being observed thats your problem.

As I said earlier, the Senate ain't a majoritarian body. Otherwise, California and New York would swamp the piddly ass Republican states in the midwest. You can ***** all you want, but them's the rules for the body. Killing a nomination in a Committee with Republican over-representation ain't that different from killing it with a filibuster. Killing a nomination with a blue slip - under Hatch's rules (during the Clinton adminstration only) any Senator from the state of the judicial nominee can block the nomination - which happened fairly often, is far, far more antimajoritarian than the filibuster. Fact this, the nuclear option is a reckless power grab, nothing less.