 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:19 am Post subject: McCain Says He'll Vote With Dems on Filibuster |
 |
|
Chris Mathews interviewing McCain: Excerpt
| Quote: | McCain says he'll vote with the Dems on the filibuster issue
Senator talks about baseball, filibuster, and Jane Fonda on Thursday's 'Hardball' from the RFK stadium
McCain on the filibuster
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Do you think it’s fair for the Democrats to stop all government business if the Republicans get rid of the filibuster in judgeships?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: No, I don’t. And I think...
MATTHEWS: Is it fair for the Republicans to get rid of the filibuster?
MCCAIN: No. And why is it that after 200 years we now cannot settle the issue of judges? Well, it’s a symptom of the problems we have with the bitter partisanship here in Washington.
MATTHEWS: The president of the United States gets to pick federal judges. What should be the standard that the opposition applies to whether they let it come to a vote or not?
MCCAIN: I think that they should let them come to a vote, but I also think that before the nominations are formally introduced, the way they used to do it, they would kind of run the traps of the— senators, particularly those on the committee and say, "Are these acceptable or unacceptable?" and if they were unacceptable they wouldn’t send them over and if they were acceptable, then they would move forward.
We used to have this thing called a blue slip, where if it was a judge from your state, you could and if you objected they didn’t take it up. And by the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we effectively, in the Judiciary Committee, blocked a number of his nominees.
MATTHEWS: But bottom line, would you vote for what’s called the “nuclear option,” to get rid of the filibuster rule on judgeships?
MCCAIN: No, I will not.
MATTHEWS: You will stick with the party?
MCCAIN: No, I will vote against the nuclear option.
MATTHEWS: You will vote—
MCCAIN: Against the nuclear option.
MATTHEWS: Oh, you will?
MCCAIN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: So you will vote with the Democrats?
MCCAIN: Yes, because I think we have got to sit down and work this thing out. Look, we won’t always be on the majority. I say to my conservative friends, some day there will be a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Democrat Congress. Why? Because history shows it goes back and forth. I don’t know if it’s a hundred years from now, but it will happen. And do we want a bunch of liberal judges approved by the Senate of the United States with 51 votes if the Democrats are in the majority? |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7505537/
"And do we want a bunch of liberal judges approved by
the Senate of the United States with 51 votes if the Democrats are
in the majority?"
??????????????
UHH, Senator McCain, never mind a hundred years from now.
IT"S ALREADY HAPPENED!!!
What do you think we have NOW!!!!
And we will continue to have liberal activist judges until the Republicans
get some conservative judges confirmed!!! LIKE NOW!!!
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
srmorton
PO2
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 383
Location: Jacksonville, NC
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Of course, I won't be around in 100 years, but I do have an opinion
about John "RINO" McCain's comments. If the nation votes for a liberal
POTUS and there is a majority of liberals in the Senate, then that is
exactly what should happen. If the people vote for such a President,
he will be entitled to nominate whomever he chooses, and, according
to the Constitution, 51 votes is all that judges are required to receive
in order to be confirmed.
BTW, each of the judges that were filibustered during the last session
of Congress reportedly had more than 51 "yea" votes. The votes were
never held, so they did not have the opportunity to receive them.
_________________
Susan R. Morton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | MATTHEWS: Is it fair for the Republicans to get rid of the filibuster?
MCCAIN: No. And why is it that after 200 years we now cannot settle the issue of judges? Well, it’s a symptom of the problems we have with the bitter partisanship here in Washington. |
Interesting that he used the '200years' / found this that addresses that '200yrs' - learn something new everyday, too bad our congresscritters dont
Legal Lies from People for the 'American Way"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1383187/posts
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 13 April, 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)
| Quote: | I followed a link from a thread on FR to PFAW, and read their statements about filibusters of judicial nominees. I then sent them the following note in the Comment part of their form:
| Quote: | Ladies & Gentlemen, I practice in the US Supreme Court. I write books and articles on Con Law. I know the legal history of the US inside and out. You have money, you have researchers.
You know as well as I do that the legislative filibuster is two centuries old, but the judicial filibuster is both new and recent. You also know that the Advice and Consent Clause requires only a simple majority for confirmation of presidential nominees. So, I ask you to stop lying about American legal history. This is also a test case to see whether you will read and respond to other than uninformed applause in any note.
J. Armor, Esq. |
Back came the following response:
| Quote: | Hello:
It appears our legal department have examined the same legal history and reached a different opinion than you have. Detailed information about our position is available here:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17707
Sincerely,
People For the American Way Foundation |
Note that an e-mail to PFAW, a lobbying organization, was answered by a reply from the PFAW Foundation, which is a (501(c)(3) charity, and is supposed to be kept separate from PFAW itself. Also, that reply referred back to the PFAW website, not to anything belonging to the Foundation. These are facial violations of the Internal Revenue Code, IMHO.
I sent the following response, to which I expect no reply:
| Quote: | Ladies & Gentlemen,
The good sign is that your response to me shows that someone is actually reading the e-mails you receive.
The bad news is that your website does not provide "detailed information" about the filibuster as you claimed it did in providing a click link. I have no doubt that PFAW did have its lawyers look over its published information. Having spent 35 years at the bar, however, I know that roughly half of all lawyers take whatever legal position favors the organization which pays their fees.
The details missing from your "detailed information" are at least these two critical points.
1) For 200 years, the filibuster was NOT used on judicial nominations, beginning with the first ones made by President Washington under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Any competent and honest lawyer would have insisted that this fact be included.
2) For the same 200 years, the Senate consistently took the Advise and Consent Clause in the Constitution to mean that a simple majority was required, no more, to confirm any judicial nominee. Again, any competent and honest lawyer would have insisted that this fact be included.
Your lawyers have evidently assisted PFAW in putting forward a plausible-sounding series of lies about the filibuster and judicial nominations. That may be your idea of "the American way." It is not mine, nor is it the idea of those who created the United States and designed its Constitution and its government.
Very Truly Yours,
John Armor, Esq. |
|
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Poole
Vice Admiral
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 914
Location: America
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
IMO, John McCain is making controversy and dealing with as many obfuscating issues as possible hoping to non sequitur his way out of dealing with his real problem: illegal aliens. He's dealt with Jack Johnson, steroids, campaign finance and now the filibuster issue. Not a word about the mass of desperate humanity invading our country, especially through Arizona! sheesh.
_________________
'58 Airedale HMR(L)-261 VMO-2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I B Squidly
Vice Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 879
Location: Cactus Patch
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Old Johnny Boy knows he can't win the Rep. nomination but can't now give up his Committee Chairs. I figure in '08 he'l give Hillary a good run for the Dem slot. How will the MSM play that?
_________________
"KILL ALL THE LAWYERS!"
-Wlm Shakespeare |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kate wrote: | | ....Interesting that he used the '200years' / found this that addresses that '200yrs' - learn something new everyday, too bad our congresscritters dont |
If Sen. McCain is spewing talking points from the People For the American Way website (see below), then he needs to be watched as closely as kerry…
| Quote: | | MCCAIN: No. And why is it that after 200 years we now cannot settle the issue of judges? |
And what is this garbled mess? Clearly muddled! As usual for the senator, trying his darndest not to have a personal opinion either way. Try to read this without your brain crunching:
| Quote: | | MCCAIN: I think that they should let them come to a vote, but I also think that before the nominations are formally introduced, the way they used to do it, they would kind of run the traps of the— senators, particularly those on the committee and say, "Are these acceptable or unacceptable?" and if they were unacceptable they wouldn’t send them over and if they were acceptable, then they would move forward. We used to have this thing called a blue slip, where if it was a judge from your state, you could and if you objected they didn’t take it up. |
And then he gives a little fuel to the dem. side because they haven’t already said this 200 times:
| Quote: | | MCCAIN: “And by the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we effectively, in the Judiciary Committee, blocked a number of his nominees.” |
| Quote: | | MCCAIN: … Look, we won’t always be on the majority…. |
That’s the point Mr McCain – the Republicans are the majority now and why oh why do you keep apologizing for that?
Talking Points and propaganda from the American Way website: As indicated by attorney Armor in the previous post, they make no distinction between legislative vs. judicial filibusters – their argument rotates around one general concept: “filibuster” and its “200-year history”:
| Quote: | **People For the American Way**
……For two centuries, our leaders have supported the tradition of the filibuster in order to promote cooperation and compromise, <…> The "nuclear option" would violate Senate rules …. the atmosphere in the Senate after this attack would resemble a "nuclear winter." All bipartisan cooperation would vanish and the Senate's legislative business could grind to a halt, only adding to the price Americans would pay for the right's reckless abuse of power.
Talking Points
……The U.S. Constitution gives senators the vital responsibility and power to confirm or reject the President's nominees to our federal courts (U.S. Con., Art. 2, Sec. 2). The Constitution also gives senators the authority to create rules for Senate proceedings (U.S. Con, Art. 1, Sec. 5). For over 200 years, the filibuster tradition has been maintained under this authority and used by senators of both parties, including GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, in an effort to prevent the confirmation of judicial and other nominees.
……The outgoing Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch, has himself explained that the filibuster is "one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents." For 200 years the filibuster has been an essential part of our system of checks and balances…. |
Their threat to the "nuclear option" is a "nuclear winter" -- so visual. (By the way, does anyone know who coined "nuclear option" in the first place? The Repubs or the Dems??)
| Quote: | Note on: Ralph Neas
the President & CEO of PFAW
…..in a September 2000 article for The Nation magazine, Neas sounded a still more alarmist note, contending that if the views of Scalia and Thomas were to become the majority, "the result on issue after issue would be a radical, reactionary shift in U.S. law."
…..Neas noted that "the Supreme Court is already dominated by conservative Justices who are aggressively promoting a troubling new theory of federalism and states' rights that is drastically restricting the power of Congress to protect Americans' rights….
In 2003, for instance, Neas partnered PFAW with activists like actor Alec Baldwin (who is a PFAW directors' board member) and groups like the National Lawyer's Guild, the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Muslim American Society, in an effort to roll back the Patriot Act…. |
Thanks, Kate, for this research. I recall during the election McCain’s vague & meandering opinions and his “kerry would be a good president and Bush would be a good president” statement and also his smear of the Swifts... ..which the dems used over and over to support kerry and which he has let stand to this day….. And here he is again, leaning, leaning left by supporting their arguments. If he is a Republican, perhaps McCain’s staff could find this “other type of information” (i.e., factual) for him and help clear up some of the current fog in his mind (though I am suspicious that the “fog” around him might be deliberate):
| Quote: | John Armor, Esq. to PFAW:
…..You know as well as I do that the legislative filibuster is two centuries old, but the judicial filibuster is both new and recent. ….. So, I ask you to stop lying about American legal history.
The details missing from your "detailed information" are at least these two critical points.
1) For 200 years, the filibuster was NOT used on judicial nominations, ….
2) For the same 200 years, the Senate consistently took the Advise and Consent Clause in the Constitution to mean that a simple majority was required, no more, to confirm any judicial nominee. |
------------------------------------------------ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Capt. McQueeg should just switch parties now, then he can be in the minority and vote like a Democrat without being a RINO. Best of both worlds for him. Then all he has to do is deal with the AZ Republicans who elected him. I have no use for this ingrate. President?? No way. Anyone who thinks so better remember the story of the Trojan horse.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greasepaint
Seaman
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 177
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:16 pm Post subject: could somebody please explain this filibuster thing |
|
|
how do you have one, or more, filibusters - on judges or whatever,
and NOT shut down the Senate?
was there a rule change, in modern times, to allow this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:06 pm Post subject: Re: could somebody please explain this filibuster thing |
|
|
| greasepaint wrote: | how do you have one, or more, filibusters - on judges or whatever,
and NOT shut down the Senate?
was there a rule change, in modern times, to allow this? |
Yes is the answer and ask Sen KKK Byrd about it. His term of "leadership" as majority leader is when he did it. It should be called the "Byrd Rule" and the Dems started using it 2 years ago to block 200 years of tradition on up and down votes. Filibusters are not in the Constitution which only requires a majority vote and has been so since the beginning, It is the Liberal minority changing the rules and using a parliamentary obstructionist tactic. In another post I commented on Reed's Rules of 1890 when Thomas B. Reed was Speaker of the House. Reed is why filibusters do not occur in the H of R.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocsparky101
PO1
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 479
Location: Allen Park. Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ins't this the same Senator John Mc Cain who with John Kerry sold out the 2500 missing POW/MIAs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is an informative article that slices right into the Left’s arguments on filibuster – cuts them wide open (info McCain should perhaps read before he votes with the Democrats on this):
| Quote: | “Filibuster myth-busters,” by Wendy E. Long, WashTimes - 4/15/05
Wendy E. Long is counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network (see below), a former Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and former press secretary to former Sens. Gordon Humphrey and Bill Armstrong.
(excerpts/emphasis added)
If you were a senator, whose views would be more important to you: liberal special-interest groups, or registered voters? The liberal groups demand that Democrats filibuster (prevent the Senate from voting on) some of President Bush's best-qualified nominees to the federal appeals courts. But a recent Ayres McHenry nationwide survey reveals that 82 percent of registered voters believe well-qualified nominees deserve a Senate vote. That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Democrats, and 81 percent of Independents.
Myth No. 1: Filibuster of judges is a sacred tradition.
---FACT: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. <…> The current obstruction of judges is no "traditional" filibuster: it is the first time in more than 200 years that either party has filibustered to keep judges with majority support off the federal bench.
Myth No. 2: Mr. Bush's nominees are being treated no differently than other presidents' nominees.
---FACT: In the last Congress, 10 of the president's 34 appellate nominees were filibustered — the lowest confirmation rate since FDR. Democrats mask their sabotage of these nominees by citing the confirmation rate of judges to federal courts overall — an irrelevant statistic, because the federal courts of appeal make final rulings on most issues of constitutional law. <….>
Myth No. 3: The Senate has a "co-equal" role with the president in judicial nominations.
---FACT: The Constitution expressly gives the president — and only the president — the power to nominate federal judges. All the Senate can do is say "yes" or "no" to the president's choices. That is the "check" in the "checks-and-balances" system, to make sure no unqualified nominee becomes a federal judge. It does not give Senators — and a minority of Senators at that — the power to insist on judges who suit their own ideology.
Myth No. 4: The current filibuster is about "free speech."
---FACT: Historically, the filibuster has given senators in the minority a chance to speak on the Senate floor before the majority rushes to pass a bill. But the current filibuster is not about the right to speak out. It is about blocking judges. <….> The majority welcomes free speech and free debate — followed by a free vote.
Myth No. 5: The filibuster protects "the right of the minority" to veto nominees.
---FACT: The Constitution requires two-thirds vote for certain things. Appointing judges is not one of them. So the basic principle of democracy applies: The majority decides. The filibuster of judicial nominees turns majority rule on its head, because 41 of 100 senators can keep a judge off the bench without ever even voting.
A liberal minority needs federal judges to advance their agenda — <…> Mr. Bush promised to nominate judges who will apply the law as written and stay out of politics. The recent Ayres survey shows 67 percent of voters agree that "we should take politics out of the courts and out of the confirmation process." A full 61 percent of Democrats agree with this statement, as well as 73 percent of Independents and 69 percent of Republicans. |
**Judicial Confirmation Network (“JCN”)**
(Scanning thru some of their articles, I found an answer to my question in a previous post about who coined the term “nuclear option.”
In the middle of an article here, it is stated: “We'd prefer an outright rule change ending the filibuster to the use of obscure rules
to get around it — what the Democrats melodramatically call "the nuclear option.")
3/9/05 PRESS RELEASE:
“Wendy Long Joins Judicial Confirmation Network”
Former Litigation Partner at Kirkland & Ellis to Serve as Legal Counsel
--------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A real filibuster used to involve a marathon talkathon where the guy who had the floor would talk on and on and on till the issue was killed or cloture invoked. Ask Sen. KKK Byrd, the man who attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Bill. If this were a real thing, Sen Frist would tell them to go ahead and try a talkathon and that would quickly die. The idea is to dump the stupid "Byrd Rule" and do something like Reed's Rules and get back to the business they are supposed to be doing. Leadership is demanded here and none has been seen as of yet. Especially Senator McCain aka Capt. McQueeg, the Liberal's pet RINO.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kate wrote: | | ....Frist needs to hear that he has support on (what this "nuclear option" truly is) -- the "constitutional option" |
Looks like he is going to be speaking out on this... but it's not going to be easy: 
| Quote: | “Frist to Participate in Anti-Filibuster Telecast" -- Democrats Say He Is Mixing Religion, Politics, by Charles Babington, WaPo – 4/16/05
(excerpts)
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's decision to appear in a national telecast with prominent Christian conservatives -- who are calling for new Senate rules to seat federal judges and are assailing "the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left" -- drew fire yesterday from Democratic leaders. The April 24 "Justice Sunday" telecast is sponsored by the Family Research Council. Its president, Tony Perkins, said in a letter to supporters: "We must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith." <..….>
"I am disappointed that in an attempt to hide what the debate is really about, Senator Frist would exploit religion like this," Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said. "Participating in something designed to incite divisiveness and encourage contention is unacceptable. I would hope that Senator Frist will rise above something so beyond the pale." Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said he hopes Frist "will decide not to participate in this blatant assault on the fundamental principle of separation of church and state." Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) urged Frist "to remove himself from an extremist teleconference . . . to bash judges."
Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson issued a statement citing an Oct. 11 Washington Post story that said Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) -- then the Democratic presidential nominee -- "used a Baptist pulpit (in Florida) to speak of eternal life and denounce President Bush. Senate Democrats said nothing in response," Stevenson said. To criticize Frist "for agreeing to deliver a similar address pressing for fair treatment of the president's judicial nominees" is "a clear double standard." (see Free Republic article below)
A flier promoting the program says, "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."
In his letter promoting the event, Perkins said, "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU, have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms." The filibustered nominees "are being blocked because they are people of faith and moral conviction," he said. "These are people whose only offense is to say that abortion is wrong or that marriage should be between one man and one woman."
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said Frist's participation "is more than troubling. It is disingenuous, dangerous and demagogic." He said the Senate leader "must not give legitimacy to those who claim they hold a monopoly on faith." |
| Quote: | Free Republic posts a 10/11/04 article
about Kerry’s “use of the pulpit” at a Baptist church in Miami referred to above:
<…..> "I can tell you, it's in Luke 10," Kerry said, referring to the commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Kerry became more explicitly political, and the congregation roared its approval. "In the 1990s under Bill Clinton, we lifted more people out poverty," he said. "This president has taken that $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into the biggest deficits in American history. . . . These folks want to take Americans backward and cut overtime pay. Not in my America. . . . These people talk about values?" Congregants waved fans emblazoned "People of Faith for Kerry-Edwards." Kerry smiled after former U.S. rep. Carrie Meek (D-Fla.) said he is "fighting against liars and demons." Kerry, who has compared Bush to those in the Bible story who ignored the wounded man before the Good Samaritan helped him, joked about the risk of being upstaged by Jackson and Sharpton. He said he didn't mind because "God's speaking here today, and we're going to listen." The minister, the Rev. Gaston E. Smith, endorsed Kerry, saying, "To bring our country out of despair, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry.” |
| Quote: | “Reid accuses Frist of 'radical Republican' politics,” CNN – AP -4/15/05
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate's top Democrat accused Majority Leader Bill Frist of engaging in "radical Republican" politics on Friday and urged him to cancel a videotaped speech to a group that claims President Bush's conservative court nominees face opposition on religious grounds. <…..> …..Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said of Frist, R-Tennessee. "God does not take part in partisan politics." <..….> "This goes too far, and I hope Sen. Frist would stop and reflect," said Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat. <….> |
----------------------------------------------------------
So what is exactly going on here: Frist agrees to appear in a “national telecast with prominent Christian conservatives” which will “originate from the Highview Baptist Church in Louisville.” He will deliver an address in which “he will press for fair treatment of the president's judicial nominees.”
Personally, I’d like to see Frist speak at any and all venues he can in getting the facts out about what is going on with the Left’s sabotage efforts on this matter– and I don’t mind if even gasp "Christian conservatives" listen to him….
But the idea of Frist SPEAKING (that’s the dems real problem here, I think) elicits outraged screams from the Left:
--“attempt to hide what the debate is really about”
--“exploit religion”
--“something designed to incite divisiveness and encourage contention.”
--“something so beyond the pale."
--“blatant assault on the fundamental principle of separation of church and state."
--“extremist teleconference . . . to bash judges."
--“disingenuous, dangerous and demagogic."
--"give legitimacy to those who claim they hold a monopoly on faith."
--“God does not take part in partisan politics."
--“This goes too far”
Getting past the excited and dramatic dem comments above -- what exactly are the rules, the facts, about where a senator can speak and who he can speak to? Was it wrong for kerry to speak at a Baptist church? Is it wrong for Frist to speak at a Baptist church? Who canspeak and who can’tspeak and where can a personspeak or a personnotspeak?
(Or, is “who” and “where” not really the point here but WHAT is going to be talked about…..)
---------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Repubs need to be reminded that they won this election, grow some spine ,and stop withering in the face of Reid's and the other Dems threats
and get this filbuster issue settled and out of the way. The more time they spend talking about the more weak they look.
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
