I’m not kidding… these theo-fascists are scary, scary folk, intent on establishing God’s dominion over earth… which of course really means their dominion over us. They despise our Constitution as a document of the Enlightenment, and seek to replace it with a theocratic republic. But short of a military coup, they cannot achieve their Dominionist agenda without first undermining the independence of the judiciary, destroying a check and balance crucial to keeping America the world’s oldest functioning democracy.
However as the Los Angeles Times reports, impeaching judges apparently takes too damn long, so Evangelical Christian leaders and top Republican lawmakers — impatient to reach the end of times — are plotting a short cut: shutting down the courts entirely.
Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation’s most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
Both Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay participated in the conference, which was led by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, and Focus on the Family founder (and certified nutcase) James C. Dobson. The conference discussed all sorts of creative ways of punishing, hindering or removing judges who don’t strictly adhere to biblical orthodoxy.
“There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and there’s more than one way to take a black robe off the bench,” said Perkins.
Man… what is this thing religious extremists have against cats?
Perkins said that he had attended a meeting with congressional leaders a week earlier where the strategy of stripping funding from certain courts was “prominently” discussed. “What they’re thinking of is not only the fact of just making these courts go away and re-creating them the next day but also defunding them,” Perkins said.
He said that instead of undertaking the long process of trying to impeach judges, Congress could use its appropriations authority to “just take away the bench, all of his staff, and he’s just sitting out there with nothing to do.”
For his part, Dobson was even more focused and sinister in his approach. He doesn’t much like the composition of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but unfortunately, judges take way too long to die. (By natural causes.) His solution?
“Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court,” Dobson said. “They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”
That’s right, just click your heels together and we’re all in Kansas.
These people have no respect for man’s law. They hate secularism. They hate the Constitution. They hate America.
The right-wing Evangelical extreme is taking over the Republican party, and for all you economic conservatives out there who look at your alliance with these people as a cost of maintaining a Republican majority, I have a warning for you: when they’re finished with people like me, they’ll be coming after you next.
Scary, scary, scary.
Thankfully I think there is a small segment of Republican elected officials who are not in the religio-fascists’ pocket who will not stand for this. But every time I think things couldn’t possibly get worse, they do.
The fundamental truth remains that the American public, if and when it begins paying attention, will send these unAmerican idiots back under the rock they came from. But unless they wake up and participate, it might be too late to grab back the reins, and the theocon’s whacked-out vision of America might come to pass.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
— Martin Niemoeller, Pastor, German Evangelical (Lutheran) Church
The current crop of Republicans in D.C. have shown an inability to put the interest of the U.S. ahead of their party (hmmm. . . that seems to be true of Republicans in WA, too). It is all about grabbing power. No surprise that the pesky Courts—and the constitution—are their next victim. Can you spell Fascist?
Scary, indeed. Even so, this kind of abuse of power will likely recruit for the Democrats those near the center of the political spectrum.
dj
Exactly how have the Republicans in WA “shown an inability to put the interest of the U.S. ahead of their party” ?
As scary as it is, I think the worm is turning and all recent polls show that the American people are totally fed up with the GOP being captured and handcuffed by religious zealot fanatics.
As long as the Democrats hang tough for the next year and a half, I think the entire Congress will be returned to Democratic control. If that happens, any Republican wanting to run for president in ’08 will totally turn their backs on those religious fanatics.
I firmly believe that their time had come — and gone. But the Democrats, moderate Republicans and unaffiliated Americans MUST make their voices heard that what that fringe group wants is unAmerican.
Wow, that worm is a pretty darn fast turner since it’s been less than 6 months since the Conservative message was reaffirmed by Republican re-elections and gains across the country.
Where can I get a few of those remarkable, fast turning worms for my compost barrel?
zip @ 4
What . . . you don’t recognize a cheap shot :)
I do believe the WA Republican party is guilty of putting party interest ahead of the interests of the people of Washington when Vance spouts off lies and misrepresentations (or, if we are generous, incompletely understood issues) about the Gov. election. I have no problem with party spokespersons arguing passionately for their views, but Vances statements over the last 4 months have, too often, been irresponsible.
I have fewer issues with the elected Republicans, although I wish some of them weren’t such idiots.
Nice Demons list of the 10 out of 200 judges the democrats want to stop….I wonder if “Conflict of Interests” has anything to do with. “We don’t need no stinking impartial.”
But I know as long as we can make bombing planned parenthood legal, that would be okay for Vinegar.
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/
Danw
Goldy, on this one you have it perfectly correct. There is absolutely no excuse for what the Religious Repubs are trying to do the judiciary.
Please use this same objectivity on issues coming from the other direction as well.
Fortunately, the other side always invokes the important constitutional principles when they are in the minority. The Democrats are right to fight this one.
Sadly though, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats want to turn the constitution into a living document that serves them as they please.
Don’t be afraid to be called a Liberal anymore…It is something to be proud of. So next time someone says they hate liberals, ask them if they want to; resegerate the schools, take back the rights of women, stop working for a living wage, protection from police power and many more reasons why you should be proud, rights that they enjoy as well….for now.
This link will give you the ammunition you need to be proud. not that they will get it, but you will.
http://www.elroy.net/politics/liberal.html
What about Harry Reid spouting off about Clarence Thomas not being bright enough to be on the Supreme Court? I didn’t hear any qualms about how that undermines the integrity of the court.
I also haven’t heard any criticism about calling Bush’s nominees to the bench “extremists” regardless of what their views are. The nominees all have bipartisan support from their home states, but that is totally irrelevant when the purpose is acquisition of power. The Dems don’t care about the country, they just want to be in charge.
The Democrats in Wash DC are doing the bidding of Moveon.org and other left wing groups. Maybe this is less scary than the Republicans – the Dems do it for money, the Repubs do it out of principal.
These people have no respect for man’s law. They hate secularism. They hate the Constitution. They hate America.
. . .
and for all you economic conservatives out there who look at your alliance with these people as a cost of maintaining a Republican majority
The neo cons took out the republican moderates about 20 to 30 years ago on the state level and on the national level.
On the national scene, the religious right took over power from the moderate republicans when they kicked Rockefeller out of power and booed him at the convention. From then on, only candidates with the religious right have had any real power in the republican party.
In Washington, the religious right took over the republicans when the eliminated the Dan Evan candidates and demanded the “pledge of life” to even participate.
The religious right in Washington really flexed its muscles when it nominated Pat Robertson for president in 1988 (the only state to do so) and then Ellen Craswell and Carlson for governor.
Rossi was able to get as far as he did as he discounted or simply refused to discuss social issues in the campaign. When asked about social issues, he would just say he was not running for the supreme court.
This link will give you the ammunition you need to be proud. not that they will get it, but you will.
Comment by Danw— 4/23/05 @ 12:50 pm
Don’t be afraid to be called a Liberal-1
This link will give you the ammunition you need to be proud. not that they will get it, but you will.
Comment by Danw— 4/23/05 @ 12:50 pm
Don’t be afraid to be called a Liberal-2
This link will give you the ammunition you need to be proud. not that they will get it, but you will.
Comment by Danw— 4/23/05 @ 12:50 pm
Don’t be afraid to be called a Liberal-3
This link will give you the ammunition you need to be proud. not that they will get it, but you will.
Comment by Danw— 4/23/05 @ 12:50 pm
Don’t be afraid to be called a Liberal-4
danW @ 12
you are referencing elroy? omg. that guy is a nut case. danny boy, listen, elroy lies hun. for every scripture that guy references to make a point I can dispute and show you how he did it. he likes to picks and choose certain scriptures to make his arguments sound. Really danny try and find the truth. he has you brainwashed, talk about a cult.
I have to give Jeff B @11 an overall grade of A- on his assessment. This link sums up, more or less, why I am in this “unholy” alliance.
To win votes Democrats don’t have to try and pass themselves off as deeply religious, they just need to stop being actively hostile toward people who are.
People such as me feel we have no choice other than to go with the Rs. Once the national Democratic Party figures out how to stand up to their own special constituencies (as listed in the link), I would very seriously consider crossing over to the other side. If the Rs beat them to it by ignoring their active religious crowd, I may just stay here. Naturally, if a 3rd party became viable and isn’t single-issue or plain nutty like the Greens and Libertarians, I’d likely be there.
You Know You’re a Republican When…
You’re proud to say you’re part of the right wing conspiracy.
You think “proletariat” is a type of cheese.
You’ve named your kids “Deduction one” and “Deduction two”
You’ve tried to argue that poverty could be abolished if people were just allowed to keep more of their minimum wage.
You’ve ever referred to someone as “my (insert racial or ethnic minority here) friend”
You’ve ever tried to prove Jesus was a capitalist and opposed to welfare.
You’re a pro-lifer, but support the death penalty.
The only union you support is the baseball players, because heck, they’re richer than you.
Your hero growing up was Alex P. Keaton on Family Ties.
You think trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
You believe global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
You think being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
You once broke loose at a party and removed your neck tie.
You call mall rent-a-cops “jack-booted thugs.”
You’ve ever referred to the moral fiber of something.
You’ve ever uttered the phrase, “Why don’t we just bomb the sons of bitches.”
You’ve ever said, “I can’t wait to get into business school.”
You answer to “The Man.”
You don’t think “The Simpsons” is all that funny, but you watch it because that Flanders fellow makes a lot of sense.
You fax the FBI a list of “Commies in my Neighborhood.”
You don’t let your kids watch Sesame Street because you accuse Bert and Ernie of “sexual deviance.”
You’ve argued that art has a “moral foundation set in Western values.”
When people say “Marx,” you think “Groucho.”
You’ve ever yelled, “Hey hippie, get a haircut.”
You think Birkenstock was that radical rock concert in 1969.
You argue that you need 300 handguns, in case a bear ever attacks your home.
Vietnam makes a lot of sense to you.
You point to Hootie and the Blowfish as evidence of the end of racism in America.
You’ve ever said civil liberties, schmivil schmiberties.
You’ve ever said “Clean air? Looks clean to me.”
You spent MLK Day reading “The Bell Curve.”
You’ve ever called education a luxury.
You look down through a glass ceiling and chuckle.
You wonder if donations to the Pentagon are tax-deductable.
You came of age in the ’60s and don’t remember Bob Dylan.
You own a vehicle with an “Ollie North: American Hero” sticker.
You’re despise the “liberal media.”
You ever based an argument on the phrase, “Well, tradition dictates….”
You’ve ever called the National Endowment for the Arts a bunch of pornographers.
You think all artists are gay.
You ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch “lives in a trash can because he is lazy and doesn’t want to contribute to society.”
You’ve ever urged someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when they don’t even have shoes.
You confuse Lenin with Lennon.
You appreciate the power rush that comes with sporting a gun.
You believe that the agricultural, restaurant, housing and hotel industries can survive without immigrant labor.
You think God hates homosexuality, but loves the death penalty.
You believe society is color-blind and growing up black in America doesn’t diminish your opportunities, but you still won’t vote for Alan Keyes.
You’re for prayer in schools, as long as you don’t pray to Allah or Buddha.
You have to believe speaking a few Spanish phrases makes you instantly popular in the barrio.
You have to believe that only your own teenagers are still virgins.
You think “bipartisan” means Democrats should compromise on something.
You still think James Carville is one scary human being.
You think “abortion doctor” is an oxymoron.
You’ve never met a tax cut you didn’t like.
You have a bumper sticker that says “Insured by Smith and Wessen”
You believe the hole in the ozone layer to be a myth created by crazy liberals.
You fervently speak about the evils of marijuana at social gatherings with a vodka straight in hand.
You think the words feminist and lesbian are synonyms.
You believe every man, woman, child and fetus should be armed to the teeth with AK-47’s, hand grenades, handguns, and any other weapon imaginable.
You actually believe that people own AK-47’s for “hunting purposes”
You have faith in “trickle down economics”
You think that Michaelangelo’s David should be wearing boxers at the least.
You think Clarence Thomas is a good spokesman for the black community.
The issue of confirming judges is the path to get create the filibuster free zone in the Senate. Once that occurs then the CCRR(corporate christian reckless right) can bring the Constitutional Restoration Act of 2005 out of committee. Read it; it isn’t very long. It was introduced by Shelby and Brownbeck during the Schiavo period, undercover of all that smoke.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:
Anyone who quotes scripture must be held accountable for their interpretation and hermeneutical decision making. Both of these process begin with the version of the biblical canon they choose, and the history of the selection of the books in that canon, and so far forth.
Yea another down with religion thread, for what you lack in creativity you make up for in sensationalism.
chardonnay @ 19, wow, elroy sounds like the ‘one that got away from you’ you explain his ‘flaws’ and it is like you must be looking in a mirror
Lib Pets – Wow! Great links.
Therein lies a difference.
Goldy shows some humor in his postings. Look closely and you will see that it is true. He is definitely the exception to the rule. Increasingly it is quite clear that those with humor, that post on this blog, are conservative. Those who care only to rant are liberal.
Well adjusted, sense of humor –> conservative.
Strident yelling, mental midgetry, snide remarks –> Liberal.
A pattern is definitely emerging here.
I think Goldy might be a closet conservative.
Janet @ 13:
What about Harry Reid spouting off about Clarence Thomas not being bright enough to be on the Supreme Court? I didn’t hear any qualms about how that undermines the integrity of the court.
Oh please. What a load of crap. Rightwingers have been bashing liberal SCOTUS judges for decades. All of a sudden criticizing a rightwing SCOTUS judge counts as undermining the court?
I also haven’t heard any criticism about calling Bush’s nominees to the bench “extremists” regardless of what their views are. The nominees all have bipartisan support from their home states, but that is totally irrelevant when the purpose is acquisition of power. The Dems don’t care about the country, they just want to be in charge.
They don’t have bipartisan support even among Bush’s own staff. Gonzales has already spoken out against one of the women (her name escapes me) as being unfit to be on the federal bench.
The Democrats in Wash DC are doing the bidding of Moveon.org and other left wing groups. Maybe this is less scary than the Republicans – the Dems do it for money, the Repubs do it out of principal.
Would that Democrats actually did what MoveOn and other liberal groups asked them to do. The country certainly wouldn’t be in Iraq and we would probably have Osama in custody or dead by now.
Republicans left principles at the door of DC long ago. This is about a power grab and nothing more. Over 200 of Bush’s judicial appointees have been voted through the Senate. This whining over 10 (and trying to say that those who don’t vote for Bush’s nominees hate the Baby Jesus) is cheap and disgusting.
Most of the nation sees right through it. Why don’t you?
carla, is it really???
don’t be so sure toots. I think we are onto something and your side is pissy because Republicans are playing no more mr nice guy. go lay down by your dish. and enjoy a nice thick juicy steak. mmmm yummy, God created red meat for us to enjoy.
Goldy,
Do you know just how silly you sound? Yeah, they are all plotting to make you a believer.
Carla,
There are some excellent links above about being proud to be a liberal that are intended solely for your perusal. By all means, review and enjoy. For you, I am quite certain that it will be …
“Wow, they really understand how i think and feel”
Republicans left principles at the door of DC long ago. This is about a power grab and nothing more.
Yeah. Remember how the republicans used to believe in some pretty respectable things:
1) Federalism : restraint of federal powers and state’s rights. Gone are those days. Now that they are in power, the neocons will use the power of the federal government in every area without restraint.
2) Fiscal responsibility. Remember when the republicans wanted a balanced budget amendment? Now they control the presidency and the Congress and are running record deficits. They make Clinton look like he was a tight fiscal conservative.
Cheap whine @ 26
Rarely has anyone on this blog been so full of shit in so little space. The GOP blocked over 5 times as many of Clinton’s judicial nominees. And you have the nerve to tell us no more Mr. Nice Guy? Wait until Democrats are back in power and it’s get-even time, then you’ll find out what that phrase really means.
Well, there’s one hell of a campaign slogan…
VOTE DEMOCRAT, WE’LL GET EVEN!
Finally some truth in advertising.
REVENGE IS OURS! sayeth the liberals
Wait until Democrats are back in power and it’s get-even time, then you’ll find out what that phrase really means. -Comment by Cybil— 4/23/05 @ 7:46 pm
So let’s recap, they admit its all about power and payback, THEN wonder why we don’t vote for them… and call us clueless
“So let’s recap, they admit its all about power and payback, THEN wonder why we don’t vote for them… and call us clueless”
Why so surprised? You guys are good at it. All we have to do is copy you.
You know you are a conservative if:
You think people have a right to have handguns but not to have healthcare;
You think lying about sex is more important than lying about war;
You call Clinton a draft dodger, but if someone points out all the republican politicians, like Cheney, Bush, etc., who managed to stay far away from Vietnam, you say Clinton is a liar!;
You believe unborn babies have an absolute right to life, but born babies don’t have a right to anything (except maybe a handgun);
You want the government to legislate what two men can do in a private bedroom, but want as little regulation as possible over what rich men do in a corporation boardroom;
you don’t like unions and do like monopolies;
you think criticizing the president is disloyal, unless he is Bill Clinton;
You think the New York Times is riddled with leftist bias but Fox News is Fair and Balanced;
You criticize the Democratic Party because southern democrats obstructed Civil Rights legislation in the 60’s, but don’t recognize that all the southern racist democrats became republicans in the 80’s;
You want small government and a large military;
You don’t mind misrepresenting what liberals believe, but get mad when somebody does it to you.
cybil,
the democrats will be back in power when you and I are dead. and thankfully that is a long way off. you are so cute though trying to be an optimist. I like it. it looks good on you.
Stop 2 10–Love it!
wayne, has the bedroom police been to your house? LOL
Goldy, “These people have no respect for man’s law. They hate secularism. They hate the Constitution. They hate America.” You have clicked your heels once too often–you are no longer in Kansas, dude. Next stop, the Twilight Zone.
I don’t care what they say< char--I love you.
I don’t care what they say, Char–I love you.
You Might Be A Republican If…
You think “proletariat” is a type of cheese.
You’ve named your kids “Deduction one” and “Deduction two”
You’ve tried to argue that poverty could be abolished if people were just allowed to keep more of their minimum wage.
You’ve ever referred to someone as “my (insert racial or ethnic minority here) friend”
You’ve ever tried to prove Jesus was a capitalist and opposed to welfare.
You’re a pro-lifer, but support the death penalty.
You think Huey Newton is a cookie.
The only union you support is the Baseball Players, because heck, they’re richer than you.
You think you might remember laughing once as a kid.
You once broke loose at a party and removed your neck tie.
You call mall rent-a-cops “jack-booted thugs.”
You’ve ever referred to the moral fiber of something.
You’ve ever uttered the phrase, “Why don’t we just bomb the sons of bitches.”
You’ve ever said, “I can’t wait to get into business school.”
You’ve ever called a secretary or waitress “Tootsie.”
You answer to “The Man.”
You don’t think “The Simpsons” is all that funny, but you watch it because that Flanders fellow makes a lot of sense.
You fax the FBI a list of “Commies in my Neighborhood.”
You don’t let your kids watch Sesame Street because you accuse Bert and Ernie of “sexual deviance.”
You scream “Dit-dit-ditto” while making love.
You’ve argued that art has a “moral foundation set in Western values.”
When people say “Marx,” you think “Groucho.”
You’ve ever yelled, “Hey hippie, get a haircut.”
You think Birkenstock was that radical rock concert in 1969.
You argue that you need 300 handguns, in case a bear ever attacks your home.
Vietnam makes a lot of sense to you.
You point to Hootie and the Blowfish as evidence of the end of racism in America.
You’ve ever said civil liberties, schmivil schmiberties.
You’ve ever said “Clean air? Looks clean to me.”
You’ve ever called education a luxury.
You look down through a glass ceiling and chuckle.
You wonder if donations to the Pentagon are tax-deductable.
You came of age in the ’60s and don’t remember Bob Dylan.
You own a vehicle with an “Ollie North: American Hero” sticker.
You’re afraid of the liberal media.”
You ever based an argument on the phrase, “Well, tradition dictates….”
You ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch “lives in a trash can because he is lazy and doesn’t want to contribute to society.”
You’ve ever urged someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when they don’t even have shoes.
You confuse Lenin with Lennon.
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/contest.htm
AllHat @ 42
Man, that was pretty funny. Had to go and do me one (or more)better, damn you!
;)
Think thats funny, check this site out!
http://toostupidtobepresident.com/
See, you CAN smile, dems.
Now, say something intelligent!
Jeff @11 – Sadly though, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats want to turn the constitution into a living document that serves them as they please. – How about some examples?
Marks @20 – Once the national Democratic Party figures out how to stand up to their own special constituencies – such as? I viewed the link. The only constituencies the Democrats were being advised to jettison were gays and women. That’s your idea of special constituencies? I fail to see how this is different from saying to the democrats in the 1960’s, “Well if you’d quit speaking up for the blacks then I could support you.”
Since when are citizens Special Interests and corporations are Americans? Since Reagoon starting describing it that way.
That’s wonderful, Whistling, you want us to help you learn a foreign language!
allhat @ 42
um, ya, kinda cheese ball stuff. I think you can do much better than that. come on, try again. remember the little golden book “the little engine that could?” ok that’s you and your gaining momentum, now lets go.
this is so exciting. a conservative in the making.
Situational Issue:
You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.
Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the
corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and
charges. You are carrying a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have
mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal Answer:
Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question! Does the man
look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire
him to attack?
Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his
hand?
What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have an
appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what
kind of message does this send to society and my children? Is it possible
he’d be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or
would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold
on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so
confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to
come to a conclusion.
Conservative Answer:
BANG!
Texan’s Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click…
(sounds of reloading).
Wife: “Sweetheart, he looks like he’s still moving, what do you kids think?”
Son: “Mom’s right Dad, I saw it too…”
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.
Daughter: “Nice group, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?”
I certainly hope that Judge Barbier subscribes to the same cynical and partisan theory Goldy does, and “toes the party line” so to speak at my sentencing. Surely he knows that Hillary’s 2008 run depends on it.
Neocon answer to 53
The neocon would shoot his wife in the leg, so he could outrun her, she would get caught by the maniac and he could get away. Then, he would go on Fox News and accuse the democrats and liberal judges of being soft on crime. He would write a best-selling book blaming it all on Hillary Clinton. Then he would marry his mistress.
Whatever @23,
Sensationalism? Listen to the audio tape. It’s on the web. These comments were made. This is what Dobson and Perkins and DeLay and Frist want to do.
VCRW @28,
No, they are plotting to persecute us unbelievers. Let me ask you something… if it’s okay to fire a school teacher because he is gay, how far a step is it to fire a teacher because he is an atheist? Or a Moslem? Or a Jew? Or just the wrong kind of Christian? Look at what’s happening at the Air Force Academy… all the same reasons being used to hound gays out of the military could be applied to the Academy to eliminate friction and distrust between the majority of cadets and the handful of non-Christians. After all, the military needs cohesion doesn’t it?
Whistling @40,
So tell me… does Dobson have respect for man’s law? Does he not hate secularism? Does he or does he not believe that all laws should derive from Biblical law?
@ 53
The Texan’s answer…priceless!
Stop shooting already @ 53
If it takes a Texan 18 shots at point-blank range to finish off one guy with a knife, no wonder we’re getting our asses kicked in Iraq.
RED ALERT! RED ALERT! RED ALERT!
I don’t care what they say, Char–I love you.
Comment by Stop the whistling— 4/23/05 @ 9:23 pm
CHARDS, YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO PASS THIS UP!!! DRAG THIS GUY TO A MINISTER BEFORE THE CRACK WEARS OFF!!! YOU WILL NEVER GET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY LIKE THIS!!!
Alan @ 58
“If it takes a Texan 18 shots at point-blank range to finish off one guy with a knife, no wonder we’re getting our asses kicked in Iraq.”
Good point. But I am still in favor of giving Texans complete freedom of opportunity to go to Iraq.
dj
You hate Iraqis that much?
Wayne @ 61
“You hate Iraqis that much?”
doh!
Wayne @ 61
How about if we give the Iraqis all the ammunition they want? I don’t think they’ll need 18 rounds per Texan. They won’t need more than 1 on Caterwailing and his stupid Glock .40. Gimme a 1911 .45, he doesn’t know shit about guns. The Silvertips are ok but not as good as Hydrashocks.
msc @50
The only constituencies the Democrats were being advised to jettison were gays and women.
We respect the rights of women to make decisions concerning their own bodies, whatever those decisions might be. It is a private matter where the government has no place.
We respect the rights of adults to engage in consensual sexual relationships. These are private matters where government does not belong.
Jettison? I do not see anything being jettisoned with those statements other than militant in-your-face gays and abortion-at-any-stage, which seems to include beyond birth, crowd.
By your statement, it appears Carville/Begalla have it almost right:
If Democrats can’t take on that corruption with a bold and broad agenda of change and reform, then (to paraphrase the late senator Pat Moynihan) we’d better find another country to run in.
Marks – Then what special constituencies are you refering to? And how can one argue they want the government out of these personal/social issues while at the same time supporting the Republican party which clearly wants to legislate what we can and cannot do? You can’t have it both ways and be taken seriously.
I do not see anything being jettisoned with those statements other than militant in-your-face gays and abortion-at-any-stage, which seems to include beyond birth, crowd.
Sounds to me like, “We’re all for letting blacks alone, so long as they know their place.”
marks @ 64
These two issues go to fundamental differences between the parties, and it’s most unlikely that Democrats will “jettison” either their positions or their constituencies on these issues.
The Democratic Party’s position on abortion is deeply misunderstood by conservatives. Democratic voters include many Catholics who, influenced by the teachings of the Church, and also many non-Catholics, who have moral misgivings about abortion. But unlike right-wingers, they don’t ignore real-world facts or cast the issue in black-white terms.
Nearly all Democrats view legalized abortion as a pro-life measure. Yes, I said pro-life. Outlawing abortion means death for countless women. Prior to Roe v. Wade in 1970, when abortions were illegal, hundreds of thousands of women died from dangerous back alley abortions. As those of us old enough to remember those days see the issue, there are two kinds of conservatives: Young conservatives who don’t understand what banning abortion would result in, and older conservatives who place higher priority on imposing their personal values on society above the lives that will be lost as a result of their ideological rigidity. As I see it, society needs to bend on the legality of abortion until we figure out how to change the culture and individuals’ thinking. Abortion will go away when people don’t want it anymore. Making it illegal will simply kill women — lots and lots of women — without saving the lives of the fetuses.
An especially dangerous facet of the abortion dispute is that the zeal of right-wingers to ban abortion at all costs has driven them to an anti-privacy position.
A right of privacy is not expressed in the Constitution. The Founders did not foresee a government capable of keeping data on citizens and possessing means to intrude into the most intimate details of citizens’ lives. The only privacy issue they addressing was involuntary quartering of troops in private homes, in which they made clear their belief that privacy is an important individual right.
Anyone who has actually read Roe v. Wade knows it declared laws against abortion unconstitutional based on an implied right of privacy. Opposition to abortion tends to go hand-in-hand with opposition to the expansive, interpretive readings of the Constitution that have given us most of our individual rights and have created both the necessary powers, and restraints upon, modern government. We live in a world that is vastly more complex than in 1776, and the Constitution provides a workable framework of government only through constant adaptation to change. Otherwise, the Constitution has no answers for many of the very difficult questions facing today’s political leaders, policymakers, and judiciary. It is important to preserve this flexibility of interpretation, and the efforts of the literalists to throw out the baby with the bath water threatens the future viability of our governmental framework. It does seem to me there is no need for this, and there is an easy way around the privacy rationale of the Roe v. Wade court if one wants to go in that direction. That court struggled mightily with the problem of defining when human life begins, and in the end acknowledged that contemporary science could not answer the question and came up with a definition of convenience. Even the most liberal constructionist could see the rationale for revisiting Roe v. Wade’s end result simply by taking another look at the definitional issue based on science and medicine have learned since 1970. There is no necessity to trash 200 years of precedent on the broader issues of how the Constitution is to be read in order to escape the conclusion reached in Roe v. Wade.
Obviously most Democrats are not gay, and gays are not an indispensable part of the Democratic coalition, even in a closely divided country. It’s certainly not a group that Democrats can depend on; in the 2004 governor’s election, gay voters deserted the Democratic candidate en masse, in favor of an openly gay Libertarian candidate who campaigned on a gay rights platform. Gregoire won anyway. (Some of you will dispute that, but unless and until a court overturns the result of the second recount, she is legally the governor — whether you like it or not.) If she ends up losing the election contest because of evidence showing that Rossi got more votes, it will be because she didn’t get the gay votes that went to Bennett. My point here is, disabuse yourselves of the notion that Democrats cater to gays because we want their votes. You couldn’t be more wrong.
Democrats historically were the party of southern racism, and our party has much in its history to atone for, in that regard. (To suggest this history rubs off on current Democrats is nonsense, however; the Dixiecrats left our party half a century ago, and most pre-civil rights Democrats are now dead.) We atoned for it by taking up the cause of desegregation, and then extending the principle of non-discrimination to other groups including women, other ethnic and religious minorities, seniors, gays, and anyone else who is subjected to bigotry, hate, or disparate treatment because of who they are. We would oppose mistreating gays even if not a single gay voted for our candidates, because bigotry is contrary to the core beliefs of the modern Democratic Party. For Democrats who are Christians — and many of us are — bigotry is also contrary to the teachings of Christ as we understand His teachings. In our view, those who quote the Bible to justify their hatred of gays are acting against the tenets of Christianity and misusing religion for an evil purpose. This is a right-versus-wrong moral issue for us, just as abortion foes see their struggle as a right-versus-wrong moral issue.
The right-wing trolls on this board have posted many comments denigrating liberals. Being a liberal means, among other things, committing yourself to tolerance of people different from you, and accomodating their right to be different. In the case of gays, this doesn’t mean you have to be gay, associate with gays, or even like gays. All it requires is that you not discriminate against them. I am not gay, and frankly I feel a bit uncomfortable in the presence openly gay people, but I have a handful of gay friends and all that is required of me is to ignore the fact they’re gay and treat them the same as my other friends. It works fine, for both them and me. Make fun of liberals all you want, rightys; all the hatred against gays is coming from your side of the political fence, and the bigotry, hatred, violence against gays, discrimination against gays in housing and employment, is not something to be proud of. It’s shameful — and profoundly anti-Christian. As for the issue of gay marriage, I just don’t see the logic of the argument that a gay marriage in Massachusetts somehow threatens the marriage of a heterosexual couple in Texas. Must be a pretty damn weak marriage to begin with, if that’s the case. I think it’s just a pretext for bigotry.
cybil @ 66
you are such a frikin wind bag, boring beyond belief and such a liar.
CYBIL @ 59
you are so cute to be so concerned about my happiness. see, I knew you loved me.
stop the whistling, you are very cool. I appreciate your affection, it is reciprocated.
Alan @ 66
Great post!
chardonnay @
“you are such a frikin wind bag, boring beyond belief and such a liar.”
Don’t worry chardonnay, the ability to read more than one paragraph and understand the content will come with age and maturity (we hope).
Nearly all Democrats view legalized abortion as a pro-life measure. Yes, I said pro-life. Outlawing abortion means death for countless women. Prior to Roe v. Wade in 1970, when abortions were illegal, hundreds of thousands of women died from dangerous back alley abortions. -Comment by Alan— 4/24/05 @ 11:51 am
“hundreds of thousands of women” compared to 49,000,000+ dead babies.
Interesting pro-LIFE attitude there bud.
msc @65
Taken seriously? And you play a fools game with the race card?
I have had some interesting discussions with various individuals in Goldy’s forum. I doubt I will list yours as memorable. To immediately resort to likening gays and abortion to race without first covering whether such comparisons can legitimately be made indicates an itchy trigger finger or lack of a cogent argument with which to make your own counterpoint (see Alan’s post @66 for an example of reasoned discussion).
My original point, which you failed to take note of in your headlong rush to do a spinning back-flip (sic) into the race-baiting cesspool, is that the Ds have a well deserved reputation for being actively against any public display of Christianity, while demanding government intervention to allow gay marriage and actively promoting abortion on demand, both of which are antithetical to large majorities of Christians and a large reason the South is being written off by the Ds.
Alan @66
Great post, you loon! I will pick a few nits and then get off my soapbox:
Marriage is a term that has been understood by virtually every society to mean a man and woman. I have no compunction over allowing legal state sanctioned civil unions to same sex partners, but calling it a marriage is where I draw the line. Yes, there is no legal difference between the two, but semantics plays a larger role in this than you may think.
On abortion, it is difficult to bypass the obvious way a woman gets pregnant. It is usually consensual, though there are different levels of consent, I think. One point vis-a-vis Roe v Wade that made it such a bad decision was the absolute nature of it. The debate was simply truncated at that point.
I have noted with interest the reduction in year-over-year abortions beginning under (SHOCK AND AWE) Bill Clinton! I note this as a positive development for our society, though such a decline may have more to do with fear of STDs than any moral enlightenment.
Although women did indeed die from illegal abortions, the situation was by no means as dire as the coathanger-impaled woman on every front lawn in America picture prochoice groups like to paint. Although abortion very likely had a high mortality rate in the 1930’s — a period when country doctors routinely performed any kind of surgery, not just abortion, on kitchen tables — with the advent of antibiotics in the 40’s the mortality rate for abortion, as for all surgery, fell dramatically.
When abortions were illegal, about 90% of them were done by doctors. Roughly half of abortions done by non-physicians were done by nurses, midwives, physician assistants, and other people with training in health care. The majority of these para-medical abortionists had a physician contact who provided training, equipment, medication, and consultation, and who would quietly treat any complications without reporting the abortion to authorities.
And then there are the self-induced abortions, which accounted for a portion of those 6% of illegal abortions done by non-medical persons. Nancy Howell Lee’s groundbreaking research indicated that women who self-induced abortions were not ordinary women making a risk-benefit analysis and deciding on self-abortion as the lesser of two evils. These women tended to be emotionally unstable, with a very poor opinion of themselves, and with in many cases almost as much desire to die and be done with life as to abort the pregnancy. Lee’s findings are borne out by the psychiatric journal articles of the time describing self-abortion attempts as a special class of self-mutilating behavior common in women with certain psychiatric disorders. Self-induced abortions, like other forms of non-physician abortion, still persist, for a number of reasons, ranging from mental illness to New Age anti-physician sentiment. Women still die from such abortions
The fact is, there were NOT thousands (let alone “hundreds of thousands”) of deaths prior to Roe vs. Wade. Abortion deaths plummeted from about 200 in 1965 to about 100 in 1967.
In 1972, the year before Roe, only 39 abortion related deaths were reported (by emergency rooms and morgues) to the Centers for Disease Control.
With the advent of ‘Safe & Legal’ abortions, you’d think the death rate would drop to zero. Quite the opposite is true. In 1975, two years after Roe, the CDC stated that as many as seven times more deaths were caused by legal abortions than illegal ones. According to the American Rights Coalition, over 200 women are dying every year from botched abortions.
The end result of legalization can be seen in trends in abortion mortality. In the years following Roe v. Wade, the trend of fewer maternal deaths from abortion every year reversed itself. The number of deaths reported continued to rise until 1976, when the CDC dismantled their system for actively seeking to learn of abortion deaths. Suddenly, the number of reported deaths plummeted, and continued to sink. There was nothing magical in abortion practice in 1976 to account for this drop. No new technique was invented, no sweeping changes in the law or in regulatory practice. The only thing that changed was how the data were collected. The drop in reported abortion deaths after 1976 reflects not a drop in actual mortality, but a loss of enthusiasm for identifying and addressing maternal mortality from abortion.
David Reardon interviewed women who had obtained SAFE legal abortions. His survey revealed that:
47% of all abortions result in some type of physical complication
6% have resulted in total hysterectomies
6% reported cervical cancer
8% had blocked fallopian tubes
9% had infections
8% had cervical incompetence
15% had post-operative hemorrhage
22% miscarried a later wanted child
(some reported more than one complication)
Juries are now awarding millions of dollars in abortion settlements to these women and to the many others with similar circumstances, as well as the families of women who’ve died from SAFE and legal abortions, as the abortionists’ greed and total disregard for women’s health and welfare are finally being exposed.
Ask any of these women or these, these, this one or maybe these how “safe” legal abortion is. Oops you can’t.
They’re dead.
Marks @ 72
It has been a pleasure reading your well thought-out, intelligent posts.
“Marriage is a term that has been understood by virtually every society to mean a man and woman.”
If you mean “one man and one woman,” this is not really true outside of European culture. In the rest of the world there is a huge amount of variation in marriage, acceptable sexual partners, and the form and meaning of marriage. I’ll briefly touch on a few of the variants.
Polygyny is sanctioned by more societies than not, even though many marriages in such societies are monogamous. For example, in S. Asia Muslim society, most men can only afford to have one wife, but it is not uncommon for men to have up to the four wives permitted by Islamic law. There are even a few polyandrous societies (i.e. a woman can have multiple husbands), and a very few societies in which group marriage is the ideal.
Even beyond these categories, marriage is defined very differently cross-culturally. In many societies parents arrange marriage for their very young children. Of course, the individuals will not begin living or sleeping together until sometime after both reach puberty. In other societies, marriage is very fluid—it involves wealth transfers that can be easily reversed. In other societies, sexual experience before marriage is the norm and is expected. I believe there is an S. American group in which women, early in pregnancy, sleep with multiple men so that the child has several (cultural) co-fathers that provide resources for the child. It is also the case that some traditional societies sanction homosexual relationships. Papua New Guinea has lots of cultural microcosms, including societies that sanction men having sex with boys. Obviously, in such societies, sex between men and women is also sanctioned for reproduction and even sexual gratification.
“I have no compunction over allowing legal state sanctioned civil unions to same sex partners, but calling it a marriage is where I draw the line.”
Personally, I would prefer if the state only provided “union licenses” for same-sex or heterosexual unions. “Marriage” should be left to religious institutions, not the state.
WOW 3hours since I posted and it’s still lost (and presumed dead) in Goldyland.
And it didn’t even contain the word soci*list!
Hah – I was wrong! (Yeah, yeah I admitted it… move on)
4 hours and still MIA.
It sure would be nice if we had a CLUE what sort of keywords (besides soci*alst are held…
chardonnay @ 37 Confirmation accepted. I always believed you were a 98 year old menta paitiet. Thanks for confirming your ‘departure’ before 2006.
dj,
On the Muslim culture, an interesting fact I became aware of when my ship went to Aqaba, Jordan and I stood armed gate guard duty with Jordanian Army regulars. They are almost never the firstborn amongst their family and have to spend ten years in the military in order to earn enough to marry, and even that isn’t a sure bet. Jordan is one of the poorer nations in that area. I don’t need to tell you that they get their sexual gratification somehow during those ten years…I’m perfectly happy it wasn’t with me.
I’d heard about pederastic practices in certain civilizations going far back into history. Indeed, if you look at the etymology of the term, you would find its origin to be Greek (the word, if not the practice). Naturally, a modern equivalent of this type of cultural activity can be found in the Catholic Church (tongue-in-cheek, I think)…
Chardonnay @ 27
It really is down to “our side” vs “your side” for you, isn’t it? Well toots…every side loses when the rules are broken down and the majority attempts to run roughshod over the minority. And pissy? Apparently you haven’t been watching DeLay and Frist very close.
Zapporo at 29: Is this where you expect me to lower myself and post all the cliched little quips about how f*d up someone has to be in order to be a conservative nowadays?
Pass.
Carla, Zap will not allow himself to reveal his true thoughts on Also Also. He comes over here to let his true colors show. Must be difficult for him to remember where he is posting. Probably won’t be to far off in the future that he errors and shows his ‘colors’ on Also Also also.
Marks @72 –
Interesting. Apparently that struck a nerve. Your eloquence fails to persuade. If I did not do you the courtesy of better explaining my position it is because it is difficult to motivate oneself to say much on a subject which should be clear enough.
What you perceive as race-baiting is an attempt to get you to address a question of civil liberties with more than your feelings. Using my feelings as a basis, can I not say that “rightwing ideologues are okay when they are talking in their own homes and churches, but the law should not allow these in-your-face rightwing people to speak in public. It makes me uncomfortable.”
Now were I to argue “history has shown us the right in America has often supported diminishing civil rights and defying the constitution in their efforts to wrest control of the government from the people for the sake of the propertied,” I would be on more solid footing. If I went on to point out Nixon’s illegal act of wiretapping, blah, blah, blah was a direct attack on the people of the United States. He took away our right to choose the candidate we wanted by manipulating the process! And I could go on to point out how Reagan gave arms to terrorists in Iran, chemical weapons to the Iraqi and trained a terrorist force of 12,000 to attack and usurp the elected authority of Nicaragua. These are real crimes. What crimes of these so-called militant gays can you point to. I mean other than the crime of scaring you with their sexuality?
As for public displays of Christianity, that’s what Jefferson and Madison were very concerned about. Though I’m not a Demo (one can be on the left and not want to be a part of a centrist party like the dems) I agree with the dems on keeping any faith out of public life. There is no place for any religion in public (government) life. There can be no no state religion in a democracy.
Furthermore, what you see as the “Ds” advocating for Gay marriage, in case you haven’t noticed was supported independently by a number of rightwing appointed justices. Most of the judges who have created such feigned appoplexy for It’s about civil rights. I don’t claim to know all the dems positions, but I wasn’t aware they were advocating gay marriage. Kerry had your position on it. He said he was uncomfortable with gay marriage. Doesn’t that make you feel better?
Now you try it. What object criteria besides your pansy waste feelings can you give for why a gay couple should not marry if they so desire? Why is this a decision for the state at all? That is not consistant with the arguments against government interference in the personal lives of citizens which the right so vociferously demands.
Caterwauling @ 73
The figures you cite are widely circulated by pro-life groups, but common sense should tell you official government statistics on illegal abortion deaths are too low, because people tend not to report illegal activities to authorities.
The actual number will never be known, but Planned Parenthood says, “In the two decades before abortion was legal in the U.S., it’s been estimated that nearly a million women per year sought out illegal abortions. Thousands died. Tens of thousands were mutilated.” http://www.coolnurse.com/abortion_legal.htm
Here’s an article that takes issue with claims of up to 10,000 deaths per year, but applies a multiplier of 4 to the CDC numbers: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040528.html
You can google the issue and come up with all kinds of answers. Obviously, 10,000 a year over several decades would amount to “hundreds of thousands,” but I agree that number may be too high. Whether legal abortions are safer than illegal abortions is a separate issue. One would tend to think so, but pro-life groups make arguments to the contrary. The difficulty is finding unbiased information on this issue, because there are no unbiased people on this issue.
ProudAss… stop your whining. I subscribe to a large list of common spam words, and I don’t even know most of the words in it. When I upgrade the blog software, perhaps the anti blog spam component will be more focused.
As the length of the wait… sorry, but I have a life. I have to personally approve all blocked posts, and if I’m not at my computer, I can’t do it.
another episode in ‘How the World Turns’.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7518425
Seems that the ‘Honorable’ Dr. Frist knows about all the information on filibusters. The great Senator tied up one of Clinton’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals nominations for basically….hmmm……FOUR YEARS. Now they are threatening the Democrats that if they accomplish the filibuster there will be all hell to pay. What a great guy. I am sure glad he is on the Other side… with integrity like his, how can the Republicans ever lose?
How very original (and mature) piggee… “Mommmmm, he started it, he hit me first!”
The problem with the liberals in government is that they can’t even be honorable in FILIBUSTERS.
If they want to filibuster, make them to do it right: Take the floor and refuse to yield it to anyone else unless 60 votes can be mustered to stop it.
That’s right, nonstop talking (Oooooh they should excel at that), no pee breaks, no designer coffee breaks, no phone call breaks, no breaks to whine in front of a camera, bring your sleeping bag kiddies, it’s gonna be a long night.
Instead they call it in.
Thank you Stop their CATerwauling, spay/neuter ALL Pet Libs @ 85, I am learning the ‘art’ from all of you posters on the other side of the ‘Great Divide’. If I understand that is what the Dem’s will do, but mr ‘honorable’ wants to change the rules before they get started. Rules that the ‘honorable’ Dr. Frist so judicially used during the Clinton Presidency. If I am wrong please inform me. (and in a somewhat intelligent manner, if possible)
fireside @ 80, and everyone else–
Zapporo, I’m almost positive, is NOT “Zap” from Also Also. I assure you, the Zap I know doesn’t hold back much anywhere–he just happens to be a true conservative with a brain and the disinclination to demagogue the left.
msc @81
Much better. Now we have a point to
end onfinish with:There is no place for any religion in public (government) life. There can be no no state religion in a democracy.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,[…]”
What I label as “public” and what you parenthetically point to as government are two separate things. Having a cross on public land is not the same thing as government sanctioned religion. Were it so, Arlington National Cemetery should be razed due to all of the religious symbols on display there. If a city council decided to replace its charter with the Koran, that would be an endorsement of religion and unconstitutional. A Menorah displayed on public property is not, and denial of a group (Boy Scouts) to use public land solely on (anti-)religious grounds is discrimination if any other groups are allowed to make use of said public land.
Why is this a decision for the state at all? That is not consistant with the arguments against government interference in the personal lives of citizens which the right so vociferously demands.
Precisely. On this, I agree with only one caveat: What consenting adult individuals do in the privacy of their homes is not acceptable grounds for government intervention of any kind, absent any evidence of actual illegal behavior (drug dealing, animal abuse, etc.). This is a matter of civil liberty and cannot be regulated without a direct and unconstitutional violation of rights.
What object criteria besides your pansy waste feelings can you give for why a gay couple should not marry if they so desire?
First, read me @72 in my response to Alan. The marriage issue is not so straightforward, since such certification has been one acceptably performed by clergy for centuries and recognized by government. Does this fly in the face of the First Amendment? No, since there has been a tradition established and recognition of the contractual obligations of the marriage contract by law has allowed such an interactive role. What is at issue is performance and recognition of marriage by an institution that has traditionally considered performance of homosexual activity as outside the sphere of acceptable behavior as defined within the Bible. If I were a Unitarian, where almost any behavior is acceptable, I would not so “vociferously” defend this distinction.
We can argue deviancy as much as you want, but in the end science has not given us objective evidence that this behavior is a genetic inclination or learned behavior. Either way, I agree the benefit of doubt should be given to the civil liberties of the gay couple due to their adult status, and legal recognition obtained from the State for their union.
Back to my original point: The Ds have an image problem with regard to military, cultural, and religious issues. If they wish to embrace the status quo, they will continue to alienate large segments of voters and effectively go whistling past their own graveyard adorned with whatever secular headstone they choose. While taking a semi-libertarian approach may be masking the issue to a certain extent (see the British Labor Party for an example), at least the issue will be framed in a manner that is more acceptable than co-opting a term like “marriage” that has connotations beyond the simple legal union it entails.
My “pansy waste feelings” (an interesting word choice, given the topic) won’t be hurt whether you agree or not. You are, after all, entitled to whatever opinion strikes your fancy.
Rules that the ‘honorable’ Dr. Frist so judicially used during the Clinton Presidency. If I am wrong please inform me. (and in a somewhat intelligent manner, if possible) Comment by jpgee— 4/25/05 @ 8:31 am
In 1995, Senator Joseph Lieberman And 8 other Democrats (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, And Sarbanes) supported ending all filibusters. In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate.
The Harkin-Lieberman Proposal would have amended the senate rules to allow a simple majority to overcome “any” filibuster, legislative Or executive.
Fact: President Clinton’s judicial nominees were not filibustered and never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor by a filibuster.
Democrats assert that, by confirming more than two hundred of Bush’s nominees, they have produced for this President a better per-term average of confirmations than those for Presidents Clinton, Reagan, or George H. W. Bush. Hatch called Democratic complaints “total bullcorn,” and went on, “Ronald Reagan was the all-time confirmation champion, with three hundred and eighty-two federal judges. He had six years of a Republican Senate to help him. Guess how many Bill Clinton had with only two years of a Democratic Senate? Three hundred and seventy-seven. Not bad at all. I always gave their nominees a fair shake.”
They claim Republicans filibustered President Clinton’s judicial nominations, but each of his judicial nominees on whom they took a cloture vote is today a sitting federal judge.
http://hatch.senate.gov/index......youts=true
I have no doubts you will be anxious to decry the objectivity of the web citations, but please don’t try to refute with Leahys screed…I’ve read it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....7621/posts
http://www.dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2983
Up or down vote, that’s all we ask.
What our republitrolls seem not to understand is that if Dr. Frist goes for the Republincan’s so called ‘nuclear option’ the Democrats can just take the floor in a ‘filibuster’ and stop it if the like. If he wants to change the rules, the Democrats can just take the floor and ‘filibuster’ it. It is a no win situation for the Republicans. Someday a few more of them will understand our constitution and the Senate Rules……..well hopefull anyway.
fireside @ 80 Zap from Also Also here. What the hey? That’s not just an insulting assumption, it’s clearly ignorant. Let me share an insight I’ve been teaching my employees for over a decade. The lowest form of conversation is assumption. It’s based on a lack of knowledge; it’s self-admitted ignorance; it promotes rumor and gossip, it’s intellectually lazy, and it’s profoundly disrespectful. I’ve long learned to run on the idea that what others think of me is none of my business (it’s their’s), but your lazy guesswork and erred conclusion are disrespectful to a blog I co-author with another for the express purpose of having an outlet removed from the type of rubbish you accuse me of. That’s not nice, my friend. You should be better than that. Drop the know-it-all assumption and ask a few questions and you’ll be fine.
TJ thanks for the defense.
Fwiw, Carla I concur with your comments herein. The dominionists are intoxicated with power and power alone.
Yes, Zapporo, I called you rubbish, but respectfully and without any assumption necessary.
now that’s holding back! :)