McCain wins, Frist/Dobson lose

i've finally heard the "filibuster v. 214 years" buzz phrase one time too many and i'm going to have to look it up in the constitution.

but i don't think i've ever heard that "the filibuster can only be used for this, this and this. not for this". that just doesn't sound consistant with the spirit of the thing.

does anybody know where in the constitution it states that the filibuster can only be used in certain cases ?

re: the nuke option..

it seems to me that the whole point of the "compromise" is that without the 7 republican senators, frist doesn't have the votes to do it.

so why does he want to push it ?

0 Replies

He wants to be president and has been promised votes if he does circus acts for some very specific gangsters (such as Dobson) in simple terms he sold his soul.

0 Replies

Well.

There is another issue in play.

I'm a little conflicted about it. Part of me is glad there is a chance my party won't strip the minority of one of the few strengths it has--though I have no respect for the Dem's continuous refusal to allow any judges who don't pass their rigid litmus test a straight vote.

But -- I'm not too pleased that there are a few who consider themselves the moral arbiters of a body larger than them. How many times is McCain going to crawl up on that cross? He's wearing a little thin--not because of the outcome in this one instance--but his emerging holier than thou persona.

0 Replies

The word filibuster does not appear in the Constitution.

The relevant passage is this:

Article I, Section 5, reads, in part:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Therefore, a filibuster is a parliamentary proceeding ordained in the rules of the Senate. The Republicans have backed down, because they don't want to do away with a rule which will serve them the next time they are in the minority.

0 Replies

Frist only has one nail left, perhaps he can convince McCain to cross his legs.

0 Replies

DTOM--

I think Frist is going to make examples of Republicans who vote against Republicans.

Some, I feel, won't be able to keep their word--faced with the vote.

The ones who do may find citizens with torches back home.

0 Replies

McCain's doing it himself.

Frist hasn't done anything to him....yet.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The word filibuster does not appear in the Constitution.

The relevant passage is this:

Article I, Section 5, reads, in part:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Therefore, a filibuster is a parliamentary proceeding ordained in the rules of the Senate. The Republicans have backed down, because they don't want to do away with a rule which will serve them the next time they are in the minority.

thanks, set. just saved me from anither beating by the wife ("what in the world are you researching nowwwww??? Shocked

).

so then really, the dems haven't really gone against the constitution, and the republicans are within their rights to suggest a qualifier.

but both are a double edged inconvenience to the relative opposition.

hmmm. well. seems to me that it's better to not go changing what has already worked for 214 years. Laughing

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

DTOM--

I think Frist is going to make examples of Republicans who vote against Republicans.

Some, I feel, won't be able to keep their word--faced with the vote.

The ones who do may find citizens with torches back home.

at least a few anyway.

but look at it this way lash. you and i bark at each other a lot, yet we frequently agree on things.

i really think that there's more of us than there are of the extremists, both left and right.

so, like you said, there may be hope...

0 Replies

0 Replies

Quote:

DTOM--

I think Frist is going to make examples of Republicans who vote against Republicans.

Some, I feel, won't be able to keep their word--faced with the vote.

The ones who do may find citizens with torches back home.

Lash,

Why is party loyalty more important than people's opinions on an issue? Aren't they allowed to disagree on some issues?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
DTOM--

I think Frist is going to make examples of Republicans who vote against Republicans.

Some, I feel, won't be able to keep their word--faced with the vote.

The ones who do may find citizens with torches back home.

Lash,

Why is party loyalty more important than people's opinions on an issue? Aren't they allowed to disagree on some issues?

Cycloptichorn

I seem to remember people getting up set at Zell Miller for disagreeing with his party. In fact I remember people getting very angry with him during the RNC convention.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
DTOM--

I think Frist is going to make examples of Republicans who vote against Republicans.

Some, I feel, won't be able to keep their word--faced with the vote.

The ones who do may find citizens with torches back home.

Lash,

Why is party loyalty more important than people's opinions on an issue? Aren't they allowed to disagree on some issues?

Cycloptichorn

I seem to remember people getting up set at Zell Miller for disagreeing with his party. In fact I remember people getting very angry with him during the RNC convention.

for myself, i wasn't pissed at miller for moving his tent. "reserve the right to change your mind". words to live by if you don't want to be an ostrich or live in a vacum...

but, miller's unabashed distortion of kerry's voting record was complete hannitizing. everybody knows it, but only half of the country admitted it.

the frothing insanity of his delivery was plain embarasssing to me. not as a non-republican, but as an american. when i see the picture of him with his hands shaped into claws and the spittle flying out of his mouth while his eyes turn to saucers, i am reminded more of 1933 munich than 2005 new york city.

btw, if new england liberals are so bad, why didn't the rnc hold the convention in atlanta. or biloxi. or miami even ?

now, here's something for ya'll to mull over. have any of ya heard about ol' zell gettin' his props from the republicans lately" i mean, other than the occassional mention by rushsean hannibaugh when he's going off about "scoop" jackson ?

remember the old joke about lawyers? the firm of Dineum, Dickum and Dropum ?

lawyers ain't the only sharks swimmin' these here waters, folks...

0 Replies

I can remember being embarassed for Zell.

Other than that, he certainly has the right to act however he wants.

And we're not talking about support, or bashing a fellow party member, but voting with one's conscience. I think there is a large difference.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
DTOM--

I think Frist is going to make examples of Republicans who vote against Republicans.

Some, I feel, won't be able to keep their word--faced with the vote.

The ones who do may find citizens with torches back home.

Lash,

Why is party loyalty more important than people's opinions on an issue? Aren't they allowed to disagree on some issues?

Cycloptichorn

This must be a rhetorical question...but why address it to me?

Ask yourself. The same thing goes on in your party.

0 Replies

interesting and often true Lash, so what happens for the 08 when the repubs split between mods and rights?

0 Replies

There won't be a split. Only the die hard come out for the primarys.

0 Replies

dys--

I know you are testing me--we both know--

They won't split.

When the party in power is in the second term and omnipowerful, they don't mind dividing up a bit over pet issues. It's when the party in power is more individualistic--and less partisan.

As soon as the smell (stench) of campaign season is in the air--everybody goes back into their corners...

That's the way it's been--but you may see some fireworks if they put Condi up.

I hope to hell not--but you never know.

0 Replies

Rockefeller vs Goldwater ring a bell? Not very much unlike Frist vs McCain.

0 Replies

No. Goldwater was before my time. Heard of him of course--Mr. Conservative...but don't know the story you allude to. Must read up.

Meanwhile, I think you ALL overestimate Frist's pull with the rank and file Republican. He hasn't accrued any real following.

<kicks can at ignorance of Goldy v Rocky>

0 Replies

McCain wins, Frist/Dobson lose

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know