Text 13020, 64 rader
Skriven 2005-05-28 09:16:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av GARY BRASWELL
Ärende: Washington "Mod-squad
=============================
On 05-27-05, GARY BRASWELL said to JOHN HULL:

GB>John Hull -> THURSTON ACKERMAN wrote:

JH> Moderates are wimps who can't take a stand and stick to it.  They have
JH> no convictions worth standing up for other than mediocrity.  This latest
JH> example of "moderates" in action in the Senate did nothing but prolong
JH> the fight that is coming.  The Democrats can't afford to let
JH> conservative judges get appointed, so they will do whatever it takes to
JH> prevent it.  But that fight is coming and no bunch of chickenshit
JH> moderates is going to do more than delay it.


GB>Yeah, sure John. Moderates are just chickenshits, which is why the cowards
GB>stood up to their own parties and constituents in a move which likely
GB>damaged, if not ruined their power and influence in their own parties, and
GB>probably ruined any kind of political future.


GB>Sounds like chickenshits to me.


You want to know what "chickenshits" are?  Try looking at the dimwits who
deserted their party (make that read their constituents) and went along with a
group in the other party who are famous for dis-enfranchising the U.S.
Constitution, and thwarting the will of the People.


John McCain, and every turn-coat who joined him in his stabbing of the
Majority in the back, will face an electorate again.


As for the minority party who whined and cajoled till some of the republicans
were weighed with guilt over winning a majority in the Senate?


The ink was hardly dry on the so-called `agreement', before Reid had voilated
it.


You need to read the Constitution, Braswell. Both House's of the Congress get
to make their `own' rules by which they operate. Had Frist and a group of
republican Senators (who I might point out, are `in the majority' in the
Senate) decided to change the rules and allow a straight up-or-down vote on
each of Bush's nominee's, with a simple majority deciding the issue, it would
have been perfectly legal, and within the letter of the Constitution.


Someone recently said something along the lines of;


"Democrats arguing on the basis that the Senate can provide advise and consent
without voting, even at the committee level, is a rather `strict'
interpretation of the Constitution -- one that might be called `extreme'. How,
one wonders, do these hyper-strict literalists find a Constitutional right to
abortion?"





---
*Durango b301 #PE* Exceptis excipiendis - excepting what is to be excepted
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)