Text 13023, 96 rader
Skriven 2005-05-28 18:47:29 av Gary Braswell (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 13020 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Washington "Mod-squad
=============================
TIM RICHARDSON -> GARY BRASWELL wrote:

 TR> 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
 TR> 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
 TR> 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
 TR> parties, and
 GB>> probably ruined any kind of political future.


 GB>> Sounds like chickenshits to me.


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

If they went along with the other party, they would have supported the
continued filibuster on all of the candidates Bush put up.

Obviously they did not.


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

I think I mentioned that above.


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


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

And much to the detriment of the Dems for doing it too.


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

I have read the constitution many times, Tim. I don't need to be taught it by
you.

You assumed yet again I am for something I am not. I cannot go along with how
the Democrats have filibustered for 4 years on appointees by abusing a
privilege.

But I don't think the privilege should be eliminated completely.

There is a middle ground here, but the partisan power play is in effect and its
come down to an all or nothing now for both parties.


 TR> Someone recently said something along the lines of;


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

You are surprised by hypocrisy in Washington?

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)