The Meaning of Moderation
First, let me apologize for the poor writing exhibited in this post. I am so angry. I just saw the news about a deal being reached between moderate Republicans and some Democrats in the Senate tonight.
Doesn't anyone understand that the "nuclear option" would just be a Senate rules change? Fillibusters for judicial nominees are NOT guaranteed in the Constitution! What is the big, fat, hairy deal about letting the party that controls the White House and both Houses of Congress put some conservatives in positions of authority? The people elected majorities of GOPers to the House and Senate. A majority of 3.5 million people put Bush back in the presidency. A coalition of 14 Senators, seven of them RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) thwarted the will of the people. And they are Proud of it! PROUD! McCain helped lead this "Gang of 14" renegades. He has aspirations to the presidency. Who does he expect to vote for him? Democrats? Not hardly. And he has sold out the conservatives who put him in office.
I have a copy of the U.S. Constitution in front of me. Article 2, section 2 says the President can nominate and appoint federal judges with the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate. How do you get fillibuster out of advise and and consent? There are specific instances throughout the Consitution that require a two-thirds approval of the Senate. Guess what, approving judicial nominees is not one of those instances! Go to http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/Filibusters.pdf for some good reading.
The fact is, Bush is the first president to ever have judicial nominees fillibustered en masse. Don't believe it when you hear talk about "time honored traditions of the Senate" or similar crap. The lib dems changed the rules when the started fillibustering Bush's people and they know it.
Don't let anyone tell you Bush has had (insert large number here) of his judicial nominees approved. This is about appellate court nominees. And Bush has the lowest percentage of appellate court nominees approved of any president since Truman. Why? Because federal appellate court judgeships are very powerful positions and the people who hold them make good Supreme Court candidates. The lib dems are scared silly of one or two more conservatives like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas making it to the Supreme Court.
Speaking of Clarence Thomas, has anyone else noticed that the lib dems, party of the minority, have been fillibustering women and hispanics? Did any democrats out there see the harsh treatment given to Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation hearing? Does anyone see a disconnect? The party of the minority, the weak and oppressed, will throw their weight against you and do their best to damn any chance you have of ever making any positive gain for yourself unless you espouse their socialist agenda.
So what do moderates stand for, these RINOs who have sold out their own party? What do they offer the country and those who voted for them? Compromise instead of victory. Half of the immediate prize and none of the future promise. Weak-kneed servitude to the minority lib dems.
They should be proud, these moderates. They stand for nothing and gladly promise more of the same to anyone who should listen. If any readers care to change this, contact the offices of McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of these cowards and tell them how you feel.
Doesn't anyone understand that the "nuclear option" would just be a Senate rules change? Fillibusters for judicial nominees are NOT guaranteed in the Constitution! What is the big, fat, hairy deal about letting the party that controls the White House and both Houses of Congress put some conservatives in positions of authority? The people elected majorities of GOPers to the House and Senate. A majority of 3.5 million people put Bush back in the presidency. A coalition of 14 Senators, seven of them RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) thwarted the will of the people. And they are Proud of it! PROUD! McCain helped lead this "Gang of 14" renegades. He has aspirations to the presidency. Who does he expect to vote for him? Democrats? Not hardly. And he has sold out the conservatives who put him in office.
I have a copy of the U.S. Constitution in front of me. Article 2, section 2 says the President can nominate and appoint federal judges with the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate. How do you get fillibuster out of advise and and consent? There are specific instances throughout the Consitution that require a two-thirds approval of the Senate. Guess what, approving judicial nominees is not one of those instances! Go to http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/Filibusters.pdf for some good reading.
The fact is, Bush is the first president to ever have judicial nominees fillibustered en masse. Don't believe it when you hear talk about "time honored traditions of the Senate" or similar crap. The lib dems changed the rules when the started fillibustering Bush's people and they know it.
Don't let anyone tell you Bush has had (insert large number here) of his judicial nominees approved. This is about appellate court nominees. And Bush has the lowest percentage of appellate court nominees approved of any president since Truman. Why? Because federal appellate court judgeships are very powerful positions and the people who hold them make good Supreme Court candidates. The lib dems are scared silly of one or two more conservatives like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas making it to the Supreme Court.
Speaking of Clarence Thomas, has anyone else noticed that the lib dems, party of the minority, have been fillibustering women and hispanics? Did any democrats out there see the harsh treatment given to Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation hearing? Does anyone see a disconnect? The party of the minority, the weak and oppressed, will throw their weight against you and do their best to damn any chance you have of ever making any positive gain for yourself unless you espouse their socialist agenda.
So what do moderates stand for, these RINOs who have sold out their own party? What do they offer the country and those who voted for them? Compromise instead of victory. Half of the immediate prize and none of the future promise. Weak-kneed servitude to the minority lib dems.
They should be proud, these moderates. They stand for nothing and gladly promise more of the same to anyone who should listen. If any readers care to change this, contact the offices of McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of these cowards and tell them how you feel.
posted by Matthew Tod at 6:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home