Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (7201)	9/8/2003 9:00:41 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (11) \| Respond to of 793776

Dems worse nightmare is iraq turning out well for the United States. Exhibit A: The Perfectly Dumb Statement --fl

To: michael97123 who wrote (7201)	9/8/2003 11:03:56 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793776

Dems worse nightmare is iraq turning out well for the United States. Unfortunately, that is true. That is because the Dem base is so "anti-war" now. A Dem like Lieberman is marginalized, and Kerry has to play to the base, which makes him look weaker than he is. You are going to see me bringing up "Information Warfare" more and more. This is the real war we are in.

To: michael97123 who wrote (7201)	9/9/2003 5:56:34 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793776

No guts, no glory. Bring the sick Senator onto the floor on a stretcher. If Frist isn't willing to lead a dramatic Filibuster fight, how does he expect to win? enate GOP retreats from all-night filibuster plans By Sarita Chourey - The Hill Senate Republicans have dropped plans to force Democrats into a genuine all-out filibuster on judicial nominations and have fallen into tactical confusion following Miguel Estrada?s withdrawal from consideration for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last week. The plan to force round-the-clock debate on President Bush?s controversial nominations was abandoned because GOP leaders decided some of their own senior caucus members could suffer health problems while the Democrats might escape with minimal political damage. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) told The Hill that a filibuster "would have no impact on the Democratic caucus," adding, "To get 51 votes for a quorum. You need 50 people healthy at any one time." Chronic health problems plague Sens. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and other lawmakers. Their ailments fueled uncertainty about Republican's ability to hold a majority in the chamber if Democrats called for a quorum. But Frist said that was not the chief reason he decided against it. He noted that the media paid little attention when debate over judicial nominees went into the early morning hours. GOP tactics have been whipsawed by the changing events and calculations. Only last Thursday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said, ?The problem with an all-night filibuster is that it won?t change [Democrats?] attitude,? adding that it would be effective ?only if the media focused on it.? Referring to Estrada?s withdrawal, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: ?We?re seeing a very, very dangerous pattern. We just want to draw the American public?s attention to it.? Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) agreed and warned that Democrats could feel a definite ?political impact? if forced to sustain an all-night filibuster. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), whose own confirmation to the federal bench was blocked by Democrats in 1985, said last week he supported the idea of forcing a real filibuster, saying, ?I think we need to do whatever possible to highlight what the Democrats are doing.? But he acknowledged, ?I am not sure it would change any votes, but it?s important for the American people to understand that this is a complete change in the procedures of the Senate to have a filibuster of a circuit judge.? Just before Estrada?s withdrawal, Hatch said that Republicans were left with only two viable solutions to the impasse over Bush?s federal bench nominees, the so-called ?nuclear option? and an all-day, all-night filibuster. ?It?s got to be one or the other,? said Hatch, adding, ?because the Democrats are just going to keep on filibustering no matter what ?. I have not talked about [the ?nuclear option?] in a long time.? Indeed, the proposed strategy to seek swift parliamentarian action has been losing momentum since it was proposed in May. A forced filibuster would signal a shift in strategy?from successive cloture votes to peel off Democrats to a strategy aimed at embarrassing Democrats by drawing wider public attention to their months-long opposition. But Frist said, ?Our objective is to have an up or down vote.? Democrats are currently filibustering Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, both nominees to circuit court benches. Senate Minority Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) seemed to invite a forced filibuster. ?That would be easy for us,? he said. ?We?ve had occasions where there has been a threat for an all-night filibuster, and we?ve had people lined up to speak all through the night.? By ruling out a forced filibuster, the Senate can proceed with its crowded agenda, including nine pending appropriations bills, a special spending package for Iraq reconstruction, and a prescription drug bill. The leadership has already been told by Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) that they have wasted too much time on judges and need to get on with other work. Senate Rules Committee Chairman Trent Lott (R-Miss.) voiced the sharpest criticism of a forced filibuster strategy and called it ?ludicrous.? ?There?s no such thing as an old-fashioned filibuster. Democrats don?t have to say a word,? he said. ?They don?t have to sit around here all night. They keep one senator here and just watch. It?s a nice idea, but in practicality, it?s not going to happen. This is for show, with no effect.? Lott remains firmly behind a rules change. ?I think it?s time that the leader consider it, and I?m sure he will go to the resolution,? he said. The Rules Committee reported out a step-down process resolution in June. Sixty votes are required to enact cloture, which would end a filibuster. The resolution would change the Senate rules on judicial nominations by allowing a series of cloture votes with a gradually decreasing threshold. The last vote would require only a simple majority to prevail. Proponents of a traditional filibuster stressed that, unlike the ?nuclear option? or the resolution at hand, it would not require the parliamentarian?s intervention or a rules change, and the Senate would be spared a politically intolerable aftermath. The other approach that is unlikely to be followed would have the presiding officer declare that executive branch nominations were not subject to 60-vote ?super-majorities? ? the so-called ?nuclear option.? Sens. George Allen (R-Va.) and Robert Bennett (R-Utah) shared Lott?s criticism. As Lott put it, ?People who think it?s like the Jimmy Stewart movie [?Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?] just don?t understand the Senate.? Allen argued: ?We?ve got to change the rules [back to how they were originally]. That?s the problem.? thehill.com