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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (682480)	5/17/2005 10:54:34 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"Down with Nazi doctrines and methods! Down with the lies!" Sounds like something you might hear at a left-wing rally, yet it was spoken by none other than Fidel Castro! Castro leads huge protest outside U.S. mission cnn.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (682480)	5/17/2005 4:09:53 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Amazing how that article goes on and on, and yet never once manages to compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Might be interesting (since Clinton served two full terms, and Bush is not yet half-way through his second term... so their time spent in the office is not yet equal, but will be before long) to compare apples to apples and see where they both are in nominee approval ratios. I'd suggest: 1) Compare first terms to first terms. (What percent of the nominees each formally sent over for Senate approval were ultimately approved in their first full terms?) 2) Perform the same analysis with ALL the data that is thus far available (realizing of course that Bush II has more time yet to run, so the numbers for him will certainly change), ie, what was the percent approval rate for all the court nominees Clinton sent over during his full 8 years, and what is the percent thus far over all the time Bush II has been in office? (I think you'll find that the approval rates are very very close for each... with the 'edge' to Bush II thus far.) PS --- if you'd like to increase the political power for majorities over minorities, why mess around with small changes? Why not push for majority-rules Democracy in a big way? You could always change the Constitution so that SENATORS ARE APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO POPULATION --- just like the Representatives are in the House. (I guess you could start with automatically giving the SMALLEST POPULATION State just one Senator. So, that would be the baseline threshold for apportioning Senators. Then divide by that number to see how many Senators more populous States get.) That would REALLY increase Majoritarian powers in the Senate!

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (682480)	5/17/2005 6:20:59 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The Pew Research Center released a new study yesterday afternoon showing that the filibuster fight, for all the bluster and fireworks it's caused inside the Beltway, hasn't registered much with the public. Of the roughly one-third of those who have paid fairly close attention, 54 percent say they oppose changing the filibuster rules. Thirty-five percent say they have no opinion. In terms of the blame game, the numbers are roughly even — 38 percent said they blame President Bush for the stalemate, and 34 percent hold congressional Democrats responsible. Disengaged Public Leans Against Changing Filibuster Rules Approval of Bush, GOP Leaders Slips Released: May 16, 2005 people-press.org Navigate this report Summary of Findings About the Survey Questionnaire Summary of Findings As the Senate prepares for a showdown on the use of the filibuster against some of President Bush's judicial nominees, the issue remains mostly off the public's radar. But public opinion especially among the roughly one-third of the public who has paid at least fairly close attention to the issue tilts against changing Senate rules to prohibit filibusters against judicial nominees. The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 11-15 among 1,502 Americans, finds that by 37%-28%, the general public opposes changing the Senate rules to stop the use of filibusters against judicial nominees. But a relatively large number of Americans (35%) have no opinion on the matter. Among the minority who have followed the story fairly or very closely, a majority (54%) opposes changing the rules on Senate filibusters. About as many Americans blame President Bush (38%) as blame congressional Democrats (34%) for the stalemate over judicial nominees. Opinion on the broader principles involved in the filibuster debate is decidedly mixed. While 62% believe the Senate's minority party should be able to block nominees they feel strongly about, a majority (53%) says that President Bush should be able to appoint anyone he wants to the courts if a majority of senators agree.... ...Although neither party is escaping blame, the damage to the Republican Party's image may be more severe. Just 35% of Americans say they approve of the job Republican leaders in Congress are doing; 50% disapprove, up from 44% in March of this year, and 42% a year ago. Public approval of Democratic leaders is only slightly higher (39% approve, 41% disapprove), but has remained unchanged over the past two years. These generally unfavorable views may have political ramifications for incumbents seeking reelection in 2006. While by more than two-to-one (49%-23%), more say they approve than disapprove of their own representative in the House, this is comparable to measures of satisfaction in the summer of 1993, a year before the historic midterm elections in 1994 in which the Democratic Party lost its majority in the House. ...Over half of the public (53%) agrees that the Republican victory in the 2004 election entitles the president to pick anyone he wants if a majority in the senate agrees; 43% disagree. An even larger majority (62%) agrees that the lifetime terms of judicial appointments entitles the minority to block nominees about whom they feel strongly; just 30% disagree with this. Slightly less than half of the public holds consistent views on these two statements (agreeing with one and not the other). Views on the first statement are very partisan, which is perhaps not surprising given the specific references to the Republican Party and to President Bush. More than eight-in-ten Republicans (84%) believe that the president should get his way, while 60% of Democrats disagree. Independents are evenly divided (48% agree, 49% disagree). But the principle that would give the minority party the ability to block appointments on which it feels strongly drew significant support among Republicans, with 53% agreeing and 42% disagreeing. Democrats were very supportive (by a margin of 70% to 23%), and most independents also agreed (64%-30%).