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: LindyBill who wrote (117951)	6/3/2005 2:40:45 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

So all four of the nominees not explicitly covered by the agreement are to be blocked. In addition to securing votes for only three of seven judges, the Republicans agreed to forgo the Constitutional option for this Congress, and agreed to language blaming President Bush for the judicial impasse. The Republicans who negotiated this deal got fleeced." I think the Republicans should force a vote on all four, asap. If the Democrats filibuster, let's see how they explain what the "extraordinary circumstances" are in the case - after all, these are just appellate judges. Let's see if the vaunted Rep spin machine can do something with that. I should think so. If the Dems decide not to filibuster, then it wasn't such a bad deal after all.

To: LindyBill who wrote (117951)	6/3/2005 2:56:40 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793917

1992 from yesterdays discussion centerforpolitics.org sabato's take on the election. BTW, sabato called the 04 election to the vote. See bolded below--thats the way i remember it Bush 41 becoming a pariah because of tax hike and with perot running as a true small c conservative and clinton as a moderate dem. Dems didnt like bush because he was a con and perot voters didnt like bush because he wasnt pure so i will restate that i think the perot vote would have split down the middle between bush and clinton and in any case nowhere close to your 80/20 suggestion. 1992 Presidential Election President Bush began the election cycle looking unbeatable. Coasting on the apparent success of his leadership during the Gulf War, Bush appeared to have the strength to lead the United States into what he called "the new world order." For a while, President Bush appeared so strong that many Democrats were reluctant to take him on. Despite high polling numbers, President Bush might have been doomed from the start. Despite three decades in public life, Bush had never conveyed a coherent identity or defining characteristic. By the spring of 1992, Bush's base had crumbled. The president had decided to "sit" on his high popularity ratings and win reelection by avoiding mistakes, ultimately leading to a bitter anti-incumbent mood dominating the new campaign year. Nationwide, reformers promoted the idea of term limits for elected officials as a way to sweep out career politicians. The Democratic field grew slowly. By calling himself "a New Democrat," Clinton hoped to separate himself from some of the rejected Democratic candidates of the past like Mondale and Dukakis. The Democratic victory owes some of its spoils to the "year of the woman." Female voters had sided with the Democrats since the Republican party dropped its support for the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion in 1980, although the Democrats were not able to utilize this advantage in the "gender gap" until the election of 1992. Ross Perot's anti-government and folksy appeal appealed to voters of the suburban middle-class, a key component of the Republican electorate. Even after spending $60 million of his own money in an on again, off again campaign, Perot was still left appealing to only a small segment of the nation's population. With a weak running mate, and erratic behavior, Ross Perot began to drive away supporters, and in hindsight, had little chance to win. However, his campaign left a significant impact sweeping away 19 percent of the vote. Unusually, with his 370 electoral votes, Clinton only took away 43 percent of the vote compared to Bush's 38 percent. The anti-Bush mood of the electorate, undoubtedly assisted by Perot, helped generate the highest voter turnout rate since 1960, with 55 percent of the eligible voters participating.

To: LindyBill who wrote (117951)	6/3/2005 3:58:12 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

And now, before I sign off..........I want to post the latest articles from two of my favorite writers.. Have a great weekend all! ;) M SEVEN 'EXTRAORDINARY' IDIOTS by Ann Coulter June 1, 2005 Let's not put the seven Republican senators who engineered the "compromise" deal with the Democrats in charge of negotiations with North Korea. I would sooner trust the North Koreans to keep their word than the Democrats. The North Koreans at least waited for the ink to dry on Clinton's 1996 "peace" deal before they set to work violating it by feverishly building nuclear weapons. After hoodwinking seven Republicans into a "compromise" deal, Senate Democrats waited exactly seven seconds before breaking it. The deal was this: Senate Republicans would not use their majority status to win confirmation votes. In return, the Democrats promised to stop blocking nominees supported by a majority of senators — except in "extraordinary circumstances." Thus, a minority of senators in the party Americans keep trying to throw out of power will now be choosing federal judges with the advice and consent of the president. The seven Republicans we're not leaving in charge of the national treasury believed they could trust the Democrats to interpret "extraordinary circumstances" fairly. And why not? It's not as if the Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Oh wait — no, I have that wrong. The Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Hmmm. Well, at least the Democrats didn't wait until Trent Lott foolishly granted them an equal number of committee chairmanships following the 2000 election to seize illegitimate control of the Senate by getting future Trivial Pursuit answer Jim Jeffords to change parties after being elected as a Republican. Oops, no — they did that, too. The seven Republican "mavericks," as The New York Times is wont to call them, had just signed off on this brilliant compromise when the Democrats turned around and filibustered John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations. At least it wasn't an important job. But even so, didn't we win the last election? Why, yes, we did! And didn't we win a majority in the Senate? Yes, we did! To be precise, Republicans have won a majority of Senate seats the past six consecutive elections. (And the last six consecutive elections in the House of Representatives, too!) I think that means Republicans should win. Republican senators support Bush's nominees and Democratic senators oppose them. The way disagreements like this are ordinarily sorted out in a democracy is that a vote is taken among our elected representatives, and majority vote wins. But sometime after 1993 — which, by eerie coincidence, was the last time Democrats had a majority in the Senate — a new rule developed, requiring that the minority party win all contested votes. The Democrats — the same people the seven mavericks are relying on to play fair now — began using procedural roadblocks to prevent the majority vote from prevailing by simply preventing votes from taking place at all. Senate Democrats do this by voting not to vote, whereas Texas Democrats do it by boarding a Greyhound bus bound for Oklahoma. Democrats tried "Count All the Votes (Until I Win)" — Al Gore, 2000. They tried "Vote or Die!" — P. Diddy, 2004. Those failed, so now the Democrats' motto is: "No Voting!" The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, thought the party with the most votes should be able to win. (Boy — talk about out of touch! And this guy wants to be president?) The seven "maverick" Republicans thought a better idea would be to crawl to the minority party and plead for crumbs. If the "maverick" Republicans had a slogan, it would be: "Always surrender from a position of strength." The deal they struck, this masterful Peace of Westphalia, simply put into writing the rule that the minority party controls the Senate — which will remain the rule until the Democrats aren't the minority party anymore. No wonder Democrats were so testy about bringing democracy to Iraq: They can't bear democracy in America. Liberals' beef with Iraq's new government was that the Sunnis — the minority sect whose reign of terror controlled Iraq for almost 30 years — wouldn't be adequately represented. Obviously, this did not bode well for the Democrats — a minority party whose reign of terror controlled the U.S. House for over 40 years. The only way for Americans to get some vague semblance of what they voted for is to elect mammoth Republican majorities — and no "mavericks." (Fortunately, for the sake of civilization and the republic, that process seems to be well under way.) Chuck Schumer could be the last Democrat in the Senate and the new rule would be: Unanimous votes required for all Senate business. But at least we could count on Senators Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, John McCain, John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee to strike a deal forcing Schumer to agree not to block the 99 other senators except in "extraordinary circumstances." anncoulter.com