« Why Do They Hate My America? | Main | Republican Party: Stabbing Rightward »
Monday, April 25, 2005
Family Research Council is FOR the Filibuster
Senior FRC writer and analyst Steven Schwalm is quoted as saying this about the filibuster.
...the Senate is a -- is not a majoritarian institution like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body and it's got a number of checks and balances built into our government. This is one of those checks, in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases, that's why there are things like filibusters and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly.
Oh wait! Shit! I'm sorry that was from 1998 when he appeared on NPR’s Talk of the Nation and was asked about the filibuster against James Hormel, President Clinton’s ambassadorial nominee. HYPOCRITES!!!!!!
Posted by The Bastard at 09:40 AM in Right Wing Nut | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2454364
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Family Research Council is FOR the Filibuster:
Comments
That figures. They're falling all over themselves with contradictions. During Clinton's war in Kosovo, some of the Republican leaders (including DeLay) sounded like a bunch of peaceniks. Anything to diss Clinton.
Posted by: tomharper | Apr 25, 2005 1:48:13 PM
And which party was accusing whom of "flip-flopping?"
Oh, that's right...all the republicans who are now struggling to bury their own words from the past.
Posted by: ken grandlund | Apr 25, 2005 2:17:24 PM
I guess it's too picky to point out that the filibuster those people oppose and the Republicans oppose is the filibuster of federal appeals court nominees. No one is proposing the elimination of the filibuster on other legislative matters, unless you're talking about the budget which under current senate rules cannot be filibustered. There are several other legislative acts that under the current rules are not subject to a filibuster. Never in the history of our country has a federal appeals court nominee been subject to a filibuster by either party. Why not just vote on these nominees and see if a majority of the Senate votes them up or down? Would not that be the democratic thing to do? I guess I'm just too picky.
Posted by: Robert Thomason | Apr 25, 2005 2:31:15 PM
Robert, as I commented over at the Bring It On site, the filibuster, or the threat thereof, is simply a tool to give the minority representative voice. A simple up or down vote, while a great sound bite, means the majority will always win. If the situations were reversed, I can't believe a Republican minority would want their voice silenced when an appointment they strongly object to is being voted on. The Golden Rule is certainly applicable here.
Posted by: Jet | Apr 25, 2005 4:31:24 PM
Rob,
I would have to do a little research to find out which legislation does not have a filibuster but do tell when you get a chance. I am going to go out on a limb and say it is legislation that is not as important as a life-time appointment of a judge. I think that Schwalm was right, it gives pause! This is a VERY important decision that can have last effects for years to come. It should not be an up/down vote! Jeezi Chrizzi y'all got 200+ judges appointed, give up already! You're all a bunch of SHEEP! Bah, Bah, Bah!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 25, 2005 4:38:46 PM
Obviously Republicans are not about principles, but instead they about power. They even used that argument against the Democrats when they were trying to take power away from them. Then they market themselves as being against power and for the people. Well, actions speak louder than words.
We just need to make the actions public and the people will see the truth.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | Apr 25, 2005 9:32:25 PM
Dr. Forbush, can you say "disingenuous"? I knew you could. As if Senator Byrd and the Democrats haven't changed their toon in re the filibuster since losing the majority. Let's not bullshit here, okay? If the Republicans are about power rather than principle then that is no less true of the Democrats. Their primary problem, at this point, is that they ain't got it, not that they didn't worship at its altar when they had it.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 25, 2005 11:08:40 PM
I would suggest that the Democrats work real hard and spend lots of money to get their party members elected into the majority. Oh, wait! They had the majority and Clinton lost it for them.
So it goes.
Maybe if they find politicians with ethics. Nooo... That won't work....
Posted by: prying1 | Apr 25, 2005 11:27:00 PM
Prying1, pithy, snarky, I give it a 7 on the O'Reilly scale. Only one problem. It is not often that one sees the words 'politicians' and 'with ethics' thus juxtiposed. A Party boasting a leader by the name Tom DeLay ought not to be bandying those words about like that.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 26, 2005 12:07:01 AM
I agree with Craig, DeLay sucks!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 12:32:38 AM
Tom Delay has not broken any law. The Dems are throwing dust in the air concerning him. Reps have called for an ethics investigation and the Dems don't want to give it to him. They would rather make allegations than have any investigation. So it goes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7575370/
and then there is this:
As he introduced it, Nevada's senior U.S. senator, Democrat Harry Reid, assured colleagues that his bill was a bipartisan measure to protect the environment and help the economy in America's fastest-growing state.
What Reid did not explain was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons' and son-in-law's firms, federal lobbyist reports show.
The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to the tiny Washington consulting firm of son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development in the exploding Las Vegas metropolitan area.
- from - http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sonsday223jun23,1,5816793.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Posted by: prying1 | Apr 26, 2005 12:42:50 AM
Ummm I think the Dems are smart for "DeLaying" an investigation until the original rules are put back in place. And if you look at the actual <a href="http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/bring_it_on/2005/04/ethics_committe.html" rel="nofollow">committee</a> it's a joke that anything real would come out of an investigation.
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 12:54:32 AM
Prying1, and the three ethics violations that DeLay has already been admonished for?
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 26, 2005 1:06:42 AM
Craig, I'm starting to like you more and more. If more of the conservativesin power had the capacity to see through the lense of their own ideology I'd have less worry for the direction of our country.
I agree this is all about power, but that isn't so bad. You have to wonder about a party that continues to jam questionable appointees down the throat of Americans. Your right in an earlier post when you say more info is needed about the justices. I hope it all comes out, people see how these folks think and it burns them in 2006\08.Sure I'm partisan, but you know what, I came from the other side and found it bankrupt.
Prying, intersting you bring up Clinton. In the latest series of polls Bill Clinton would trounce Dub at the ballot (assuming you could pass a new Constitutional Amendment). Actully Hillary is running better than any Republican they throw out there. This will all change by 2008 obviously, but it is intersting to poitn out that for all you CLinton Bashers out there - he is still a far more popular (and I'd argue effective) president than the Corporate Cowboy.
Posted by: The Cranky Liberal | Apr 26, 2005 7:20:08 AM
Who says the Republicans don't have principles?
They have at least one for every occasion.
Posted by: Open_Mind | Apr 27, 2005 11:16:47 AM
