[On the filibuster, bipartisanship and third party involvement.]
(02-02-01) {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.}
The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. It, like the Electoral College, is rarely used for the good they were intended. However, the vote for Ashcroft does help support it as a tool to define bipartisan, if anything can. The interesting thing is that both sides claim bipartisanship. The Republicans with the idea that it was a bipartisan vote since 8 Democrats were on the side of the nominee. The Democrats with the idea that they split votes and did not vote in a block. I would like a little more on why the Republicans can make this claim though.
It really seems that the Dems have three points on their side. One, the Democrats that voted for Ashcroft, were the ones that made that decision. Two, the Republicans were unified in their support. And three, the Democrats had enough to block a cloture if they had stuck together, but chose not to waste the country's time and offered another olive branch to a white flag.
I do feel that enough white flags(whoops)olive branches were offered with the earlier Senate confirmations, and if this was not important enough to filibuster, what would be?
However there are also three important political motives for the olive branches, and one is to define the terms that Bush uses. If they are surrounded by olive branches, the Republicans will be caught up in their own words, before they can get out.
The second political motive is that it only takes one to start a filibuster, but reality is, that not enough would choose to continue it because they are not being as partisan as the other side and its nominee. Third, they will have established this record and try to use it in the next election.
More important though, is that abolishing the filibuster will do too much to drive us to majority rule. That is a bigger point you saved for last. Decisions on the process, let alone legislation, should not be made based on the convenience of those with power. But wait till a third party tries to use it. Whoops. Maybe it would be worth having a third party, if it could contribute to the proper use of a dictionary without the shifting sands of political power.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query democrats filibuster. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query democrats filibuster. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, September 06, 2002
Friday, September 21, 2007
To Democrats in the Senate:
CAP THE FILIBUSTER!
First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:
The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.
The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.
If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.
May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.
First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:
Why are Republicans not required to hold the floor if they are filibustering?
I would suggest that a cap be put first on cloture votes and keep them talking to show who is stalling.
What is the number of cloture votes taken versus successful legislation passed? (1 in 6 as of July.)
It would seem that things are already mucked up quite a bit, with cloture vote on top of cloture vote, just how would they carry on all this filibustering at the same time?
It seems difficult to right this course, and the Democrats are at the helm.
The Democrats had a period of success and "hard work" at the start of the session, I think it is time they put their foot down, and start forcing filibusters. There are only so many hours to congress. Is there not a time limit for each and are there enough hours left?
The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.
The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.
If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.
May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Rough Draft (Update/not)
[Posted AS IS 7-15-09]
democrats come through?: Reid to Baucus The Magic Number?
My original number included some strategy where 41 Democrats can maintain a filibuster but without Republicans presenting anything but opposition it is hard to see progress. But the magic is that Democrats do not need 60 votes to pass a bill, only to end a filibuster. Those are separate questions and in fact supported by the Democratic aversion to supporting a filibuster.
Obama's Clueless Liberal Critics Bruce Bartlett The Daily Beast7-8-09
pre-footnoted
1-12-09
1-28-09
1-28-09
Bang for the Buck
democrats come through?: Reid to Baucus The Magic Number?
My original number included some strategy where 41 Democrats can maintain a filibuster but without Republicans presenting anything but opposition it is hard to see progress. But the magic is that Democrats do not need 60 votes to pass a bill, only to end a filibuster. Those are separate questions and in fact supported by the Democratic aversion to supporting a filibuster.
Obama's Clueless Liberal Critics Bruce Bartlett The Daily Beast7-8-09
pre-footnoted
1-12-09
1-28-09
1-28-09
Bang for the Buck
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Leaking Intelligence
Why are Republicans Forcing a Shutdown of Government? This is the ledership to a preemptive thought bubble blown earlier. i.e. I thought that the Republicans are going to force a shut down because they have already blamed one on the Democrats just as the Democrats are about to present their compromise. Now this is not to predict a shutdown, but it is easy for the Republicans to predict one. And indeed it may only be in the Democrats power to force one. Just look at Wisconsin. Woops, even their out of state filibuster did not stop the Republicans. Now, cutting the jest and my tangent. Back to the thought bubble. The Republicans may force a shutdown to blame the Democrats, or the Democrats may force a shutdown to hold their horses. It seems that false equivalents, make it either the Trojan Horse or the Four Horseman. But back to my thought bubble, I just said that.
{Further leaking of nuance and exceptionalism, the so-called Constitutionalists, orginal intenders, and frackin' flip-floppin' neo-cons or Libertarians forget all about the Bush administration and the congressional behaviour then. As I have sketchily outlined the constitution and the war powers act and the partiot act, the president is within his powers until the law or the spirit changes it. How much Iron Knee or I Ron Knee is there that the UN Libya resolution is Numbered 1973? Or that the Patriot act was just extended?
BTW: Freedom is not a license, in reaction to or spin-off of Bill Maher, in respect to the requirement of humor for him and not Beck or O'Reilly, and I might add or Trump a few others.
Hint: on labels and scroll-over tangent I have not always read nor will I read (or reread)all links that are embedded in my blog. But I do wish to note them as sometimes serving as footnotes which I sometimes google post post, which sometimes may just be scrolled over or glannced at after clicking on to get the gist of.
[Toxic Leak? I am concerned with the roles that government spouses play. Not to mention Media Matters and its battle with FOX related to its non-profit status. But let me burst my thought bubble. The Republicans may not hold together on the ability to shut it down, but it will likely be another extention. I don't think either side wants to shut it down, but look who's talking.]
[Speaking of breaking or thought: here is the why, which will be inserted later, but it is for now to get the Democrats to move, and blame them for failure when the Republicans can move the line away a better economy. Stuck bubble: Should Corporate Executive go to jail for killing people? No, since corporations are people the whole corporations should. Just being facitious but really, they should be paying the same taxe rates as people, and have passports.]
{Further leaking of nuance and exceptionalism, the so-called Constitutionalists, orginal intenders, and frackin' flip-floppin' neo-cons or Libertarians forget all about the Bush administration and the congressional behaviour then. As I have sketchily outlined the constitution and the war powers act and the partiot act, the president is within his powers until the law or the spirit changes it. How much Iron Knee or I Ron Knee is there that the UN Libya resolution is Numbered 1973? Or that the Patriot act was just extended?
BTW: Freedom is not a license, in reaction to or spin-off of Bill Maher, in respect to the requirement of humor for him and not Beck or O'Reilly, and I might add or Trump a few others.
Hint: on labels and scroll-over tangent I have not always read nor will I read (or reread)all links that are embedded in my blog. But I do wish to note them as sometimes serving as footnotes which I sometimes google post post, which sometimes may just be scrolled over or glannced at after clicking on to get the gist of.
[Toxic Leak? I am concerned with the roles that government spouses play. Not to mention Media Matters and its battle with FOX related to its non-profit status. But let me burst my thought bubble. The Republicans may not hold together on the ability to shut it down, but it will likely be another extention. I don't think either side wants to shut it down, but look who's talking.]
[Speaking of breaking or thought: here is the why, which will be inserted later, but it is for now to get the Democrats to move, and blame them for failure when the Republicans can move the line away a better economy. Stuck bubble: Should Corporate Executive go to jail for killing people? No, since corporations are people the whole corporations should. Just being facitious but really, they should be paying the same taxe rates as people, and have passports.]
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Filibuster survived, but for what?
There were 42 votes against Samuel Alito. That was without 4 Democrats that voted for Alito. If those 42 had voted against cloture, the debate on Alito would have continued. Maybe debate is too much work for some of them. Maybe the pressure of having to decide and wanting to get on to other work is too much of a strain. Maybe voters will get apathetic and lose their enthusiasm for carrying through on what counts. It's just an up or down vote. Next!
Alito was confirmed 58 to 42, with those 4 Democrats. Given that Democrats are less partisan, that just means that we need more Democrats. It seems that even when in the majority Democrats were independent minded or had different constituents. But it does not mean that Republicans or the Democrats that join them represent what is good for the country or even what the majority of the country supports.
Let us just hope that Alito's propensity to pad a resume was only part of an act that conned the neo-cons. It is not likely, but it is what we can only hope.
Alito was confirmed 58 to 42, with those 4 Democrats. Given that Democrats are less partisan, that just means that we need more Democrats. It seems that even when in the majority Democrats were independent minded or had different constituents. But it does not mean that Republicans or the Democrats that join them represent what is good for the country or even what the majority of the country supports.
Let us just hope that Alito's propensity to pad a resume was only part of an act that conned the neo-cons. It is not likely, but it is what we can only hope.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Filibuster Final Draft
FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Do Nothing Filibuster
First I must say there has been progress. (Updated)
But there is need for a flip-flop while it is still a high wire act if you do the math.
On the bright side a comparison to the Republican wave of 1994 and the 1997 congress shows Democrats getting things done. But if we could get it together there are 10 Democrats that are so called "not progressive", and some of the best known "progressives" rated "only kinda" number another 11.(from above: you do the math) But Democrats should be able to get it together to highlite the fact that they have made progress despite their numbers and the media coverage.
A recent whine of the right about the media could be the occasion for investigations, but that would be too much on the table. So maybe I have made my own flip-flop here or lost momentum in the math of getting it together. But when it comes to accountability, it is easy to get fired up again.
Basically the math is so difficult, not just because of the unity of Republicans and the diversity of Democrats, but the bulk of problems that have resulted from the variables in the equation of our constitutional government, and what is for someseemingly {*} only political calculus.
[BREAKING/BROKEN? If there were ever time for a filibuster: THIS IS IT! not to mention INVESTIGATIONS!]
{*} go there see [*]
But there is need for a flip-flop while it is still a high wire act if you do the math.
On the bright side a comparison to the Republican wave of 1994 and the 1997 congress shows Democrats getting things done. But if we could get it together there are 10 Democrats that are so called "not progressive", and some of the best known "progressives" rated "only kinda" number another 11.(from above: you do the math) But Democrats should be able to get it together to highlite the fact that they have made progress despite their numbers and the media coverage.
A recent whine of the right about the media could be the occasion for investigations, but that would be too much on the table. So maybe I have made my own flip-flop here or lost momentum in the math of getting it together. But when it comes to accountability, it is easy to get fired up again.
Basically the math is so difficult, not just because of the unity of Republicans and the diversity of Democrats, but the bulk of problems that have resulted from the variables in the equation of our constitutional government, and what is for someseemingly {*} only political calculus.
[BREAKING/BROKEN? If there were ever time for a filibuster: THIS IS IT! not to mention INVESTIGATIONS!]
{*} go there see [*]
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Filibuster more important FOR JUSTICE and against judges than Bolton.
[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
Monday, January 30, 2006
Filibuster failed. NOW UP OR DOWN.
The current support for Alito for Supreme Court is 57 to 38. That is with 4 Democrats and 1 Republican listed in the C-Span analysis. That means that if those opposed and those undecided had made a stand against cloture we would still be filibustering or debating. Cloture passed 72-25 with 53 Republicans and 19 Democrats supporting the end of debate and a scheduled vote up or down tomorrow.
The fact that a vote is scheduled does not mean that debate is over and I suggest those wavering to read Senator Max Baucus's statement today on why Samuel Alito does not meet his criterion for approval.
Here is a plea that I sent earlier to Senator Conrad of North Dakota:
Dear Senator Conrad
Your oath is to the constitution, the constitution begins "we the people", Alito is for voting his conscience and giving the president that power over the law. You have a choice that is very difficult, but do not bet that things cannot get worse because of your choice.
To me it is clear,
NO ON ALITO!
NO ON CLOTURE!
NO ON CHANGING SENATE RULES!
If you can not find in in your conscience to vote 3 "No"s, at least protect the tradition and duties of the senate (by supporting the filibuster by not changing the Senate Rules), as distinguished from the House which actually should put new light on your point that you represent your constituents.
Here are my points. The filibuster survived, it just did not work. Republicans did not have to resort to changing or violating Senate rules and messing with it's traditions and the way it protects the constitution.
But that does not mean that Senators still cannot consider carefully when they uphold their oath to protect the constitution, and not just vote their party line or their conscience or resort to the political calculus which says they are representing their constituents.
The fact that a vote is scheduled does not mean that debate is over and I suggest those wavering to read Senator Max Baucus's statement today on why Samuel Alito does not meet his criterion for approval.
Here is a plea that I sent earlier to Senator Conrad of North Dakota:
Dear Senator Conrad
Your oath is to the constitution, the constitution begins "we the people", Alito is for voting his conscience and giving the president that power over the law. You have a choice that is very difficult, but do not bet that things cannot get worse because of your choice.
To me it is clear,
NO ON ALITO!
NO ON CLOTURE!
NO ON CHANGING SENATE RULES!
If you can not find in in your conscience to vote 3 "No"s, at least protect the tradition and duties of the senate (by supporting the filibuster by not changing the Senate Rules), as distinguished from the House which actually should put new light on your point that you represent your constituents.
Here are my points. The filibuster survived, it just did not work. Republicans did not have to resort to changing or violating Senate rules and messing with it's traditions and the way it protects the constitution.
But that does not mean that Senators still cannot consider carefully when they uphold their oath to protect the constitution, and not just vote their party line or their conscience or resort to the political calculus which says they are representing their constituents.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
THANK YOU, SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS!
It appears that the Democrats will be united against the nomination of Samual Alito for the Supreme Court. Here it seems is the con text without any context needed, from Senator Arlen Specter that he expects Alito "…to render justice without respect for persons…". Senator Linsay Graham called it political, and I would agree. He is not suprised that Bush would nominate the likes of what he likes since he won the election. And that if Democrats want to make it politcal that Republicans will clean their clock. Such talk in not very admirable in the setting he selected, but he is right that it is political. And since Bush was selected by an unprecedented Supreme Court decision and given his track record, polls aside, this is about politics, Democrats must hold the line on this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. To say that the president gets his way since he won the election is the whole reason that we have three branches and a constitution. Do not Rubber Stamp Alito, filibuster the Rubber Stamp Alito.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Republicans Filibuster Economy
There, no more misledership!
Durbin Calls for Change to Filibuster Rule
Content from Legislation not Politics!(post asterisk *)
[Sorting it out: It was Eric Cantor who accused the President of politics over legislating. That is a ridiculous line of argument. As someone said about the market operating on society, like Siamese Twins performing brain surgery on themselves. But taking it to the bank or kitchen or pulpit,(the ridiculous line that is), the answer is in one word. VOTE! Up or down, package or separately, limit the filibuster, use reconciliation, WHATEVER! A vote is taking a stand. Take it and run on it, not from it. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE MESSAGE TO GET THROUGH THE MESS AGE OF THE MEDIA, not even punning on ledership. The American Jobs Act did not get voted down, it failed a cloture vote(50-49). That means that even if three more Democrats had voted with the rest, it would have been 53-46, but it takes 60 votes people!]
(*) post-asterisk at link, go there for more links, but I have rearranged two in this content: If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act[*], and see who will be left on the ship of fools.
NOW MORE CONTEXT... later (Well maybe)
[just posted from draft]
Durbin Calls for Change to Filibuster Rule
Content from Legislation not Politics!(post asterisk *)
[Sorting it out: It was Eric Cantor who accused the President of politics over legislating. That is a ridiculous line of argument. As someone said about the market operating on society, like Siamese Twins performing brain surgery on themselves. But taking it to the bank or kitchen or pulpit,(the ridiculous line that is), the answer is in one word. VOTE! Up or down, package or separately, limit the filibuster, use reconciliation, WHATEVER! A vote is taking a stand. Take it and run on it, not from it. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE MESSAGE TO GET THROUGH THE MESS AGE OF THE MEDIA, not even punning on ledership. The American Jobs Act did not get voted down, it failed a cloture vote(50-49). That means that even if three more Democrats had voted with the rest, it would have been 53-46, but it takes 60 votes people!]
(*) post-asterisk at link, go there for more links, but I have rearranged two in this content: If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act[*], and see who will be left on the ship of fools.
NOW MORE CONTEXT... later (Well maybe)
[just posted from draft]
Friday, July 18, 2008
On the Flip-Flop.
Update: from "my friends" humor indicates authenticity
And Satire class action?
"mental depression" no joke...
neither is Schizophrenia (nfry)(nor planning to)
But on the flip-flop of McCain(or FOX)and Friends David Sirota is spotting the gymnasts, while I would suggest a filibuster.
How do I get there? The Democrats should hold a filibuster in honor of the Republicans flip-flop on the filibuster and set their record straight and place a moratorium on "do nothing" Republicans.
[7-23-08: Gergen suggestion ]
And Satire class action?
"mental depression" no joke...
neither is Schizophrenia (nfry)(nor planning to)
But on the flip-flop of McCain(or FOX)and Friends David Sirota is spotting the gymnasts, while I would suggest a filibuster.
How do I get there? The Democrats should hold a filibuster in honor of the Republicans flip-flop on the filibuster and set their record straight and place a moratorium on "do nothing" Republicans.
[7-23-08: Gergen suggestion ]
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
CON TEXT / CON SCIENCE ABOUT THE PROCESS!
Filibuster Alito for Constitution's Sake
An Open Letter to SENATORS(in particular moderates who bargained away their duties for the sake of protecting Senate traditions and rules regarding the filibuster)
(Slightly edited from fax sent 1-18-06 to)
Honorable Senator Nelson:
A "unitary philosophy" puts you out of a job, and the people out of the picture. This philosophy has existed prior to the unprecedented selection of Bush over the people. The (constitutional)design of three branches of government requires each to do it's job, and the process (in you) are the arbiters. If you do not stand for the people and the constitution’s principles, do you know what you are standing for?
I feel that it is crucial that you oppose Mr. Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
If that is not possible due to the political dangers of your area, it is at least crucial that you stand for the terms of your judicial compromise that prevented the busting of the filibuster in earlier nominations to the judiciary. UNLESS of course that you feel that the Democrats had the opportunity for "advice and consent" as explained in said document.
Politics and the law are more than games, they make the rules for the games that are our lives. Please do not gamble that things cannot get worse or that you can know what is in the conscience* of one that seems to be above the law. That is their philosophy as stated by Bush and demonstrated by his actions. Their conscience is above the law, is yours?
Failing to persuade you on your vote on Alito, at least stand up for your compromise, do not vote for cloture.
* During Bush's 2000 campaign, I noted when he pointed out that his conscience was above any campaign laws. That may have been the Rubicon, now we may only have politics, tyranny or anarchy.
An Open Letter to SENATORS(in particular moderates who bargained away their duties for the sake of protecting Senate traditions and rules regarding the filibuster)
(Slightly edited from fax sent 1-18-06 to)
Honorable Senator Nelson:
A "unitary philosophy" puts you out of a job, and the people out of the picture. This philosophy has existed prior to the unprecedented selection of Bush over the people. The (constitutional)design of three branches of government requires each to do it's job, and the process (in you) are the arbiters. If you do not stand for the people and the constitution’s principles, do you know what you are standing for?
I feel that it is crucial that you oppose Mr. Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
If that is not possible due to the political dangers of your area, it is at least crucial that you stand for the terms of your judicial compromise that prevented the busting of the filibuster in earlier nominations to the judiciary. UNLESS of course that you feel that the Democrats had the opportunity for "advice and consent" as explained in said document.
Politics and the law are more than games, they make the rules for the games that are our lives. Please do not gamble that things cannot get worse or that you can know what is in the conscience* of one that seems to be above the law. That is their philosophy as stated by Bush and demonstrated by his actions. Their conscience is above the law, is yours?
Failing to persuade you on your vote on Alito, at least stand up for your compromise, do not vote for cloture.
* During Bush's 2000 campaign, I noted when he pointed out that his conscience was above any campaign laws. That may have been the Rubicon, now we may only have politics, tyranny or anarchy.
Friday, September 06, 2002
Ashcroft Confirmed
[On bi-partisanship.]
(2-01-01)The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes to support a filibuster so why start one. There were enough votes that opposed Ashcroft to show that a filibuster was possible if the Democrats had been partisan. But a filibuster would have only drawn ire from the middle. Hopefully this is as Sen. Russell Feingold says, "an olive branch, not a white flag." Also I hope that when more important matters arise, that they will not fail to stand up for principles. Ashcroft has made some amazing statements contrary to previous actions so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.
(2-01-01)The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes to support a filibuster so why start one. There were enough votes that opposed Ashcroft to show that a filibuster was possible if the Democrats had been partisan. But a filibuster would have only drawn ire from the middle. Hopefully this is as Sen. Russell Feingold says, "an olive branch, not a white flag." Also I hope that when more important matters arise, that they will not fail to stand up for principles. Ashcroft has made some amazing statements contrary to previous actions so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Straight Talk Express?
Or Real Clear Politics
(nfry)But do I have to? Or should I hit The Trail?
Which would be "politic"? The good thing is that at least the former is only his words, and the latter is not his fault for being more viscious but will there be more course talk? I mean will it still be there when I get around to reading it?
Flash analysis: Filibuster, Flip-flop and appeasement Fridays. OK. David Bender is discussing The New GI Bill on The Rachel Maddow Show, and his theory is that the president will veto the bill to give the Republicans cover to run from him. I don't believe I got that right. I may have switched course midstream, and need to check back later.
But a point not lost is that the Republicans have flip-flopped on the filibuster from trying to abolish it to using it without using it on every vote. Meaning that the Democrats have appeased the Republicans on the rules. It is political but it is about progress. It was also not necessarily the point Bender was making except for the potential flip-flop on a veto.
(nfry)But do I have to? Or should I hit The Trail?
Which would be "politic"? The good thing is that at least the former is only his words, and the latter is not his fault for being more viscious but will there be more course talk? I mean will it still be there when I get around to reading it?
Flash analysis: Filibuster, Flip-flop and appeasement Fridays. OK. David Bender is discussing The New GI Bill on The Rachel Maddow Show, and his theory is that the president will veto the bill to give the Republicans cover to run from him. I don't believe I got that right. I may have switched course midstream, and need to check back later.
But a point not lost is that the Republicans have flip-flopped on the filibuster from trying to abolish it to using it without using it on every vote. Meaning that the Democrats have appeased the Republicans on the rules. It is political but it is about progress. It was also not necessarily the point Bender was making except for the potential flip-flop on a veto.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**
Not to spike the ball.
Mandate will become a tax!
Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats. It is a victory for congress and the political progress. It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship. Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way. I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014.
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship. That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship. The ACA was passed under reconciliation. It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill. If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters. Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster.
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA.
Pump it up! Obama Cares ! Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy. On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments. I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.
* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ? 4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy! But according to Raw Money? "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline: Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry! A nuanced flip-flopper. But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***
(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)
*** TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]
(photo credit)
[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]
[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have. Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce. Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship. NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe. How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie? He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was. The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress. It puts taxes and states at the table. The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce. As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel. Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium. MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld - U p h e l d !]
Mandate will become a tax!
Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats. It is a victory for congress and the political progress. It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship. Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way. I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014.
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship. That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship. The ACA was passed under reconciliation. It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill. If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters. Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster.
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA.
Pump it up! Obama Cares ! Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy. On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments. I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.
* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ? 4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy! But according to Raw Money? "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline: Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry! A nuanced flip-flopper. But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***
(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)
*** TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]
(photo credit)
[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]
[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have. Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce. Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship. NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe. How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie? He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was. The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress. It puts taxes and states at the table. The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce. As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel. Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium. MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld - U p h e l d !]
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Red Acted Month
That's not the ticket [!]
The point of the seqester was to force a grand bargain. Now that Republicans are using it as leverage, the Democrats may use it as leverage. That would be to not go piecemeal. Democrats can vote on their conscience and their constituency. The House can field a budget, the Senate may filibuster and the President may veto. Witch plays perfectly into the DNC* of getting her done.
* gnot [!][fp ? ! ? ] Bazinga Alter Bashir!
The point of the seqester was to force a grand bargain. Now that Republicans are using it as leverage, the Democrats may use it as leverage. That would be to not go piecemeal. Democrats can vote on their conscience and their constituency. The House can field a budget, the Senate may filibuster and the President may veto. Witch plays perfectly into the DNC* of getting her done.
* gnot [!][fp ? ! ? ] Bazinga Alter Bashir!
Monday, April 01, 2013
FOOTNOTE PAGE APRIL 2013
4-1-13 April * 1st. Big
Bagel Theory: Springs from labels. (the * 1st are tangent shall references to April.) Not to be shell games for grown ups.
4-2-13: Sorting by order read(ge me oh) or inserted(heck tricks) followed by lines 3, 1 and 4. [** follow up?]
4-3-13 Charlotte's Web: Original search(Share) Ctrl F two "montage"('n Angle) / Not to[FP2] dimention.
4-4-13 (b.s. ) funny+thing: A. A Funny Thing Happened... (sc)[!] B... (Kantinued...?)
[FP2.(oh) [Re:asterisk or FP (too.oh)] Re:A & (sc) i.e. Not to create an MU puzzle, but please scroll over and click on (sc)]
4-5-13 TGIF *NFR Not Fully Read.
4-9-13 Re:Figure & FC: Speaking of bread crumbs ...
Filibuster Bluster* 4-11-13 original title 68-31 to insert Maddow Link. (b.s.) jinx: A. I feel like a Tea Partier!(sc), B. Go Purple!(sc)
4-12-13 : Tan Gents from Mottos. Bottom line is funny. Not ! X, Y, ... [_] <- a=""> the solution is in the tax structure, the problem is in the Norquist. Francis Perkins and the Fiscal Party.
4-15-13: insert Read (footnote tweak). Lost Thatcher reference(to be exhumed)? And OW/bubblenomics ?
4-16-13 Emphasis must be laid on parsing and timing, if not iron knee of profits. Not to further M-bed or spec U late. (b.s.) tail+: A, B, C Tact and Tack
4-17-13: Now fully read. Ctrl F "not read". Irony of threats and political dynamics as undiplomatic and unjust.[ Ctrl F "na•ve": set theory and justice.]
4-18-13: As to two "too"[!] Not to Re-Knot the bottom line, but I thought that gun-control legislation would have a political solution to the obstruction of fear mongers. I had thought that Rebublicans could sign their letter promising a filibuster that would fail. Four Democrats joined them for their political survival, but their votes alone would not have tipped the cloture.
4-22-13 Math is next 2...?
4-23-13 [Ctrl F] is not the pun but the practical. "F" = [find] but also "filter" and "fervor". Nor to pun on 4F or broaden the base.
4-24-13 First change? To read "?" mark. Second line lede or ship!
4-25-13 Two Reads OW... (font is next to #$cape italicism)
4-26-13: Labelism(on the QT), Social Media, Boston Strong, A^ peas meant or Green Genes?[!(o w)?] ^ found by blog search^^ of (red+blue+green) ^^(not the ticket)freedom from dickens?
4-29-13: ***(insert) 4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)] Rachel Maddow(2) , Steve Benen(1) & (8)... of Con Fluence or curve
balls?
4-30-13 Lose, Lose Ben Labolt on NOW /
4-30-13 to pun on ING ? (AP?, B, C(c), D, E(e), F, g, )
4-2-13: Sorting by order read(ge me oh) or inserted(heck tricks) followed by lines 3, 1 and 4. [** follow up?]
4-3-13 Charlotte's Web: Original search(Share) Ctrl F two "montage"('n Angle) / Not to[FP2] dimention.
4-4-13 (b.s. ) funny+thing: A. A Funny Thing Happened... (sc)[!] B... (Kantinued...?)
[FP2.(oh) [Re:asterisk or FP (too.oh)] Re:A & (sc) i.e. Not to create an MU puzzle, but please scroll over and click on (sc)]
4-5-13 TGIF *NFR Not Fully Read.
4-9-13 Re:Figure & FC: Speaking of bread crumbs ...
Filibuster Bluster* 4-11-13 original title 68-31 to insert Maddow Link. (b.s.) jinx: A. I feel like a Tea Partier!(sc), B. Go Purple!(sc)
4-12-13 : Tan Gents from Mottos. Bottom line is funny. Not ! X, Y, ... [_] <- a=""> the solution is in the tax structure, the problem is in the Norquist. Francis Perkins and the Fiscal Party.
4-15-13: insert Read (footnote tweak). Lost Thatcher reference(to be exhumed)? And OW/bubblenomics ?
4-16-13 Emphasis must be laid on parsing and timing, if not iron knee of profits. Not to further M-bed or spec U late. (b.s.) tail+: A, B, C Tact and Tack
4-17-13: Now fully read. Ctrl F "not read". Irony of threats and political dynamics as undiplomatic and unjust.[ Ctrl F "na•ve": set theory and justice.]
4-18-13: As to two "too"[!] Not to Re-Knot the bottom line, but I thought that gun-control legislation would have a political solution to the obstruction of fear mongers. I had thought that Rebublicans could sign their letter promising a filibuster that would fail. Four Democrats joined them for their political survival, but their votes alone would not have tipped the cloture.
4-22-13 Math is next 2...?
4-23-13 [Ctrl F] is not the pun but the practical. "F" = [find] but also "filter" and "fervor". Nor to pun on 4F or broaden the base.
4-24-13 First change? To read "?" mark. Second line lede or ship!
4-25-13 Two Reads OW... (font is next to #$cape italicism)
4-26-13: Labelism(on the QT), Social Media, Boston Strong, A^ peas meant or Green Genes?[!(o w)?] ^ found by blog search^^ of (red+blue+green) ^^(not the ticket)freedom from dickens?
4-29-13: ***(insert) 4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)] Rachel Maddow(2) , Steve Benen(1) & (8)... of Con Fluence or curve
balls?
4-30-13 Lose, Lose Ben Labolt on NOW /
4-30-13 to pun on ING ? (AP?, B, C(c), D, E(e), F, g, )
Friday, May 27, 2005
Evolution of a Mugging or The Revolution of Irony
Mixing metaphors, the process was taken to the woodshed on the so called compromise or "Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations". It may be more of a mutual sacrifice. On one side, the three nominees that will make the cloture vote are a gift from the centrist Democrats. On the other side the "right" to end the filibuster by breaking the rules was sacrificed by the centrist Republicans. If this was done for the sake of the rules and tradition of the senate, then it seems that principles were held hostage by those republicans for the sake of getting past this or just those nominees. The only hope is that with advice and consent there will never be sent more nominees with potential to be filibustered, and that there will never be reason to vote against their principles again.
[6-2-05: Comment and final link added below]
The continued comments that nominees are due an up or down vote indicate the degree that this deal depends on the integrity of the 7 Republicans who are standing up (with the Democrats)for the rules and traditions of the U.S. Senate and the constitution.]
[6-2-05: Comment and final link added below]
The continued comments that nominees are due an up or down vote indicate the degree that this deal depends on the integrity of the 7 Republicans who are standing up (with the Democrats)for the rules and traditions of the U.S. Senate and the constitution.]
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
TIP OF THE FLAME
Among the things that attract my attention are the various organizations that overlap in purpose. Checking the DNC petition, it seems that details were lacking in the wording * or maybe I just expect too much or need to work more myself, but I cannot help but feel that those we petition may not have it any clearer than many of us. Our own representatives may get it, but as Democratic Leader Harry Reid points out the PR problem as $3 million (that is as far as I read) we are already off on a few tangents that may be parallel.
Well it must be as overwhelming for our representatives as it is our inboxes.
Has anyone wondered about the $250 million in propaganda (Fake Media- PR) disguised as news but not even noted as governement sponsored nor public service messages, [Sorry I can't list a source for the figure] which government departments are spending to get out a message. That is our money trampling on our free speech.
I heard that Congressman Conyers in the House Judiciary is investigating something along these lines. (Clinton did it but two Questions0-- Were they noted as Public Service or Government announcements? and were they used by the media more frequently in the Red States)
I think that this is the tip of the iceberg that we are up against. The Judiciary has a few threads but there are other committees that need to take action, the FCC, the FEC, and the Ethics Committee, or are they all beyond hope?
Anyway I must move on... This may be what got me on this track. What I heard on Morning Sedition AM 1090 may have got my train going, though I could not find it on their blog, there are interesting particulars about propaganda and worse on today's Non-Partisan (IRI) International Republican Institute and Re: Conyers...HR 136 Gannon Resolution http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/fecblogltrpr31105.pdf Conyers Press Release FEC Weblog Exemption
Well, sorry for the overlapping nature of this, but that is the nature of our system. ( or the nature of my production or perception)
-- WMD = Weapons of Message Distortion, Dillusion, Delusion
-- Free Speech, just a question...
-- Courage, (Rather) but could we ask for clarity?
[[Text from the DNC Petition: ]]
To: The United States Senate
Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress, giving George W. Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.
Democrats in the Senate, led by Democratic leader Harry Reid, are committed to preserving the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S Senate.
I stand with Democrats in the fight to protect the system of checks and balances that have served our country for more than 200 years.
--
* This seems like it would be something that could be bipartisan, but it is unclear whether partisans know they are on the iceberg or the Titanic. Maybe they are afraid of charges of flip-flop or just getting too legaleese.
-- MY COMMENTS ON SIGNING Petition Free Speech
Protect the filibuster as a fundamental protection of minority voices. And stop the PR machine that is a Weapon of Message Distortion, Dilution and Delusion that is the tip of an iceberg to our Titanic state.
Well it must be as overwhelming for our representatives as it is our inboxes.
Has anyone wondered about the $250 million in propaganda (Fake Media- PR) disguised as news but not even noted as governement sponsored nor public service messages, [Sorry I can't list a source for the figure] which government departments are spending to get out a message. That is our money trampling on our free speech.
I heard that Congressman Conyers in the House Judiciary is investigating something along these lines. (Clinton did it but two Questions0-- Were they noted as Public Service or Government announcements? and were they used by the media more frequently in the Red States)
I think that this is the tip of the iceberg that we are up against. The Judiciary has a few threads but there are other committees that need to take action, the FCC, the FEC, and the Ethics Committee, or are they all beyond hope?
Anyway I must move on... This may be what got me on this track. What I heard on Morning Sedition AM 1090 may have got my train going, though I could not find it on their blog, there are interesting particulars about propaganda and worse on today's Non-Partisan (IRI) International Republican Institute and Re: Conyers...HR 136 Gannon Resolution http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/fecblogltrpr31105.pdf Conyers Press Release FEC Weblog Exemption
Well, sorry for the overlapping nature of this, but that is the nature of our system. ( or the nature of my production or perception)
-- WMD = Weapons of Message Distortion, Dillusion, Delusion
-- Free Speech, just a question...
-- Courage, (Rather) but could we ask for clarity?
[[Text from the DNC Petition: ]]
To: The United States Senate
Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress, giving George W. Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.
Democrats in the Senate, led by Democratic leader Harry Reid, are committed to preserving the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S Senate.
I stand with Democrats in the fight to protect the system of checks and balances that have served our country for more than 200 years.
--
* This seems like it would be something that could be bipartisan, but it is unclear whether partisans know they are on the iceberg or the Titanic. Maybe they are afraid of charges of flip-flop or just getting too legaleese.
-- MY COMMENTS ON SIGNING Petition Free Speech
Protect the filibuster as a fundamental protection of minority voices. And stop the PR machine that is a Weapon of Message Distortion, Dilution and Delusion that is the tip of an iceberg to our Titanic state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)