No no, I didn't say it won't happen. I have no clue if Dems have got their balls back or not. I hope so, but can't say that. I said if people are afraid to use it because they fear it will then be removed as a Senate rule (afraid of the gang of 14) then it effectively is already removed. I believe it most certainly should be used, not just in extreme cases but if it is obvious a nominee is going to use his position to put forward his or her views and those of others that influence them. Now I'm not saying a judge doesn't bring their views to the bench. I'm not one that believes in this whole idea that decisions we don't like should be labeled legislating from the bench. I know their personal views matter in the process, to some degree. However, we should recognize that and ensure that nominees hold our collective views or are very conscious of how to form judicial decisions that are fair and correspond with our national interests (to include protecting those with minority views)...its complex. Basically I see the filibuster being used in any case where the nominee or idea proposed is enough out of the mainstream or the issue is of such importance that it should require overwhelming support. Especially when the other side makes no real effort to include input from the minority party(ies)
So Roe v Wade gets overturned. All we are doing now is having a constant back and forth. Doesn't it need a more permanent resolution at some point? Revoke it, piss off all of the women, and drive social conservatives back into their holes. I'm pro-choice and I don't want women or girls to have to deal with the nightmare of losing control over their bodies for even a short period of time. But what other alternative is there in the long run. Maybe that process will correct some other issues at the same time...like changing Southern Baptists and these
Promise Keepers (by somehow giving women strength again in these houses). The evangelicals have come out and nothing is going to put them back in their place until people realize just how real it is.
Not that I don't agree with fighting Alito. The filibuster afraid to be used doesnt exist in the first place.
Did anyone ever vote for or against the war? Or did they vote to give Bush a blank check to attack or not attack as he deemed necessary with the idea he would be restrained and do everything possible to avoid it...he was neither restrained nor did he seek a diplomatic solution (and never ever had that notion). In fact he went about pissing off every ally we had that wasn't completely on board by twisting arms. I get what you are saying but just as an aside, I think this whole notion that people voted for war is incorrect. Its a nuance that most people wont get, I understand that. Of course giving this guy a blank check was a bad idea. And while I didn't see the "intelligence" the Senators saw, In the end I have a feeling I saw all that was real and understood what wasn't and saw a some of that. And I could see these guys were lieing. Once I saw enough of it I figured the rest was likely crap too. What was sickening was all of the weakness shown once the unpatriotic accusations started flying. In the end, when all of this comes out I hope America ends up being educated to the point that it won't work again.
I don't know about the bankruptcy bill. I don't like it in general but also don't know all of the specifics. But as for Iraq he was told lies that helped him make his decision and shouldn't be held accountable for voting yes for war if he believed those lies. He had every reason to expect this administration and the people that worked for it to bring to him the truth, unmanipulated.
"It weakens the party position and undermines what we are working for."
The original post talks of him basically speaking out of turn, not following the party line. Thats what I didn't like. I see too much talk like that and wouldn't want the left to go the way of the right. I like how he has stood up against people like Rumsfeld in the past and calls it like it is. If he isn't on target it certainly is the job of others to help convince him. but if he is unconvinced its his job to call it like he sees it and not be concerned of being told he is talking out of turn.
Thats the problem with Washington right now. Republicans walk lock step with the party. They follow the party line or they face retribution. Thats crap. Politicans are elected by their constituants not to follow a party line but to represent them and to make decisions on their own. Not to simply follow their party right off a cliff or follow talking points. If more Republicans were capable of having a mind and position of their own this wouldn't be a nation of two competing parties, or at least it wouldn't feel that way. It would be about positions on issues that would cross party line. I want politicians capable of bucking the party in favor of making the right decision for them. I'm sure Biden doesn't do everything exactly as all progressives wish. I'm not an ultra left person myself but would consider myself a progressive. I personally like the guy regardless of any one decision he may have made. I want Alito filibustered. I hope the Dems will all stick together on that. But I wouldn't want anyone punished by the party because they had a mind of their own. I understand the need to stand together against them, at the same time I know that to do so compromises the strength of the overall system where elected officials do their job for their people instead of simply the party boss.
What we do matters? Did I say it didn't? I said it doesnt matter who goes up against the most pathetic President we've ever had. A man everyone should have seen as the lieing piece of trash that he is years ago. But instead, the sheep fall for all of the attacks. They fell for the swiftboating, they fell for the faux terror alerts, they fell for the flag waving, they fell for the attacks on the press when they brought up evidence of Bush's past. Nothing we do matters when people are so willing to be mislead. People are sheep.
Your kidding right. It shouldnt have mattered who went up against Bush. I would have voted for any one of the Dems had they gone up against him. It matters that much. Anyone was better than him, it was plain to see but non evangelicals were pulled in by him through fear mongering and fear of those horrible nasty wolves at the door. That assumes evangelicals will go down fighting for him no matter what. The devil, when he raises his head (Im Agnostic so I kid), is going to proclaim himself a born again Christian and lead them straight over the cliff. Don't they know that. People are sheep.
Its certainly not a good thing thats true. But if you were in the majority and you had the choice of keeping power and giving some up would you give it up? Its the sane thing, its the right thing in the long run to do just that. But if it is given up it should also be strengthened. Never again should it be possible for one party to be able to use it when they are in the majority and effectively take it away when they are in power. There is no real filibuster now. Its on paper but the second they use it then its gone. So if it cant be used for fear of losing it...its already gone. My point is if Repbulicans get rid of it then they should be willing to pay the price when things turn against them. When they lose power they wont have it and shouldnt expect to get it back. It should of course be restored in a time appropriate to teach a lesson of its importance.
Too much of whats going on sounds like a space opera.
I thought the nuclear part was that if they got rid of the filibuster the Dems would then slow down everything except absolutely necessary legislation by using every rule and procedure out there, including the one they used the other day to shuit down the Senate. The Republicans would pull the trigger on this by getting rid of the filibuster...and then BOOM.
Why would a fresh sane Senate reinstate a rule that can only cause it trouble by those that are overthrown by the newly sane Senate. The filibuster protects the minority from the mob rules of the majority. It may not be declared in the Constitution since its just a Senate rule, but its a Senate rule that does good work for the Constitution. Its a good thing, but once its gone it would take a Senate that has already cleaned house of all the problems caused by this administration, already overturned all of the screwball legislation and already gotten rid of all the rats hiding in the deep workings of the government. It should then be brought back and given more power. Given the real authority of protecting the minority from majority mob rule. Obviously brought back by a sane MAJORITY that understand they are giving up a certain degree of power to the minority for the common good. By that I mean the official meaning of its use. In so doing preventing idiots from proclaiming it as obstruction when its all the minority has. Right now Dems are being steamrolled in congress. They have no power. The power of the filibuster is to say that laws passed by Congress, actions taken by congress, should be SO good that a vast majority approve or would otherwise be able to say they are willing to disagree on the issue and let it pass. It should be used in very important cases thats true but who is to make the decision about what is important and what isn't. Some things are not so easy to disagree about. Its those things the filibuster is used for. It is used to prevent stacking the bench even if the person has all the "qualifications". Something this administration is intent on. As it is right now there already is no filibuster. The Dems can proclaim it and it will be gone in the same breath. It shouldn't be so simple. When Republicans get rid of it they should pay for it on the day Dems take back control. Being the nice guys and putting it back in place is to play the fool and the right should be well aware of this.
He talked about that with Al Franken the other night. Al basically said that if 50% of people are liberal the odds are 25% that you would have two on consecutive nights. I think he mentioned it because one of those two was Al Franken. Olbermann commented that things had changed since those days. I take it he meant those days when everyone was blindly rallying around the flag. Thats not exactly all that far off, maybe pre-Katrina. I suspect those days are still here to a great degree, if only a bit improved for now. But its so easy for them to come back full blast again. I don't know what it would take. Another attack on our soil could go either way right now. It could show Buish hasn't really done a damn thing or it could be another 9/11 nightmare all over again. Yeah, I know the nightmare is still ongoing, and I'm talking about the polictal BS the Republicans are pulling on us right now (for those lurker right wingers that might not know where Im coming from)
Oh hell yes check out Olbermann. He's great. He sticks it to the administration and calls it like it is. He's had issues because of this I fear. I get the impression that he was in danger of losing his show because he was an enemy of the administration. I just get the feeling that at one point he toned things down, but I don't think thats the case anymore. At one point his blog on msnbc.com was more frequent and lately it seems to have gone 50-50 with sports. Not true of his show. He said he was going to go that route more. I watch him whenever I get the chance. Its an alternative to the no-spin zone (yeah yeah, I hate repeating it) and he has a history of hitting hard.
Wouldn't it be glorious if they just fired the opening shot to the battle against this administration that leads to the eventual downfall of King George. Wouldn't it be great if every single day is just like this. It appears the Dems just found out how to get the media off of the administrations desired focus. Right now they want America focused on the nomination and on the flyu pandemic instead of on Cheney and Co and little boy Karl. The press would be all over the President and this pandemic speach. Well that and the nomination. Now I wonder what will be the lead story on the news tonight.