May 20, 2005
Democrats Throw Spitballs - Cry Foul on Ban
Okay. Everyone else is talking about the filibuster dispute, so let's clutter up the internet a little more, but do something different by adding reason and honesty. It's great that Al Gore designed the internet to handle this load.
First, I'm going to need some help. I was hoping to find an intelligent, honest, and logical argument from the side of the left--but it has been slim pickings. Part of my problem was that I tried to find the Democratic Underground and accidentally typed "DemocraticUnderground.CON," for which the extension is quite accurate but fails to take me to the site. Let's proceed while I continue my search.
As you are aware, the Democrats have been abusing the filibuster rule by blocking the Senate in its role to provide consent for judges nominated by the President. The Republicans have tried to compromise with the Democrats, but it is expected that they will have to seek a change in Senate rules barring this unique and unintended use of the filibuster. As expected, the Democrats are in a snit and have activated their minions to do what they do best--have a symbolic demonstration that makes all participating feel as if they are important.
I've thought about this in terms of baseball--naturally. Baseball rules develop because someone or some team abuses the spirit of the game and forces a change. We have the political equivalent of the Democrats tossing the spitball to each batter, and it's getting a little messy with their slime flying around. Here's what one sports writer had to say about that pitch:
“The spitball is a freak delivery that was adopted by old pitchers who had gone stale on legitimate deliveries. It is not natural and a mistake was made in allowing its use in the first place. Its use is unsanitary and has an unsavory atmosphere from every angle to both spectators and the players.Sam Crane, New York Sportswriter
New York Evening Journal
September 16, 1916
Can you relate that to the Democrats of today? So, the Republicans have to say, “Well, if you’re going to play dirty, then we’re going to have to change the rules to force you play fair. The spitball will be illegal.†Now, the Democrats are charging out of the dugout, swinging wildly, bumping the umpires, and kicking dirt on home plate. Got the image?
First, I think it is important to resolve this now, as we are a nation of laws and our laws cannot be made as long as there is a break in the system. For instance, does it take 51 or 60 votes to approve judges? Also, I feel as if the Democrats have abused the gentlemen's agreement that existed concerning the use of the filibuster through this extension of its use. Lastly, I don't think a compromise is likely. To the Democrats, a compromise means giving them everything that they want. I'm predicting that the Republicans will grow a spine and will repeal the filibuster's use for approving judges.
Okay, so let's see how you feel about these questions:
1. Is it important to spend time on this or do we table the debate to address pressing problems like Iraq, social security, schools, etc.?
2. Which side is correct on the issue?
3. How can the impasse be broken?
There is no material or reading assignments for you. I think everyone has gotten the idea and can proceed. However, if you like, this is an open book quiz, so feel free to refer to other resources.
Now, I have to watch the Braves at Red Sox game. I'm a little worried about the Braves pitching staff--especially Tim Hudson who is pitching tonight. Anyway, that is one thing, for now, that is more important than the filibuster issue.
Good luck on your assignment.
Posted by GM Roper at May 20, 2005 03:40 PM | TrackBackHere's a curveball:
"Throughout the past three days of debate, Democratic senators pointed repeatedly to the Senate's approval of 208 of Bush's judicial nominees. Instead of being satisfied with a 95 percent success rate, the highest for a president's judicial nominees in the past two decades, Bush has shown that he wants to have everything his way, the Democrats charged. By comparison, Republicans blocked 69 of President Clinton's judicial nominees during his two terms, Democratic senators pointed out."
How about a teensy, weensy bit of honesty, Woody. I know you're capable of it, when you're not distracted by Murdoch's Bimbos. I just wish you sons-of-the-South had been as offended by the filibuster when ol'Strom used to use it to keep Certain People in their place. (JDLH! - Jesus Doesn't Like Hypocrites.) Now the Right-Thinking Crowd want to change the Senate rules so y'all can get a Black bigot on the court to keep the queers down! Bull... We may lose on this, but we'll make the GOP taste it's own dirt in the process. Most Americans, by the way, thinks you guys are full of it on this one. But that's okay - keep throwing the country spitballs and you'll be sent to the minors within the decade.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
_______________________
reg, I have to remember to use the save button. I hate typing things twice. So, here goes again if I can remember what I said.
I had lunch with two conservative friends who surprised me by criticizing the Republican stance on this. As usual, the Republicans lose the public relations battle--even to their own! How inept can they be? In the public relations contest, the Democrats remind me of a slick catcher that can yank an outside pitch quickly behind the plate in an attempt to fool the umpire into calling it a strike. Most umpires aren't fooled. I don't have as much confidence in the American public.
The filibuster was originally used to protect states' rights. The Senate represents the states as opposed to the House that represents the citizens. I'm sure you know, but for others, Senators originally were elected by the state legislatures rather than a popular vote. The filibuster was used in the civil rights debates (states' rights, again), but as we can see from today, those efforts were not successful.
I've seen the statistics from both sides on approval of judges, and each time the other side issues a "yeah, but..." Without further research, your numbers look as off as a 50% rate that I've seen from the other side.
If you watch FOX, I think everything will become clearer.
Woody
Posted by reg at May 20, 2005 07:52 PM
Well, GM's going to be happy tonight, as it appears that the Red Sox will get a win. The Red Sox got four quick runs off of Hudson and now Marcus Giles just got tossed out after becoming furious with a bad call from the first base umpire and charging him. (It was a bad call by the umpire--and, a bad decision by Giles.) Veritek hit a home run for Boston earlier. My kids got Veritek's autographs on baseballs when he played for Georgia Tech. We'll reload and hope for a better game tomorrow. Back to work.
Posted by Woody at May 20, 2005 08:35 PM
Excellent article.
_________________
Thank you. Now will you please say that to reg?
Woody
Posted by BronxPundit at May 20, 2005 10:20 PM
Woody, I've yet to hear a serious response to the Dems point that they rejected far far (5x fewer) repub judges than Repubs rejected under Clinton. So why the feigned outrage by Frist et al? I mean I can't help but presume it's feigned since they wouldn't allow much larger numbers of dem judges a vote back when.
The world remains upsidedown...
Though from another vantage it's a good thing to me, the Washington Post points out that some Repubs are nervous that the judge business will make a compromise with the Dems on social security privatization [i.e. the Dem's preferred version of privatiziatin lite] almost impossible. Amen.
______________________
Steve, I've seen so many phoney interpretations of these numbers that I have no confidence in any of them. I think it's time for a little research.
W
Posted by steve at May 20, 2005 11:24 PM
Phony numbers? It's pretty clearcut actually I'd think, i've yet to see anything that shows otherwise.
____________
steve, I see too many conflicting numbers, as have you. With some time invested, it can be sorted out; but, today we're having my son's 15th birthday party, so that is going to have to take precedence. Now that he is getting his driver's permit, please be on the watch.
Woody
Posted by steve at May 21, 2005 02:35 PM
