|
|
#2
05-18-2005, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nuclear option
Yeah, the GOP has been craftily maneuvered into this position by the Democrats by winning every congressional election since 1994. The GOP is in real trouble now.
The filibuster isn't going to be much of an issue in the '06 congressional elections. Your average voter doesn't give a damn about it. The only thing that could matter is if a specific judicial nominee, especially for the Supreme Court, becomes very controversial (like Clarence Thomas). 
|
|
#3
05-18-2005, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nuclear option
[ QUOTE ]
The filibuster isn't going to be much of an issue in the '06 congressional elections. Your average voter doesn't give a damn about it. The only thing that could matter is if a specific judicial nominee, especially for the Supreme Court, becomes very controversial (like Clarence Thomas). [/ QUOTE ] No argument on that. Public opinion on the filibuster qua filibuster has nothing to do with the win-win nature of the possbile outcomes for the democrats.
|
|
#4
05-18-2005, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nuclear option
How is it a win for dems if I might ask.
A filabuster of a judicial nominee that has a majority of the votes has only been done once in our history. What heinous things are theses 10 evil judges done that warrants such a filabuster ? I honestly believe that if theses judges are so right wing wacko that a public discussion will give the chance for the dems to prove they are wacko. I feel like the dems have picked a fight for no reason here. Please show me how i'm wrong. As for Harry Reid... you are proud of him ??? Wouldn't you like to control something in the US ??? Harry Reid will never help you win any elections. Seriously... people like Harry Reid are why the repubs control the house, senate, white house, supreme court, 32 governerships, 36 state houses. If you want to win over people to your side, which you HAVE to do if you want to be out of the minority, you can't have flamethrowers like Reid, Pelosi, Dean etc. They appeal to the hard core left but not the middle . You already have the hard core left. you need the middle. I as a repub would not want say Buchanon as the leader of my party. Too divisive. I want to win. Doen't the left want to win ??
|
|
#5
05-18-2005, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nuclear option
[ QUOTE ]
How is it a win for dems if I might ask. [/ QUOTE ] You may. If the nuclear option goes down, the democrats win by blocking the nominees they want to block, and embarrasing Frist. If the nuclear option succeeds, then the republicans get a few more of "their" judges on the courts -- which, of course, they would get anyway since if all of the "controversial" nominees are withdrawn Bush still gets to nominate others to those spots. But the filibuster is gine forever. The end of the filibuster hurts the democrats, as the minority, in the short term, but eventually they will be in the majority again. As I see the political landscape, it is far more likely that the GOP gets to 60 senators sometime in the near- to mid- term than that democrats get there. So I see the filibuster overall as more beneficial to republicans than to democrats. As far as your advice on how to win elections -- I'll pass it along to party HQ [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#6
05-19-2005, 01:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Winners and Losers
Assuming a successful execution of the "nuclear" option
Winners GWB- gets 7 conservative judges for lifetime appointments and more importantly the ability to put true conservatives on the Supreme Court Conservative Voters - obvious reasons from above Bill Frist - Scores points with the conservative base Hillary Clinton - gets possible campaign issue for 2008 which will allow here to seem moderate. Justice Scalia or Thomas - say hello to your new Chief Justice come july. Losers Harry Reid - appears as not only a obstructionist but a failed one. Will see the power of his party decrease under his leadership Moderate Rebulicans- will have lost much of the influence they claimed to have had in holding back the majority As a conservative I think this is great but at the same time I really think this has been blown way out of proportion and won't be a big deal either way come 2006 or 2008. 7 more conservative judges are going to affect very few people's lives. The long term affects will only mean that a President's nominees will face one less hurdle in getting appoitned. We will all survive as will the Republic.
|
|
#7
05-19-2005, 09:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Winners and Losers
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming a successful execution of the "nuclear" option Winners GWB- gets 7 conservative judges for lifetime appointments and more importantly the ability to put true conservatives on the Supreme Court [/ QUOTE ] He pretty much has this now, so any gain is minimal -- especially if the hypothetical Supreme Court nominee is a replacement for Rehnquist, which is widely assumed [ QUOTE ] Bill Frist - Scores points with the conservative base [/ QUOTE ] The implosion of Frist has been quite entertaining. Points with the conservative base are all well and good, but becoming known as the guy who was "for filibusters before he was against them" is no way to win a national election. Just ask John Kerry. [ QUOTE ] Hillary Clinton - gets possible campaign issue for 2008 which will allow here to seem moderate [/ QUOTE ] No one cares about filibusters. This is not a campaign issue except to the extent that it can be put into a context that people will care about -- i.e., as part of an "abuse of power" charge against the GOP or an "obstructionist" charge against the democrats. This issue will have no impact on a potential Clinton 08 campaign that it won't also have on any generic democrat's campaign. [ QUOTE ] Justice Scalia or Thomas - say hello to your new Chief Justice come july. [/ QUOTE ] That would be fabulous -- especially Scalia. I'd call that a win for the left as well. [ QUOTE ] Losers Harry Reid - appears as not only a obstructionist but a failed one. Will see the power of his party decrease under his leadership [/ QUOTE ] Nope. He's already a hero to politically-interested democrats, and will remain so. He's already evil to right-wingers, and will remain so. And the party already has no power. [ QUOTE ] Moderate Rebulicans- will have lost much of the influence they claimed to have had in holding back the majority [/ QUOTE ] Yes. The GOP will undoubtedly become further radicalized, making the position of folks like Chafree, Specter and Snowe more and more tenuous. Making it, of course, more likely that voters in their states will replace them with democrats. [ QUOTE ] As a conservative I think this is great [/ QUOTE ] Who says liberals and conservatives can't agree? BRING ON THE NUKES!!!! [ QUOTE ] but at the same time I really think this has been blown way out of proportion and won't be a big deal either way come 2006 or 2008. 7 more conservative judges are going to affect very few people's lives. The long term affects will only mean that a President's nominees will face one less hurdle in getting appoitned. We will all survive as will the Republic. [/ QUOTE ] Bookmark this post: The long term effect of the nuclear option will be national health care. Many conservatives have forgotten that "Hillarycare" was defeated in 1993 by the filibuster. Eventually the democrats will be in the majority again, and next time the GOP will not be able to use the filibuster. And once any broad-based entitlement program is in place, it will be very, very hard to dislodge. See, e.g., the disaster that is the president's effort to privatize social security.
|
|
#8
05-20-2005, 02:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nuclear option
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, the GOP has been craftily maneuvered into this position by the Democrats by winning every congressional election since 1994. The GOP is in real trouble now. The filibuster isn't going to be much of an issue in the '06 congressional elections. Your average voter doesn't give a damn about it. The only thing that could matter is if a specific judicial nominee, especially for the Supreme Court, becomes very controversial (like Clarence Thomas). [/ QUOTE ]http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=243 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/17/102753/916 Something's dragging the Republicans down.
|
|
#9
05-20-2005, 10:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nuclear option
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The filibuster isn't going to be much of an issue in the '06 congressional elections. Your average voter doesn't give a damn about it. The only thing that could matter is if a specific judicial nominee, especially for the Supreme Court, becomes very controversial (like Clarence Thomas). [/ QUOTE ] No argument on that. Public opinion on the filibuster qua filibuster has nothing to do with the win-win nature of the possbile outcomes for the democrats. [/ QUOTE ] I am really curious as to how this is win-win for the Dems. They have been losing support for their radical agenda for the past decade. They are so far out of the mainstream now that there is little hope of significant recovery led by their current leadership. Harry Reid is an absolute joke.
|
|
#10
05-20-2005, 10:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Winners and Losers
[ QUOTE ]
See, e.g., the disaster that is the president's effort to privatize social security. [/ QUOTE ] Why is it a disaster? Because people get to keep their own money? I can't understand (the reasons for wanting) or tolerate socialism.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
