further analysis
In analyzing the so-called compromise and the comments from all sides, and that would include Democrats, Republicans, both who hate the "deal" and those who are looking to put the best face on it, it appears that the following are all true.
1. The mainstream media claims it is a victory for the Democrats. That is the spin the Democratic leadership has played. They use terms such as protecting the constitution and steeping back from the "abyss." Frankly, listening to them is a little nauseating.
2. Then there are the conservative Republicans who wanted a vote and didn't get one, thought that they would eliminate this nonsense about tying up any up/down votes for judges and are mad as hell at DeWine, Graham and McCain.
3. There are those who say it only postpones the inevitable when some extremist democrat claims that there are extraordinary reasons to oppose a nominee.
4. We anticipate that the first three will get confirmed. Owen has been confirmed and Brown and Pryor are next.
So here is my question: What if Senator Frist continues to submit the nominees to the floor for confirmation after the first three are confirmed?
Which one of the remaining candidates is any more controversial that the first three nominees?
They all seem less of an issue. So why will anyone of the Democrats trigger the break in "good faith" which will then have the issue of whether it is allowed under the rules to require 60 votes to invoke an up or down vote. Seems to me that Frist needs to just keep on submitting the names and wait until the Democrats blink. After all, at least three of the gang of seven Republicans will vote for these nominees.
1. The mainstream media claims it is a victory for the Democrats. That is the spin the Democratic leadership has played. They use terms such as protecting the constitution and steeping back from the "abyss." Frankly, listening to them is a little nauseating.
2. Then there are the conservative Republicans who wanted a vote and didn't get one, thought that they would eliminate this nonsense about tying up any up/down votes for judges and are mad as hell at DeWine, Graham and McCain.
3. There are those who say it only postpones the inevitable when some extremist democrat claims that there are extraordinary reasons to oppose a nominee.
4. We anticipate that the first three will get confirmed. Owen has been confirmed and Brown and Pryor are next.
So here is my question: What if Senator Frist continues to submit the nominees to the floor for confirmation after the first three are confirmed?
Which one of the remaining candidates is any more controversial that the first three nominees?
They all seem less of an issue. So why will anyone of the Democrats trigger the break in "good faith" which will then have the issue of whether it is allowed under the rules to require 60 votes to invoke an up or down vote. Seems to me that Frist needs to just keep on submitting the names and wait until the Democrats blink. After all, at least three of the gang of seven Republicans will vote for these nominees.
That gives Frist his 51 votes.
So while I respect all of the arguments, made by those who are angry at the "compromise," especially the ones about how it very bad form to go around the leadership and make the Republican leadership and the president seem as though they are not in control, it may be that we could gain more in the long run if we stay true to the prize and focus on getting votes for all the candidates.
So as I have stated before, the Senate needs to continue to hear from you. You must ask for the up/down vote on all the candidates. Call Frist and ask him to submit the names for a vote.
posted by Jakubczyk on Life @ 5:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home