Senate Leader Bill Frist thinks the 200 year old tradition of filibustering extremist nominees is wrong. He plans to push ahead with what has been called the "nuclear option" because of the chain reaction of division it will cause within the Senate and the country.
Here's a link to AP's report of Frist's statement at the "Injustice Sunday" rally in Louisville.
8 comments:
Bubba,
I don't think the issue is lack of historical precedent. The issue is about eliminating the last check against total control by the majority. The nuclear option anti-filibuster contingent are whining and acting victimized over not getting 100% of what they want. 95% of the president's nominees have been confirmed. If that's not whining, I don't know what is.
Bubba,
You seem like a principled and intelligent conservative and I think, legalistically, you are right about many points you've made. I hope you are right in spirit as well. I think the Democrats' concern is with this administration's seeming desire for absolute power. Add that to its penchant for secrecy, its quelling of dissent, its manipulation of patriotism and religion, and its alliance with some of the leaders Dr. Prescott has chronicled, and I think it's a valid concern. I may be wrong and I hope I am. Below is an excerpt from a speech about the neoconservatives by representative Ron Paul, a conservative Christian who shares some of your views on the judiciary:
"It?s of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support.
I?d like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a 'spectacular' state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the 'spectacular state.'
He explains in eerie terms: 'Dying for one?s country doesn?t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.' This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy."
The entire speech can be found here.
Bubba,
"The dissenting left hasn't been silenced; they've just been ignored." I guess you mean ignored by the Bush administration, because being the highest grossing documentary of all time doesn't qualify as being "ignored" by the country. As far as quelling dissent, people had to sign "loyalty oaths" at Bush's campaign stops, people were recently turned away from one of his fake social security town halls for having the wrong bumper sticker (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29
/113651/512), the PATRIOT act was rushed through Congress so it couldn't be properly
studied, thereby implying resistance as unpatriotic, etc. I could go on and on but you'd probably deny it all anyway, so what's the point?
I didn't say "eliminated dissent." Yes, thank God, we are still a free country, but you don't wait until it's too late to raise a red flag about something.
The comparisons to abolitionists and Anglicans make no sense. An abolitionist would be fighting to end slavery and to preserve the union, not for imperial reasons. An Anglican in the situation you described would be dying to defend his country. Again, not for imperial reasons.
I assume your comment about Christian conservatives being as bad or worse than Islamic terrorists didn't pertain to anything I'd written. Just decided to throw it in, huh? The speech I quoted was from a pro-life, conservative (albeit Libertarian) Republican who was criticizing neoconservatives (not other Christian conservatives), so your comment makes no sense in relation to what I'd written.
Bush's exploitation of patriotism and religion dwarfs anything Kerry did.
Bush's presidency is considered by many to be the most secretive in recent history:
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies
/govtopenness.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos
/tg/detail/-/031600023X/103-1390811-6433401
?v=glance
http://slate.msn.com/id/2114963/
You sure seem to spend a lot of time on a site critical of right-wing rhetoric for not being able to take its criticism seriously.
Post a Comment