...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

May 18, 2005

Pet Peeve

If i hear someone use the phrase "up-or-down-vote" one more time, i think i'm going to scream. Is there any other kind of vote?

[Well, i guess in England it's a left or right vote. But still...]

Posted by annika, May. 18, 2005 |
Rubric: annikapunditry


I guess they're not punching chads. Or you could maybe have a right/wrong vote - as in you're with us (right) or you're against us (wrong).

Posted by: d-rod on May. 18, 2005

...as distinguished from a committee vote that only sends it to the next step in the process.

My understanding.

Posted by: Preston on May. 18, 2005

of course that committee vote is an up or down vote, because there is no other kind, its the definition of vote.

Posted by: Scof on May. 18, 2005

Up or down, as opposed to procedural strategies, filibusters, threatened filibusters, holds, blue-slips, motions to delay votes, tabling motions, motions suggesting lack of quorum (which require long, tedious roll-call votes, and about a hundred other kinds of parlimentary maneuvers used by an aggressive minority to forstall the inevedible use of the electoral process (we call them "elections") to determine the course of the county.

We just had an election where the President and Vice President were elected by a solid majority of the country.

There were five Senators added to the already 50 seats held by the Republicans widening the majority to a place where this could be considered.

There is now an eleven (11) seat majority (one Independent organizes with the Democratic minority)which narrows the gap to ten (10).

The people have spoken; the Democrats just can't hear it very well.

After 40 years of running the Senate and the House, they have lost both and are now having difficulty in realizing that they are the permanent minority, with very little chance of resuming the majority in the forseeable future.

This is hard to take by guys like Kennedy and Leahy who were there during the heyday and contributed more than their share to the present demise of the Democratic former majority.

Just look at who the leaders are: Harry Reid (Dr. No) Nancy Pelosi (she could scare anyone), Ted Kennedy (head lifeguard), Leahy (forget what I did, do it my way now).

Is it any wonder they are whining about losing everything?

When we were in this position, the Republicans elected a maverick named Newt Gingrich who just threw hand grenades and went out and signed "The Contract with America". Trent Lott and Bob Dole went out and campaigned across America for a Senate that would follow Reagan and Bush.

Maybe the Democrats need to consider changing their "leadership".

This thing is headed to the vote. There is nothing the Democrats can do but stall and hope that some Republican Senators will get cold feet.

Specter is clearly conflicted, but he will stay with Frist, or lose his Chair of Judiciary. McCain, Snow, Collins and Chafee will vote with the Democrats, but we will stil have 51. If one more defects, Cheney is ready to vote.

This ship has sailed. All that is left is the posturing for the next election.

Oh, and the Supreme Court. That's the next installment, in case no one knew.

Posted by: shelly on May. 19, 2005

Can you do one of those cool B-movie celluloid screams?

Posted by: Mike Jericho on May. 19, 2005

With me it's that whole "fairness" thing. Only our feminized culture could buy the illogic of such an argument.

Posted by: Casca on May. 19, 2005

Politics 208.10:

Durbin: We'll trade you four pawns for two queens.

McConnell: Thanks, but no thanks. We'll keep the queens and take the pawns later.

The Democrats have picked this fight; looks like the Republcans are about to finish it.

Stay tuned...

Posted by: shelly on May. 19, 2005

Shelly: It is the Senate's Constitutional obligation to provide 'advice and consent'. It is doing so. There is nothing in the Constitution about the number of votes required to confirm a nomination. So the Democrats are using the rules of the Senate [just as the Republicans did 5 years ago] to prevent the steamrolling of the President's nominees.

How's that for 'fair'?

Posted by: Preston on May. 19, 2005

"Fair"? "Fair"? The only "Fair" I know is in Pomona. Maybe one in New York in 1928.

Despite the Democratic claims to the contrary, there have been no filibusters of judicial candidates prior to the last congress. The unwritten rule of the Senate prohibiting judical candidate filibusters, once the nomination got to the floor, has been honored for over 200 years.

The example they use, Abe Fortas, was a longer debate, and when the Democrats sought cloture, they had but 45 votes. The Republicans said they were ready to go to a vote, and Fortas asked Johnson to pull the nomination to escape the stigma of a negative vote.

When the Democrats broke the rule agaisnt filibustering judges, they knew this was coming. They ran the play figuring that they could peel off six Republicans, and now are writhing in the consequences.

This is a vote they cannot win on the floor, only perhaps in the press. I think they are losing there as well, but it too early to tell.

Stay tuned; this is great theatre...

Posted by: shelly on May. 19, 2005

It seems now, on Saturday, that the dye may be cast.

There are both Democrats and Republicans in the center trying to find the solution that will work for both.

The solution seems simple, just agree to go back to the unwritten rule of no Judicial Filibustering. But the flamethrowers and grenade throwere are chafing under this policy. After all, it is all they have left of their dignity and power.

Our Senator, Barbara Boxer (what a piece of work) has seen this go from Majority to a permanent Minority for the Democrats and now no President for eight years to boot.

All she has left is "holds" (she is trying one on Bolton) and threatened filibusters. Without that power, she is reduced to begging for crumbs.


I think that the Democrats need to back down; all it takes is six to say they'll vote for cloture after "X" hours of debate.

If that doesn't happen, the arm twisting is over on the Republican side; Frist would never have done this without the votes. The Senate will change forever.

I think that Reid will blink. Frist won't. If he does, his Presidential aspirations are over.

Speaking of Presidential aspirations, anybody heard from Hillary? Has she taken the floor on this issue?

Posted by: shelly on May. 21, 2005

she's too busy eating babies to comment...

...and i liked your analysis, for what its worth (coming from someone who jokes that hillary eats babies)

Posted by: scof on May. 21, 2005