Here Is MY Answer To The Democrats: NO COMPROMISE

I picked this up off of Hugh Hewitt’s site this morning. And after reading the story, which is below, Im left scratching my head over this. (Hat-Tip to "King" Hugh)
http://hughhewitt.com/
(The story is under "Slow" Joe Biden blinking)

Republicans Say Have Votes to Ban Filibusters
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans have the votes to ban any more Democratic procedural roadblocks against President Bush’s judicial nominees, a top Republican said on Sunday.

A spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada promptly questioned the claim, while another Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, floated a possible compromise to avert a fight that could bring the Senate to a near halt.

There was no immediate response from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. But a spokesman for the Tennessee Republican reiterated that Frist planned to present Reid with a "comprehensive proposal" within a week to 10 days.
The key question is whether Republicans can muster the support needed to change Senate rules to ban procedural roadblocks known as filibusters against judicial nominees.

"There's no doubt in my mind, and I'm a pretty good counter of votes ... that we have the votes we need," Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told CBS's "Face the Nation."

Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat appearing with McConnell, said conservative Republicans including former Senate leader Bob Dole "have urged the Republican leadership today to think long and hard about doing what they want to do."

Democrats blocked 10 of Bush's judicial nominees during his first term while they helped confirm about 200 others. Bush renominated seven of the filibustered nominees after winning re-election in November.

Biden, appearing on ABC's "This Week," said, "I think we should compromise and say to them that we're willing to -- of the seven judges -- we'll let a number of them go through, the two most extreme not go through and put off this vote" to end the filibuster.

Fifty-one votes would be needed in the 100-member Senate to ban judicial filibusters.

While there are 55 Senate Republicans, about a half dozen or so have been seen, at least publicly, as undecided. Many have voiced fear such a rule change could hurt them in a future Democratic-led Senate.

"No one knows for sure what the vote will be, other than that it will be very, very close," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman.

Reid has vowed to retaliate by invoking other procedural measures that would tie the Senate into knots.

'WHAT'S FAIR'

Sixty votes are needed to end a filibuster.

Republicans say all nominees deserve a confirmation vote, while Democrats say the filibuster must be maintained as a tool by the minority to check the power of the majority.

Frist, seeking to bolster support among lawmakers as well what polls show to be a somewhat divided public, urged Americans on Sunday to tell their senators to permit votes on all judicial nominees.

"Tell them to do what's fair," Frist said in a prerecorded address for a nationwide telecast organized by Christian conservatives and entitled, "Justice Sunday -- Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith."

Frist said emotions "are running high on both sides," and that "there is a need for more civility in political life."

The Senate Republican leader said, "I've been trying to work out a compromise," but "it's not easy."

"My Democratic counterpart, Senator Reid, calls me a radical Republican," Frist said. "I don't think it's radical to ask senators to vote."

First of all, there’s no compromise involved here. We—the GOP—should not even be entertaining the issue of a compromise. We have the majority, and I find it laughable that the Democrats are willing to pass seven of the ten nominees, but not the three "extremists" that have been bandied about for the last two weeks. Anyone want to take a guess as to the ones that the Democrats don’t want? Maybe Pryor? Janice Rogers Brown? Priscilla Owens? Those three have had a lot of fervor surrounding them lately, especially Janice Rogers Brown, whom the left seems to be scope-locked on right now. So much for tolerance from the liberals. I guess to the likes of the liberals she’s just another "Uncle Tom".

Point being is there should be no compromise. Hell, there shouldn't even be a hint at negotiating a compromise. This continued filibuster on judicial nominees is illegal. And aside from the one, valid time when it was done against Abe Fortas, this obstructionism is unprecedented. The liberals love to harp on about Clinton’s nominees—about how the evil right-wingers "killed" his nominees—and they might have a valid argument had those nominees not been axed in committee. But they were. They were killed in the "advise" part of the clause that the liberals have been howling about for weeks. "We have the right to advise and consent!" You sure do, but the floor of the Senate involves "consent", not "advise".

Every time I hear the GOP stating they’re investigating the idea of compromising, I cringe. The GOP leadership hasn’t learned a damn thing about the Left. They don’t like us. They don’t like what we believe. They think we’re extremists the moment we strike a position opposite their own. I want a lot less talk about what they're doing to avoid the confrontation, and more action. What is the point of compromising when you’re the only side doing it. That’s not compromise. That’s capitulation, and it’s exactly what they have been doing for the last four years. The Democrats whine, cry and complain. They change the focus of the debate, flood the media with their talking points, and the GOP caves because they’re taking a little criticism.

Here’s a news flash for the GOP: If you can’t handle a little criticism, and you can’t find your backbones, get the hell out of the way and let someone else step up and do the job. Their base may give them the ultimate criticism when they venture to the ballot box in 2006. Should Lincoln "Chafing-my-hide" Chafee vote with the Democrats, as he said he would this past weekend, he’s done. Same with McCain. Only with McCain, I will gain a certain amount of sadistic glee should he actually make a run for the White House. (The gloves are coming off, and someone’s getting an @$$-whooping. Pick your switch, Johnny.) But this issue of a possible compromise is unacceptable. No compromises. Force the issue, or suffer the backlash that will erupt from the party.

Publius II