The Epitome Of Stupidity And Insanity
This was so bad today that it begged—it practically demanded—a response. Hat-Tip to RadioBlogger and Hugh Hewitt for this. Senator Byrd at his best, or his worst; which ever you decide.
http://hughhewitt.com/
http://www.radioblogger.com/
http://www.radioblogger.com/images/byrdesther.mp3
And a response he receives—from both of us. He stood on the floor of the Senate today practically proselytizing over what is and is not based within the Constitution. No, "up-or-down vote" is not in the Constitution. Nor is filibuster, or even Constitutional Option. However what is in the Constitution is what my "esteemed" other half put up earlier.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The Constitution is quite explicit in this piece. Yes, the Senate advises and consents on the president’s nominees. But I guess to Senator Byrd the question remains what constitutes "consent". In essence the very argument can be related to what is the proper definition of the word "is"? In short, and for those that are Constitutionally illiterate, "consent" implies a majority vote. A simple who-has-the-most-votes kind of majority, not the majority that the Left is implying should be constrained to. 60 votes are not necessary for ANY nominee to be passed from committee to the Senate, and then to their appointed post. (Yes, I am more than aware that 60 votes can’t be made in committee)
But this is what the Democrats have demanded. They want a sixty vote majority to even consider a nominee for a vote, and then they wish to vote. This is positively moronic. This is precisely a case of voting to vote on an issue. Can anyone else clutter up the political process better than Congress? How redundant can one side be? And Byrd still stands for the ability to filibuster these nominees. At first, the Democrats stated they were filibustering because NONE of these people passed their muster. Now, they are offering to allow one or two through, but ditch the rest. So, what they are asking us to do is throw eight of the ten overboard, and keep two. I am sorry, but the MAJORITY does not deal like this. And if Frist does, he might just as well kiss his career good-bye.
As many people know, both us stand on this solid principle: We have the majority, and we don’t negotiate. If Frist wants to find a way around this, fine, but if nothing presents itself, it’s go-time. We nail them to the wall, and execute the Option. I know Frist is under fire from his supporters and detractors, his base and his banes, but the time is not to act. If he waits much longer (almost four weeks since this assault on the Option began) then he may lose the momentum. It is devastating in such a debate. This is the most important issue addressing the Senate at this time! It goes beyond Bolton. The Senate seems in an awful rush to call for the Bolton vote, yet they refuse to move on the Option. Their excuse: We want to make sure we have the votes.
Would it not also be sensible to seek approval for Bolton, as well? We need Bolton equally so in comparison to the judges on the Senate floor. Yet, we are not willing to take a week or two to truly drum up support for him? And we are willing to put off the vote in favor of restoring the Constitutional checks and balances that served this nation for two hundred-fourteen years? Something does not seem right in that logic. I would favor the Constitution over the nomination of Bolton. It is not that I disregard Bolton; he is a fine man and will do a fine job. However, it is time to fix our house before we attempt to reform others.
And there is why I love my partner. It is wisdom coming from her on this point. We are willing to rush Bolton through, yet turn aside the judges that have waited for 4-plus years, thus far, for their appropo up-or-down vote. And yes, while we care how the vote goes, at this point just call for it. Let the chips fall where they may. To the GOP in the Senate: You have a base that is fed up with the RINOs there, so give us heads to go after. If a single GOP votes against this option, they’re mud in my eyes. WE will pound mud in their @$$, and walk that "sumb***h" dry. Neither of us, nor the GOP base, are pleased with these people that run on the party platform, then desert it the moment a Democrat says something bad about them.
That is not how politics are supposed to work. There are times to be partisan, and there are times where both sides must work together, for the good of the nation. Partisanship may not be drawn upon when it comes to making sure the nation is properly defended, and the government is running smoothly. Right now, neither is the case. Much of this arises from partisanship; Yes, most of that partisanship rests on the shoulders of the Left. They have blocked these judicial nominees before, and they are doing so now. The president’s power to appoint is being usurped by a minority of elected representatives. They are not standing up for the minority they represent. They are standing up for their own petty partisan politics.
According to John Kyl, interviewed on Hugh Hewitt’s show today, the Option will go down next week. It had better. I don’t know how much longer the public opinion on this matter can truly be held. It’s been four weeks since I first mentioned it on my blog, and Hugh has been hammering on it at least that long. America has the attention span of a nano-second, especially when watching the MSM. The media is painting people like Byrd as a hero. I heard the cut froma CNN report today on Hugh Hewitt’s show. They won’t play anything "embarrassing" to the senator, but the way they portrayed it, one could scream media bias. It comes as no surprise to us; we have railed on it before. It’s just ironic to hear Byrd’s diatribe in it’s entirety on Hugh’s show, then listen to the report from CNN, and see how truly different both are.
Byrd is a nut, as are many amongst the Democrats in the Senate. It only serves to reinforce the fact that these people do not stand for this nation. They stand for themselves, and the lack of power their party possesses. They are angry. They are full of spite. And right now they will do almost ANYTHING to hold up the president, and his rightful powers under the Constitution. That is why it is absolutely, positively necessary to press for this vote. It will end their filibusters, and restore order to the Constitution. It is a vote on the side of this nation; not one that continues to hamper it.
The Bunny ;) & Publius II
This was so bad today that it begged—it practically demanded—a response. Hat-Tip to RadioBlogger and Hugh Hewitt for this. Senator Byrd at his best, or his worst; which ever you decide.
http://hughhewitt.com/
http://www.radioblogger.com/
http://www.radioblogger.com/images/byrdesther.mp3
And a response he receives—from both of us. He stood on the floor of the Senate today practically proselytizing over what is and is not based within the Constitution. No, "up-or-down vote" is not in the Constitution. Nor is filibuster, or even Constitutional Option. However what is in the Constitution is what my "esteemed" other half put up earlier.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The Constitution is quite explicit in this piece. Yes, the Senate advises and consents on the president’s nominees. But I guess to Senator Byrd the question remains what constitutes "consent". In essence the very argument can be related to what is the proper definition of the word "is"? In short, and for those that are Constitutionally illiterate, "consent" implies a majority vote. A simple who-has-the-most-votes kind of majority, not the majority that the Left is implying should be constrained to. 60 votes are not necessary for ANY nominee to be passed from committee to the Senate, and then to their appointed post. (Yes, I am more than aware that 60 votes can’t be made in committee)
But this is what the Democrats have demanded. They want a sixty vote majority to even consider a nominee for a vote, and then they wish to vote. This is positively moronic. This is precisely a case of voting to vote on an issue. Can anyone else clutter up the political process better than Congress? How redundant can one side be? And Byrd still stands for the ability to filibuster these nominees. At first, the Democrats stated they were filibustering because NONE of these people passed their muster. Now, they are offering to allow one or two through, but ditch the rest. So, what they are asking us to do is throw eight of the ten overboard, and keep two. I am sorry, but the MAJORITY does not deal like this. And if Frist does, he might just as well kiss his career good-bye.
As many people know, both us stand on this solid principle: We have the majority, and we don’t negotiate. If Frist wants to find a way around this, fine, but if nothing presents itself, it’s go-time. We nail them to the wall, and execute the Option. I know Frist is under fire from his supporters and detractors, his base and his banes, but the time is not to act. If he waits much longer (almost four weeks since this assault on the Option began) then he may lose the momentum. It is devastating in such a debate. This is the most important issue addressing the Senate at this time! It goes beyond Bolton. The Senate seems in an awful rush to call for the Bolton vote, yet they refuse to move on the Option. Their excuse: We want to make sure we have the votes.
Would it not also be sensible to seek approval for Bolton, as well? We need Bolton equally so in comparison to the judges on the Senate floor. Yet, we are not willing to take a week or two to truly drum up support for him? And we are willing to put off the vote in favor of restoring the Constitutional checks and balances that served this nation for two hundred-fourteen years? Something does not seem right in that logic. I would favor the Constitution over the nomination of Bolton. It is not that I disregard Bolton; he is a fine man and will do a fine job. However, it is time to fix our house before we attempt to reform others.
And there is why I love my partner. It is wisdom coming from her on this point. We are willing to rush Bolton through, yet turn aside the judges that have waited for 4-plus years, thus far, for their appropo up-or-down vote. And yes, while we care how the vote goes, at this point just call for it. Let the chips fall where they may. To the GOP in the Senate: You have a base that is fed up with the RINOs there, so give us heads to go after. If a single GOP votes against this option, they’re mud in my eyes. WE will pound mud in their @$$, and walk that "sumb***h" dry. Neither of us, nor the GOP base, are pleased with these people that run on the party platform, then desert it the moment a Democrat says something bad about them.
That is not how politics are supposed to work. There are times to be partisan, and there are times where both sides must work together, for the good of the nation. Partisanship may not be drawn upon when it comes to making sure the nation is properly defended, and the government is running smoothly. Right now, neither is the case. Much of this arises from partisanship; Yes, most of that partisanship rests on the shoulders of the Left. They have blocked these judicial nominees before, and they are doing so now. The president’s power to appoint is being usurped by a minority of elected representatives. They are not standing up for the minority they represent. They are standing up for their own petty partisan politics.
According to John Kyl, interviewed on Hugh Hewitt’s show today, the Option will go down next week. It had better. I don’t know how much longer the public opinion on this matter can truly be held. It’s been four weeks since I first mentioned it on my blog, and Hugh has been hammering on it at least that long. America has the attention span of a nano-second, especially when watching the MSM. The media is painting people like Byrd as a hero. I heard the cut froma CNN report today on Hugh Hewitt’s show. They won’t play anything "embarrassing" to the senator, but the way they portrayed it, one could scream media bias. It comes as no surprise to us; we have railed on it before. It’s just ironic to hear Byrd’s diatribe in it’s entirety on Hugh’s show, then listen to the report from CNN, and see how truly different both are.
Byrd is a nut, as are many amongst the Democrats in the Senate. It only serves to reinforce the fact that these people do not stand for this nation. They stand for themselves, and the lack of power their party possesses. They are angry. They are full of spite. And right now they will do almost ANYTHING to hold up the president, and his rightful powers under the Constitution. That is why it is absolutely, positively necessary to press for this vote. It will end their filibusters, and restore order to the Constitution. It is a vote on the side of this nation; not one that continues to hamper it.
The Bunny ;) & Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home