Rove Resigns

[Nbadan]

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political adviser, told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published on Monday that he's going to resign on Aug. 31 and return to Texas.

"I just think it's time," Rove said in the interview with the newspaper. "There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." Read interview at WSJ.com

Rove said he expects Democrats to give the 2008 presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom he described as "a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate."

He also said Republicans have "a very good chance" to hold onto the White House in next year's elections.

Read more: Bush adviser Rove says he'll leave at end of August


If it was really for the sake of 'his family' then should stay in Washington indefinitely. Why is it that when a Republican quits in disgrace it's always for the 'sake of his family'?

[TLWisfoine]

:elephant :elephant
:toast :toast :toast
:drunk :drunk

Screw that Racist bastard!!!

[Wild Cobra]

If it was really for the sake of 'his family' then should stay in Washington indefinitely. Why is it that when a Republican quits in disgrace it's always for the 'sake of his family'?
Do you have a decent shred of evidence it's in disgrace?

NO! You don't.

You are a Kool-Aid drinking Lemming. You believe what the left pundits say without independent verification.

I pity how your life is if you live it that way.

My God. If you continually had liars at your feet on a daily basis, wouldn't you consider quitting?

Consider this. Innocent or guilty of what he is said to have done, it doesn’t matter. He is a drain of other republicans because of the main scream media's influence and the ignoramuses that believe them. For that reason, his actions can be considered noble.

[TLWisfoine]

Rove and his "Southern Strategy Reloaded" can go straight to hell!!!

[Wild Cobra]

Rove and his "Southern Strategy Reloaded" can go straight to hell!!!
Why, because you believe the liars in the media?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Do you have a decent shred of evidence it's in disgrace?

NO! You don't.

You are a Kool-Aid drinking Lemming. You believe what the left pundits say without independent verification.

I pity how your life is if you live it that way.

My God. If you continually had liars at your feet on a daily basis, wouldn't you consider quitting?

Consider this. Innocent or guilty of what he is said to have done, it doesn’t matter. He is a drain of other republicans because of the main scream media's influence and the ignoramuses that believe them. For that reason, his actions can be considered noble.


Well he did have an idea to create a long term GOP majority..too bad it alienated the rest of the country. His political strategy single handidly divided this country by governing for the 51% majority. Mathew Dowd said that remember him? So if you think his justification for dividing this country is good thing then I pity you. None of this is media driven...Rove got off pissing off the democrats, but in the end he did get his majority after all.

By the way he's a drain on this country..good riddance karl I hope you burn in hell..



Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.



“I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people,” he said, “but bring the country together as a whole.”



Mr. Dowd established himself as an expert at interpreting polls, giving Karl Rove, the president’s closest political adviser, and the rest of the Bush team guidance as they set out to woo voters, slash opponents and exploit divisions between Democratic-leaning states and Republican-leaning ones.

In television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing “a weak defense,” and that the voters “trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq.”

But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said.

[hater]

BS. he will still control that muppet Bush from his farm

[Yonivore]

If it was really for the sake of 'his family' then should stay in Washington indefinitely. Why is it that when a Republican quits in disgrace it's always for the 'sake of his family'?
Who says he's quitting "in disgrace?" What disgrace?

The way I see it. What's left to do?

Bush isn't running for re-election. All of the Rove-inspired policies are in place and will either be played out or changed to meet emerging conditions -- something that can be done in his absence.

Hell, if I were him, I'd resign too. He can make a killing as a consultant, outside government service. And, I suspect President Bush can always pick up the phone and call him should the need arise. Just look at Karen Hughes.

I think he's just sick and tired of Washington.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Who says he's quitting "in disgrace?" What disgrace?

The way I see it. What's left to do?

Bush isn't running for re-election. All of the Rove-inspired policies are in place and will either be played out or changed to meet emerging conditions -- something that can be done in his absence.

Hell, if I were him, I'd resign too. He can make a killing as a consultant, outside government service. And, I suspect President Bush can always pick up the phone and call him should the need arise. Just look at Karen Hughes.

I think he's just sick and tired of Washington.


Most of the country is sick and tired of him as well. Good riddance Mr 'Govern for the 51%'. Thanks for unting the country karl you did a fine job.. :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

Most of the country is sick and tired of him as well. Good riddance Mr 'Govern for the 51%'. Thanks for unting the country karl you did a fine job.. :rolleyes
I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think he's just sick and tired of Washington.

I'm sure this business of asking questions about every policy choice that Rove seeks to implement is a major bother. And who has the timerity to think that those who haven't been elected but seek to make and implement national policy should be subject to such scrutiny?!?!? Will this meddlesome national media ever learn?

[Holt's Cat]

I'm sure this business of asking questions about every policy choice that Rove seeks to implement is a major bother. And who has the timerity to think that those who haven't been elected but seek to make and implement national policy should be subject to such scrutiny?!?!? Will this meddlesome national media ever learn?

One recalls the outcry when HRC was involved in policy early in WJC's 1st term.

Props to Rove for making the GOP an unacceptable electoral option for those who want the government out of their pocketbooks, off their backs, and out of their bedrooms, as the patron saint of Republican conservatism once observed.


http://www.afa.org/magazine/Nov2006/lavelle09.jpg


Barry G must be spinning in his grave.


When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

[Yonivore]

I'm sure this business of asking questions about every policy choice that Rove seeks to implement is a major bother. And who has the timerity to think that those who haven't been elected but seek to make and implement national policy should be subject to such scrutiny?!?!? Will this meddlesome national media ever learn?
So, the president's not allowed advisors now? That should be interesting...

Outside the President and Vice-President, no one in the administrative branch is elected. And, all of them seek to implement policies that advance a president's agenda.

What's your point?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, the president's not allowed advisors now? That should be interesting...

Outside the President and Vice-President, no one in the administrative branch is elected. And, all of them seek to implement policies that advance a president's agenda.

What's your point?


His agenda divided this country..

[Holt's Cat]

His agenda divided this country..

That's a fairly weak criticism of a president and his advisers.

[hater]

Who says he's quitting "in disgrace?" What disgrace?

The way I see it. What's left to do?


how about finishing the job? doesn't matter if he is quitting at beginning, middle or end of the term. He is "quitting". damn quitter

[Mister Sinister]

Regardless of the reasoning, this calls for a happy dance.

[FromWayDowntown]

So, the president's not allowed advisors now? That should be interesting...

Outside the President and Vice-President, no one in the administrative branch is elected. And, all of them seek to implement policies that advance a president's agenda.

What's your point?

Few of those bureaucrats are actually making policy as Rove was. If by "tired of Washington" you meant "sick of being scrutinized," then I'd argue that Rove got precisely what he bargained for. I'd also argue that one chooses to put himself to substantially greater scrutiny by advocating for diminished transparency in the wielding of executive power -- something, IMO, that Rove has yearned to accomplish during his time in DC.

[Wild Cobra]

His agenda divided this country..
How can you say that. It's the democrats that continue to drive wedges, dividing this nation.

[Yonivore]

Few of those bureaucrats are actually making policy as Rove was. If by "tired of Washington" you meant "sick of being scrutinized," then I'd argue that Rove got precisely what he bargained for. I'd also argue that one chooses to put himself to substantially greater scrutiny by advocating for diminished transparency in the wielding of executive power -- something, IMO, that Rove has yearned to accomplish during his time in DC.
I suspect you're going to lose more sleep and devote more time thinking about his departure than is he.

He was successful at what he did while he did it. You obviously didn't like the results but, oh well.

[Yonivore]

how about finishing the job? doesn't matter if he is quitting at beginning, middle or end of the term. He is "quitting". damn quitter
What job would you have him finish?

[FromWayDowntown]

I suspect you're going to lose more sleep and devote more time thinking about his departure than is he.

He was successful at what he did while he did it. You obviously didn't like the results but, oh well.

I honestly couldn't care less.

[Holt's Cat]

What exactly did Rove accomplish? All I've seen is an expansion of federal government power and expenditure at an unconscionable rate for an allegedly "conservative Republican" administration. The GOP will be lucky to win one presidential election again in the next decade thanks in no small part to his electoral strategies and their impact on policy.

[Holt's Cat]

The GOP had the presidency and both Congressional houses. Now the Demos control the house and I would be surprised if a GOP candidate manages to pull 45% of the popular vote in the next presidential election. Some great legacy.

[Yonivore]

The GOP had the presidency and both Congressional houses. Now the Demos control the house and I would be surprised if a GOP candidate manages to pull 45% of the popular vote in the next presidential election. Some great legacy.
Given the way Congress is looking, I think it's about a 50/50 chance either side could take it all in November '08.

Hey, maybe he's resigning so he can hatch his Rovian plot to be President!!!

[Yonivore]

What exactly did Rove accomplish?
He's absolutely caused the Left to turn 40 shades of blue. Well, worth the money he's paid.

His job was to win elections. And, with the exception of last November (which can largely be blamed on a chicken Republican caucus), he's done pretty good.

[j-6]

Hell, if I were him, I'd resign too. He can make a killing as a consultant, outside government service.

He's only making 165K a year as an advisor. Rove will triple his income when he goes to run someone else's campaign. He may be a shady two-faced asshole of a political consultant, but he's the best shady two-faced asshole of a political consultant in the damned country.

I wonder if Fred Thompson likes to dove hunt?

[Holt's Cat]

He's absolutely caused the Left to turn 40 shades of blue. Well, worth the money he's paid.

His job was to win elections. And, with the exception of last November (which can largely be blamed on a chicken Republican caucus), he's done pretty good.

So he won a couple of elections by abandoning party principles and leaving the party in a sorry state. Great.

As for the Congress, he was part of a strategy to cajole conservative Republican congressmen to abandon their beliefs and support a president who is currently in the Hoover-Carter range when it comes to presidential approval ratings.

Yippee.

[Wild Cobra]

What job would you have him finish?
There is already speculation he is stepping down to run a 2008 campaign.... With all the negativity he has with the press, I hope that isn't so. Fred Thompson is who they speculated for.

[Yonivore]

So he won a couple of elections by abandoning party principles and leaving the party in a sorry state. Great.

As for the Congress, he was part of a strategy to cajole conservative Republican congressmen to abandon their beliefs and support a president who is currently in the Hoover-Carter range when it comes to presidential approval ratings.

Yippee.
Are you a Republican?

[Holt's Cat]

Seriously, nobody regards the GOP as a viable choice when it comes to personal freedom. He's made a fucking joke of the party all for an unsustainable electoral strategy. Great, he got people in trailer parks to vote GOP. Awesome.

[Holt's Cat]

Are you a Republican?

I was a Republican.

[Holt's Cat]

There is already speculation he is stepping down to run a 2008 campaign.... With all the negativity he has with the press, I hope that isn't so. Fred Thompson is who they speculated for.

Rove will lose to HRC. The Clintons know how to be competitive in Southern border states. With the Demo candidate already having California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in the bag, along with the rest of the West Coast, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic next year's election is over after the primaries. The GOP candidate will be fighting in Southern states throughout the election.

[Yonivore]

I was a Republican.
Ah, until Rove ruined the party?

[Holt's Cat]

Yep. The GOP is dead. The Demos are regarded as the party of greater personal freedom, the party of the upwardly mobile. This is what happens when you turn the party into some kind of hyper-patriotic theocratic movement. The legacy of Goldwater and Reagan has been shit and pissed on, and then set ablaze.

[Yonivore]

Yep. The GOP is dead. The Demos are regarded as the party of greater personal freedom, the party of the upwardly mobile. This is what happens when you turn the party into some kind of hyper-patriotic theocratic movement. The legacy of Goldwater and Reagan has been shit and pissed on, and then set ablaze.
Well, I'm sure your Democratic Party will bring back the Reagan and Goldwater Conservativism you so miss...

[Nbadan]

The Republican made their own beds by straying too far from the ideological philosophies that got them in power in the first place, less federal government, less spending, stronger security, and more transparency........but there has also been a less M$M-covered Progressive revival....

[PixelPusher]

He's absolutely caused the Left to turn 40 shades of blue. Well, worth the money he's paid.

His job was to win elections. And, with the exception of last November (which can largely be blamed on a chicken Republican caucus), he's done pretty good.
10 years from now, it will be Republicans who will spit on the ground at every mention of Rove's name, as he will be the villain who ended up sabotaging the GOP's future for years just to get Bush elected.

[Nbadan]

10 years from now, it will be Republicans who will spit on the ground at every mention of Rove's name, as he will be the villain who ended up sabotaging the GOP's future for years just to get Bush elected.

He did the same thing to Texas....all the major office-holders, Cornyn, Hutch, Perry....are Rove shills...

[Nbadan]

However, loyal Rovians want to put his resignation, the fact remains the noose was tightening around KKKarl...


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Susan Ralston, a former top assistant to President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, is willing to tell Congress what she knows about contacts between White House officials and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- but only if she's granted immunity from prosecution, her lawyer has told congressional investigators.

During a May 10 deposition with Ralston, her attorney, Bradford Berenson, told investigators for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that she "has material, useful information" about contacts between Abramoff and his associates and White House officials, according to a memo sent to committee members Tuesday by the committee's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California.

Berenson also said Ralston has useful information about the use of outside Republican National Committee e-mail accounts by White House staffers, which is also the subject of a congressional probe, according to the memo. However, Ralston will only be "comfortable going forward" if she is given a grant of immunity, Berenson told investigators, according to the memo.

In his memo, Waxman told his colleagues that before considering Ralston's immunity request, "the committee should seek to obtain information about the relationship between Mr. Abramoff and the White House from other sources."

Ralston was Abramoff's executive assistant before coming to work for Rove in 2001. She resigned last October, after revelations that more than half of Abramoff's 66 contacts at the White House during the Bush administration were made through her.
In January 2006, Abramoff pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion, the result of a wide-ranging Capitol Hill influence-peddling probe that has led to charges against several former congressional staffers and former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/23/rove.aide/index.html)

[Nbadan]

Jack Abramhoff has been telling friends and family in the last few months that Karl Rove was going down because he is implicated in the bribery investigations. This much I know–Abramhoff has been talking freely and fully to the FBI about Rove and what he knew and when he knew it. Whether that translates into an indictment remains to be seen.

Link (http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/08/13/ro-ro-rove/)

[George Gervin's Afro]

Dan...let's assume Rove is a dirty player.. Chickenhawk in command will just pardon him...face it he is above the law..




As Karl Rove embraced President Bush today following an emotional farewell announcement on the South Lawn, the solemnity of the moment was shattered by Bill Plante of CBS, who bellowed to Bush: "If he's so smart, how come you lost Congress?"
:lol :lol

[Wild Cobra]

The Republican made their own beds by straying too far from the ideological philosophies that got them in power in the first place, less federal government, less spending, stronger security, and more transparency........
Now this I agree with you on. Republicans are unstoppable in the majority of places when that keep their conservative roots. The republican run congress and president Bush have been too liberal for the republican base.

[Wild Cobra]

10 years from now, it will be Republicans who will spit on the ground at every mention of Rove's name, as he will be the villain who ended up sabotaging the GOP's future for years just to get Bush elected.
Not true, but history will at some point reveal the lies and deceptions of the democrats and the media.

Tell me one illegal thing that Rove is accused of that has any solid evidence.

[PixelPusher]

Not true, but history will at some point reveal the lies and deceptions of the democrats and the media.

Tell me one illegal thing that Rove is accused of that has any solid evidence.
I wasn't referring to illegal activities, I was referring to his electoral strategy.

[Wild Cobra]

Link (http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/08/13/ro-ro-rove/)
Please....

Do you really believe a BLOG that references another BLOG without that information being contained in it?

These Bloggers are just making it up!

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

Damage done.
Time to get started on that "tell-all" book.

[Wild Cobra]

I wasn't referring to illegal activities, I was referring to his electoral strategy.
The democrats just did better at covering the states, big liberal activist help, and better at cheating the voting system.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The democrats just did better at covering the states, big liberal activist help, and better at cheating the voting system.


you just can't stop blaming democrats for everything.. maybe you need a break from politics?

[Wild Cobra]

you just can't stop blaming democrats for everything.. maybe you need a break from politics?
I just call it like I see it. Have you ever seen how many democrat operatives have been prosecuted for vote tampering in the 2004 elections? Several have, but it's not widely reported by the democrat favoring press. Ever research the truth and see how many counties with vote fraud allegations were controlled by democrat election officials? In the Florida 2000 election, the contested counties were all controlled by democrats except one, which was controlled by an independent. I believe the cry because they are in the position to effectively cheat, and do. Then when they still lose, they don't believe it and cry foul.

Now consider this. How many times vs. other people do I supply accurate information? Please don't ask me to look this up. I have linked some of it in other threads before. I'll stand by my history of accuracy.

[xrayzebra]

No worry, Karl will still make most of dimm-o-craps look what
the are.....stupid!

And speaking of driving a wedge......that is all that the dimms
have done in all matters of government.

[ggoose25]

:lol

Its funny... election tampering and driving wedges. Sounds like the Repub congress from 93-present.

Its a bitch to be in the minority. But you dont see Harry Reid threatening the nuclear option every 6 weeks like Dr. Frist used to.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No worry, Karl will still make most of dimm-o-craps look what
the are.....stupid!

And speaking of driving a wedge......that is all that the dimms
have done in all matters of government.


I feel duped. The dems made history by winning both houses of Congress..do I feel dumb.. great job karl :lol

Ray go back to sleep.

[xrayzebra]

I feel duped. The dems made history by winning both houses of Congress..do I feel dumb.. great job karl :lol

Ray go back to sleep.


Yep, the dimm-o-craps won both houses the last time,
not really that great of a feat. And the most wonderful
thing about it is that the dimm-o-craps have been
raving about it ever since they did. And how many
"hearings" have they since? They really brought the
country together, didn't they?

[ggoose25]

It's called accountability ray. Had Alberto and King George not fired unloyal Bushies and then lied about it none of this would have happened.

[xrayzebra]

It's called accountability ray. Had Alberto and King George not fired unloyal Bushies and then lied about it none of this would have happened.


Really, maybe you should read the MSM more often. Then
you would know that there have been more than one hearing.
And accountability! You got to be kidding. The dimm-o-craps
haven't been held accountable for any of their actions.

And besides you should know that the President can fire
anyone he hires, for any reason. That's life. I wont
even mention what Clinton did.

[ggoose25]

You're just upset that someone finally has the authority to call the President on his BS.

It's about damn time.

[Holt's Cat]

Well, I'm sure your Democratic Party will bring back the Reagan and Goldwater Conservativism you so miss...

Predictable. The problem is, the GOP can't count on the support of conservatives disappointed with the direction of the party. They will stay home.

[Yonivore]

Predictable. The problem is, the GOP can't count on the support of conservatives disappointed with the direction of the party. They will stay home.
It may come down to who has more people staying home. Doesn't look like the Democrats are all that energized either.

[Yonivore]

Yep, the dimm-o-craps won both houses the last time,
not really that great of a feat. And the most wonderful
thing about it is that the dimm-o-craps have been
raving about it ever since they did. And how many
"hearings" have they since? They really brought the
country together, didn't they?
It actually boiled down to winning 26 elections in strategic districts -- Mostly straddling the Ohio River valley and east towards New England. I'll hand it to the Democrats. They put the emphasis where it was needed to move the gavel.

But, their hold on both houses is rather tenuous, at best. Not that the Republicans are that much more likable at this point.

[Holt's Cat]

If they have the prospect of winning back the White House they will be energized. Plus I think the 'middle' is turning their way of late. CA, NY, IL, OH, MI, and PA is a very solid electoral base. And like it or not, the Clintons know how to win presidential elections and be competitive in some Southern/Border states (LA, AR, TN, KY, VA, and WV).

[Yonivore]

If they have the prospect of winning back the White House they will be energized. Plus I think the 'middle' is turning their way of late. CA, NY, IL, OH, MI, and PA is a very solid electoral base. And like it or not, the Clintons know how to win presidential elections and be competitive in some Southern/Border states (LA, AR, TN, KY, VA, and WV).
I could say the same about Republicans...if there's the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, they'll be energized, as well.

[Holt's Cat]

Maybe if it was 2000 or 2004. There's a lot of apathy in the party today, brought on by the genius of Karl Rove.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Its funny... election tampering and driving wedges. Sounds like the Repub congress from 93-present.
That's because you believe the propaganda generated by the left. I'll bet you never verified any of it for facts and traceable falsehoods, now did you?

Its a bitch to be in the minority. But you dont see Harry Reid threatening the nuclear option every 6 weeks like Dr. Frist used to.
The nuclear option can only apply to the constitutional authorized appointments. The senate has no right to use their filibuster rules to stop appointments.

[boutons_]

As always with dubya's Exec, to find crimes and failures and incompetence, "follow the resignations".

[ggoose25]

That's because you believe the propaganda generated by the left. I'll bet you never verified any of it for facts and traceable falsehoods, now did you?

The nuclear option can only apply to the constitutional authorized appointments. The senate has no right to use their filibuster rules to stop appointments.

What's to say your sources aren't slanted as well?

My point with the nuclear option example was that the Senate republicans resorted to threats and hammering through legislation.

Filibustering appointments? You want to talk about not doing research and eating up party rhetoric. I bet you believed the statement, "no one has ever used filibusters to block nominees to the federal courts before the Democrats."

Guess again. Republicans did it in 1968 when Johnson nominated Abe Fortas for Chief justice.

Republicans change the rules just as much if not more than anyone else and that act indignant and righteous when someone calls them on their BS.

[Wild Cobra]

What's to say your sources aren't slanted as well?
The constitution slanted?

Are you high?

It provides the senate to make rules for their conduct. It requires advice and consent. It does not require a supermajority, which the filibuster becomes. Congressional rules do not supercede the constitution power of the president to pick his appointees. The senate is required to vote on it.

My point with the nuclear option example was that the Senate republicans resorted to threats and hammering through legislation.
The term 'Nuclear Option' was coined for breaking up the filibuster for appointees. It cannot be used for normal senate operations without the normal operations violating the intent of the constitution.


Filibustering appointments? You want to talk about not doing research and eating up party rhetoric. I bet you believed the statement, "no one has ever used filibusters to block nominees to the federal courts before the Democrats."
Yes, a filibuster was used, but not to block a nomination. I am well aware of this flimsy excuse. The filibuster was used to continue debate and introduce evidence as to why the nominee should not be appointed, not to completely stop a vote for a nominee, without debate. He later resigned from the court in disgrace for illegal activates that were discovered after he was found to lie about the $15,000.

You should note that the 90th senate had 64 democrats and 36 republicans. The cloture vote was 45-43. I'm not going to look the vote up again (I debated this before) but the fact that so many democrats turned away from Fortas should say something...


Guess again. Republicans did it in 1968 when Johnson nominated Abe Fortas for Chief justice.
Duh...

From wiki:

Abe Fortas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas):


Abraham Fortas (June 19, 1910–April 5, 1982) was a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice. He served in that role from October 4, 1965 until May 14, 1969, when he resigned under pressure.


When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his retirement in June 1968, Johnson nominated Associate Justice Fortas to replace Warren as Chief Justice. However, the Warren Court's constitutional jurisprudence had angered many conservative members of the United States Senate, and the nomination of Fortas provided the first opportunity for these senators to register their disenchantment with the direction of the Court. Fortas was the first Chief Justice nominee ever to appear before the Senate, and he faced hostile questioning about his relationship with Lyndon Johnson. Johnson had consulted with Fortas about political matters frequently while Fortas was on the Court.

Also controversial was Fortas's acceptance of $15,000 for speaking engagements at the American University law school. While not illegal, the size of the fee raised much concern about the Court's insulation from private interests, especially as it was funded by Fortas's former clients and partners. Upon learning of this problem, President Johnson decided to help Fortas win a majority vote, but only as a face-saving measure, according to Johnson aide Joseph Califano:

Now what wiki doesn't say about this is that he lied to the senate about it. Isn't that illegal?


Fortas remained on the bench, but in 1969, a new scandal arose. Fortas had accepted a secret $20,000 retainer from the family foundation of Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson, a friend and former client, in January 1966. Fortas signed a contract with Wolfson's foundation; in return for unspecified advice it was to pay Fortas $20,000 a year for the rest of Fortas's life (and then pay his widow for the rest of her life). Wolfson was under investigation for securities violations at the time and expected that his arrangement with Fortas would help him stave off criminal charges or help him secure a presidential pardon; Fortas denied that he ever helped Wolfson. Wolfson was convicted of violating federal securities laws later that year and spent time in prison, and Fortas returned the retainer.

Also see:

Hatching A New Filibuster Precedent: The Senator From Utah's Revisionist History (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050506.html):

Supreme Court Justices; Abe Fortas (1910-1982) ( http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/fortas.htm)


Republicans change the rules just as much if not more than anyone else and that act indignant and righteous when someone calls them on their BS.
Whatever. It's obvious you don't research the propaganda you listen to from others. Need I say more?

[ggoose25]

Yes, a filibuster was used, but not to block a nomination. I am well aware of this flimsy excuse. The filibuster was used to continue debate and introduce evidence as to why the nominee should not be appointed, not to completely stop a vote for a nominee, without debate.

Ohkkayy... so the filibuster was whether the Senate should even consider the nomination instead of the nomination itself. Both filibusters had the same result, and arguing how they ended up in the same place is missing the bigger point of the Republicans themselves setting a precedent of terminating a judicial appointment. You're grasping for straws. You even gave me ammo for my argument in your links:


Virtually every historian who has looked at these events has concluded -- contrary to the newly revised history of Hatch and Griffin -- that Fortas was defeated for the post of Chief Justice by this Republican orchestrated, precedent setting filibuster.

Consider this quote from Fortas biographer Laura Kalman regarding how the story ended: "Fortas could have pressed for a second vote," because the filibuster had only been on the motion to take up the nomination, "but he was so far short of the two-thirds majority he needed [i.e., fourteen votes] that he asked [President] Johnson to withdraw his nomination that night."

In short, Fortas was defeated by the filibuster. He was not able to put together the votes to invoke cloture, and end the filibuster. And the matter ended there.

The Senate's information suggests that LBJ had the votes to get Fortas confirmed, but not to get past the filibuster. We'll have to await Robert Caro's next volume on Johnson to see if that suggestion is, indeed, historical fact.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans should back off their bogus history. There is nothing conservative about such baseless revisionism. And unfortunately, this is not the only distortion of the truth they are engaging in, in their attempt to change the rules they helped write.

And your point that he liked to take bribes is noted. It was for the best that he didn't get through. Just as history will vindicate the Democratic filibusters as for the best. You ended up getting Roberts and Alito without a filibuster, I'd say that's pretty good.

Good job on trying to seem objective though :tu

[Wild Cobra]

Ohkkayy... so the filibuster was whether the Senate should even consider the nomination instead of the nomination itself.
You missed the major point, or you refuse to acknowledge it. The republicans used the filibuster to keep debates going, to show why he shouldn't be nominated. They were prepared for a vote after they introduced all their evidence. If they had a chance to introduce all their evidence, he wouldn't ever had received a nominating vote. The democrats did not use the filibuster to keep debates going, but to suspend an up or down vote indefinitely.

Big difference in the usage. Wouldn't you say?

FYI... Senator Nixon a.k.a. president Nixon was against the filibuster for any reason. He was likely one of the 45 to invoke cloture. I'll bet it was democrats who chose not to vote. Twelve no votes... Assuming the republicans were in mass to filibuster, all voting no, That leaves 9 from democrats voting no and 12 no shows. If some of the no shows were republican, then even more democrats voted to continue debate hearing republican evidence!

Not real partisan, is it?

I'm not ready to devote to the specifics of researching the names of this vote. It would be appreciated if anyone wanted to take such time. The basics are easy to find, but this is before daily congressional computer records. Makes the correct data harder to find.

Again, I am saddened that people continue to argue on the side of democrats and fail to do any homework. That's why I use words like "Lemmings" and "Kool-Aid Drinkers." When you lefties start checking up on your sources and stop repeating the outrageous propaganda from others, I can start respecting you all. Nobody likes those who continually repeat unfounded gossip.

[ggoose25]

You missed the major point, or you refuse to acknowledge it. The republicans used the filibuster to keep debates going, to show why he shouldn't be nominated. They were prepared for a vote after they introduced all their evidence. If they had a chance to introduce all their evidence, he wouldn't ever had received a nominating vote. The democrats did not use the filibuster to keep debates going, but to suspend an up or down vote indefinitely.

Big difference in the usage. Wouldn't you say?

No I wouldn't say thats a big difference at all. Both sides used a filibuster to get what they wanted. To assume the Republicans would have been prepared for a vote is speculation. You have no idea what would have happened because it didn't get that far. The fact is that they were willing to use a filibuster as a means to derail a judicial nomination PERIOD. Voila precedent.


FYI... Senator Nixon a.k.a. president Nixon was against the filibuster for any reason. He was likely one of the 45 to invoke cloture. I'll bet it was democrats who chose not to vote. Twelve no votes... Assuming the republicans were in mass to filibuster, all voting no, That leaves 9 from democrats voting no and 12 no shows. If some of the no shows were republican, then even more democrats voted to continue debate hearing republican evidence!

Not real partisan, is it?

All speculation and assumption. Could it be that those 9 Democrats voted no to protect the minority right to filibuster and not to hear Republican evidence? You don't know, so why are you acting like you know why they voted?

Do you even read the articles you post?


As the nomination headed to the Senate floor, the vote count was still not clear. The "Associated Press survey released today" -- the September 18th Times story also reported - "found 47 Senators favoring confirmation of Mr. Fortas and 27 opposed. Twenty-two described themselves as uncommitted and four were not reached."

In fact, no one other than a psychic could know, one way or the other, how a vote on confirmation may have turned out, for the filibuster, in fact, succeeded.

Man, if I'm accused of being a lemming, you sir are a major revisionist and extrapolator of history.

[Wild Cobra]

No I wouldn't say thats a big difference at all. Both sides used a filibuster to get what they wanted.
The republicans used the filibuster for what it was intended for. Continuing debate. The democrats did not use it for that with president Bush's appointments. They used it without continuing debate.

Think about the difference. To be ably to indefinitely be able to suspend debate and the vote is a far different thing.

To assume the Republicans would have been prepared for a vote is speculation. You have no idea what would have happened because it didn't get that far.
It is not an assumption. It is a fact. If you read interviews of the people at the time, or go into the senate transcripts, it is apparent.

The fact is that they were willing to use a filibuster as a means to derail a judicial nomination PERIOD. Voila precedent.

I'll accept the term 'derail' but it was for cause. There was a clear and valid reason to not want Fortas as a Chief Justice. He was a criminal! The republicans just wanted to continue debate to offer the evidence. Congress would have been insane to confirm him after the were aware of the evidence. There was no fear of ending the filibuster after the evidence was submitted.

As for precedent, no. What I didn't mention is that the rules for a filibuster were different then. It would have been impossible for republicans to use it like the democrats did recently.


All speculation and assumption. Could it be that those 9 Democrats voted no to protect the minority right to filibuster and not to hear Republican evidence? You don't know, so why are you acting like you know why they voted?

Now this part I don't recall the history on. I think they wanted to hear the rest of the evidence.


Do you even read the articles you post?

Yes, one of them seemed counter productive to my point, yet it had key truths in it even though it was against the filibuster of the time.


Man, if I'm accused of being a lemming, you sir are a major revisionist and extrapolator of history.

Are you denying that Fortas left the bench in disgrace?

Are you denying the democrats used the filibuster to end the confirmation rather than extend debate?

What have I said that is revisionistic?

What isn't said in the articles is that the nomination was withdrawn because everone knew the nomination would never make it with the additional evidence offered by republicans. Obvious history would have been different if the nomination was not pulled.

[ggoose25]

The republicans used the filibuster for what it was intended for. Continuing debate. The democrats did not use it for that with president Bush's appointments. They used it without continuing debate.

Think about the difference. To be ably to indefinitely be able to suspend debate and the vote is a far different thing.

Same thing. They both served their purposes of blocking the progress of a nomination. You said it yourself, the rules were different back then. But the essence of the filibuster was the same. The Republicans used the stalling tactic to force the withdrawal of the nomination, just like the Democrats did.


It is not an assumption. It is a fact. If you read interviews of the people at the time, or go into the senate transcripts, it is apparent.

I'll accept the term 'derail' but it was for cause. There was a clear and valid reason to not want Fortas as a Chief Justice. He was a criminal! The republicans just wanted to continue debate to offer the evidence. Congress would have been insane to confirm him after the were aware of the evidence. There was no fear of ending the filibuster after the evidence was submitted.

False. Time Magazine: Friday, Oct. 04, 1968:


A formal vote to, close off a filibuster will not come until this week, but it is foredoomed. Fortas' opponents, led by Michigan Republican Robert Griffin, have considerably more than enough votes to block cloture and keep the talkathon going until the Administration gives up.

If there had been any doubt about Fortas' fate, none remained after Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pulled a 180° switch and announced that he now felt "duty bound" to vote against cloture. Last summer Dirksen gave the President his approval of the appointment. But as opposition to Fortas swelled—22 of the Senate's 37 Republicans are now against him—Dirksen's leadership has grown shaky, and he is not unmindful that as a rambunctious Congressman in 1965, Griffin helped turn aging Charles Halleck out of the House minority leadership.

During the debate, the charges raised repeatedly against Fortas in Judiciary Committee hearings were aired anew. No one questioned his legal brilliance. Fortas' opponents complained instead about his status as the appointee of a lame-duck President, and his role in enhancing the Warren Court's supposed softness on pornography and criminals.

A typical objection came from Dirksen's son-in-law, Tennessee Senator Howard Baker: "In continuing to counsel the President on such matters as the Viet Nam war, the riots, legislative proposals and the 1966 State of the Union address, Justice Fortas not only has committed a judicial impropriety but also has flagrantly violated the traditional separation-of-powers concept."

Even Mansfield was less than ardent, though he favored confirmation. It was "unfortunate," he said, that Fortas accepted $15,000 for 18 hours of lecturing this summer at Washington's American University. "One would hope," Mansfield added gently, "that Mr. Fortas no less than any of the other members of the Court would henceforth bear these distinctions in mind.”

So, this argument of yours that they used the filibuster to extend debate to air evidence that had previously been unknown is completely wrong. Everyone knew the evidence. It had already come out in Judiciary Committee. The Senate Majority Leader Mansfield knew about it and the Minority Leader Dirksen knew about it. And guess what? This evidence didn’t matter to 15 of the 37 Republicans. And even then Republicans like Dirksen only voted against cloture because they felt bound by duty to their party, not on principle against Fortas’ actions. Dirksen was fearful of Griffin overthrowing him more than anything and that’s why he voted in unison with the others.

Furthermore:


Matters worsened for Fortas, in 1969, when Life magazine reported that he had accepted a $20,000 fee from a foundation established by the family of Louis Wolfson, a financier under federal investigation for SECURITIES violations. The fee was the first of a series of annual payments that were to be made to Fortas for the duration of his life, and thereafter to his widow until her death, in exchange for Fortas's guidance of the foundation's programs. The arrangement was terminated in 1966 when Fortas returned the money upon Wolfson's indictment.

Despite Fortas's ultimate return of the money, his initial acceptance of it troubled many senators. It was alleged that Fortas had done more than foundation work, giving Wolfson legal advice. The Life article noted that Wolfson had used Fortas's name in the hope of helping himself. Fortas issued an ambiguous statement that did not resolve the situation. The Nixon administration and Republican senators hinted that Fortas should be impeached for his actions, which were contrary to the ethical provision that judges must be free of the appearance of impropriety. Fortas ended the controversy by resigning from the Court May 14, 1969, though he contended he had done nothing wrong. This was the first time in U.S. history that a justice resigned under the threat of impeachment.http://law.jrank.org/pages/6985/Fortas-Abe.html

So again. The evidence you are so insistent that they had to air was already known. And the scandal which forced Fortas from the bench did not come out until 1969, well after the filibuster of 1968.

Regardless, Fortas was not a good choice. They were right to block his nomination. He obviously lacked the moral fiber to make politically impartial judgments and keep the separation of power between the branches intact. Which I might add is one of the main reasons the Democrats filibustered Bush’s nominees. IMO, both filibusters were warranted.

[ggoose25]

Time Magazine
Friday, Oct. 11, 1968
The Fortas Defeat


When Abe Fortas was nominated last summer as Chief Justice of the U.S., few doubted that he would win swift approval. He had, after all, already been before the Senate and been confirmed as an Associate Justice, and even Fortas' critics acknowledged that his is one of the nation's best legal minds. Gradually, however, opposition mounted, partly because confident Republicans wanted to name a new Chief Justice themselves come January. The most senous argument against Fortas was that he remained a close adviser to Lyndon Johnson after joining the court. There was also Fortas' imprudence in recently accepting $15,000 for 18 hours of lecturing at American University.

Fortas finally became the hapless focus of conservative unrest over court decisions on pornography and the rights of criminal suspects. The attack developed into an assault on the whole Warren court, impairing its prestige severely in the process (see THE LAW). Last week the nomination that once looked like a sure thing went down to an embarrassing defeat.

Constitutionally Tragic. "Never in our history," cried Michigan's Democratic Senator Philip Hart, "has a matter of the nomination of a Justice to the Supreme Court been resolved by a filibuster." But shortly after Hart spoke, the Senate refused to cut off debate on whether it should even take up the Fortas nomination, thereby killing his chances. The vote was 43 against cloture to 45 in favor—14 short of the two thirds needed to stop the anti-Fortas filibuster.

Next day, at Fortas' request, Lyndon Johnson withdrew the nomination. It was a profound humiliation for the President. Said Johnson: "The action of the Senate, a body I revere and to which I devoted a dozen years of my life, is historically and constitutionally tragic." Johnson was referring to the fact that the Senate had never actually voted on the merits of the nomination, only on the procedural question of giving it formal consideration. All but forgotten was another loser in the affair: Homer Thornberry, who was to have replaced Fortas as an Associate Justice on the court. Since Fortas will now keep his own seat, there is now no room for Thornberry; his nomination lies in a legal limbo.

The Fortas defeat was a notable victory for Michigan Republican Robert Griffin. As leader of the anti-Fortas fight, Griffin had taken to wearing on his lapel a golden miniature of the mythological beast that is his family's namesake. In the legends of ancient Greece, a griffin had the body of a lion and the head and wings of an eagle, and served to guard the gold of the realm. Griffin's wife recently told him: "You are opposing the President, the Supreme Court, the minority leader of the Senate, the majority leader of the Senate and the American Bar Association. Who do you think you are?" In reply, Griffin only smiled. In fact, at the end, Griffin even forced Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to abandon his original support of Fortas' nomination. Two weeks ago, when he recognized that Griffin had enlisted a solid majority of Senate Republicans against Fortas, Dirksen abruptly reversed himself.

Determined to Persevere. The President now has several options open to him. He could wait until January, when the new Congress has convened and just before his own term expires, to confer with the congressional leadership and offer a noncontroversial nominee. He could nominate a Senator like Hart. He could appoint another nominee immediately, before the Supreme Court gets far into its new term. Among the other names currently bruited about in Washington, though with no real conviction that any will be submitted: former Associate Justices Tom Clark and Arthur Goldberg, Defense Secretary Clark Clifford, Treasury Secretary Henry Fowler and Viet Nam Negotiator Cyrus Vance.

One thing at least was clear: Fortas aims to stay on the court to vindicate himself, if for no other reason. When Arthur Goldberg spoke at a New York University convocation last week, he said that his wife Dorothy had telephoned Fortas after the Senate vote. During the conversation, Dorothy Goldberg had quoted Benjamin Franklin: "We must not in the course of public life expect immediate approbation of our services. But let us persevere through abuse and even injury." Midway through his own 40-minute speech on the 14th Amendment, Fortas won an ovation when he turned to Gold berg and declared: "Tell Dorothy that so far as I am concerned, I shall persevere."

Face it. It was a filibuster plain and simple. Your unfounded assertions that these Republicans romantically and righteously used this unprecedented action of filibustering a nomination in order to introduce evidence that would sway everyone against Fortas were wrong. The conservatives of both parties just didn't like this guy. And Griffin was on a power trip and decided he could do whatever the hell he wanted with a lame duck president and a minority leader he obviously didn't respect.

Don't you think if the Republican's (especially Griffin) had all this new evidence at their disposal it would have shown up in these articles? All the evidence was already out there. People knew Fortas was a crook, and they were going to let him slide through anyway. The Democrats and some republcians were going to rubber stamp him through until Griffin stood up to them.

Same damn thing as 2005. This time it was a Republican rubber stamp Congress.

[ggoose25]

Again, I am saddened that people continue to argue on the side of democrats and fail to do any homework. That's why I use words like "Lemmings" and "Kool-Aid Drinkers." When you ARCH CONSERVATIVES start checking up on your sources and stop repeating the outrageous propaganda from others, I can start respecting you all. Nobody likes those who continually repeat unfounded gossip.

[Wild Cobra]

A filibuster under the 1968 rules could not stop a vote indefinitely like the democrats did against president Bush.



Face it. It was a filibuster plain and simple.
Where did I say it wasn't a filibuster?

The rules were different.

It was used differently.

Yes, the end result was derailing the nomination. I never denied that either. You keep going around that as if I am saying otherwise. You fail to acknowledge what I am saying. I am saying there was merit to use the filibuster then, and no merit in the way the democrats did against president Bush’s nominees.

As for the rules. The filibuster during this timeframe could only be maintained as long as those using it could speak. What was the number? 18 republicans? It could only last as long as these 18 could take turns, one turn each, standing on the senate floor and actually speaking. It is impossible under the past rules to deny a vote indefinitely! It can be denied indefinitely with the current senate rules, because the rules changed so they don't have to actually use the filibuster for debate!

Again, a filibuster under the 1968 rules could not stop a vote indefinitely! Show me otherwise!

[ggoose25]

Why do you keep bringing up the point about indefinitely suspending the vote? You're just finding something to argue after I blasted your theory that they were extending debate for some concocted noble reason of enlightening others to the evil ways of Fortas.

You're right, the rules were different. I've already said that. Yes, a vote would've had to have come eventually under those rules. But thats exactly why Griffin used the timing he did to enact it. He knew LBJ as a lame duck would back down. He knew a filibuster for a nominee, which was unprecedented, would actually work despite not being able to suspend indefinitely. Which is why LBJ said, "If I had another term, things would've been different". LBJ knew if he had the time and the political capital he could've left Fortas' nomination till after the election and he would've probably gone through.

But that doesn't change that....

The spirit of both filibusters were the same. Repubs wanted to derail the nomination of Fortas because they believed he was too chumy with LBJ. And Dems thought the same thing for a few of Bush's nominees.


You can't keep pretending like the Repubs used the filibuster any differently. They didn't use it to further a debate to expose new evidence. They used it to block the nomination from advancing because they feared Fortas was too partisan to be an impartial check of power. In fact thats exactly why the Democrats did it in 2003.

Why the double standard?

Cause they're democrats thats why. It's honorable when Republicans do it for their principles, but its not when the other side does it. Admit it.

[boutons_]

Rove's Blind Spot
__

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 15, 2007; A11

Decades from now, historians will have trouble fathoming why Karl Rove's contemporaries hailed him as a genius. An expert practitioner of wedge politics, in the tradition of Lee Atwater? Sure. But architect of an enduring Republican majority? The great realigner? What were the pundits of 2002 and 2004 smoking?

In fact, Rove exhibited astonishing blindness toward some of America's most basic political realities -- in particular, a pervasive economic insecurity that undercut the prospects of the Bush administration's program.

In a brilliant and fortuitously timed article on Rove in the new issue of the Atlantic, reporter Josh Green (a former American Prospect colleague of mine) notes that realignments in American politics tend to emerge from periods of wrenching change: the Depression of the '30s, the racial and cultural revolutions of the '60s. They are not willed by political consultants who fancy themselves deep thinkers.

Rove always believed that with the right mix of legislation and presidential leadership, constituencies could be moved from the Democratic to the Republican column, much like pieces on a chessboard. Green identifies five policy initiatives that Rove thought would create a Republican majority and that he and George W. Bush decided to pursue:

establishing educational standards,
pursuing faith-based initiatives,
reforming immigration laws,
creating health savings accounts and
privatizing Social Security.

Thus would the Republicans destroy teachers unions, mobilize the moralists and win over Hispanics. Thus would they break the link between the American people and government programs and create a world in which Americans' well-being and security depended almost entirely on the markets.

Early in Bill Clinton's presidency, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol had persuaded Republicans to oppose Clinton's health-care program on political grounds: The provision of universal health coverage would permanently help the Democrats and hence should be defeated. A couple of years later, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in tandem with Republican strategist Grover Norquist, began proclaiming that government programs such as Medicare and Social Security were artifacts of the industrial age, and, now that the economy had moved on to the information age, Americans would rely on the market for their security if only those creaking relics from the New Deal and the Great Society could be disposed of. By 2000, Rove and Bush had joined these peewee league intellectuals in arguing that the economic changes of our age required the lowering of the old safety nets.

In the wake of Bush's 2004 reelection, Green reports, Rove, newly promoted by Bush to domestic policy czar, concluded that the time for this realignment had come. Green documents Rove's mistakes as he set out to undo the major social legislation of the mid-20th century:

He assumed congressional and public support for policies on which Bush had not campaigned;

his relations with Republican members of Congress were abysmal;

his incessant campaigning against the Democrats ensured that there would be no bipartisan support for programs that entailed considerable political risk.

But Rove's miscalculations were actually more fundamental than those that Green enumerates. At bottom, he and Bush overlooked the epochal growth of economic insecurity in America. They refused to see that the very economic changes they celebrated had made Americans understandably nervous and pessimistic to an unprecedented extent about the nation's long-term economic prospects. And so, as employers were abandoning their provision of retirement benefits to employees, Bush and Rove called for abandoning the government's commitment as well. At a time when ordinary Americans' incomes were stagnating, and when growing numbers of Americans understood that they were in some nebulous competition with millions of lower-paid workers in other lands that the government seemed powerless to mitigate, Bush and Rove proposed legalizing the undocumented immigrants who had flowed across the border.

Could there have been a more profound misreading of the American temper? As political and policy czar rolled into one, Rove should have understood that Americans craved the security of a controllable border and a predictable and decent income. Instead, Rove's wish was father to the thought: Realignment required dismantling Democratic programs. It required winning more Hispanic voters (never mind that on economic issues, Hispanic voters are resoundingly liberal). It required the Rove program. Damn the torpedoes.

In the end, the Rove program for Bush's second term was stillborn for lack of support. And yet Rove and Bush seem to have bequeathed their tone-deafness on economic insecurity to a number of the Republicans seeking Bush's job. Rudy Giuliani, for example, has proposed a health-care plan modeled on Bush's: It has no expanded role for government, relies on the market and will not alter our current system or cover any additional Americans. Indeed, on health care, pensions, trade, the bargaining power of American workers, the affordability of higher education -- on a whole set of issues that shape Americans' lives -- the Republican field is largely silent. Rove retires; his cluelessness lives on.

[email protected]

[DarkReign]

What exactly did Rove accomplish? All I've seen is an expansion of federal government power and expenditure at an unconscionable rate for an allegedly "conservative Republican" administration. The GOP will be lucky to win one presidential election again in the next decade thanks in no small part to his electoral strategies and their impact on policy.

You vastly underestimate the South.

Republicans wil continue to show strong at polls for three reasons (in order):

1. Democrats havent gotten their shit together since Kennedy. Clinton was a maverick. With the proper amount of $$$, Clinton could have been a two-termer as an independent. Beyond that, they roll out some new drone on some flimsy pedestal on some flimsy, fly-by-night talking point.

2. Ingrained thinking. People are either Red or Blue in most cases. Independant thought is all time low country-wide. Have no faith in a country's citizenry to untangle political half-lies from truth where most individuals cant name the vice president, but certainly know what Tom and Kate's first baby's eye color is.

3. Scare tactics. The War on Terror guarantees Republican turnout every election at every poll across the country. Most Americans believe they and their precious family are targets of foreign terrorism every, single day. You know, because the public library in Iowa is totally a target for Al Queda and the like because of the "shock" value of such a high volume. Americans are so in love with themsleves and find their singular existence so important to the world, that they are in fact convinced they could be next. When in actuality, you have a better chance of winning the local lottery than you do of being killed by a terrorist act. Dont tell people that though, they might find out its all a political sham to garner support and votes. Nah, people like to live in fear, the government was just smart enough to realize its better they fear someone else more than them.

[DarkReign]

Why the double standard?

Cause they're democrats thats why. It's honorable when Republicans do it for their principles, but its not when the other side does it. Admit it.

You can dip that comment in bronze, scale it to size and hang it on the front page of the Political Forum.

Lemmings is a term loosely thrown around a lot. But it always seems to come from the same sources....

[Wild Cobra]

Lemmings is a term loosely thrown around a lot. But it always seems to come from the same sources....
I'm wondering if people know what it refers to?

Blindly following others to their doom...

Just in case, from:

Lemmings (video game) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmings_%28video_game%29):


The game was unique and based around a concept previously untried. In the original Commodore Amiga version, there are 120 levels, and on each level, the player must guide a group of up to 100 lemmings (or 80 in many versions, such as DOS and Windows) home by giving individual lemmings various commands. Each level dictates a required number of lemmings to be saved, giving the player the possibility, often the necessity, of sacrificing some lemmings for the greater good. The "lemmings" of the game are small, green-haired humanoid beings that mindlessly walk en masse into any danger in their path, following the popular myth that real lemmings behave in a similarly suicidal fashion.
I love this game. I still have my Amiga 3000 plugged in for it, and a few others that early PC games could never compare to.

wiki; lemming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming):


Lemmings will often migrate in large groups and as a result some lemmings will occasionally be pushed off cliffs or drowned in bodies of water simply by the press of their compatriots, or by the dimension of the body of water. And The myth of lemming mass suicide is long-standing and has been popularized by a number of factors.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you keep bringing up the point about indefinitely suspending the vote?
Because that is the reason why the democrats usage of the filibuster against president Bush's nominees is unconstitutional!

Can you acknowlege that?

[ggoose25]

Because that is the reason why the democrats usage of the filibuster against president Bush's nominees is unconstitutional!

Can you acknowlege that?

:lol

Ok whatever. The constitution says the Senate can make its own rules. :wakeup

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Ok whatever. The constitution says the Senate can make its own rules. :wakeup
Yes, their rules for their normal proceedings. Not to subvert the constitution. Would a rule saying we don't have to follow the first amendment be constitutional? Their rules cannot impede executive powers either.

[ggoose25]

Alright. sure... :rolleyes

What part of the constitution does a rule about how to end debate subvert it?

Oh that's right. It doesn't. Thats why we have had filibusters since 1841.

Are you arguing the constitutionality of the filibuster? Or just its legitimacy when the Democrats use it?

[DarkReign]

Or just its legitimacy when the Democrats use it?

http://www.omni-ts.com/_common/img/winner.jpg

link will die soon, im sure

[Wild Cobra]

Are you arguing the constitutionality of the filibuster? Or just its legitimacy when the Democrats use it?
I am only arguing that the filibuster was improperly used for president Bush's appointees. It was used to suspend the nomination process indefinitely, with no up or down vote. The filibuster is constitutional for lawmaking activates of the senate as one of their rules. Not in matters under When their rule subverts the purpose of the constitution, it becomes unconstitutional.

This is why I pointed out the "nuclear option" only applied to the nominees to begin with. It was a plan to break the filibuster on constitutional grounds rather than a cloture vote.

How would Reid use the Nuclear Option anyway? He cannot!

[ggoose25]

Ok. You're entitled to your opinion.

I think the filibuster is primarily a parliamentary tactic to give the minority party some kind of power to ensure a compromise instead of a rubber stamp. And in that regard it was used properly. Obviously 14 senators valued minority rights as I do or else they wouldn't have brokered a compromise to avoid the showdown.

BTW I wouldve been against the nuclear option had the sides been reversed. Its important to have a judge that both sides think is acceptable, not just whatever side happens to be in the majority.

[Wild Cobra]

Ok. You're entitled to your opinion.

I think the filibuster is primarily a parliamentary tactic to give the minority party some kind of power to ensure a compromise instead of a rubber stamp. And in that regard it was used properly. Obviously 14 senators valued minority rights as I do or else they wouldn't have brokered a compromise to avoid the showdown.

BTW I wouldve been against the nuclear option had the sides been reversed. Its important to have a judge that both sides think is acceptable, not just whatever side happens to be in the majority.
I found that wiki has an interesting piece on "advice and consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_Consent)":


The Founding Fathers of the United States included the language as part of a delicate compromise concerning the balance of power in the federal government. Many delegates preferred to develop a strong executive control vested in the President, while others, worried about authoritarian control, preferred to strengthen the Congress. Requiring the President to gain the advice and consent of the Senate achieved both goals without hindering the business of government.
The constitution clearly spells out whenever grater than a majority is needed, and judicial appointments are not one of them. Therefore, when the filibuster is used as a means of requiring 60%, it is unconstitutional. Period.

Note the words "without hindering the business of government?" That's exactly what the democrats did.


Constitutional provision

Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:

The President 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.

Advice can be given, but not required. Consent represents an up/down vote, not a supermajority. It's pretty sad when it is obvious that the democrats keep outstanding judges from being appointed just for politics. I like a quote from an article titled Nominations; Chapter 8: Twentieth Century (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm#8):


In 1987, when control of the Senate returned to the Democrats and, with less than two years remaining to the increasingly beleaguered Reagan administration, the Senate took special interest in the nomination of federal appeals court judge Robert Bork. A richly qualified, highly intelligent and outspoken jurist, Bork responded to his critics in a manner that sparked one of the most acrimonious confirmation battles in Senate history. Bork's doctrinaire judicial views undermined his initial support. Intense media coverage, including strident advertising campaigns by supporters and opponents, created strongly negative impressions among senators and the general public. The Judiciary Committee reported Bork's nomination adversely to the Senate, which rejected him by a 42-to-58 vote. Bork subsequently contended that the aggressive questioning about basic constitutional issues to which he was subjected would limit future selection of judges to those who had written little, and whose views were non-controversial.

President George Bush's successful 1990 appointment of Judge David H. Souter, a virtually unknown federal jurist, seemed to corroborate Bork's view.
It's pretty sad when the best of legal minds are not allowed to serve.

[ggoose25]

You are wrong by insisting that judicial confirmation is limited to a majority vote. There is nothing in the advice and consent clause that says the Senate cannot choose to have a confirmation rule by something other than a majority.

BTW "without hindering the business of government" is no where in Article II.

And I think if a judge's politics are that inflammatory to either party, they probably don't deserve to be on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts is considered brilliant, and he is on it. Compromise, compromise, compromise. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

[Wild Cobra]

BTW "without hindering the business of government" is no where in Article II.

I give up. No shit Sherlock. That was out of the historical context of why it was in place, and the link was clear about it.

Why should I bother when you cannot keep these things strait?

You just don't care if they circumvent the constitution. Fine. Why don't you just say so?

[ggoose25]

:lol

You shouldn't bother. Cause you are wrong. They aren't circumventing anything. You just dont like it so you make shit up to justify it.

I knew that you weren't claiming it was from the constitution. But my point was that historical context is just that, context. Your contextual phrase is not in the constitution and neither is anything about limiting the nominations to a up/down, so how can a filibuster requiring a supermajority for nominations be unconstiutional?

Wake uP! :wakeup

[Wild Cobra]

how can a filibuster requiring a supermajority for nominations be unconstiutional?

I'll explain it one more time. Senate rules cannot override the constitution.

Let me add this. Anything in Article 1 of the constitution that addresses the senate is open to their rules. Using the filibuster for senate actions in Article 2 that changes the intent of Article 2 is simply a violation of the constitution.

The intent of article 2 section 2 is a majority vote for confirmations. Senate rules cannot change a majority to a supermajority. It is under the executive power part of the constitution, not the congressional part.

I'm done with this line of thought. It's unlikely I will waste any more time with you on this. I'm sorry if you don't get it. I guess you would be OK with the senate decideing to make rules that reenacts slavery. If they can violate the appointment process, then why not strike down the amendments freeing the slaves? All they have to do is make it a rule, right?

[ggoose25]

Anything in Article 1 of the constitution that addresses the senate is open to their rules. Using the filibuster for senate actions in Article 2 that changes the intent of Article 2 is simply a violation of the constitution.

Once again you are making shit up. Does it explicitly say that in the Constitution? NO. Keep spinning the constitution to whatever way is convenient. :tu


Senate rules cannot change a majority to a supermajority.

Why not? Does the constitution forbid it? NO. So therefore Senate rules are NOT breaking the constitution.

Why are you being so obtuse?

[xrayzebra]

Once again you are making shit up. Does it explicitly say that in the Constitution? NO. Keep spinning the constitution to whatever way is convenient. :tu



Why not? Does the constitution forbid it? NO. So therefore Senate rules are NOT breaking the constitution.

Why are you being so obtuse?

Can I ask one question. Since when does one say they
are going to filibuster something when no filibuster
occurs? Do you know what a filibuster is?

I would just like someone to challenge someone to
actually filibuster something not just threaten to. Let
them pee in a cup, their hat or whatever or go hungry
for a few hours. Lets just get back to the original
intent of the Constitution. Okay?

[exstatic]

And why the fuck are you bringing up Bork in a discussion about fillibusters? He wasn't fillibustered. He got his up or down vote. It was down, and it wasn't close. Wah!!!

[Wild Cobra]

And why the fuck are you bringing up Bork in a discussion about fillibusters? He wasn't fillibustered. He got his up or down vote. It was down, and it wasn't close. Wah!!!
I'm sorry if such things are so obvious to me and I don't explain them well enough for others.

It is how qualified he was, the way he was treated, and his prophesy of future appointments.

Judges should be appointed by qualifications. That just isn't good enough for the democrats. They will fight tooth and nail unless they can get someone who either isn't a threat to their agenda, or who is a part of their agenda.

Qualifications be damned.

Besides, this is acually a thread about Rove, which got a bit sidetracked.