It's Trick or Treat in Washington
The nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor amuses me in a strange way.
I said in the only blog I did on the nomination of Harriet Miers that the great uproar from Democrats and Republicans was misplaced and that the time to speak was at the actual vote to apporve or disapporve of the nominee. And I feel the same way about Alito.
We're already hearing from Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, that he is "disappointed" in the pick of Alito in that he is not a "consensus nominee." He also said that Alito's nomination would "create a lot of problems." Senator Chuck Schumer of New York., also took issue with the President for not picking someone, as he said, in the "mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us."
So again, we're going to hear another pointless war of words. Pointless because the Democrats still don't understand they lost the last election!
It's true. Outside of talk show hosts and bloggers, it seems no high-ranking politician wants to tell it like it is. Here's what I'd like to see instead of the namby-pamby stuff we've been treated to following the annoucement of the President's latest nominee to the Supreme Court.
First, a Republican comment: "All right, folks, it's Sam Alito, and yes, he's pretty much a conservative with a capital C. His track record of decisions makes it likely that he's not going to make any decision like the person he's replacing. Most Democrats are't going to like it because he's not one of them. To them I say: what did you expect, some liberal guy who;s going to take your side in issues that are clearly defined by the split in thinking between us? You crazy or what? You guys lost and we won and that's the way it goes. Chances are that sooner or later, you'll have someone in the White House and will act exactly the same way. You can say whatever you like but we have the votes and you don't. In other words, we own the bat, the ball, and we make the rules. Now we'll still play the game with you, but you really have to just shut up and quite whining or we WILL pack it up and go home."
Now, a Democrat's comment: "ANOTHER Conservative! Well, we'd be stupid if we expected something else but couldn't you guys pick someone a little more moderate? We know we can't really change enough minds to not have him approved, but we will go as far as we can to make it as tough as possible if for no other reason than we just don't like you, or anyone who doesn't vote and think like we do. We still think we were cheated in the last election and frankly have never gotten over it. So we'll play politics for all it's worth to make this thng drag on as much as possible. So there!"
Sound a little like kids arguing on the playground? Or maybe like a breath of fresh air and truth for a change?
Some Republicans are already saying the nuclear option (*see definition below) won't be used if the going gets dragged down. I say, do it and get it over with. If the Democrats are stupid enough to essentially shut the government down because of it, then let the American people speak as to who's right and who's wrong in their approach to running the country.
The President is not going to run again for re-election. He's not the one the Democrats have to beat, but the news today sure makes it look that way!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* From Wikipedia: The nuclear option is a phrase used to refer to a proposed change in the U.S. Senate rules to prevent the filibuster of judicial confirmations. Along with the term Constitutional option, it is an American political code word used during the 2005 judicial confirmation political fight.
Currently, Senate rules allow any member to prevent a confirmation vote of a Presidential appointee by staging a filibuster. The filibuster can be overridden by a three-fifths majority (60 out of 100 senators) vote via a cloture motion. The nuclear option would allow a simple majority (50 out of 100 senators, plus the Vice President) to end a judicial filibuster. Once cloture is achieved, the nominee would be confirmed or rejected by a simple majority vote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen Here for the audio version of today's George Blog
The nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor amuses me in a strange way.
I said in the only blog I did on the nomination of Harriet Miers that the great uproar from Democrats and Republicans was misplaced and that the time to speak was at the actual vote to apporve or disapporve of the nominee. And I feel the same way about Alito.
We're already hearing from Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, that he is "disappointed" in the pick of Alito in that he is not a "consensus nominee." He also said that Alito's nomination would "create a lot of problems." Senator Chuck Schumer of New York., also took issue with the President for not picking someone, as he said, in the "mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us."
So again, we're going to hear another pointless war of words. Pointless because the Democrats still don't understand they lost the last election!
It's true. Outside of talk show hosts and bloggers, it seems no high-ranking politician wants to tell it like it is. Here's what I'd like to see instead of the namby-pamby stuff we've been treated to following the annoucement of the President's latest nominee to the Supreme Court.
First, a Republican comment: "All right, folks, it's Sam Alito, and yes, he's pretty much a conservative with a capital C. His track record of decisions makes it likely that he's not going to make any decision like the person he's replacing. Most Democrats are't going to like it because he's not one of them. To them I say: what did you expect, some liberal guy who;s going to take your side in issues that are clearly defined by the split in thinking between us? You crazy or what? You guys lost and we won and that's the way it goes. Chances are that sooner or later, you'll have someone in the White House and will act exactly the same way. You can say whatever you like but we have the votes and you don't. In other words, we own the bat, the ball, and we make the rules. Now we'll still play the game with you, but you really have to just shut up and quite whining or we WILL pack it up and go home."
Now, a Democrat's comment: "ANOTHER Conservative! Well, we'd be stupid if we expected something else but couldn't you guys pick someone a little more moderate? We know we can't really change enough minds to not have him approved, but we will go as far as we can to make it as tough as possible if for no other reason than we just don't like you, or anyone who doesn't vote and think like we do. We still think we were cheated in the last election and frankly have never gotten over it. So we'll play politics for all it's worth to make this thng drag on as much as possible. So there!"
Sound a little like kids arguing on the playground? Or maybe like a breath of fresh air and truth for a change?
Some Republicans are already saying the nuclear option (*see definition below) won't be used if the going gets dragged down. I say, do it and get it over with. If the Democrats are stupid enough to essentially shut the government down because of it, then let the American people speak as to who's right and who's wrong in their approach to running the country.
The President is not going to run again for re-election. He's not the one the Democrats have to beat, but the news today sure makes it look that way!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* From Wikipedia: The nuclear option is a phrase used to refer to a proposed change in the U.S. Senate rules to prevent the filibuster of judicial confirmations. Along with the term Constitutional option, it is an American political code word used during the 2005 judicial confirmation political fight.
Currently, Senate rules allow any member to prevent a confirmation vote of a Presidential appointee by staging a filibuster. The filibuster can be overridden by a three-fifths majority (60 out of 100 senators) vote via a cloture motion. The nuclear option would allow a simple majority (50 out of 100 senators, plus the Vice President) to end a judicial filibuster. Once cloture is achieved, the nominee would be confirmed or rejected by a simple majority vote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen Here for the audio version of today's George Blog
posted by George Woods | 4:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home