When will Edwards drop out and who should I vote for?

Since Chris is making fun of Fred! I’ll make fun of the Breck Girl. It seems the fewer votes he gets, the more he sounds like he just won the nomination in his concession speeches. I think Mary Katherine Ham put it best when she said Edwards remains in the race because he has nothing better to do. Seriously John, give it up.

With that out of the way I’ll say that yes I wanted Fred Thompson in the race because we needed a candidate who could clearly articulate a conservative message, could unite the GOP and had a chance to win in November. I’ve been disappointed in how Thompson has performed and flirted with supporting Huckabee.

Karl Rove described the GOP race well when he said most Republicans could see themselves voting for about three or four of the top candidates. That’s certainly true for me with one exception – John McCain. I’m not trying to start a fight with my friend Bull Moose but McCain really rubs me the wrong way. My problem with McCain is summed up by saying he spends most of his time praising his Democratic opponents and attacking his friends.

What’s a guy like me to do? Thompson may not be in the race on February 5 and I’m not convinced Huckabee has the money and organizational strength to challenge McCain nationwide. Rudy’s plan to wait for Florida most likely won’t work and he’s certainly not a conservative alternative to McCain. Therefore, I’m left with Romney as the anti-McCain. Romney has the money to last and as things stand now, he leads the delegate count. Sure he’s changed his position on several issues, but he’s unlikely to change back at this point. So, if the vote were taken in Georgia today, I’d be voting for Mitt Romney.

63 comments

  1. Bull Moose says:

    Buzz, what have you been drinking?

    Mitt “Take a new position everyday” Romney cannot win in November against the Democrats.

    Sorry buddy, but he can’t.

    We need to elect someone who can attract Independents to our party, John McCain can. We need to elect someone who can attract Conservative Democrats to our party, John McCain can.

    A vote for Romney is a vote to elect a Democrat in November 2008. Sorry, but it’s true.

  2. CHelf says:

    “Sure he’s changed his position on several issues, but he’s unlikely to change back at this point.”

    Just curious but does changing positions on quite a few issues within the past few years not amount for anything? I can understand one or two issues. But from gay rights, gun control, abortion, Bush’s tax cuts, etc. I’d say that’s Extreme Makeover material. And didn’t he slam Reagan and Bush and recently praise McCain? Now he’s changed on those positions as well. He’s raised taxes and fees in MA but claims to be a fiscal conservative. He claims to want to fight for every job and says every job is worth it but has made his fortune on being an axe man. There’s nothing wrong with bringing profit to failing companies but just don’t claim to have a desire to fight for every job when you’ve never had a history of doing so. I agree with Erick’s previous post. Can we afford to put the future of the party AND the nation on someone who has no consistent legacy? It’s hard to put faith in someone who claims to recently have seen the light and has no established history to prove it. Would we afford this same ‘trust’ for anyone else? Or are we as a party just saying we’ll have to ‘settle’ for someone unproven? The Dems are using the word HOPE for America as a whole with a dim look on economic issues. Some in the GOP are using HOPE on the party’s voice with someone with little to no credentials. I prefer a known commodity in this time of trial. I cannot risk this on a period where America faces tough trials both on economic issues and on foreign policy.

  3. waterboy says:

    CHelp – since you write as though you are an expert on political actions by the presidential candidates, perhaps you can highlight some actions by Romney….yes, ACTIONS…that show your supposed concerns for his leadership. I have heard nothing but praise for the way he led Mass as Governor and as the head of the Olympic Games. Romney does indeed have a consistent legacy – his legacy is one of competence and something Republicans ca be very proud of. I know the truth and I’m happy to join with Buzz in support Mitt Romney for President.

  4. Bull Moose says:

    Um, wow, not sure what to say…

    Romney saw what happened to George Allen and his failure to win reelection and decided not to risk it by running again in MA. He would not have been reelected.

    Also worth noting are that all the former GOP Governors of MA are not supporting him. Swift supports McCain and Celluci is supporting Rudy. Not sure who Weld is supporting.

    Romney is the path of defeat.

  5. souldrift says:

    I’m with Bull Moose here. As a Democrat, i’d consider voting McCain. No way on earth would I vote for Romney.

    Same with Obama and Clinton, really – some Republicans might consider Obama, but wouldn’t think of voting Hillary.

    Think about it.

  6. CHelf says:

    Well waterboy, I mentioned something above. But I will repeat. He raised fees on drivers licenses, marriage licenses, and gun permits. THAT is the same as raising taxes. I’m not sure how raising fees on the taxpayers would be considered conservative. After the flak that Huckabee has taken for such actions, nothing is said for Mitt’s own. He cuts over $140 million in one swipe for higher education. Schools had to raise tuition rates on its students to make up for the shortfall. The tax burden for people in MA increased while he was in office. So the same arguments used to attack Huckabee are given a pass when it comes to Mitt. Add to the fact he has been on both sides of the issue on abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc. and supports NCLB I’d say there is NOT consistency there. So waterboy, I do have legitimate concerns. I’ve been told by many within MA and within the GOP there that he does not have a conservative history. So feel free to read my original post and this and let me know where I am wrong. I’m more than willing to give Mitt the benefit of the doubt but when confronted with facts of what he did in MA and hearing comments by many conservatives in MA, I still don’t feel he is conservative. His own people say he has recently seen the light. So I am not sure how a recent convert even by his own supporters’ standards can be deemed consistent. As I said before, we are facing trying times both economically and security-wise. I need to know what I am getting. I need to know that what someone says is backed up with a legacy. As Erick has said, I’m happy if Mitt is a newly converted conservative. Good for him on that. I will not take the “seeing the light” away from him. But I only ask for someone with no doubts as to what we will have hopefully for the next 8 years.

  7. BubbaRich says:

    Buzz:

    I think it’s a good thing to say when your political opponents do something smart, and when your political allies do something stupid. I know it’s not politics, especially in the Bush administration (when the best signal of a huge mistake or crime is a Presidential Medal of Honor or becoming Attorney General), but most Americans see it as a good thing to do.

    It may be that Rove spreading lies about him in 2000 and painting him as the Manchurian Candidate is actually helping him now. South Carolina, at least, seems to feel guilty for believing that he fathered a black baby out of wedlock. Or they might be thinking that, even if that were true, he couldn’t be worse than the last choice.

  8. IndyInjun says:

    I cannot stomach McCain for the reasons of his love of amnesty, his coziness since 2002 with Bush, and his devotion to a ruinous war that drained our ability to deal with the real enemy – the Sunni terrorists of Osama Bin Laden entrenched in Pakistan – and the nation that truly fit the Bush criteria for war with Iraq in every detail.

    I cannot stomach Huckabee by reason of his lying about his record, his weakness on illegal immigration, and his promotion of a con job masquerading as tax reform. If there has ever been a false prophet, he is it.

    I cannot stomach Romney for he spins like a weather vane in a tornado, he talked out doubling Gitmo, and he holds no allegiance to fiscal responsibility.

    Julie Annie has never been under consideration for he is an enemy of the Constitution.

    I did not really like Fred Thompson, but could have voted for him.

    Ron Paul was too old, had too many unrealistic ideas that sprang from really excellent ones, and his campaign fund raising bonanza came too late to capitalize on. I really liked his plans to end the Iraq misadventure PRONTO, sound money, love of the constitution, and his real desire to slash government. Alas the country is too jaded, too corrupt and too addicted to forces that will destroy it and do so a lot faster than most realize.

    To speed the death of the GOP and a conservative rebirth, I guess a vote for Hilllary is not out of the question.

  9. waterboy says:

    Chelf – If fees for services are not adjusted to keep up with the cost of providing services then government has to subsidize them….not exactly a Republican thing either. Fact is that it costs more to do business today then it did 30 years ago and Romney didn’t want to see tax dollars cover the gap. I have no problem with that, but I guess you think it is fine for government to cover costs at the taxpayers’ expense. Not sure what you are talking about regarding gay rights, gun control, abortion, Bush’s tax cuts, etc. I think you’ll find that Romney did not legalize gat marriage, take guns away, encourage abortions or fight Bush’s tax cuts (like McCain did). You should try supporting your candidate of choice with facts and quit spewing your tainted viewpoint with candidate spin. It’s old…surely you can do better.

  10. John Konop says:

    Is it better to balance the budget and raise taxes or lower taxes without proper spending cuts and drive out of control debt? Pay as you go was a cornerstone that drove fiscal conservative support.

  11. CHelf says:

    Waterboy – so are you saying it is completely acceptable to increase government fees to pay off growth of government? Are you condoning raising fees and taxes under the auspices of adjusting for inflation? I seriously doubt that in four years Mitt could not find cuts in other areas to prevent raising fees on licenses and permits and raising the gas tax in MA as well. His record is crystal clear. He raised the tax burden. The state tax burden increased while he was in office. But he proclaims to be the man to cut waste. If waste was cut why were fees raised? The ONLY reason he obtained a budget surplus one year was due to the increases in the fees and taxes. Keep in mind that while governor, people and jobs left the state as well. Does one who espouses to not only save jobs but create them allow for jobs and people to leave? Manufacturing jobs plumetted while he was governor. Government jobs on the other hand increased. Is increasing the size of government a conservative position? Are you telling me that Mitt SUPPORTED Bush’s tax cuts? Are you telling me he NEVER stated he would not be a cheerleader for tax cuts he disagrees with? Both the Club For Growth and the Boston Globe indicate that Mitt was not a fan of the Bush tax cuts when they were made. There is no spin there. Mitt made the statement and even conservative sources have confirmed it. Are you also telling me Mitt never changed positions on any of those issues? In MI, Mitt hit McCain on the loss of jobs issue claiming to “fight for every job” and attacked McCain for being realistic. As governor Mitt said “I’m not happy exporting jobs but we must move ahead in technology and patents. I don’t like losing any jobs but we’ll see new opportunities created selling products there. We’ll have a net net increase in economic activity, just as we did with free trade,” Romney said. So I have pointed out Mitt’s concerns with facts. I remind you that YOU asked ME to show my concerns. I showed my concerns over what he did or did not do as governor. Call it candidate spin and tainted all you want. But a fact is a fact. Everything I’ve stated can be backed up and Mitt’s own words are the source for many. You cannot do better than the truth.

  12. Bull Moose says:

    Not only do I think Mitt Romney is a “finger in the wind” type of Republican, but I think it shows poor character the way that he has handled his campaign.

    He completely violated President Reagan’s unofficial 11th Commandment several times.

    Electing Romney will ensure that we have a Democrat in the White House. I’m still puzzled why people like Jack Kingston and others endorsed him…

  13. waterboy says:

    chelf – you are just a political hack. Feel free to spew all you like…it won’t matter. I know the truth and the facts show it in the popularity and success that is Mitt Romney. You are beyond reason and just a schoolgirl whiner. You vote your way and I’ll vote mine. Now, go play with your dolls.

  14. waterboy says:

    Moose – don’t worry about Kingston, Gingrey, Price et al endorsing Romney. You better worry about getting your dude elected in a state that body-slammed McCain the last time he ran in GA.

  15. CHelf says:

    Note the nastiness when someone points out Mitt’s past. I’ve noticed a recurring theme with Mitt’s supporters when you even use Mitt’s own words to show his inconsistencies. Mitt said himself that he would not support the tax cuts and even earned the praise of Barney Frank. Then he comes out at McCain and says the following: “He voted against the Bush tax cuts — twice,” Romney said. “That’s failing Reagan 101. (Ronald) Reagan taught … almost all of us in the Republican Party that lowering taxes would grow the economy and was good for our economy and good for individuals. And I believe that the Republicans are going to nominate a tax-cutter to become president of the United States.” It’s amazing how someone who raises fees and taxes in MA can get away with making that statement. Call me a hack all you want but it’s only Mitt’s own words and actions you have to argue against. If you think these quotes are untrue, by all means please show me where Mitt did not raise ANY taxes and fees and ALWAYS supported the Bush tax cuts, I will retract my statements. But I find it odd to attack someone for taking a position but taking the same position yourself. And resorting to childish insults when proved wrong? I guess that is the logical way to debate.

  16. waterboy says:

    Rome – I’m talking about 2000 GA Pres Primary. McCain got 28% to Bush’s 67%.
    CH – You are not debating…just bickering. I’m not wasting my time with you about what Romney did to pull his state out of a deficit and end with a surplus…while bringing jobs back to Mass. You see it different because that is what is convenient for you and helps you justify your political candidate selection. That is childish.

  17. CHelf says:

    Bickering? And I guess calling people the kind of names I hear at my five year old daughter’s school is debating? I’ve backed up what I have stated. I’ve asked you to show me where I was wrong. I even stated I would retract anything proven wrong. I’ve given you and Mitt the benefit of the doubt even after using his quotes. And your response is to go elementary school on me here. I’m not sure how facts are childish and making insults and not backing up your position is classic debate. I guess you’ll continue insults and not back up your argument and I’ll toss out more Mitt quotes. At the end of the day, I guess you’ll still back Mitt and I won’t.

  18. Ms_midtown says:

    I went to the Edwards rally Saturday. He looked energetic, and having fun. He also draws a different crowd into the party than Hillary or Obama.
    I think Edwards stays in to the end. Not that he should, but he was enjoying that crowd too much to walk away to oblivion ( or a cabinet post ).

  19. DoubleDawg3 says:

    Mitt ROmney is a fine Conservative, seems to be a good man, and certainly has the won to compete in every single state (has ANY candidate ever run $1+ million of ads in Alaska or Hawaii – Romney could and probably will – just b/c he can) …the biggest problem with Mitt Romney – he’s got no chance in hell of winning in November. THe nation is looking for a candidate of change – they’re sick of the administration right now – Romney, whether he is or isn’t, appears to too many average citizens to be exactly like the guys we’ve got in charge now (when, truth be told, I”m sure Romney is a far better man that Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, etc. – plus, he wouldn’t have to use the White House to make $$$ – since he’s already got $$$).

    But – that’s the fault with Romney — in the time of a recession, do you think the average voter is HONESTLY going to believe what the $200+ millionaire is saying about trying to improve conditions for the middle class — It’ll take a LOT of money to make that argument convincing (maybe more than Mitt has to spend).

  20. DoubleDawg3 says:

    sorry, the “certainly has the won to compete” above, should say “certainly has the money to compete”

  21. waterboy says:

    DoubleD – yep, I wouldn’t want a guy who has been successful in business, has a strong family and success in the public service (Olympics and Governor) to lead my country during a slowing economy and declining trust in government…. wait a minute – YES I WOULD. The notion that he can’t beat the Dems is insane…and a bountiful dose of wishful thinkin on your part.

  22. Holly says:

    I think that McCain won SC for two reasons:

    1. There is a higher per capita of servicemembers in South Carolina than in any other state.

    2. Thompson pulled votes from folks who would’ve likely supported Huckabee (more likely) or Romney (less likely) if he had not been in the race.

    I do not think Romney will win a single southern state in the primary. I could be way wrong, but I think too many people see him as a “slick Willy” type – say anything to get elected. I know that’s the impression I get from him, and given his performance in SC and with the other comments on this board, I know I’m certainly not alone in my opinion.

  23. heroV says:

    Bull Moose: As an independent, I can say without equivocation that John McCain would attract me to the Republican party, moreso than the present Democrat frontrunner. I don’t support many of his statements about the war in Iraq, but I do believe that he is the best equipped to get us out properly, because no matter who is President I think it will take years to get our troops out.

  24. DoubleDawg3 says:

    Waterboy, you’re the one conveniently overlooking the facts here.

    I’m not saying that Mitt Romney isn’t a great example of how much we can achieve in this country, I mean, basically everything he’s touched has turned to gold, but the HONEST fact is that Mitt ROmney didn’t exactly start out at the same spot in the road that the average citizen does — He was the son of a Governor, attended Harvard, etc. – Point being, still, Mitt Romney might be the best “financial mind” in the race, but John Doe that works at the local hardware store isn’t likely going to buy Mitt Romney talking about how much he cares about the middle class and understands the middle class, when Mitt Romney has never really lived it himself. That’s why I don’t think he’ll win the General. Now, I KNOW that this is no fault of Romneys, heck, his entire family has been successful – which is the product of work and intelligence, I’m sure, and we shouldn’t necessarily fault him for that – I’m just saying that it’s more difficult for Romney, than ANY other candidate, to come across as caring for the middle class (possible it’s his serious , business-like demeanor).

    Plus, if you want to look at the stats – they speak volumes in supporting the belief that I and many others share, which is that Romney does not match up well against any of the Dem candidates.

    On RCP, Clinton is averaging 51% to 39% against him, while Obama is averaging 54% to 33%, even John Edwards is averaging 52% to 36%. Romney’s comparisons to any of the 3 Dem candidates are the WORST of all the major GOP candidates, Fred Thompson included.

    What’s even more alarming about this, is that while normally anyone could simply say that their candidate is not well know right now, hence his low polling #’s in the head-to-head matchups, this does NOT hold true for Mitt Romney. I mean, lets look at it – he’s from Mass., so they know him. He’s invested significant amounts of money into television and print advertising in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Wyoming, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida. WAY BACK in November in 2007, Romney had already purchased over $10 million in tv ads. So, Mitt Romney’s not exactly an “unknown” candidate…which makes those head-to-head numbers a little tougher to swallow (even considering how relatively unimportant h-to-h’s are in January).

  25. John Konop says:

    I do think McCain does sell better to independents and Dems if he is running against Hillary not Obama. The big problem for McCain is the economy which was demonstrated in Michigan.

    McCan is pro-outsourcing, pro flooding the country with cheap foreign workers with limited rights and trade agreements that promote slave labor conditions. This may work against Hillary because she backs the same policy.

    The strange part is Hillary and McCain agree on most issues when get past the spin.

    They both have the same voting record on key issues.

    No Child Left Behind ie Education

    Immigration

    Trade

    Iraq

    Iran

    The biggest difference is healthcare. And Hillary supports Romney’s idea of mandatory pay.

  26. Jace Walden says:

    Mr. NoTubesLikeYouTubes (Buzz),

    I don’t hear many candidates calling for a permanent occupation of the Middle East. You probably shouldn’t support any of them. 😉

  27. BubbaRich says:

    IndyInjun:

    McCain is not for amnesty. It’s interesting that some wingnuts are trying to redefine that word until it means “not shooting suspected illegal immigrants on sight.” I haven’t heard anyone in favor of amnesty, except for a few left-fringe talkers.

  28. StevePerkins says:

    Everything that the GOP grassroots hates about McCain illustrates everything that I hate about the GOP grassroots. McCain “rubs you the wrong way” because he’s cozy with enemies and critical of friends? That’s the problem with partisan activist types, they tend to view politics is a glorified college football game… the thought of the two sides working WITH each other doesn’t fit in the paradigm.

    However, the 1/4 to 1/3 of the country who self-identify as independent (and who ultimately decide elections) generally think that view is retarded. We WANT our leaders to work across the aisle with each other, not be at odds for no reason other than party affiliation. We WANT our leaders to question horrible decisions, rather than look the other way in the name of party unity (i.e. the six year of Congress being Bush’s lapdog which cost the GOP control). We know that the gridlocked party bickering is a setup to keep the dumb marks in line and the money flowing, without leaders having to do anything while in office.

    As for the “amnesty” hoopla, more people in the GOP leadership need to have the balls to stand up and acknowledge that this is nonsense. If paying massive fines, leaving the country for a year, and going to the back of the line for citizenship equals “amnesty”… then most convicted felons receive something better than “amnesty” every day. Immigration is such a polarizing issue… some people want completely open borders, some people want zero non-white immigrants allowed at all… neither side can realistically expect to get anywhere close to exactly what they want. I respect McCain for working across the aisle to put together the best approach possible (which was NOT “amnesty”), even though he knew he would catch hell for getting off his ass to try. Not enough other politicians were willing to be leaders as well, so it fell through and the problem festers (and now will probably be addressed by a Democratic government that will be even less favorable to GOP desires).

    McCain is not liked because he actually has his own brain, and has the courage to lead, rather than just hanging on the bandwagon and singing college fight songs like most grassroot activists. If that repels you, then I suppose Romney does represent the epitamy of the opposite perspective. Personally though, if a GOP voter is having to scrape that far down the bottom of the barrel to find their vote, I’d have more respect for them simply voting in the Democratic primary to try and influence the race there in a more favorable direction.

  29. Steve,

    There’s a big difference between working with the other side for the good of all and sacrificing conservative principles in order to get a bill passed. I see McCain as having done the latter far too often.

  30. IndyInjun says:

    Bubba, Steve –

    The immigration bill is actually not my primary difficulty with McCain as sending 20 million folks back is not realistic. Fining and imprisoning their employers would achieve the same thing.

    The GOP ‘base’ feels strongly that McCain did support amnesty and no amount of arguing will change that.

    My issue with McCain is his selling out to the worst POTUS in US history and his idiotic comments about being in Iraq for 100 years. Our collapsing debt will make the foreign misadventures quite impossible, unless we actually start using our military force to seize what we need which is principally oil.

    The ‘base’ won’t accept his embrace of tax increases either, but that is actually not one of my objections.

    Ron Paul was the only candidate who could keep me voting GOP after 36 years and I am now aboard the “send the GOP to extinction” train. President Hillary is not so bad. The GOP is FAR worse.

    I really do not see how anyone with an ounce of principle can stand the Republican label.

  31. CHelf says:

    Buzz do you have an issue with Bush for working with Ted Kennedy on various issues? NCLB is a good example. Keep in mind Romney supports NCLB. Or at least he HAS supported it. Romney also has supported the Brady Bill, abortion, etc. As governor, if he were conservative, he sacrificed conservative principles to approve legislation, budgets, etc. If you have a problem with this concept then how can you support Romney?

  32. StevePerkins says:

    Buzz –

    That’s absolute nonsense. “Work with the other side, just don’t ever compromise with them” is just a superficially respectable way of saying “Don’t ever work with the other side”. What exactly does “work with” MEAN?

    Indy –

    You touch upon why I respect McCain. Half the people don’t like him because he opposed Bush one time too many, the other half don’t like him because he supported Bush one time too many. Impressively, McCain doesn’t backpedal in front of either group. I like the fact that he thinks for himself and isn’t afraid to take unpopular stands when he believes he’s right. By the way, I like that about George Bush too. However, the difference between McCain and Bush is that the former IS willing to ultimately acknowledge when he’s wrong about something.

    The complaints over taxes are just as silly as the complaints over “amnesty”. McCain wants tax cuts tied to spending cuts, which seems like a no-brainer to me. The only thing I respect less than a “tax-n-spend” mentality is a “borrow-n-spend” mentality. At least the former is taking money from me… the latter is taking two or three times as much money from my KIDS. This is the #1 problem I have with the GOP today.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m still voting for Paul on account of the reasons suggested above. However, if a Paul nomination isn’t meant to be (and I never seriously expected that it was), then I would at least like to see McCain beat the snot out of this field of preachers and actors and opportunists.

  33. Holly says:

    CHelf, I don’t have a problem with working against the aisle, but I’m not sure NCLB is the best example to bring up when trying to make a point about it. It’s terrible legislation.

  34. Steve,

    Are you saying you can only work with the other side by abandoning your principles? I know you don’t think that. However, time after time, McCain cut and run from conservative principles for his own gain.

    Take the infamous “Gang of 14” he put together to protect the Democrat’s filibustering of Judicial nominees. Sure, it saved a few good Judges, but it threw others under the bus, and allowed the Democrats to continue to block hundreds of good nominees. The GOP was on the verge of winning that battle and McCain snatched that victory away.

    I don’t dislike McCain because he opposes Bush from time to time, I dislike McCain because he opposes conservative principles when it works to his political advantage.

  35. CHelf says:

    Holly, I agree. I was just asking if Buzz had the same disdain for the President as he does McCain. I added NCLB because Buzz’s selection supports it. I wanted to see if the argument applied across the board.

    As for the Gang concept, keep in mind had we followed the movement to end filibustering, we would not have this same tool as well. Knowing there is a risk of getting a Dem President, do you really want to eliminate the only weapon we have in case a Dem Congress and Dem President nominate liberal judges. Frankly he kept a very powerful tool still on the table. I applaud all who did so. It still gave us Alito and Roberts. And it protects us in the future if certain bad things happen.

  36. StevePerkins says:

    Oh good Lord, here we go with the filibuster. I’ll keep this one short. The filibuster is a tool used by the minority to prevent excess by the majority. Take a look at who has been in the Congressional minority for most of the past 100 years (hint: they’re back in the minority NOW). Is putting some hardcore right-wingers on the judicial bench worth destroying the only tool that the GOP wields during its periods in the minority? Would it have been worth it to give 100% free reign to the Dems after they likely keep the majority and take the White House next year? If McCain “violated conservative principle” there, it’s only because short-sightedness has become a conservative principle in recent years.

  37. Holly says:

    And I agree with all you just said, CHelf. I know that the Gang of 14 was particular to the nominees, but what if the rules had been changed? Wouldn’t it have opened the door to end the filibuster in all areas when the majority didn’t like it? The Senate is a peculiar animal, but the filibuster, while frustrating to whichever party is in the majority, is the thing that has kept so much of this year’s bad legislation from passing as the horrible legislation it started off as in the House.

  38. Before Bush took office how often were Judges filibustered? If you can find an example I’d like to see it. The “Gang of 14” prevented the Senate rules from being changed to prevent filibustering of nominees. If you’ll recall, there were many who thought what the Dems were doing was unConstitutional (Mitch McConnell was prepared to go to Court to argue just that), and McCain’s deal allowed the Dems to keep on doing it. The filibuster would have still been safe for it’s intended purpose.

    I would oppose the GOP filibustering a Judicial nominee – it’s wrong.

    I”ll bet you real money that Harry Reid would change the rules so fast it would make your head spin should the GOP try to filibuster one of Hillary’s nominees.

    And yes, I do think putting Judges who believe in the Constitution on the Bench to be a conservative principle.

  39. StevePerkins says:

    By the way, assuming that the “filibuster” and “conservative judicial nominees” are just code phrases for “overturning abortion”, take a step back for a moment. Appointments to Federal district and appellate courts aren’t going to overturn Roe v. Wade, because only the Supreme Court has the power to do that. As for the Supreme Court, by the way… out of the 7-justice majority that decided Roe v. Wade, 5 of those justices were Republican nominees.

    Get it through your heads, anti-abortion folks… your leaders are jerking you around and abortion isn’t going anywhere. A narrow majority of Americans favor abortion rights, and that becomes a significant majority when you allow for reasonable restrictions and regulations (i.e. parental notification, no partial-birth, etc). Conservative leaders know this, and aren’t going to buck that… so they just pay you lip service while avoiding “litmus tests” and nominating pro-choice judges who do the dirty work while politicians criticize them from a safe distance.

    If you wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, you could do so TOMORROW. All that’s necessary is passing legislation through Congress that would strip subject-matter jurisdiction over abortion from the Supreme Court. Perfectly constitutional. At that point, the issue could be possibly be determined by federal legislation… or more likely left to the individual states. There’s already a bill in Congress (and has been for awhile) for doing just that.

    However, the bill’s never going to go anywhere, and conservative leaders don’t even bother hyping it in vain, FairTax-style. If that bill ever came to a vote, politicians would have to actually take a stand on the record… rather than just bluster about what they wish they could do if only they had the power. Not going to happen, so we move forward with this unfortunate arrangement of deferring that legislative power to the judicial branch.

    This isn’t exactly the first or last time that the legislative branch has deferred its duty to the judiciary to avoid consequences from activists, but I’m not trying to being a Constitutional Law professor here. Suffice it to say that we don’t have abortion rights because this or that judicial nominee did or didn’t get confirmed. We have those rights because leaders want to placate the majority while retaining the support of the passionate minority. They could directly take a stand to change this at any time, yet don’t. So please spare me this neverending judicial nominee melodrama.

  40. CHelf says:

    How is it wrong to filibuster a nominee? And are you saying just because it has never been done, it will NEVER be done? Let’s look at it this way. When the threat, I repeat THREAT of a filibuster is used, the party nominating will back off a nominee. The filibuster itself does not actually have to be used. But the fact it is a tool to be used can persuade one side to change their tactics. If you take that tool away, then there is NOTHING to stop a nominee from passing through. If filibustering a nominee is unconstitutional why has it been used as a tool the history of our nation? And how can the rules be changed when there is a block ensuring it remains as is? So Buzz, at the end of the day, we still not only get conservative judges but there remains a tool in place to protect conservative options as well if need be. Again, understand the concept of deterence. Our military is based on that. We do not have to always use our military. Many will not provoke us due to the fact we have the tool at our disposal to use.

  41. StevePerkins says:

    If the Democrats take the White House, and keep their Congressional majority, and Harry Reid tries to eliminate the GOP’s filibuster power… I would be opposed to that also. Actually, I would be MORE opposed… because the Dems’ experience over the past several years should have taught them better.

    The filibuster is not a bad thing. It’s a force for moderation acting upon two parties that become more and more polarized every day. The alternative would be crazy whipsawing… with extremely left-wing legislation passing for several years, followed by extremely right-wing legislation passing for several years, repeated indefinitely. Stability in our government is better for both the economy as well as general rule of law. The U.S. Senate is more cordial and works across the aisle far better than the House does… so frankly, if you can’t get 60 votes for something in the Senate, it’s probably a lousy bill.

  42. IndyInjun says:

    CHelf – Many are encouraged to provoke us, because our “tool” is buried in the sands of Iraq.

    As for the fillibuster, the GOP has become so lamentable that the Dems may get enough seats to end every debate.

    The last lament of the scoundrels is to raise alarms over “liberal judges” but they and their choices have removed the fear factor.

    Instead of reveling in being the Majority, it would have been best to have made the majority stick to principle. As it stands now the GOP identifiers are down to 30%, soon to drop even lower.

    The BASE is a freaking joke and the INDIES rule who your lamentable nominee will be, only to later throw the worthless, stinking GOP carcass under the bus.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

    Scurry along all ye GOP partisans, y’all still have the worthless Saxby Chambliss to save, IF you can.

  43. The President nominates and the Senate gives advice and consent….not threats. The minority Party does not get to pick the Cabinet or the Judges for the majority Party. McCain would rather protect the rules of the Senate than the Constitution.

  44. StevePerkins says:

    As an aside, if we really supported our judges believing strictly in the Constitution, then Guantanamo Bay would never have been operational. For that matter, it’s possible that our past several wars would not have been fought.

    Very few people truly support freedom of speech, we just have a hard time agreeing on what to censor. Likewise, very few people truly support a strict constitutionalist view (if you did you’d probably be voting Ron Paul)… we just want judges who agree with OUR particular takes on the Constitution.

  45. Jace Walden says:

    Buzz,

    In a Constitutional Republic (which is kind of what we are), the Chief Executive NEVER has the final say. He may veto, but the “people” (House and/or Senate) can choose to override his veto. He may nominate, but the “people” have the power to turn down his nomination.

    If you had your way, the President would be able nominate a blind mute with no prior legal experience, and have a reasonable expectation of such a person being confirmed.

  46. StevePerkins says:

    Buzz… “advice and consent” means that the executive has to obtain the Senate’s consent, not that the Senate is constitutionally bound to give that consent no matter what. If the process were truly a rubber stamp, then why would the Founders bother spelling it out in the Constitution in the first place? The idea of a filibuster being unconstitutional is literally laughable.

  47. Look guys, elections are about the choices available. Romney’s not my first choice, but my first choice is about to drop out. Given the choices I have I could do as Steve suggests and vote for a Democrat, or I could choose between the two Republicans who have a shot at winning the nomination. Given the choices I have I’ll vote Romney.

  48. Holly says:

    Somewhere else I had said that I don’t think we’re getting out of Iraq soon no matter who is elected.

    Maybe I should amend that and say that Ron Paul, should be manage to be elected, would be the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who would get us out of Iraq within the next few years.

  49. IndyInjun says:

    Holly,

    We will be out of Iraq unless we start seizing the oil to pay for it. The bells of the financial apocalypse are tolling LOUDLY from the sea of corruption and the $trillions in looting and the epicenter is denominated in $US.

    The mad spending has the per capita OFFICIAL debt at $30,000 and he Iraq war will add another $5000.

    This is lunacy and it is UNSUSTAINABLE.

    Ron Paul was totally right on all accounts.

  50. John Konop says:

    The so called conservatives think we can spend 9 billion a month forever in Iraq. The Middle East leaders are laughing at us all the way to the bank while oil went from $20 to a $100 a barrel.

    The bottom line is we cannot afford this nation building strategy. The real issue is both sides do not want to tell the American people that a containment strategy is the best hope we have. And we must get off Middle East oil ASAP and this means sacrifice from everyone.

    Can any of you NEOCONS tell us how we pay for IRAQ with the 100 year plan?

Comments are closed.