home

The Sellout, Part II

All this compromise did was pass the buck to another day, while allowing three extremist judges to be elevated to lifetime appointments on federal appeals courts.

"I think they did what the Senate very often does," said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University and a longtime student of the Senate. "They kicked the can down the road. They basically postponed a crisis and set up the predicate for another one in the future on the Supreme Court nomination."

Check the language of the compromise. Check Sen. Mike DeWine's statement, with which Lindsay Graham agreed:

Some of you who are looking at the language may wonder what some of the clauses mean. The understanding is – and we don’t think this will happen – but if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that’s not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option.

The Washington Post article linked above makes it clearer:

Republicans reserve the right, individually, to support the nuclear option if they believe Democrats are abusing the agreement. Democrats said the final language on that point is closer to what they had wanted. But at the news conference, DeWine explicitly said that if the agreement breaks down, Republicans in the group feel free to support the use of the nuclear option.

The presidential election is in November, 2008. Inauguration is January, 2009. If the Republicans win a majority in the Senate in 2006, they can re-launch the nuclear option in early 2007, and we're back to square one. If they win the nuclear option then, Bush is free to name Supreme Court justices for the duration of 2007 and all of 2008 - without a filibuster -- while we're stuck with Owen, Rogers Brown and Pryor and who knows who else on the appeals courts.

All this did was pass the buck to the next congress - yet Democrats are stuck with 3 judges we could have filibustered if we held out. Reid had 49 votes - I think he had the extra two and we would have defeated the nuclear option and Owen, Rogers Brown and Pryor. I think Frist knew it which is why he gave in. You don't think he leaned on the indecisives and made them tell him privately what they were going to do? You don't think they told him, "Don't do this, You can't count on me?"

I don't believe Arlen Specter or John Warner would have voted for the nuclear option. They have been Senators too long and the Senate as an institution is too engrained in them. They, and possibly a few others, care more about preserving their Senate Club than they do anything else. They would not have voted for a rule of order that would have bypassed Senate Rules and 200 years of Senate tradition.

Also, keep in mind, the compromise is is not a bill that passed the Senate, went on to the House, was signed by the President, and became law. This is a piece of paper signed by 14 Senators expressing their commitment to vote a certain way. 86 Senators were not a party to the agreement and are not bound by it. The Senate leaders, Frist and Reid, are not bound by it. Today, these 14 Senators banded together as an oligarchy, and agreed not to change the Senate rules, provided all 100 of them act in good faith. As soon as one believes another has not acted in good faith, he or she is free to re-launch the nuclear option.

I am reconsidering one conclusion from my earlier observation: While this is a win for Bush and the Federalist Society and Dobson, this might not be a win for Frist. Dobson's press release criticizing Frist came so soon after the announcement of the compromise, that I'm wondering whether Dobson had already abandoned Frist - probably at the moment it became clear Frist couldn't muster the 51 votes, even with Cheney. Frist may be toast in terms of future aspirations, but from a practical standpoint, it makes no difference. Dobson and the radical right fringe will find another errand boy and the move towards a theocracy will continue.

One more thing: This played out in almost the exact scenario I warned against last week, so why am I so surprised and disappointed? After outlining the terms of the compromise, I said,

Centrism never works, in my opinion. It's like a divorce settlement. Afterwards, both sides felt they gave too much. And there's not even a judge to blame.

Sometimes it's better to just roll the dice. So everyone, whichever side you are on, call your senators and tell them, No Retreat, No Surrender.

Maybe activism doesn't work either. Many on both the right and the left today feel betrayed. It seems like we all got tooled. By 14 centrists, no less.

< Feingold: One Senator Who Hasn't Lost His Marbles | Al-Zarqawi Injured? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    It's going down the toilet, PPJ...and only the neocons haven't admitted it yet...big surprise...

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Jim, please shut down the bbq stand for a year and sign on to drive trucks or change tires or something in Iraq. They desperately need your keen intellect and optimism. If you true believers don't get over there and make it happen, you are setting up the failure of this magnificent war. You are letting this war be lost by sitting back here when your obvious enthusiasm is so badly needed in the fledgling democracy. I will chip in on your plane ticket. Please go and bring back victory.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Blagh's in for a sawbuck...

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    I'm in for a sawbuck too. BTW, There are no conventional battles in this type of war. Lets see, we've been there 2 years and can't secure the 6 mile road to the airport. We can't keep Baghdad clear of insurgents or safe for its citizens. We can't keep member os the government from being killed. I'm starting to think that Bush doesn't give a crap. I beginning to think that what he is going to try is bring all the troops onto a few highly fortified bases sit back and watch the Iraqis kill each other and then fight who ever is left for the oil.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#39)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    “If you true believers don't get over there and make it happen, you are setting up the failure of this magnificent war.” I’ll extend the same offer to all you gits who bellyached about the US’s failure in Somalia while proposing intervention in Darfur. I have two shotguns and one handgun that I will lend out for your term in the region. Now be honest, the TL archives are full of you folks challenging the pro Iraq invasion folks to step up. Do I have any takers or are you all finally going to put this hypocritical hackneyed rhetoric out of my misery?

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#40)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Shorter Pigwiggle, If you like to eat apples so much why don't you like oranges too you hypocrites.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#41)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    This has gotten far of field; I’ll save my retort for an open thread. But Che, give this a bit more thought. Really, how would you be unique in asking others to die for your pet cause?

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#29)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Blag - Still making things up, I see, since I didn't make a c0omment about Canada. As for war making, well, we're great at defeating armies, but since we often fight with one arm tied behind our back, smallish groups give us fits. Especially when they are being encouraged by what they hear from our Left. But don't demean your own. I've don't joint ops with them, and they always carried their own water. et al - The compromise was between 7 Repubs, and not the Senate leadership. So the nuclear option is still on the table, and to keep it off you must now satisfy five Repub Senators. A task that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Especially when they realize just how badly they have screwed up.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#30)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    “And your President never did get around to thanking us for taking in thousands of stranded American fliers on 9/11...” Well, let me be the first. To all those vested in the Canadian hospitality business, thanks for accepting all those US dollars. Sheesh … Can I get a plug for Philip Morris and Kraft for all the food and smokes that were sent to those wayward folks as well? Sound like the beginning of a bad joke, “how do you get an American to stay for a week in Canada?”

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#31)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    So the war is going badly and its the Left's fault. PPJ you have no shame. meanwhile the military in Iraq are blaming it on a lack of boots on the ground. So predictatble so pathetic

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#32)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    SD - No, the war isn't going badly, and no the war isn't the Left's fault. But, it is a fact that is as obvious as a zit on a teenagers nose on prom night that the terrorists now understand they can only win through a political settlement, and they have adapted the Vietnam model, depending on you to do your part. Can they count on you?

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#33)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Yes the war is going very badly see the article up further.
    now understand they can only win through a political settlement
    This is not news, this has always been the plan. If the US loses it will be for the simple reason there were not enough troops committed to the fight and because they have acted as colonial occupiers and have alienated most moderates with their over the top methods that even the British think are self-defeating.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#34)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:25 PM EST
    SD - Within wars there are battles and events. I know you want to believe that the war`is going badly, but using "events" is not an accurate or logiocal measurement.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#1)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    As I listened to the Senators speaking live (the screen said they were live so I must believe it), the new phrase that stuck out was this good agreement. A self congratulation ans self loathing mixed with a tiredness leaves us with Janice Rogers Brown on the bench, with Priscilla Owens on the bench to rule for life or more likely for death or for property. Harry Reid says he can finally sleep. Others will not sleep so easliy.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#2)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    TL wrote: "Maybe activism doesn't work either." If "activism" means "calling Democratic senators" then certainly that does not work--it is a waste of time. It is urgent to draw political conclusions from the behavior of of the Democratic Party during the last years. It is necessary to build a party representing the working class against both parties of the oligarchy.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    "It is necessary to build a party representing the working class against both parties of the oligarchy." No. It is necessary to build an effective second party that represents the interests of Americans. No one wants to see the Senate destroyed. Therefore, the Democrats should have called Frist's bluff. Instead of a nuclear option, we'll have death by a thousand cuts with the result the same: a neutered Congress.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#4)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    If you do not like what the Senate did, you show push for the repealing of the 17th amendment. Originally Senators were appointed by the states to be the states representatives in the federal gov't. The 17th Amendment changed that. By repealing the 17th amendment, the states once again would have some say in DC and it would put a halt to the unfunded mandates from the feds. And this episode may have never happened.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#5)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    How would repealing the 17th amendment have affected this at all? The state legislatures are elected via the same money machine that elects the Senate under the current system. And the 17th amendment was passed, in part, because some state legislatures were failing to appoint senators at all. How would having no representation be better than having representation elected by popular vote?

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    It is necessary to build an effective second party that represents the interests of Americans.
    Nice words but how? The defining moment for me was the vote for the bakruptcy bill where many Dems rolled over for the big corps. When the Dems called me for my annual doanation I told them no, that they no longer represented my interests. I will provide money to select candidates if I'm convinced they will advocate for me and not the big corps. However, I truly feel the system is broken. The people only count when their vote is needed. Other than election day they are not important what is important is who provides the big bucks. Even if you were to get a candidate into the primaries you could support the media backed by the corps and special interests will destroy them. So to sum up we are f**ked. Only a series of catastophic events such as a collapsed economy will jar enough people away from the conventional thinking that reform might be possible depending on how bad the election process is corrupt. Of course a governement with no checks and balances may decide that such a diaster requires that they exert special powers "for the good of the country"

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    And that collapsed economy is rapidly coming, Soccer-Dad...it doesn't take a mathemetician to figure out that America's debt, like everyone else's, will have to be paid as most of it is foreign-held debt...so no writing this off... It's amazing how many people clammer for a tax break even while cheering on the money-hole in Iraq...who's going to pay for it all? Someone will, and if it ain't you, it'll be your kids...and when the bill comes due, America's in for a world of hurt... Slightly off-topic, but how important is a freakin' filibuster next to trillions of dollars of debt? Great point, soccer...

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Did Blagh really write "clammer" instead of "clamor" or "clamour?" He's going back to bed...see you all in a few hours...

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    I think you are making a bunch of questionable assumptions here. 1) How do you know Frist didn't have the votes for the nuclear option? 2) How do you know that Frist, if he didn't have the votes, had the "centrists" do his dirty work? It sure seems, by the reaction of his theocrat allies that the compromise was truly Satan's work. And I don't think they're feigning outrage either. This was a total power grab and they lost. 3) How do you know that Brown and Owen will even win an up-or-down vote (Lindsay Graham suggested on MSNBC that at least one will probably not win an up-or-down vote on the floor)? Consider this before writing the whole deal off as a big loss for progressives.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lora on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    I agree with soccerdad. And the more I look and read, the more I'm convinced that the electoral process is corrupt. The democrats have allowed the republicans full power now. Their protests and compromises are simply for show. I can only guess that they have put self-interest over what's good for our country. They must be very afraid that the repubs will attack them personally and politically and are not up to the fight. And I'm not sure how many of us would be, with the republican smear machine or worse ready to go into action against any who might actually stand up to their grand plan. I guess this to be the case because it has happened with frightening frequency over the past few years and has been very effective. I was going to call the democrats cowards, and maybe they are, but if you or I were in their shoes and you were looking at potential ruin, would you have the guts to continue? And I think if anyone actually tries to fix the electoral process, and any semblance of an honest election were to threaten those in charge, I think a nice crisis or two might just be created for those special powers to be invoked. I've never been this cynical or despairing of the democratic process in this country before. I am now. I do not think what I've said is off base. I wish it was.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#11)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Blagh When the Comptroller General of the US was asked last week how he viewed the future of the economy his one word answer was Argentina

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Soccerdad: How to build a second party? Here's one way: I won't give money directly to the Democrats anymore (after donating some $7000 that I couldn't afford in the last cycle). I'm going to donate to MoveOn (or a similar group) and let them donate to the candidates they believe best represent my interests. My hope is that the financial clout that MoveOn has will either force serious change in the Democrats or lead to the formation of a new party. If MoveOn decides to become a part and runs a slate in New York, I'll pull the lever on the MoveOn slate. If the same candidates are running as Democrats (in New York, a candidate can run on more than one party, eg. Democrat and Liberal), it will send a powerful message. By linking both funds and voting behavior to an organization that represents my interests, I believe I can best work towards a genuine second party. Whether that is a renewed Democratic Party or some other organization doesn't matter in the slightest.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    And that should scare the beejeezus out of every American under 60... The problem is the complacency that Empire brings, and which eventually brings about the fall of empire. Empires are not conquered- they collapse beneath their own weight. To have a President handing out tax breaks and having done what he did to Medicaid, and what he proposes to S.S. boggle the mind...is no one paying attention? The Iraq War has already cost more than $350 Billion...now tell Blagh, was it worth it? 1,700 dead soldiers, 15,000 more maimed, billions more going to Halliburton, and the government's budgets break records for deficits every year... It's going to be ugly...Blagh feels it's already too late, as the baby-boomer generation never saw a free lunch they didn't take...and this deficit thing is their free lunch on their kids' money...the bill is already rising because of the falling dollar (most of the debt will have to be paid in foreign currency...the less yours is worth, the more you owe...), and when the rest of the world says, "US Dollar? Nah, give me the yen or the yuan," the cycle will be complete... Anyone who doesn't fear this didn't live through the last Depression, which was less than a eighty years ago...how soon we forget... So you all can cry about the filibuster fight...America's in far worse trouble than that....

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    What would have been wrong with a confrontation over this. Pride at being Uriah Heep..wow another great moment for Joe Lieberman. And John McCain is not a liberal Republican.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    I would be telling a huge lie if I said I thought Democrats would have really stuck to their guns and confronted the Repuglicans head on, but oh well. It is nice too see that finally both sides have been given a great example of how our respective political parties are not working with our interests in mind, and I can see that in certain situations that is a good thing, but to keep their tenuous hold on power. Not to mention the fact that this does nothing to solve the problem and most certainly postpones this showdown to a later date. Both political parties screwed their constituency. How does it feel to be treated like you are inconsequential, Repugs? Now you know what Democrats have been dealing with for the last 5 years.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#16)
    by owenz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    Look, before freaking out, we really need to look at the alternatives here. What would an up or down vote on the Nuclear Option have gotten the Dems, even if they won? A public relations victory, sure, but it would not have created ANY permanent protection against the Nuclear Option. None. Let's be clear about that. The second one or two Republicans “change their mind” (or “see the light”), Frist puts it to a vote again and there goes the filibuster. The flip-flopping Republicans would face almost NO political repercussions in such a scenario. The media would portray them as reasonable statesmen who were forced to change because the Democrats forced them into it. With the current deal, at least the Republican Senators will need to repudiate a relatively clear position and go back on their word. Will that stop them if they want to switch sides? Of course not. But please, let's not sit here and act like a "victory" on straight up or down vote would have put the Dems in a substantively better position. Sure it would have stopped Owens and Brown, but the real prize is the Supreme Court nomination and the Dems would have been in the exact same - if not a weaker – position than they’re in now. I know people want the Dems to fight to the death while giving no quarter, but it doesn’t work in this situation. Think about it: we need Republicans on our side for this one. THEY hold the power, regardless of whether their assent comes in the form of an up or down vote or the current agreement. If they change their minds, we lose, either way. It really doesn’t matter what Harry Reid or any other Democrat says. Getting worked into a froth about the Dems serves very little purpose when our fate lies solely with 7 guys in the other party.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    we all got tooled - yeah, got any vaseline for next time?

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    Maybe this will cheer everyone up, from Salon.com's "War Room..." "...according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll taken Friday through Sunday...By 47%-36%, those polled say the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress. That's the best showing for Democrats since the GOP won control of both houses of Congress in 1994." Keep hope alive...Blagh's goin' fishin'....

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#19)
    by owenz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    Come on folks, let's not get short sighted here. This is NOT just another issue where a symbolic showing of unity is more important that the substantive result. This is THE issue. If there is ONE issue that Dems have to win at all costs, no matter what, regardless of their weakened state, it's the Supreme Court fight. We all know how much life will change if Bush puts two radicals on the court. Symbolism and perceived weakness don’t matter. When it comes to the Supreme Court, we either win or lose. Period. How we look doing it makes no difference. With that in mind, let's not get our panties in a bunch with this compromise. Regardless of how this thing played out, the Dems *needed* those 7 Republican senators. If we won on an up or down vote, any of the Republicans who voted with us could have simply changed their mind at any time without any political risk. The second they did, Frist would get his Nuclear Option. Now, at least, they’ve signed an agreement. At least they will be forced to repudiate the agreement if they change their mind. At least they’ll be going back on their word rather than changing their mind. At least McCain appears to have staked his ’08 bid against Frist on the agreement. Are the 7 Republicans locked in? Of course not. But I think a strong argument can be made that they’re MORE locked in than they would be if they had simply voted “nay” with the Dems. Bottom line: if the compromise helps when the Supreme Court fight comes along, it was worth it. Period. We can worry about “looking weak” or capitulating to the Republicans on less important issues. On this one, we need to do whatever it takes, even if it means looking like desperate prostitutes who will do anything for a buck. We owe it to our children’s children.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#20)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    its the bush way right to the road of the third world lies and mass murder, the USA Is dead, next stop civil, race war inside the land of freedom and total control. homeless 20 million prison system 12 million inside and outside the walls of hell. drug deals being made by bush with McCain and hamid karzai, what the joke on you. its the way of evil and bush and this non government are the most evil rats to come on earth, think what has bush told you about your coming life inside the land of freedom? you young will work 80 hours a week and pay into a system that will do you right in the end! think about doing you right in the end! "got it boys and girls", look at your life and think about what is coming. this outrage is only the start of total control of your life, do you want to live inside a bush cage?

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    Yikes....easy, Fred...the rage is well-deserved but you're gonna hurt yourself... But you're dead on...and Blagh, who spent his entire youth and most of his young adult life planning to move to the States one day, is soooo happy he didn't... And that's not gloating, folks...that's how bad things have gotten if Blagh is passing on the "American Dream" he cut his eyeteeth on.... Dark Days Ahead...

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#22)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    Blagh - As a Canadian, why are you so concerned with US politics and US debt. Perhaps you should be concered that $1 Canadian is absout 65 cents US. No, I think it is because you are seeking attention by trying to be the stinkest boy in the class, and no one really cares about Canadian politics.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#23)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    Kos argues that Reid didn't have the votes he needed, that he needed 51 and had only 49. If so, then this outcome, while deplorable, may be the best obtainable under the circumstances.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#24)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    PPJ, The Loonie (that being, yes, the accepted name for our currency) is up a little higher these days, more like 78-80 cents. [It'll go higher if resources go higher; the Asians want to buy our mines and oilco's. Remember, we got the equiv of about 3 Saudi Arabia oilpatches here and it's all quite economical at current prices, so they're sniffing around.] Me, I follow US politics cuz it's where the action is. My own country is run by a corrupt group of posers just hanging on as long as they can - the après moi, le deluge Sun Kings of the North. Ah, well. And as for BlaghDaddy, yeah, he's just doing a little moral preening, in public, of course. Hope he enjoys his fishing, tho. Can't deny anyone that.

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    wha'deh "ras" y'ah talk 'bout, Ras? Moral preening in public? Not hardly... If Blaghdaddy can't mention his Canadian heritage (first ancestor in Quebec 1700's) without PPJ making a snarky remark about it, well Blaghdaddy might just feel the need to point out to him America's many flaws, to which he might look before criticizing his neigbor...WE haven't invaded anyone, and the last time WE did, the White House got burnt... So, PPJ, if your best zinger for Canada is that they haven't invaded a country since the War of 1812, you've got us there...we don't do wars very well...but then again, neither do y'all, from what the world is seeing in Iraq... Blaghdaddy loves his American neighbours and views America as a vital part of world history (for better or worse, being the descendant of African slaves on his father's side), but anyone who can't hear criticism of their own country is no patriot- they're a bigot... So whatever you've got against Canada, PPJ, let Blagh have it...he won't run and hide the way you do...

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    And your President never did get around to thanking us for taking in thousands of stranded American fliers on 9/11... Reason? We didn't jump to put our armed forces at his command, and we told him we'd like to actually know who did it before declaring war... George didn't like that...and you know what? We'd do it again, 'cause George Bush is not America...he just thinks he is...

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#27)
    by N in Seattle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    At least there's still a can to kick down the road. If Reid hadn't been able to convince two more Republicans to vote the right way -- in fact, it's probably three more, to establish "plausible deniability" that that vote was the one that sealed the deal -- then the filibuster would be gone-gone-gone, and all of those judges would be on the bench. So too would be Chief Justice Scalia (or even Thomas).

    Re: The Sellout, Part II (none / 0) (#28)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    Michael ditto: Saves money by not having them appointed. YOu would not get these Senators stuck in position for 24 plus years if they were appointed by the states. Get some fresh blood in there.