Moderates, good or bad? (1 Viewer)

[Squawker]

Fourteen "moderates" recently showed Americans they could be the deciding factor in every bill proposed from this time forward. Is this really a good thing for American politics? Do you respect the moderates in your party, or do you think they are sellouts to the cause? When politicians move to the middle to get votes, do you respect them for it, or do you just shrug it off as a way to get votes?

 

[ShamMol]

Ill post what I did post on the fillibuster and then answer.

The Republicans you speak off didn't jump ship, they preserved the tradition that is the Senate of working together. When senators die, they don't say I was a Democrat or a Republican, they say they were a United States Senator. There is pride in that tradition. How would ending fillibusters on judicial nominations been right as you put?

Did not the majority Republicans use similar tatics to deny up or down votes when they were in power when Clinton was nominating to great judges like Paez? Darn right they did. It may not have been the fillibuster, but they used the means that they had in front of them to secure the fact that these people wouldn't get votes by holding them up in committee and procedural matters-is that not the same as a fillibuster by denying a vote to a candidate? I contend it is and while I didn't like it, I accept it because that is the way the Senate has always worked.

Feel let down all you want, but this insures that there will be a check on the majority that is so sorely needed, no matter who is in control of the Senate.

I think that moderates present a check on their party's and the other party's extreme wings that is needed in politics. Without moderates, most compromises, which is one of the principles of a democracy and republic, wouldn't exist and we could say good-bye to the rights of the minority (no matter who is in control). I see moderates as good, no matter how much we disagree with their jumping ship because by that same token, our party will get some who jump ship. This stabilizing and compromising presence is a great thing for democracy in my opinion.

Onto answering the poll question...I put they vote the way they think is right but it can also be combined to hurt their party-but I see this as necessary evil in a world where moderates are needed to calm the choppy waters. They don't do it to get elected for the most part imo, but merely because that is the way they are naturally. People tend to respect that and elect that person, and that is merely a coincidence imo.

 

[Fantasea]

I believe that it is all smoke, mirrors, and eyewash. There are no teeth in the agreement and no one is bound to anything.

John Podhoretz suggests that the deal is really just a smokescreen to give both sides (mainly Democrats) political cover and avoid the Consitutional option being forced on the Dems. OK, that's not exactly what Podhoretz says but that's the inescapable conclusion if he's right:

"This deal is therefore effectively about the judges it mentions -- and about them only. Every future nomination will be decided as follows. If the Democrats insist that the next nominee(s) are bad enough to invoke the "extraordinary" right to filibuster, the Republicans have the right to say the Democrats are full of it, kill the deal and go to the nuclear option immediately."

If there is a Supreme Court vacancy and the Dems decide to claim "extraordinary circumstances" because they don't like the nominee, watch what happens.

 

[flip2]

I think that moderates present a check on their party's and the other party's extreme wings that is needed in politics. Without moderates, most compromises, which is one of the principles of a democracy and republic, wouldn't exist and we could say good-bye to the rights of the minority (no matter who is in control). I see moderates as good, no matter how much we disagree with their jumping ship because by that same token, our party will get some who jump ship. This stabilizing and compromising presence is a great thing for democracy in my opinion.

Onto answering the poll question...I put they vote the way they think is right but it can also be combined to hurt their party-but I see this as necessary evil in a world where moderates are needed to calm the choppy waters. They don't do it to get elected for the most part imo, but merely because that is the way they are naturally. People tend to respect that and elect that person, and that is merely a coincidence imo.

I actually agree. I chose that moderates vote their conscience.

 

[Nathan44]

Havn't you guys heard?

All generalizations are false.

 

[LaMidRighter]

As a rule I would say that moderates generally vote their conscience, however, I feel that the newer breed of moderates has begun to vote based on that which is politically expediant. As far as ending the filibuster against judges, the compromise was not a good decision and had nothing to offer the majority that was prepared to vote up or down on candidates as per tradition (214 years of that to be exact) I think the moderates got snow balled on this one and it will cost us all down the road, no matter which side you are on. :Oopsie
As far as filibustering, it was intended to thwart legislation and in fact has been blocked from certain instances out of necessity, unfortunately, getting people through to the courts has not met that requirement in certain eyes in the senate, and for those people, re-election should not even be a possibility. :thumbdown

 

[Fantasea]

As a rule I would say that moderates generally vote their conscience, however, I feel that the newer breed of moderates has begun to vote based on that which is politically expediant. As far as ending the filibuster against judges, the compromise was not a good decision and had nothing to offer the majority that was prepared to vote up or down on candidates as per tradition (214 years of that to be exact) I think the moderates got snow balled on this one and it will cost us all down the road, no matter which side you are on. :Oopsie
As far as filibustering, it was intended to thwart legislation and in fact has been blocked from certain instances out of necessity, unfortunately, getting people through to the courts has not met that requirement in certain eyes in the senate, and for those people, re-election should not even be a possibility. :thumbdown

True to their perfidious code, the Dems, on May 26th filibustered the bote on John Bolton. So much for 'moderates'.

The Republican moderates proved that the Democrats still know how to make fools of them.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Agreed 100%

 

[ShamMol]

True to their perfidious code, the Dems, on May 26th filibustered the bote on John Bolton. So much for 'moderates'.

The Republican moderates proved that the Democrats still know how to make fools of them.

Forgive me, but that deal was on judicial nominees? Oh, yes, my mistake, it was in regard to everything.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It was mainly about judicial nominees, but it basically concerns all of the presidents nominations.

 

[Fantasea]

Forgive me, but that deal was on judicial nominees? Oh, yes, my mistake, it was in regard to everything.

My comments appear in bold type.

Source: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000650.html

May 24, 2005
14 Senators: The Text of the Judges Deal

Here is the actual text of the "deal" between 7 Republican and 7 Democratic Senators:

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Ried, This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitment on Pending Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees: We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Prisiclla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees: Signatories make no commitment vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Meyers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit)

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations:

A. Future Nominations: Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

Note the absence of the word "Judicial" in the foregoing paragraph. The foregoing paragraph says that anyone may filibuster any nominee, at any time, for any reason. That's exactly what the Democrats did with the John Bolton nomination three days after the execution of this 'Memorandum of Understanding', isn't it? Why won't they do the same with any other of the President's nominees?

B. Rules Changes: In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We Believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive Branch of government to consult with member of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

In the foregoing paragraph, the 'moderates' are attempting to set a precedent by asking the President to do something that no president has ever been asked to do. What they are asking is the for President to get advance approval of his choices before he officially nominates them.

Such a return to the early practice of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

This has never been a practice of our government.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate seek to uphold.