ShamMol said: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.
ShamMol said: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.
True to their perfidious code, the Dems, on May 26th filibustered the bote on John Bolton. So much for 'moderates'.LaMidRighter said: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
Forgive me, but that deal was on judicial nominees? Oh, yes, my mistake, it was in regard to everything.Fantasea said: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.
My comments appear in bold type.ShamMol said:Forgive me, but that deal was on judicial nominees? Oh, yes, my mistake, it was in regard to everything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?