5.13.05 @ 12:01AM
GOP’S LAST STAND
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell’s Filibuster Busters:
It’s ABOUT TIME! If anyone thinks the Democrats wouldn’t drop the “nuke” …”Perhaps I could interest you in a slightly used bridge?”
Let the games begin,
An excellent assessment of the pending battle. The thing I don’t understand is the conventional wisdom of the “nuclear option” for what you clearly point out is a parliamentary issue. I can think of at least two options far more radioactive:
Art II; Sec 2; cl 2 — “…but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Which would lead me to a conclusion that Mr. Frist could push a bill thru that makes the selection of District Court judges the permanent sole discretion of the President.
Art III; Sec 1 — “…and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress having the ability to establish, also has the prevue to reverse such entities and activities. So Congress could defund the 9th Circuit Court thereby forcing cases directly to the Supreme Court or other districts. Sadly we would still have to pay those presiding appellate judges to reside on their arise, as proscribed in the Section.
Either option would have far more lasting effects than what the
Senators are preparing to squabble over shortly.
— John McGinnis
At one time the House of Representatives had it’s own brand of
filibuster called the “The Silent Quorum.” On January 29, 1890 Rep
Thomas B. Reed of Maine, the Speaker of the House, began his tough
but successful effort to rid the chamber of the notorious
“disappearing quorum.” If you read the story and substitute the
Senate and assorted Senators names, the story becomes eerily
familiar in the context of the judicial filibuster. Today the House
of Representatives is governed by Reed’s Rules. If Bill Frist wants
a legacy, he should look to Thomas B. Reed for guidance. For those
not familiar with this, Rush read it on the air on May 11 and it
can be found on Internet searches and at NRO. I have been e-mailing this story out for
months. It needs to get heard.
One hopes that Mr. Tyrrell’s prescient observation on the resolve
of Senate Republicans to finally end this unconstitutional
filibuster of judicial nominees will at last come to pass. However,
as I and other readers have opined, our optimism is tempered by
past perfidy on the part of the Senate Republicans’ stable of
presidential wannabes and gadflies. As if this wasn’t enough to
give us the jitters, now on the eve of this historic vote comes Ken
Starr to offer an inane theory on Senate functionality. This former
appellate court judge fails to comprehend the essence of Mr.
Tyrrell’s brilliant piece and has fallen for the Orwellian rhetoric
of the Democrats. If Judge Starr is atwitter over arcane Senate
rules and parliamentary power plays as opposed to the Constitution,
then praytell, why is he not upset over the fact that the
filibuster is not being properly exercised? If Judge Starr wants
harmonic balance brought back to the Senate, then it’s time for the
Senate to engage in a good old fashioned 24/7 marathon until the
last senator drops. Mr. Tyrrell, if indeed you are correct and the
judicial logjam is finally broken, dinner at your favorite D.C.
restaurant is on me.
— A. DiPentima, Esq.
One thing that RET failed to mention regarding the issue of
judicial nominee filibusters. No one, and I mean no one, outside of
pundits and politicians cares about this issue. It is yet another
distraction for the Republican administration and Congress in order
to ignore the deficit, illegal immigration, out of control
spending, ethics violations, tax reform, and the lousy stock
market. Did I miss anything? So far this term, the Republicans have
focused on 11 people: 10 judicial nominees and Terri Schiavo. What
about the rest of us? The American people are waiting for the
Republicans to extricate themselves from the poetry of the campaign
(FMA, Schiavo, filibusters) and engage in the prose of governance
(deficit, tax reform, jobs, ethics). My apologies to Mr. Cuomo and
from whomever he borrowed the original adage.
— Ben Berry
I nearly busted a gut reading your column the issue before the current one!
Your commentaries on Spectator.org are similarly illuminating like today’s “Filibuster Busters.” You and I may be the only ones who think Hillary has no chance. (Of course, we’re not.)
Personally, I see a comfortable 2.5 million vote victory by
Condi and George Allen over Hillary and Mark Warner. This from
someone who predicted two terms for George W. Bush back in
— Michael Lee
Thanks to R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., my perspective has been altered, somewhat, about the Republicans’ handling of judicial filibusters. For weeks now, I have accepted the notion that my party (GOP) leaders have acted like girly-men in dealing with radical liberals in the Senate, and elsewhere. I have refused to give them money, and I have made threats to withdraw from any further support of the party until the leadership gets tough with the socialists.
Here’s a sample of an email I sent, this one of 30 April to the Republican National Committee Chairman, Ken Mehlman:
Ken, I’ve decided not to donate additional money or devote more time to the GOP until the party gets tough with liberal extremists who are currently handing us our heads. Specifically:
I want the judicial filibuster rule gone!! I want John Bolton confirmed!! I want Tom DeLay defended!! I want the same rhetoric used (without the tinge of hatred) as used by the Democrats. I want President Bush to use his bully pulpit to get tough with the opposition — to tell the people who the liberal really are, and that they care more about their power than about their country!! I want the President to stop cozying up to the likes of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy!! I want our traditional culture and values aggressively defended and preserved!! I want the current GOP girly-man approach discarded!! I want the GOP to exercise the power the people have given them — and for our top officials to take on the left, including the biased media, and treat them as they treat us — with disdain and disrespect!! Basically, I want us to start acting like we know we won most major elections in recent years, and to proceed accordingly.
Frankly, Ken, if you folks don’t get tough with these anti-American, anti-capitalism, socialists, I’m going to give up on all of you, and permanently. I sincerely mean this. This past election I gave almost $4,000 to numerous GOP candidates and groups; my family and I walked door to door in our community in support of the President and the Party; I put out massive amounts of pro-Bush/GOP email to a large list of addressees; wrote to newspapers and periodicals; etc.
I honestly did my best and was very pleased with the result we saw across the country. But, I didn’t do all that to have the GOP “mugged” in Washington.
These were heartfelt words, all, but in today’s column, Mr. Tyrrell pointed out the GOP may be executing a larger-scale plan I’ve missed, which involved getting major legislation out of the way, trying honestly to find a compromise through Senators such as Trent Lott and other, and then vigorously executing the plan to end the judicial filibustering.
I just hope it is not too late and the GOP has not already lost
the public relations war because of the aggressive propaganda
campaign by the socialists and their helpmates in the old
— A. A. Reynolds
Chula Vista, California
Fireworks in the Senate? Are you kidding? Sounds as likely as an
old folks orgy at a nursing home…
I am a dues paying member of the Republican Party of Desoto County,
Mississippi. I have emailed Senator Lott and informed him of my
“concern” about his actions helping the Democrats block judges. I
only hope that we have the opportunity to choose between Senator
Lott and our present Governor Haley Barbour in some future primary.
I know my vote will be for Haley Barbour.
LEGAL WORD BUTCHERS
Re: John Samples’s Your Blog Will Be Investigated Soon:
A great spoof on a serious subject. What this any many other examples cry out for, is an amendment to the Constitution that requires not only that English be the law of the land, but that clear meaning be the law of English. The claim that electioneering — the essence of free speech against the government — can be regulated is a preposterous reading of the First Amendment.
To illustrate how far this legal bowdlerization of language can easily go, in order to restrict air rifles in Minnesota without the bother of changing the law, an air rifle is now classified as “a firearm and not a rifle.” This is not a gray area of interpretation, or a penumbra; it is the exact opposite of reality.
We should call it the “George Orwell Amendment.”
— Tom Holzel
HOUSE OF HAIR
Re: Shawn Macomber’s Uncle John’s Cabin:
Congratulations to Shawn Macomber! The article, “Uncle John’s
Cabin,” is one of the best I’ve read in a long time. Very, very
humorous, truthful, to the point and well written. I applaud Shawn
Macomber. Keep more articles like this written and published.
— Jerrie Harper
Hilarious! Hopefully, as an evil white rich Republican (well, an evil white lower middle class Republican), I’ll never have to face the dislocation and devastation that the Edwards family has had to go thru.
In truth, Mr. Macomber has pointed his needle of truth into the
center of Mr. Edwards’s hot air balloon. Good O!
— Tim Jones
We should welcome former VP candidate John Edwards to Chapel Hill. He will be right at home. Several years ago the North Carolina legislature was debating the need for a state zoo. A national conservative leader from North Carolina, on hearing of this debate, said, “A state zoo? Why don’t they just put a fence around Chapel Hill?”
Truths are eternal.
— Louis Jenkins
Polkville, North Carolina
I would strongly object to Mr. Macomber’s suggestion that the
hungry 10 year old girl doesn’t exist. I am sure that she not only
exists, but also has been “channeled” by Att’y Edwards, who, I have
heard, has that rare ability. It isn’t the wealth that stings us
regular working stiffs, but rather, the arrogance and the
insultingly hypocritical way that people like Edwards assume that
you and I are too stupid to see through the revolting, stomach
turning dishonesty of the “two Americas” speech. How people like
Edwards, Kennedy, and the rest of the idle rich democrats can be
not just elected and re-elected, but lauded for their ‘selfless’
dedication to government service far exceeds my cognitive ability.
I do not hate the rich, and I am not overly envious of them. Do I
wish I were wealthier than I am? Emphatically, YES! I think that
that question is one that would be answered in the affirmative by
almost everyone. But please, just as the Hollywood elite ,who weep
crocodile tears for the poor while they spend excessively and
frivolously, these political barons like Edwards could do a great
deal of good if they so chose. However, that good would have to
necessarily begin with some honesty. And some respect for the
intelligence of the average American worker.
— Joseph Baum
Newton Falls, Ohio
Oh the inhumanity of it all, he can sure come to my house to see
how the “other America” lives on less than $1000 a month. I just
feel sooooooo sorry for the poor fellow having to move and then
decide which house he will be going to for the weekend. What a
joke, loved the article.
— Elaine Kyle
Cut & Shoot, Texas
Thanks for your send-up of John “Two Faces, Two Americas” Edwards. Thanks, too, for continuing to expose his embellished life.
I lived in Raleigh when Edwards and his fluffiness squeaked by
and was elected senator. It’d be easier to find the needle in a
Carolina haystack than finding someone who can tell you what he did
for the Old North State.
— C. Kenna Amos Jr.
Princeton, West Virginia
This could have been titled, “100 Acres and a Jackass.”
— Wolf Turner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
Re: Peter Hannaford’s Pajama Game:
The first thing I do each morning is read [Michelle] Malkin and
Instapundit to find out what is going on, then The American
Spectator and WSJ Opinion Journal is next and last
but not least Fox News is turned on to get the rest of the
news….FAIR AND BALANCED. I have not watched MSM for news in
— Elaine Kyle
Cut & Shoot, Texas
Re: Michael Van Winkle’s Social Security Psychology:
Unfortunately, Michael Van Winkle’s conclusion that the masses are growing to ignorant to understand the complexities of the dying social security program are all too real. Fifty percent of high schoolers are dropping out of school these days and millions have preceded them. We have millions of illegals that basically have the learning skills of the majority of their southern ancestors. Ninety percent of our esteemed minority in this country who continually vote Democrat, even when it doesn’t benefit them, want the status quo even though the majority do not live long enough to exercise the benefit they are entitled to.
When people are so ignorant that they do not even know what’s good for them, then it’s time for the rest of us to give up trying and just make sure we take care of ourselves when the time comes. Government entitlements are outrunning our ability to pay for them, unfortunately president Bush does not believe in conservative fiscal values either, therefore 20 to 40 years from now the benefits these people think they are going to get will either be nonexistent are so severely reduced we really will have retirees eating cat food for dinner. I have never believed in the ability of our government to take care of me or my family, so I have been working two jobs my whole life to support my family as they grew up and my wife and I in our retirement. We are 47 years old and have accumulated over a million dollars in liquid assets toward our retirement. My wife has always worked and like I stated I have always worked two jobs and we have always been invested in the stock markets. We studied and taught ourselves how to invest and make money. My wife has a high school education and I graduated from a state college in Texas while I worked.
People in this country have gotten lazy and expect handouts.
Anybody can work hard and take care of themselves and their family
— they just have to be willing to put out the effort. Thanks for
the article and pray for are country to wake up before it’s to
JESUS WAS A CARPENTER
Re: Frank Natoli’s letter (under “Who’s Next?”) in Reader Mail’s Firing Offensives:
Frank Natoli misses the mark in trying to decide with which
party Jesus would identify. The helping of the poor and needy are
not given as group responsibilities to be paid for by confiscating
money from other people but given as individual responsibilities.
The Democrat way of course is to convince most people that they
have no such responsibility but need to make the wealthy pay their
“fair” share. After this the Democrats use the money to buy votes
and many times the money is used to perpetuate poverty, unwed
births and a host of other evils. It is unbelievable that Democrats
can call this Christian or compassionate. It is self serving and
usually a plague for the various groups they purport to help. A
friend of mine says it well. Jesus is most likely not a Republican,
but Satan is definitely a Democrat.
— Clif Briner
Mr. Natoli mentions that “In the matter of giving to the poor, never mind the Protestant work ethic or creating opportunities for the poor to become rich, Jesus would be a Democrat, see ‘easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven’ and the parable of the widow and the Pharisee and the rejected suggestion to the rich young man to ‘give up all worldly possessions and follow me.’ “
Mr. Natoli may not be a member of the religious left, but he certainly shares their mistaken ideas re: “compassion.” Jesus boldly stated that He came to complete the Jewish law, not destroy it. Part of that law was that able bodied people work. And that family and church (in that case synagogue) — not government — take care of those who couldn’t care for themselves. After Jesus ascended to heaven, the Apostle Paul wrote to one of the churches that if an able bodied person wouldn’t work, that person shouldn’t be fed. And, parroting Jewish law, that the local church should care for widows and orphans. Neither the Jews of the Old Testament nor the Christians of the New advocated government welfare programs, or redistribution efforts thru government taxation.
Mr. Natoli mentions the responsibilities of the Pharisee and the “rich young man.” That young ruler was to “give up all worldly possessions and follow” Jesus. He wasn’t to lobby for increased taxes on the rich. He wasn’t to donate the proceeds to the government, so that a bureaucracy could mismanage an entitlement program. Both he and the Pharisee were to give directly to those in need, both in coin and in deed. And the reference “easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter of giving to the poor, but rather that people who have much worldly goods will depend on those, and have little tendency to depend on God.
Again, not to criticize Mr. Natoli (at least he signed his
name). He may be a flaming conservative fundamentalist right-winger
like me, but typical of the religious left is the tendency to
misinterpret scripture, either through ignorance or through
— Tim Jones
Reader Frank Natoli wrote, “In the matter of giving to the poor…,
Jesus would be a Democrat,” citing some of the Savior’s words
relating to the conflicts between spirituality and material wealth,
and to our duties toward the poor. Why do people so consistently
make that mistake? High taxation, gross inefficient bureaucracies
and a welter of counter-productive programs and entitlements, which
are exclusively the Democrat agenda, were never encouraged by Jesus
in His ministry. Even if state-sponsored redistribution of wealth
actually accomplished its ostensible objectives — which it surely
does not — Mr. Natoli needs to understand that forced giving is no
virtue and that mandatory charity is an oxymoron. As far as
government programs are concerned, the relevant quote would be
“render unto Caesar…,” but that charge was surely not a divine
endorsement of the Roman Empire’s domestic policies! The only way
to read the Gospels is to say that Jesus took no position on the
political issues of the day and regarded them as largely irrelevant
to the higher calling of obedience to the First and Second Greatest
Commandments. When Mr. Natoli or anyone else tries to place our
Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father,
Full of Grace and Truth, in the same company as Ted Kennedy,
Patrick Leahy and the two Clintons, it makes me want to be sick.
Mr. Natoli ought to be ashamed.
— Leighton M. Anderson
While it is understandable to think Jesus would be more of a
Democrat given the examples cited by Mr. Natoli, the reason for
doing so lies less with the teachings of Jesus and more with the
common understanding of what Democrats and Republicans stand for. I
refer, of course, to the notion that Democrats are more pro-help
the poor than the Republicans, as shown by their public policy
positions. In point of fact, the difference between the Democratic
and Republican positions on poverty-related issues is one of means,
not ends. Both sides want to alleviate the worst aspects of
poverty, but the Democrats favor using the power of the state to
shift wealth from rich to poor while the Republicans favor programs
designed to increase wealth, on the grounds that a) a rising tide
lifts all boats, and b) the wealthier an individual is, the more
personally charitable they can afford to be. Which of these policy
prescriptions would Jesus adhere to? I confess I’m not sure. Jesus’
references to the rich would, at first blush, seem to suggest the
Democratic position, but the rich people being raked over the coals
in the Gospels are the selfish, uncharitable rich. Are there any
instances in which Jesus is critical of a wealthy person who is
generous with their wealth simply because they are wealthy?
Moreover, the state based solution is ultimately a matter of
compelling people to be generous more than people giving freely.
Did Jesus intend for the path to salvation to be crowded by people
forced onto it against their will or by those who freely chose to
— Scott Pandich
ON THE RIGHT SIDE
Re: The Prowler’s Clerical Losers:
Thanks for the update, it was all great news. Goodbye to those
who fought Rome and John Paul.
QUITE A DAY JOB
Re: Scott Seward Smith’s Sleazy Stories:
“Scott Seward Smith is a writer living in New York City.” And a
damn good one at that. Wonderful article Mr. Smith.
Re: Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder’s Love is Blind, Deaf, and Dumb:
Kudos to Mason and Felder. For their outspoken and honest commentary regarding secular liberal Jews will vilify them and religious liberal Jews will rend their clothes and sit Shiva for them.
I’ve had the opportunity to tell the same facts, stated by Mason
and Felder, to my fellow Jews and in every case have been chastised
and ridiculed for my efforts. As a very visible figure in the
entertainment world I salute Jackie Mason for his courage to speak
out on these issues.
— Howard D. Gutin, LTC, USA, Ret.
Re: George Neumayr’s From Slob to Snob:
I just recently read your editorial “From Slob to Snob” stating: “One of the Washington Post’s tricks of concealed bias is the phrase, “critics say.” Which translated means: we here at the Washington Post want to make an editorial point on the front page, but since that’s not quite kosher professionally we’ll find some ‘critics’ or ‘experts’ to make our point for us.
I assume that you are referring to the same way that Fox News disguises editorial opinion. It is interesting how it is proper for conservative media to try to present opinion as “expert,” but it isn’t proper for non-conservative media to disguise opinion.
I agree that media should never try to disguise opinion, but
that is a two-way street. Isn’t it?
— Hugh O’Neil
The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.
Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.