FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Planned Parenthood Abortion Center: We Bend the Rules on Sexual Abuse
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
(07-01-2009, 08:36 AM)epalinurus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2009, 05:37 PM)MitOS Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2009, 11:53 AM)juliee Wrote: [ -> ]Planned Parenthood Abortion Center: We Bend the Rules on Sexual Abuse

Birmingham, AL -- A new undercover video shows what others have when it comes to Planned Parenthood and how it handles potential cases of sexual abuse. New footage shows a staffer at a Birmingham, Alabama abortion center telling a woman who appears to be a victim of statutory rape that "we bend the rules."

.....

The younger Bush and the GOP held the White House and both houses of Congress for 5 of his 8 years in office.  And we got nothing for it other than more requests for donations.  No improvement in the high court - none........

This isn't quite true on a couple of points. 

First, the Bush Administration upheld the Mexico City Policy that prohibited US funds by non governmental organizations receiving federal funds from promoting abortion overseas.  Also, both Bush administration also restricted federal fundings for abortions -- the Hyde Amendment.  True, they allowed funding to PP, but its use was limited to evils other than abortion.  They also prevented abortions at federal facilities like VA hospitals.

Second, Bush 2 had only two Supreme Court openings -- Rehnquist and OConnor.  He replaced them with Roberts and Alito.  That is a net gain on the pro life issue, as evidenced by the Supreme Court upholding the partial birth ban in the Sup Ct case in 2007; the Court struck in down 8 years earlier when O'Connor was on the bench.  I know this was a pitifully small cutback on abortion, but it was a win and one the prolife side would have lost had OConnor been on the bench, or had Bush 2 appointed a worse replacement than Alito.  Bush 1 did get snookered on Souter, but he also gave us Thomas, who was far better on these issues than Thurgood Marshall, who Thomas replaced.  Say what you want about Republican presidencies, but (1) they have had some very good Supreme Court nominees (though not enough), and (2) they would be far better than we would have gotten from the Democrats (to wit the most recent Democrat appointments -- Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor).

I know it's fashionable to abuse the Bushes and the Republican Party around here, and they do certainly have their flaws.  But the notion that there is no materials difference between having Republicans in charge or Democrats in charge related to important issues we care about is just not true.  We'll all see how much worse it can be in the next 4 to 8 years. 

And I say this as someone disgusted with the Republicans for losing some great opportunities to lead.

I wish you had made a better case for the Bush than you did.  It offers me no comfort to see the two in such a poor light but in truth you offered me no reason to think better of them than I do.

Your first point is a good one in part but very weak.  Bush-part deux had both houses of Congress when he did the lofty Pro-life act you praise him for.  Bush Sr, did as much and he held none of the two houses of Congress and the same with Reagan.  The difference is Bush Sr was made to change his position to get elected and for it he did little more than Reagan had done.  That is at best a blade the cuts both ways: he got something he wanted and had to dance with those who brought him to the party.  For Bush-part deux this is hardly an improvement and without the excuse that Reagan and Bush Sr had (ie a DNC Congress)

The second point offers nothing to contradict my point.  In fact all that you offer supports my statement “we got nothing”  Had I said things got worse, which is a case that can be made but I did not.  My point was the political situation should have offered the chance to change the make up of the court and you offered a perfect case explaining how that did not happen.  They did not use any of the pressure tactics that I laid out and all are perfectly legal and within the rule of law.  Nothing.

I never made the claim “…that there is no material difference…” between the two parties.  There is a difference but not significant enough to restore rule of law and a hint of civil society.  There is distinctions but without merit.  It is like choosing between the York or Scottish Rite of Freemasons and the Grand Orient Masonic lodge.  Yes there is some big difference but I want no part in the two should the opportunity arise.  (This is just an example not a change of topic to Freemasonry)
(07-01-2009, 09:46 PM)MitOS Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-01-2009, 08:36 AM)epalinurus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2009, 05:37 PM)MitOS Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2009, 11:53 AM)juliee Wrote: [ -> ]Planned Parenthood Abortion Center: We Bend the Rules on Sexual Abuse

Birmingham, AL -- A new undercover video shows what others have when it comes to Planned Parenthood and how it handles potential cases of sexual abuse. New footage shows a staffer at a Birmingham, Alabama abortion center telling a woman who appears to be a victim of statutory rape that "we bend the rules."

.....

The younger Bush and the GOP held the White House and both houses of Congress for 5 of his 8 years in office.  And we got nothing for it other than more requests for donations.  No improvement in the high court - none........

This isn't quite true on a couple of points. 

First, the Bush Administration upheld the Mexico City Policy that prohibited US funds by non governmental organizations receiving federal funds from promoting abortion overseas.  Also, both Bush administration also restricted federal fundings for abortions -- the Hyde Amendment.  True, they allowed funding to PP, but its use was limited to evils other than abortion.  They also prevented abortions at federal facilities like VA hospitals.

Second, Bush 2 had only two Supreme Court openings -- Rehnquist and OConnor.  He replaced them with Roberts and Alito.  That is a net gain on the pro life issue, as evidenced by the Supreme Court upholding the partial birth ban in the Sup Ct case in 2007; the Court struck in down 8 years earlier when O'Connor was on the bench.  I know this was a pitifully small cutback on abortion, but it was a win and one the prolife side would have lost had OConnor been on the bench, or had Bush 2 appointed a worse replacement than Alito.  Bush 1 did get snookered on Souter, but he also gave us Thomas, who was far better on these issues than Thurgood Marshall, who Thomas replaced.  Say what you want about Republican presidencies, but (1) they have had some very good Supreme Court nominees (though not enough), and (2) they would be far better than we would have gotten from the Democrats (to wit the most recent Democrat appointments -- Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor).

I know it's fashionable to abuse the Bushes and the Republican Party around here, and they do certainly have their flaws.  But the notion that there is no materials difference between having Republicans in charge or Democrats in charge related to important issues we care about is just not true.  We'll all see how much worse it can be in the next 4 to 8 years. 

And I say this as someone disgusted with the Republicans for losing some great opportunities to lead.

I wish you had made a better case for the Bush than you did.  It offers me no comfort to see the two in such a poor light but in truth you offered me no reason to think better of them than I do.

Your first point is a good one in part but very weak.  Bush-part deux had both houses of Congress when he did the lofty Pro-life act you praise him for.  Bush Sr, did as much and he held none of the two houses of Congress and the same with Reagan.  The difference is Bush Sr was made to change his position to get elected and for it he did little more than Reagan had done.  That is at best a blade the cuts both ways: he got something he wanted and had to dance with those who brought him to the party.  For Bush-part deux this is hardly an improvement and without the excuse that Reagan and Bush Sr had (ie a DNC Congress)

The second point offers nothing to contradict my point.  In fact all that you offer supports my statement “we got nothing”  Had I said things got worse, which is a case that can be made but I did not.  My point was the political situation should have offered the chance to change the make up of the court and you offered a perfect case explaining how that did not happen.  They did not use any of the pressure tactics that I laid out and all are perfectly legal and within the rule of law.  Nothing.

I never made the claim “…that there is no material difference…” between the two parties.  There is a difference but not significant enough to restore rule of law and a hint of civil society.  There is distinctions but without merit.  It is like choosing between the York or Scottish Rite of Freemasons and the Grand Orient Masonic lodge.  Yes there is some big difference but I want no part in the two should the opportunity arise.  (This is just an example not a change of topic to Freemasonry)

Re the first point, Bush 2 had both Houses of Congress, but not cloture proof numbers in the Senate.  This important defect prevented more serious action on  these issues.  He could get it for legislation to prevent heinous partial birth abortion, since he could get a number of Democrats to support him.  But getting to the 60 votes needed to cut off debate on family planning/federal abortion issues was absolutely impossible  He only had a couple of pro life Democrats, but several pro abort Republicans -- Specter, Snowe, Collins, Chafee, and a couple of others, as I recall.  My point is you cannot just say he had the majority in both Houses and he failed, so he's only marginally better than a Democrat on these issues.  I really doubt he could have done more legislatively.  Neither of can prove the negative of what he would or wouldn't have done if had the cloture proof majority, but at least he had the rhetoric, and I think personal beliefs, to have done more, if he could have. The only thing you can argue is that he should have used this presidential bully pulpit to change public opinion to support more reform, and to that I say, I agree.

Re the second point, I think you are being unfair.  Bush 2 had two openings: the Rehnquist seat and the OConnor seat.  The Rehnquist seat he replaced with Roberts, who was just as good as Rehnquist, which is very good on this issue.  For the O'Connor seat, he appointed Alito, who was a big improvement over O'COnnor in that he voted to keep the partial birth abortion ban, where O'Connor did not.  Bush could not have changed the tenor of the Court replacing a conservative and judicial moderate any better than he did by replacing them both with conservatives, which he did.  It's not like he had the chance to replace Breyer and Ginsburg and gave us Sotomayor and Souter.  I don't see how he could have gotten even more conservative justices than Alito and Roberts when you again consider that he did not have a cloutre proof majority in the Senate.  You and I both know the Dems will fall on the sword to fight for abortion.  Anyone more conservative and less disarming than these two.  The Alito vote was 58-42 as it was.  However, I would like to see a scenario by which the combination of Alito and Roberts make the Court more liberal on this issue than it was with Rehnquist and O'Connor.  The only evidence we have -- the partial birth vote -- is that it is more prolife.

Finally, I didn't intend to imply you said there was no difference between the parties but it is a fairly common implication among some around here.  I disagree with you that it is not enough of a difference to matter.  I know you'd like to abolish all the lower courts, but we still have them, and I am glad the seats on both of the inferior courts were filled by Bush 2 (and Bush 1, for that matter) rather than by Mondale, Gore and Kerrey.  The appointments aren't all what you or I would likely have made, since I think we probably essentially agree in principle on what makes a good judge, but they are way, way better than what those three would have done.  And it isn't even close.  (Consider and compare the Bush appointees to the Carter and Clinton ones; I think there is a philosophical and substantial difference between them, though I'll admit that conservative judges feel more bound by precedent, even fairly bad precedent, than do liberals who are totally result oriented when necessary.) 

It may be true that they have not been able to establish the rule of law you refer to, and maybe they never would, but there are other, lesser, achievable goals that the Republicans give us better chance of achieving, at least until we can obtain the changes you describe.  I say this all, again, not really being a Republican party person -- since I think the party is flawed and has lost a lot of its moral authority to claim voter loyalty.  But in politics, the achievable, the doable, matters.
epalinurus Wrote:Re the first point, Bush 2 had both Houses of Congress, but not cloture proof numbers in the Senate.  This important defect prevented more serious action on  these issues.  He could get it for legislation to prevent heinous partial birth abortion, since he could get a number of Democrats to support him.  But getting to the 60 votes needed to cut off debate on family planning/federal abortion issues was absolutely impossible  He only had a couple of pro life Democrats, but several pro abort Republicans -- Specter, Snowe, Collins, Chafee, and a couple of others, as I recall.  My point is you cannot just say he had the majority in both Houses and he failed, so he's only marginally better than a Democrat on these issues.  I really doubt he could have done more legislatively.  Neither of can prove the negative of what he would or wouldn't have done if had the cloture proof majority, but at least he had the rhetoric, and I think personal beliefs, to have done more, if he could have. The only thing you can argue is that he should have used this presidential bully pulpit to change public opinion to support more reform, and to that I say, I agree.

I understand the lack of cloture proof number is a limitation factor but the DNC did not have it either except a few rare years and look how far they have progresses in their agenda.  This is a red herring, an excuse and Potomkin village to point to, to excuse the lack of action.  As I pointed out already the DNC gets their agenda through when in power but also when out of power and often with GOP support.  In the next point I will show you an example.


epalinurus Wrote:Re the second point, I think you are being unfair.  Bush 2 had two openings: the Rehnquist seat and the OConnor seat.  The Rehnquist seat he replaced with Roberts, who was just as good as Rehnquist, which is very good on this issue.  For the O'Connor seat, he appointed Alito, who was a big improvement over O'COnnor in that he voted to keep the partial birth abortion ban, where O'Connor did not.  Bush could not have changed the tenor of the Court replacing a conservative and judicial moderate any better than he did by replacing them both with conservatives, which he did.  It's not like he had the chance to replace Breyer and Ginsburg and gave us Sotomayor and Souter.  I don't see how he could have gotten even more conservative justices than Alito and Roberts when you again consider that he did not have a cloutre proof majority in the Senate.  You and I both know the Dems will fall on the sword to fight for abortion.  Anyone more conservative and less disarming than these two.  The Alito vote was 58-42 as it was.  However, I would like to see a scenario by which the combination of Alito and Roberts make the Court more liberal on this issue than it was with Rehnquist and O'Connor.  The only evidence we have -- the partial birth vote -- is that it is more prolife.

In the above I promised and example how the DNC get their agenda through with GOP support.  You mention someone who is a fine example of that.  Ruth Ginsburg.  There is a nominee that is a scandal to the point she thinks separate facilities for different sexes in prisons is unconstitutional.  She was a total outrage and yet she was approved by Congress with all but 2 GOP Congressmen voting for her.  Now compare that to the treatment of Robert Bork.  It is a clear reflection of the commitment of the two parties and the hidden agenda that always follow politics.  I wish it were not true but it is no invention of mine to suggest politicians are not always honest in their motives.  And not all are very good at hiding them unless the public are willing idiots in the description.  All forms of government fail in living up to a code of honesty. 

I will also offer a further reflection on your praise of Roberts.  Time will tell but for now it looks favorable but that was not how it was to play out.  Remember Roberts was Bush-part deux’s second choice.  It was outrage on the part of his own political support (i.e. Conservatives) that forced the replacement with Roberts.  I guess you can come to the conclusion all of that was staged but without proof that would only be wishful thinking.


epalinurus Wrote:Finally, I didn't intend to imply you said there was no difference between the parties but it is a fairly common implication among some around here.  I disagree with you that it is not enough of a difference to matter.  I know you'd like to abolish all the lower courts, but we still have them, and I am glad the seats on both of the inferior courts were filled by Bush 2 (and Bush 1, for that matter) rather than by Mondale, Gore and Kerrey.  The appointments aren't all what you or I would likely have made, since I think we probably essentially agree in principle on what makes a good judge, but they are way, way better than what those three would have done.  And it isn't even close.  (Consider and compare the Bush appointees to the Carter and Clinton ones; I think there is a philosophical and substantial difference between them, though I'll admit that conservative judges feel more bound by precedent, even fairly bad precedent, than do liberals who are totally result oriented when necessary.)

Sotamayor was a Bush appointee to the Federal court, I can not recall if it was him who made her a judge or the one who elevated her to a higher court but she was on the fast track and both DNC and GOP Presidents supported her.

epalinurus Wrote:It may be true that they have not been able to establish the rule of law you refer to, and maybe they never would, but there are other, lesser, achievable goals that the Republicans give us better chance of achieving, at least until we can obtain the changes you describe.  I say this all, again, not really being a Republican party person -- since I think the party is flawed and has lost a lot of its moral authority to claim voter loyalty.  But in politics, the achievable, the doable, matters.

And with that one to one and a half million babies die.  They apply little pressure which requires no majority.  Last year during the primary season I received a long questionnaire from the GOP to take the pulse of the public.  Almost all the question revolved around one or two issue that was totally meaningless except a little bit about economic policies.  A valid issue but it was clear where their focus was located and none of those questions were related about the government policies that played a role in the current crisis, i.e. mortgages issues and banking.  Way in the back at the very end was one little question on abortion and one on illegal immigration, and one on same sex unions while the meaningless issues had dozens of questions each.  They were so meaningless I can not even recall what they were but it scandalized me how distant they were to the hot button issues now. 

That was the last straw.  They could not have cared less about any of the so called Moral Issues but were sure to ask at least one question each.  Cheney will support Same Sex Marriage and you can expect little effort on their part to prevent the expansion of abortion, embryonic stem cell abuse and do not be surprised if adult-child love is not the next issue the DNC promotes while the GOP offers modest objections only to drop the issue a little bit at a time until the public becomes used to the idea.

At least Anti-Abortion/Pro-Life has proven to be resilient much to their surprise.
(07-02-2009, 05:42 PM)MitOS Wrote: [ -> ]
epalinurus Wrote:Re the first point, Bush 2 had both Houses of Congress, but not cloture proof numbers in the Senate.  This important defect prevented more serious action on  these issues.  He could get it for legislation to prevent heinous partial birth abortion, since he could get a number of Democrats to support him.  But getting to the 60 votes needed to cut off debate on family planning/federal abortion issues was absolutely impossible   He only had a couple of pro life Democrats, but several pro abort Republicans -- Specter, Snowe, Collins, Chafee, and a couple of others, as I recall.  My point is you cannot just say he had the majority in both Houses and he failed, so he's only marginally better than a Democrat on these issues.  I really doubt he could have done more legislatively.  Neither of can prove the negative of what he would or wouldn't have done if had the cloture proof majority, but at least he had the rhetoric, and I think personal beliefs, to have done more, if he could have. The only thing you can argue is that he should have used this presidential bully pulpit to change public opinion to support more reform, and to that I say, I agree.

I understand the lack of cloture proof number is a limitation factor but the DNC did not have it either except a few rare years and look how far they have progresses in their agenda.  This is a red herring, an excuse and Potomkin village to point to, to excuse the lack of action.  As I pointed out already the DNC gets their agenda through when in power but also when out of power and often with GOP support.  In the next point I will show you an example.


epalinurus Wrote:Re the second point, I think you are being unfair.  Bush 2 had two openings: the Rehnquist seat and the OConnor seat.  The Rehnquist seat he replaced with Roberts, who was just as good as Rehnquist, which is very good on this issue.  For the O'Connor seat, he appointed Alito, who was a big improvement over O'COnnor in that he voted to keep the partial birth abortion ban, where O'Connor did not.  Bush could not have changed the tenor of the Court replacing a conservative and judicial moderate any better than he did by replacing them both with conservatives, which he did.  It's not like he had the chance to replace Breyer and Ginsburg and gave us Sotomayor and Souter.  I don't see how he could have gotten even more conservative justices than Alito and Roberts when you again consider that he did not have a cloutre proof majority in the Senate.  You and I both know the Dems will fall on the sword to fight for abortion.  Anyone more conservative and less disarming than these two.  The Alito vote was 58-42 as it was.  However, I would like to see a scenario by which the combination of Alito and Roberts make the Court more liberal on this issue than it was with Rehnquist and O'Connor.  The only evidence we have -- the partial birth vote -- is that it is more prolife.

In the above I promised and example how the DNC get their agenda through with GOP support.  You mention someone who is a fine example of that.  Ruth Ginsburg.  There is a nominee that is a scandal to the point she thinks separate facilities for different sexes in prisons is unconstitutional.  She was a total outrage and yet she was approved by Congress with all but 2 GOP Congressmen voting for her.  Now compare that to the treatment of Robert Bork.  It is a clear reflection of the commitment of the two parties and the hidden agenda that always follow politics.  I wish it were not true but it is no invention of mine to suggest politicians are not always honest in their motives.  And not all are very good at hiding them unless the public are willing idiots in the description.  All forms of government fail in living up to a code of honesty. 

I will also offer a further reflection on your praise of Roberts.  Time will tell but for now it looks favorable but that was not how it was to play out.  Remember Roberts was Bush-part deux’s second choice.  It was outrage on the part of his own political support (i.e. Conservatives) that forced the replacement with Roberts.  I guess you can come to the conclusion all of that was staged but without proof that would only be wishful thinking.


epalinurus Wrote:Finally, I didn't intend to imply you said there was no difference between the parties but it is a fairly common implication among some around here.  I disagree with you that it is not enough of a difference to matter.  I know you'd like to abolish all the lower courts, but we still have them, and I am glad the seats on both of the inferior courts were filled by Bush 2 (and Bush 1, for that matter) rather than by Mondale, Gore and Kerrey.  The appointments aren't all what you or I would likely have made, since I think we probably essentially agree in principle on what makes a good judge, but they are way, way better than what those three would have done.  And it isn't even close.  (Consider and compare the Bush appointees to the Carter and Clinton ones; I think there is a philosophical and substantial difference between them, though I'll admit that conservative judges feel more bound by precedent, even fairly bad precedent, than do liberals who are totally result oriented when necessary.)

Sotamayor was a Bush appointee to the Federal court, I can not recall if it was him who made her a judge or the one who elevated her to a higher court but she was on the fast track and both DNC and GOP Presidents supported her.

epalinurus Wrote:It may be true that they have not been able to establish the rule of law you refer to, and maybe they never would, but there are other, lesser, achievable goals that the Republicans give us better chance of achieving, at least until we can obtain the changes you describe.   I say this all, again, not really being a Republican party person -- since I think the party is flawed and has lost a lot of its moral authority to claim voter loyalty.  But in politics, the achievable, the doable, matters.

And with that one to one and a half million babies die.  They apply little pressure which requires no majority.  Last year during the primary season I received a long questionnaire from the GOP to take the pulse of the public.  Almost all the question revolved around one or two issue that was totally meaningless except a little bit about economic policies.  A valid issue but it was clear where their focus was located and none of those questions were related about the government policies that played a role in the current crisis, i.e. mortgages issues and banking.  Way in the back at the very end was one little question on abortion and one on illegal immigration, and one on same sex unions while the meaningless issues had dozens of questions each.  They were so meaningless I can not even recall what they were but it scandalized me how distant they were to the hot button issues now.   

That was the last straw.  They could not have cared less about any of the so called Moral Issues but were sure to ask at least one question each.  Cheney will support Same Sex Marriage and you can expect little effort on their part to prevent the expansion of abortion, embryonic stem cell abuse and do not be surprised if adult-child love is not the next issue the DNC promotes while the GOP offers modest objections only to drop the issue a little bit at a time until the public becomes used to the idea.

At least Anti-Abortion/Pro-Life has proven to be resilient much to their surprise.



I think your point about the Democrats ability to pass things notwithstanding the cloture requirement is the red herring. 

1.  You said the Republicans didn't pass prolife legislation in spite of controlling both Houses of Congress and the White House (for six years 2000-2006). 

2.  My rebuttal is that they controlled both Houses but lacked a cloture proof majority in the Senate, which is critical for running the agenda.

3.  Your rebuttal to that is that Democrats get pro abortion evils done, even when they don't have a cloture proof majority.  You attribute this to the Dems' ability to get more opposing party support than the Republicans can from Dems for their agenda. 

I don't see how this is a Republican party shortcoming, or how it argues against my general point that the lack of effective Republcan action is due to an insufficient majority.  It really comes down to the ideology of Senators on this issue, and that is a liberal/conservative issue, not a party one.  That the Dems can pass bad things with an insufficient majority, with the aid of liberals Republicans, only proves there are more liberal Republicans elected in liberal states.  It doesn't prove that the Republican had a cloture-proof majority, only that parties without one can get opposing party support.  But that isn't a failure of Republican party will or ideology or principles.  In fact, it proves my point that liberal ideology, not Republican party ideology, is preventing better pro life legislation.  Your objection seems to be, not with Republican party ideology, but with the liberals of Pennsylvania, Maine and Rhode Island who elect liberal Republicans or, for that matter, the voters who elect Democrat Senators who won't vote pro life.  That Dems could get cloture doesn't prove Republicans are better on this issue, or that Reps don't care about it, only that the ideological breakdown was against them. 

(If your argument is about party purity, maybe that's true -- the Republicans could take the position that no aborts get the Republican label; but that would have only ensured that these proabort Republican Senators would have been replaced by pro abort Democrat Senators, thereby dooming Seante control of the issue entirely.  At least some of these bad Rep senators will support cloture on getting a vote on judges they don't like, even if they vote against them on the floor.  The Dems who would have replaced them would NOT do so.)

(By the way, this doesn't even address the evils that Dems would do, or have done in the last two years when they controlled Congress, had we not had a Republican veto in the White House or 46 prolife Republican votes in the Senate to stop other bad pro abort legislation.  You are cherry picking to say that some bad judges got through the Senate when Reps were on watch, unless you acknowledge the bad nominees or legislation that were prevented by them.)

Re Roberts, you are right that Bush wanted a worse nominee.  I think Bush let the personal trump ideology.  He was wrong for that.  And it was the Republican party regulars who forced a better nominee -- Roberts.  That's really part of my point -- had Dems controlled the Senate, they would have put Harriet Miers on the bench.

Re Sotomayor, I agree she's awful.  You are right -- Bush 1 appointed her, and Clinton elevated her to Appeals.  But again, district court judges are essentially a home state Senator process.  Bush could have changed this and said "no, no pro aborts are going on on my watch", but this would have probably created an even greater block on judges (Republican Appeals Court judges, too) than we had, since 1 senator can hold judges through the Senate's informal back room processes.  It's a crappy process, but it's what we have.  Not what I'd want, not one they shouldn't change, but it was the reality when Bush 1 got there.  And Republicans get some of their judges on the district court bench when Dems are in the White House, so it's not a total loss.
 
With your last point, I agree.  I don't think the Reps care enough about this issue.  It's not just a Republican scandal, it's an American one -- in fact, it's a crime wherever it happens.  My point isn't that the Reps care about it as they should, only that they are a better choice on the issue -- not because all or most of the party appartchiks care about it, but because a lot of the people who will get in positions of power if Republicans are elected care about it.  When Bush 1 gets in, Clarence Thomases get on the Court, however little pro life Bush 1 is personally.  When Bush 2 is in, we get better judges, even if Bush 2's occasional instinct is to appoint a Harrient Miers.

epalinurus Wrote:I think your point about the Democrats ability to pass things notwithstanding the cloture requirement is the red herring. 

1.  You said the Republicans didn't pass prolife legislation in spite of controlling both Houses of Congress and the White House (for six years 2000-2006). 

Close enough but not quite what I wish to convey; the GOP does in fact pass pro-life legislation but my point is as follows: it is minor and largely symbolic and more for contributions and support than real problem solving.

Think of it as a down payment but the mortgage is often left unpaid.  Our house with the GOP is like a toxic mortgage.  They offer little to get the house and then default the loan of trust.

epalinurus Wrote:2.  My rebuttal is that they controlled both Houses but lacked a cloture proof majority in the Senate, which is critical for running the agenda.

You are stuck on the cloture issue and do not see the other options available.  The very notion of cloture is a red herring because the present rules on cloture are totally symbolic.  This is not the Congress of the 1960 when there was a real need to filibuster to prevent cloture.  The last really big attempt to use the filibuster was during the civil right era and the Southern Senators had to speak to maintain the filibuster.  The present Senate only needs to declare they are going to filibuster and the bill is stopped.  No further action on the part of the Senators required.  They can filibuster in a bar, asleep in their bed or their favorite bathhouse it is all the same now.  There is no effort to prevent a bill, thereby making it much easier to stop a real pro-life bill.  Again the GOP controlled Congress did nothing to prevent this and may have been the one who wrote the present rules (I will have to look this one up).  My point is, it is all a sham and they could have prevented the change even if they were not the authors of the present rule.  It would only require their effort which they lack, ergo my point all over again.

epalinurus Wrote:3.  Your rebuttal to that is that Democrats get pro abortion evils done, even when they don't have a cloture proof majority.  You attribute this to the Dems' ability to get more opposing party support than the Republicans can from Dems for their agenda. 

I don't see how this is a Republican party shortcoming, or how it argues against my general point that the lack of effective Republcan action is due to an insufficient majority.  It really comes down to the ideology of Senators on this issue, and that is a liberal/conservative issue, not a party one.  That the Dems can pass bad things with an insufficient majority, with the aid of liberals Republicans, only proves there are more liberal Republicans elected in liberal states.  It doesn't prove that the Republican had a cloture-proof majority, only that parties without one can get opposing party support.  But that isn't a failure of Republican party will or ideology or principles.  In fact, it proves my point that liberal ideology, not Republican party ideology, is preventing better pro life legislation.  Your objection seems to be, not with Republican party ideology, but with the liberals of Pennsylvania, Maine and Rhode Island who elect liberal Republicans or, for that matter, the voters who elect Democrat Senators who won't vote pro life.  That Dems could get cloture doesn't prove Republicans are better on this issue, or that Reps don't care about it, only that the ideological breakdown was against them. 

I agree you do not see the GOP as having a shortcoming on this that is clear to me.  I doubt I will be able to do more than I have already tried.  But I will make another attempt but first allow me to point out I do not condemn all GOP politicians but then I do not condemn all DNC pols either.  What I do find fault is looking to the GOP as an automatic solution.  They are deceptive and the voters should make it clear they are being examined for trustworthiness, or lack of it .  Make it clear that support will fall away at any betrayal or any critical point of neglect.  Put fire under their feet and stop electing the same fools no matter what they do.  The GOP party leadership is very much at fault in all of this and while each politician is to be held to his own account the power brokers need to feel the heat.  They are applying the heat to the lover level politicians and have little to suffer for their behavior.

I own an example of what I mean about the party power brokers making really bad choices and it is linked to the abortion issue.  About 5 years ago the real conservatives and pro-life wing of the GOP in Penn. had reached a boiling point with Sen. Specter.  Who you may recall was a big wig pro-baby killing GOP Senator in PA.  So they started to support Toomey.  The threat was real and Specter was in a real fight for the GOP nomination.  Where was the GOP leadership including the Bush-whacker?  They pressured the junior Senator to support Specter.  Keep in mind they had both houses in Congress at the time and yet they still did it.  The desire for power is more important than the lives of millions of innocent.  So what became of all this?  The pro-life junior senator lost and Specter is now a Demoncrat with a fuming mad pro-life base and a DNC supermajority in Congress.  The pro-life base has clearly lost all trust in the GOP and that loss of trust is well earned.  I suspect the conservatives in PA will get Toomey elected which could have been possible several years ago and with it a little of the trust the pro-life movement used to give the GOP may have been helpful this past fall.  McCain’s out and out disdain toward his conservative running mate was too obvious to make the change and the GOP had done little to turn the tide.

I think they are only interested in selling more snake oil and they know some of the base are Kool-Aid drinkers.  Plus I think they use political whores to infiltrate conservative sites to paint the image many still support the GOP and to sell the bumper stickers “The Dims are worse”.  I don’t buy it and I don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

I have no control on what you do and I am not interested in gaining that control.

The political REALITY is the conservative voter has lost faith in the GOP.

They want to change our minds while doing nothing differently, like a drunk who wants to keep drinking but make you believe he is better for it.


epalinurus Wrote:(If your argument is about party purity, maybe that's true -- the Republicans could take the position that no aborts get the Republican label; but that would have only ensured that these proabort Republican Senators would have been replaced by pro abort Democrat Senators, thereby dooming Seante control of the issue entirely.  At least some of these bad Rep senators will support cloture on getting a vote on judges they don't like, even if they vote against them on the floor.  The Dems who would have replaced them would NOT do so.)

(By the way, this doesn't even address the evils that Dems would do, or have done in the last two years when they controlled Congress, had we not had a Republican veto in the White House or 46 prolife Republican votes in the Senate to stop other bad pro abort legislation.  You are cherry picking to say that some bad judges got through the Senate when Reps were on watch, unless you acknowledge the bad nominees or legislation that were prevented by them.)

This is a good example of what I am taking about.  “The Dims are worse”.  Not really.  Like the Church it is not the barbarian outside the walls that are the most dangerous it is the internal Judas within that kills.

epalinurus Wrote:Re Roberts, you are right that Bush wanted a worse nominee.  I think Bush let the personal trump ideology.  He was wrong for that.  And it was the Republican party regulars who forced a better nominee -- Roberts.  That's really part of my point -- had Dems controlled the Senate, they would have put Harriet Miers on the bench.

Re Sotomayor, I agree she's awful.  You are right -- Bush 1 appointed her, and Clinton elevated her to Appeals.  But again, district court judges are essentially a home state Senator process.  Bush could have changed this and said "no, no pro aborts are going on on my watch", but this would have probably created an even greater block on judges (Republican Appeals Court judges, too) than we had, since 1 senator can hold judges through the Senate's informal back room processes.  It's a crappy process, but it's what we have.  Not what I'd want, not one they shouldn't change, but it was the reality when Bush 1 got there.  And Republicans get some of their judges on the district court bench when Dems are in the White House, so it's not a total loss.

Not anymore.  Those days are long gone.  It started with Carter years ago and both parties have gone the same route.  Bush could have changed this but did not, ditto his father.  The problem is they did so without real merit on the abortion issue.  I suspect the economic and tax issues were more important to this bunch than the basic right to life and other similar Constitutional issues. 


epalinurus Wrote:With your last point, I agree.  I don't think the Reps care enough about this issue.  It's not just a Republican scandal, it's an American one -- in fact, it's a crime wherever it happens.  My point isn't that the Reps care about it as they should, only that they are a better choice on the issue -- not because all or most of the party appartchiks care about it, but because a lot of the people who will get in positions of power if Republicans are elected care about it.  When Bush 1 gets in, Clarence Thomases get on the Court, however little pro life Bush 1 is personally.  When Bush 2 is in, we get better judges, even if Bush 2's occasional instinct is to appoint a Harrient Miers.

This makes the same bumper sticker justification that we have heard time and time again.  It fails to convince anymore.  They need to produce some meat and potatoes not just celery sticks.  And if you don’t think the Reps care enough about this issue I have to ask why you ever started to disagree with me in the first place?  That was my original point in a nutshell.  My original point was
MitOS Wrote:“Do not look to the GOP for help beyond a mailer asking for a donation with some passing reference to the pro-life movement.” 
After that everything I wrote was evidence in support of this statement.  What seems to be lost in the minds of many is Goldwater is heralded to this day as the founder of the “CONSERVATIVE GOP MOVEMENT”  Nixon was the big “CONSERVATIVE boogieman” that the left hated and the right wing adored.  It was only Reagan that changed some of the views of many and that was all undone as soon as he selected Bush the elder for VP.  We still have this attempt to paint the worst of the GOP as some champion of the Right and it nearly always false.  Out and out false for all to see.  Look at the phalanx of GOP Pols claiming to be the real conservative including such obvious liars as Giuliani and Romney.  Now many are turning to the pro-same sex marriage champion Cheney.  Hell he was for homosexuals in the military when he was a cabinet secretary in Bush the elders reign of falsehood.  That was nearly 20 years ago before Clinton, and we are to expect something different?  How are we to accomplish that and remain sane?

Yet people are starting to circle the wagon around him as some bulwark of conservative values.  Bush-part deux are often pointed to as the people who saw the problem with the housing market and did nothing on that.  He also added to the problem with the RX benefits.  Yeah like more drugs will solve all this countries ills.

I know I can not convince you because you are not ready to see this.  It is easier to think we can find better GOP pols rather than the hard work of a major overhaul.  I sure held that view long enough myself but I lost my quest for an easy fix after the first 4 years of Bush part deux.

You will have to come to your own conclusions at your own pace.  But it has become for many, easier to change the GOP leadership then to repair the jilted and scorned grass roots.  When you get people at that state of affairs the reality is we would prefer to punch the face of the GOP than the DNC.  A betrayal by a friend is more despised than the expected attack of the enemy.  If I beat them (DNC) I can feel kind enough to shake their hand after the fistfight.  When stabbed in the back by a friend I only want to drown their face in the toilet, and a soild toilet at that, complete with a good flushing while doing so.  More people reading this are smiling at the mental image that illistrates than you wish to know.

They need to get to work to change this view and they show no sign they are resolved in doing so.  Loosing elections while the liberal agenda advance may be just fine with them, just fine.

Have you never heard of a boxer throwing the match?  $$$$$ is the reward always, when was the last time you saw a poor GOP or DNC politician?
(07-04-2009, 03:36 PM)MitOS Wrote: [ -> ]I'm putting my comments in bold in the text below......

epalinurus Wrote:I think your point about the Democrats ability to pass things notwithstanding the cloture requirement is the red herring. 

1.  You said the Republicans didn't pass prolife legislation in spite of controlling both Houses of Congress and the White House (for six years 2000-2006). 

Close enough but not quite what I wish to convey; the GOP does in fact pass pro-life legislation but my point is as follows: it is minor and largely symbolic and more for contributions and support than real problem solving.

Okay.  On this one, I agree they do a lot of this "for fundraising" in the sense that the party knows that prolifers are part of its base and they should be responsive to the base.  There are definitely some in leadership that wish the issue would go away; there are others who are true believers.  I think we disagree inasmuch as I don't see the Republican Party as a monolith but rather there are fights going on within it to see the extent they will fight for prolife as you and I might vs how Colin Powell might (that is to say, not at all), or vs. how Bush 1 would (that is to say, some legislative victories, generally sound judges on this point, funding restrictions).  But to say it's more for contributions makes it sound like there is a core in party leadership that's thinking "How little can we get away on this and still keep those kooky prolifers in our column?"  I don't think that's the case (though there are some who do think that.)  Chalk this up to a different perception or sense of how the party leadership operates.

Think of it as a down payment but the mortgage is often left unpaid.  Our house with the GOP is like a toxic mortgage.  They offer little to get the house and then default the loan of trust.

In my view, with the decent judges we've gotten, the funding restrictions and other legislation like the partial birth ban, I don't see it as a default on the loan of trust.  I see it as underperformance of our investment.

epalinurus Wrote:2.  My rebuttal is that they controlled both Houses but lacked a cloture proof majority in the Senate, which is critical for running the agenda.

You are stuck on the cloture issue and do not see the other options available.  The very notion of cloture is a red herring because the present rules on cloture are totally symbolic.  This is not the Congress of the 1960 when there was a real need to filibuster to prevent cloture.  The last really big attempt to use the filibuster was during the civil right era and the Southern Senators had to speak to maintain the filibuster.  The present Senate only needs to declare they are going to filibuster and the bill is stopped.  No further action on the part of the Senators required.  They can filibuster in a bar, asleep in their bed or their favorite bathhouse it is all the same now.  There is no effort to prevent a bill, thereby making it much easier to stop a real pro-life bill.  Again the GOP controlled Congress did nothing to prevent this and may have been the one who wrote the present rules (I will have to look this one up).  My point is, it is all a sham and they could have prevented the change even if they were not the authors of the present rule.  It would only require their effort which they lack, ergo my point all over again.

I think you are mistaken on this one.  The Senate, one man filibuster is mostly dead, true.  (I think they can still do it, but it's a pretty arcane process.  I think Al D'Amato the NY senator did one ten or 15 years ago, too, but when he got worn out, that was it.)  But you still need 60 votes to cut off debate and get to a vote.  It is simply not true that a senator can stop a bill by declaring they are going to filibuster.  If the Republicans want to stop Sotomayor, they need to have 41 votes in favor of the proposition that they do not want to limit debate on the nomination.  That would kill the nomination.  Without those 41 votes, the Dems can limit debate time, and thus get it to a vote.  The reason a real prolife bill cannot pass is because the Republicans have not been able to cut off debate, since they haven't have the 60 votes to cut it off.  That's what I am talking about.  It is simply not a red herrinig.  Here is the Senate page that includes a pdf on invoking cloture.  You need 60 votes to cut off debate.  http://www.senate.gov/reference/referenc...re_vrd.htm       

epalinurus Wrote:3.  Your rebuttal to that is that Democrats get pro abortion evils done, even when they don't have a cloture proof majority.  You attribute this to the Dems' ability to get more opposing party support than the Republicans can from Dems for their agenda. 

I don't see how this is a Republican party shortcoming, or how it argues against my general point that the lack of effective Republcan action is due to an insufficient majority.  It really comes down to the ideology of Senators on this issue, and that is a liberal/conservative issue, not a party one.  That the Dems can pass bad things with an insufficient majority, with the aid of liberals Republicans, only proves there are more liberal Republicans elected in liberal states.  It doesn't prove that the Republican had a cloture-proof majority, only that parties without one can get opposing party support.  But that isn't a failure of Republican party will or ideology or principles.  In fact, it proves my point that liberal ideology, not Republican party ideology, is preventing better pro life legislation.  Your objection seems to be, not with Republican party ideology, but with the liberals of Pennsylvania, Maine and Rhode Island who elect liberal Republicans or, for that matter, the voters who elect Democrat Senators who won't vote pro life.   That Dems could get cloture doesn't prove Republicans are better on this issue, or that Reps don't care about it, only that the ideological breakdown was against them. 

I agree you do not see the GOP as having a shortcoming on this that is clear to me.  I doubt I will be able to do more than I have already tried.  But I will make another attempt but first allow me to point out I do not condemn all GOP politicians but then I do not condemn all DNC pols either.  What I do find fault is looking to the GOP as an automatic solution.  They are deceptive and the voters should make it clear they are being examined for trustworthiness, or lack of it .  Make it clear that support will fall away at any betrayal or any critical point of neglect.   Put fire under their feet and stop electing the same fools no matter what they do.  The GOP party leadership is very much at fault in all of this and while each politician is to be held to his own account the power brokers need to feel the heat.  They are applying the heat to the lover level politicians and have little to suffer for their behavior.

I own an example of what I mean about the party power brokers making really bad choices and it is linked to the abortion issue.  About 5 years ago the real conservatives and pro-life wing of the GOP in Penn. had reached a boiling point with Sen. Specter.  Who you may recall was a big wig pro-baby killing GOP Senator in PA.   So they started to support Toomey.  The threat was real and Specter was in a real fight for the GOP nomination.  Where was the GOP leadership including the Bush-whacker?  They pressured the junior Senator to support Specter.  Keep in mind they had both houses in Congress at the time and yet they still did it.  The desire for power is more important than the lives of millions of innocent.  So what became of all this?  The pro-life junior senator lost and Specter is now a Demoncrat with a fuming mad pro-life base and a DNC supermajority in Congress.  The pro-life base has clearly lost all trust in the GOP and that loss of trust is well earned.  I suspect the conservatives in PA will get Toomey elected which could have been possible several years ago and with it a little of the trust the pro-life movement used to give the GOP may have been helpful this past fall.  McCain’s out and out disdain toward his conservative running mate was too obvious to make the change and the GOP had done little to turn the tide.

I think they are only interested in selling more snake oil and they know some of the base are Kool-Aid drinkers.  Plus I think they use political whores to infiltrate conservative sites to paint the image many still support the GOP and to sell the bumper stickers “The Dims are worse”.  I don’t buy it and I don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

I have no control on what you do and I am not interested in gaining that control.

The political REALITY is the conservative voter has lost faith in the GOP.

They want to change our minds while doing nothing differently, like a drunk who wants to keep drinking but make you believe he is better for it.

I agree with a lot of this.  But when I say it's not a Republican shortcoming, I mean that the failure to get 60 votes for cloture is not a Rep party shortcoming.  In other words, I don't think the failure to elect sufficient pro life Republicans is an institutional or ideological flaw of the party.  The party could do more to be sure that the most prolife candidate who can get elected gets the nomination, and to help prolife nominees to get elected.  I am no party hack, and I've said already that I am pretty disgusted with the Rep Party's lost opportunity and failure to lead properly, not just on this issue, but on a host of issues.  The "Dims are worse" argument is not a good one, in itself.  It's not good enough to say it and vote for the same leadership and then not push for better leadership or nominees.  That would be willful blindness.  I think it is also willful blindness for one to ignore how much safer our liberties are, and how much less hostility there is to prolife issues, under a Republican congress and with a Rep president.  It's just a fact, one that we'll see illustrated in the next four years.  We've already started to see it -- Inauguration Day, Obama revokes Bush's fetal cell research restriction -- again, Bush's wasn't perfect, but it was better.  I think it's a serious flaw to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.  But we should always work for better. 




epalinurus Wrote:(If your argument is about party purity, maybe that's true -- the Republicans could take the position that no aborts get the Republican label; but that would have only ensured that these proabort Republican Senators would have been replaced by pro abort Democrat Senators, thereby dooming Seante control of the issue entirely.  At least some of these bad Rep senators will support cloture on getting a vote on judges they don't like, even if they vote against them on the floor.  The Dems who would have replaced them would NOT do so.)

(By the way, this doesn't even address the evils that Dems would do, or have done in the last two years when they controlled Congress, had we not had a Republican veto in the White House or 46 prolife Republican votes in the Senate to stop other bad pro abort legislation.  You are cherry picking to say that some bad judges got through the Senate when Reps were on watch, unless you acknowledge the bad nominees or legislation that were prevented by them.)

This is a good example of what I am taking about.  “The Dims are worse”.  Not really.  Like the Church it is not the barbarian outside the walls that are the most dangerous it is the internal Judas within that kills.


We just disagree on this.  A party that wants to require gun registration is worse than one that does not.  A party that wants open season in fetal cell research is worse than one that restricts it.  I party that support Antonin Scalia is better than one that opposes him and prefers Stephen Breyer.  I just don't see how you can argue that the Dems are NOT worse. 





epalinurus Wrote:Re Roberts, you are right that Bush wanted a worse nominee.  I think Bush let the personal trump ideology.  He was wrong for that.  And it was the Republican party regulars who forced a better nominee -- Roberts.  That's really part of my point -- had Dems controlled the Senate, they would have put Harriet Miers on the bench.

Re Sotomayor, I agree she's awful.  You are right -- Bush 1 appointed her, and Clinton elevated her to Appeals.  But again, district court judges are essentially a home state Senator process.  Bush could have changed this and said "no, no pro aborts are going on on my watch", but this would have probably created an even greater block on judges (Republican Appeals Court judges, too) than we had, since 1 senator can hold judges through the Senate's informal back room processes.  It's a crappy process, but it's what we have.  Not what I'd want, not one they shouldn't change, but it was the reality when Bush 1 got there.  And Republicans get some of their judges on the district court bench when Dems are in the White House, so it's not a total loss.

Not anymore.  Those days are long gone.  It started with Carter years ago and both parties have gone the same route.  Bush could have changed this but did not, ditto his father.  The problem is they did so without real merit on the abortion issue.  I suspect the economic and tax issues were more important to this bunch than the basic right to life and other similar Constitutional issues. 


epalinurus Wrote:With your last point, I agree.  I don't think the Reps care enough about this issue.  It's not just a Republican scandal, it's an American one -- in fact, it's a crime wherever it happens.  My point isn't that the Reps care about it as they should, only that they are a better choice on the issue -- not because all or most of the party appartchiks care about it, but because a lot of the people who will get in positions of power if Republicans are elected care about it.  When Bush 1 gets in, Clarence Thomases get on the Court, however little pro life Bush 1 is personally.  When Bush 2 is in, we get better judges, even if Bush 2's occasional instinct is to appoint a Harrient Miers.


This makes the same bumper sticker justification that we have heard time and time again.  It fails to convince anymore.  They need to produce some meat and potatoes not just celery sticks.  And if you don’t think the Reps care enough about this issue I have to ask why you ever started to disagree with me in the first place?  That was my original point in a nutshell.  My original point was
MitOS Wrote:“Do not look to the GOP for help beyond a mailer asking for a donation with some passing reference to the pro-life movement.” 

After that everything I wrote was evidence in support of this statement.  What seems to be lost in the minds of many is Goldwater is heralded to this day as the founder of the “CONSERVATIVE GOP MOVEMENT”  Nixon was the big “CONSERVATIVE boogieman” that the left hated and the right wing adored.  It was only Reagan that changed some of the views of many and that was all undone as soon as he selected Bush the elder for VP.  We still have this attempt to paint the worst of the GOP as some champion of the Right and it nearly always false.  Out and out false for all to see.  Look at the phalanx of GOP Pols claiming to be the real conservative including such obvious liars as Giuliani and Romney.  Now many are turning to the pro-same sex marriage champion Cheney.  Hell he was for homosexuals in the military when he was a cabinet secretary in Bush the elders reign of falsehood.  That was nearly 20 years ago before Clinton, and we are to expect something different?  How are we to accomplish that and remain sane?



If your point is that the Reps don't care enough about it, I agree.  If your point is they are the same or essentially the same as the Dems, and only pay lip service to the issue, I disagree.  We have hundreds of prolife judges on the bench that prove otherwise, millions of dollars NOT SPENT for abortion that otherwise would have been, and at least one law that wouldn't have been passed.  It's unfathomable to me that you can't see that one party is BETTER on this issue than the other.  And that is really my point -- I think your position overstates the lack of difference.  But the next four years, or at least the next two with a Dem in the white house, a dem congress and 60 dem senators, will give us a chance to see how much worse  it can get.  Our only hope is that some of the southern dems help us on some of the worse pro abort initiatives.  But again, they will be bucking their leadership, which again will prove my point. 



Yet people are starting to circle the wagon around him as some bulwark of conservative values.  Bush-part deux are often pointed to as the people who saw the problem with the housing market and did nothing on that.  He also added to the problem with the RX benefits.  Yeah like more drugs will solve all this countries ills.

I know I can not convince you because you are not ready to see this.  It is easier to think we can find better GOP pols rather than the hard work of a major overhaul.  I sure held that view long enough myself but I lost my quest for an easy fix after the first 4 years of Bush part deux.

You will have to come to your own conclusions at your own pace.  But it has become for many, easier to change the GOP leadership then to repair the jilted and scorned grass roots.  When you get people at that state of affairs the reality is we would prefer to punch the face of the GOP than the DNC.  A betrayal by a friend is more despised than the expected attack of the enemy.  If I beat them (DNC) I can feel kind enough to shake their hand after the fistfight.  When stabbed in the back by a friend I only want to drown their face in the toilet, and a soild toilet at that, complete with a good flushing while doing so.  More people reading this are smiling at the mental image that illistrates than you wish to know.

They need to get to work to change this view and they show no sign they are resolved in doing so.   Loosing elections while the liberal agenda advance may be just fine with them, just fine.

Have you never heard of a boxer throwing the match?  $$$$$ is the reward always, when was the last time you saw a poor GOP or DNC politician?


b]
epalinurus

I promise to get back to you last in more detail when I get a chance to re-read your post but for now let me point out -  I seem to have noticed that your post never noted or addressed my earlier post that GOP voted to confirm Ginsburg to the high court with the exception of 2. 

I will say this there were at least 2 who we can agree on.  The rest no.  So if your case that the GOP is better than the DNC by the presence of these two people well... humm... let me just say I am underwhelmed.
Allow me to make a prediction

The GOP will vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor by a large margin.  We will be luck to see even two voting against her.
Pages: 1 2