US Senate Avoids "Nuclear Option"

[bomarl1969]

I always remember what my HS government teacher told us: If you don't vote, you lose your right to complain.

Then again, tell that statement to my father-in-law. He hasn't voted since he was drafted and fought (very well I might add) in Vietnam. He has every right to complain, even if he doesn't vote. The government did force him to put his life on the line so therefore I feel he has every right to complain.

[registerthis]

Then again, tell that statement to my father-in-law. He hasn't voted since he was drafted and fought (very well I might add) in Vietnam. He has every right to complain, even if he doesn't vote. The government did force him to put his life on the line so therefore I feel he has every right to complain.

He complains, but effectively does nothing about it? What good does that do?

[bomarl1969]

He complains, but effectively does nothing about it? What good does that do?

HOW ABOUT PUTTING HIS LIFE ON THE LINE WHEN HIS COUNTRY TOLD HIM TO IN ORDER TO PREVENT A FREE COUNTRY FROM FALLING PREY TO COMMUNISIUM? Doesn't that give him enough of a right to complain about our government...I think so and who the hell are we to question it?

[RBA]

HOW ABOUT PUTTING HIS LIFE ON THE LINE WHEN HIS COUNTRY TOLD HIM TO IN ORDER TO PREVENT A FREE COUNTRY FROM FALLING PREY TO COMMUNISIUM? Doesn't that give him enough of a right to complain about our government...I think so and who the hell are we to question it?

Sounds like John Kerry. But some people thought he was treasoneous to complain about our government. A lot of people questioned his actions; right here on this board.

[WVRed]

Sounds like John Kerry. But some people thought he was treasoneous to complain about our government. A lot of people questioned his actions; right here on this board.

Difference is, John Kerry was trying to make a difference in our nation by running for President. Even though he was questioned, he was running for political office instead of refusing to be involved in our political system.

I respect John Kerry for doing service in Vietnam and coming back to try and make this country a better place(even though I may disagree with his views). I cant say the same for someone who comes back and does not even cast a vote for change.

Even if you disagreed with Nam, you could always have went with the other party.

[Unassisted]

Mostly, I think this is a sign that both parties could stand to have more level-headed moderates in both houses of Congress.

I still can't see how the Democrats really compromised here. Seems more like they simply knuckled under to avoid this nuclear option.

Someone implied above and I've heard elsewhere that this is more about setting the stage for the Dems having a say in future skirmishes over Supreme Court nominees (Scalia or Thomas for CJ) than any deep-seated concern over this handful of nominees.

[GAC]

If the democrat has the name of Al Gore, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton then the answer isn't yes, it would be something like "this country is on it's way to hell." I swear if Hillary Clinton is a future president I am moving to the Bahamas or Mexico because I refuse to live under her.

Feel safe. No matter how much she tries to play the chameleon over the next few years, she'll enjoy the support of her base but never even come close.

[Rojo]

I still can't see how the Democrats really compromised here. Seems more like they simply knuckled under to avoid this nuclear option.

A lot of Democrats are happy with the deal, in fact the are more happy Dems are than Republicans -- who thought they'd get everything.

The Democrats did walk away with the fillibuster in tact and two nominees tossed over. This despite the fact that they weren't going to win the NO vote.

However, I think this is sacrificing a strategic advantage for a tactical "win" (and not much of one considering the most noxious nominees get their places on the bench).

By allowing a vote on the option, the Democrats could have made the GOP look bad, divided the wings and maybe given themselves a chance to defeat moderate Republicans like Snowe, Collins, Chafee, etc....

[RBA]

Feel safe. No matter how much she tries to play the chameleon over the next few years, she'll enjoy the support of her base but never even come close.

On the otherhand, many thought the same about President George W. Bush.

[RedsBaron]

Feel safe. No matter how much she tries to play the chameleon over the next few years, she'll enjoy the support of her base but never even come close.

While I disagree with another poster's assertion that Mrs. Clinton is a centrist, I do not believe that her election to the Presidency is impossible, either. Mrs. Clinton is probably as much a centrist now as Ronald Reagan was in, say, 1979, which is to say neither one was or is. Reagan was right of the American political center and therefore many assumed he was unelectable. They were wrong. Mrs. Clinton is left of the American political center and many assume she cannot be elected to national office; this too may be an error.
At this point, more than three years before the 2008 Democratic convention, I believe Hillary Clinton is the front runner for the Democratic nomination, and, while much could happen between now and then, I have trouble seeing any other Democrat denying her the nomination. She already has the party's left wing pretty much sewed up and therefore has the liberty to make feints to the center; other contenders must first play to the Democratic base, that is the left, rather than immediately attempting to go to the center.
Now to win the general election, Mrs. Clinton would need to carry a state or two which eluded John Kerry, but that certainly is not impossible IMO. While the G.O.P. nominee may start out favored in such "red" states as Ohio and Florida, Prsident Bush's margin of victory in those states was not such as to make a Democratic victory in one or both states improbable.
Republicans also have the problem which Democrats, in their glee over Bush's relatively poor polling numbers in the spring of 2004 seemed to forget: You can't beat somebody with nobody. The Republicans do not have an obvious successor to Bush in 2008, and a divided party that election is not out of the question, depending upon who the nominee is.
Am I predicting that Hillary Clinton will be elected President in 2008? No. However, I do favor her to be the Democratic nominee, and anyone nominated for President by either of America's two major political parties absolutely has a chance of being elected IMO.

[Mutaman]

I don't hate Republicans, I just want the Democrats to run the country (could they do worse?).

Not me, I really hate Republicans. Dam Hypocrites. Unfortunatly, I don't think too highly of the Democrats either.

[RedsBaron]

Not me, I really hate Republicans. Dam Hypocrites. Unfortunatly, I don't think too highly of the Democrats either.

With all due respect, I believe that Republicans have very sincere beliefs regarding dams and other means of flood control. I have no criticisms of Democrats regarding dams, either, for that matter.

[RBA]

With all due respect, I believe that Republicans have very sincere beliefs regarding dams and other means of flood control. I have no criticisms of Democrats regarding dams, either, for that matter.

I think the Democrats came up with the TVA and the Hoover Dam (named after a Republican who put us in the Great depression) was built as a WPA (Roosevelt/Democrat program) project.

[Mutaman]

I think the Democrats came up with the TVA and the Hoover Dam (named after a Republican who put us in the Great depression) was built as a WPA (Roosevelt/Democrat program) project.

Every time I'm in Vegas, somebody says "should we go see the Hoover dam or should we continue to gamble and drink and ect?" I have yet to see the Hoover dam.

[M2]

RB, as a leftist I consider Hillary Clinton to be a centrist, more of a do-nothing politician than a centrist, but still a centrist when she actually does something.

Frankly, there's very few pols remaining on the left. I'm thinking the Democratic party moto should be "We're slightly less rapacious, domineering and unconcerned about individual liberties than the Republicans."

And I don't think she's got anything wrapped up in terms of a Democratic nomination, certainly in terms of left wing support. If anything she's deep into the pockets of the party's large donors, who aren't particularly left wing. But what does she stand for, what has she accomplished? Nothing and nothing as far as I can tell.

Then again all she really has to do is convince Dem primary voters she's got the best shot in the general election. That's how the last two guys got the nomination. Dems want candidates to run on issues, but run away from candidates who raise them. I can't stand Bush, but I'll give Republican voters credit, they picked the guy who best represented the party and what it stands for.