Get out beofre you lose... at least that how republicans are handling it...

[Vette73]

29th Republican to retire from U.S. House this term


Seems like a lot of republicans are quiting beofre the next election. Better to go out on a win then a lose I guess.

Should help Dems get even more seats and maybe better press in those areas for Dem Prez.

 

[spittledip]

That is pretty cynical. They probably are retiring b/c they stole enough money to retire comfortably at this point.

 

[DarkThinker]

More like get out before your accounts can't hold anymore...

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Reps and Dems are all the same, it's mostly Dems now aren't doing shit.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: spittledip
That is pretty cynical. They probably are retiring b/c they stole enough money to retire comfortably at this point.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even as a partisan dem, I am not sure that thinking is valid. But in terms of republican fun,
the election of 11/06 ended the republican majority party status for the GOP. And as such, in terms of bringing in the ear marks and the lobbying bucks, its a bigger hill to climb on the republican side as their gravy train derailed on 11/06.

I have not taken a real good look on the house side, but a similar GOP disproportionate retirement exists on the Senate side. And what is somewhat shocking is all the old line GOP moderates that are retiring. GOP Senators that had a long history of being able to work on bi-partisan basis seem to be retiring in droves. Meaning the remaining GOP Senators will be
tend to be increasingly partisan and hence unable to play well with others.

Which may not bode well for the future regardless which party wins POTUS in 11/2008. Especially if the dems at least maintain majority status in the House and gains some in the Senate. I do not think the American people will be very happy with the GOP if it starts to only stand for the party of gridlocking any and all progress.

And if gridlock is all the GOP can do, its not rocket science to predict the GOP will be down to less than 40 Senators after 11/2010 if they don't manage the feat is 2008.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: spittledip
That is pretty cynical. They probably are retiring b/c they stole enough money to retire comfortably at this point.

speaking of cynical... 😛

😉

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: spittledip
That is pretty cynical. They probably are retiring b/c they stole enough money to retire comfortably at this point.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even as a partisan dem, I am not sure that thinking is valid. But in terms of republican fun,
the election of 11/06 ended the republican majority party status for the GOP. And as such, in terms of bringing in the ear marks and the lobbying bucks, its a bigger hill to climb on the republican side as their gravy train derailed on 11/06.

I have not taken a real good look on the house side, but a similar GOP disproportionate retirement exists on the Senate side. And what is somewhat shocking is all the old line GOP moderates that are retiring. GOP Senators that had a long history of being able to work on bi-partisan basis seem to be retiring in droves. Meaning the remaining GOP Senators will be
tend to be increasingly partisan and hence unable to play well with others.

Which may not bode well for the future regardless which party wins POTUS in 11/2008. Especially if the dems at least maintain majority status in the House and gains some in the Senate. I do not think the American people will be very happy with the GOP if it starts to only stand for the party of gridlocking any and all progress.

And if gridlock is all the GOP can do, its not rocket science to predict the GOP will be down to less than 40 Senators after 11/2110 if they don't manage the feat is 2008.

You're right, there are no Democratic lobbyists. And the minority Dems didn't gridlock GOP majority Senate.

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe JS80 has a point, after all, the GOP swept into legislative power in 1994 partly by saying the democrats had become the party of lawyers and lobbyists. Ending a longer term gravy train on the democratic side. So maybe its going to be a never ending cycle of absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But the speed and arrogance which the GOP exhibited screwed the pooch between 2000 to 2006 was somewhat an American world record. A Delay, an Abramoff, and a Gonzales will be a lasting exhibit to pair with GWB&Cheney in a GOP hall of shame. Somehow a BJ for Bill can't even compare.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

You're right, there are no Democratic lobbyists. And the minority Dems didn't gridlock GOP majority Senate.

Of course the minority blocks legislation from time to time. The republicans have filibustered more legislation in the first HALF of the 110th congress then any ENTIRE congressional term in all of American history. Shown here.
At this rate they will come in at almost triple the previous record. That's right... triple.

So sure, you can say the Democrats were obstructionist in the past, but it's not even on the same planet as the Republicans. Funny how fond they've become of the filibuster. I seem to remember them talking about how undemocratic it was a few years back....

Anyways, I'm sure most of the GOP representatives that are retiring were thinking about doing so for awhile before. Apparently life in the majority is much much nicer for congressmen then the other way around, and they probably don't want to deal with being in the minority, especially since it looks like their losses are only going to widen in the next term or two.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

You're right, there are no Democratic lobbyists. And the minority Dems didn't gridlock GOP majority Senate.

Of course the minority blocks legislation from time to time. The republicans have filibustered more legislation in the first HALF of the 110th congress then any ENTIRE congressional term in all of American history. Shown here.
At this rate they will come in at almost triple the previous record. That's right... triple.

So sure, you can say the Democrats were obstructionist in the past, but it's not even on the same planet as the Republicans. Funny how fond they've become of the filibuster. I seem to remember them talking about how undemocratic it was a few years back....

Wrong. Go back and look at what the issue was there. Sheesh, I swear you kids only remember the little bits you want to and forget the rest.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

You're right, there are no Democratic lobbyists. And the minority Dems didn't gridlock GOP majority Senate.

Of course the minority blocks legislation from time to time. The republicans have filibustered more legislation in the first HALF of the 110th congress then any ENTIRE congressional term in all of American history. Shown here.
At this rate they will come in at almost triple the previous record. That's right... triple.

So sure, you can say the Democrats were obstructionist in the past, but it's not even on the same planet as the Republicans. Funny how fond they've become of the filibuster. I seem to remember them talking about how undemocratic it was a few years back....

Wrong. Go back and look at what the issue was there. Sheesh, I swear you kids only remember the little bits you want to and forget the rest.

Wrong. The issue was the filibuster of judicial nominees. While that is different from regular legislation, the primary arguments used for the elimination of the filibuster were generally applicable to all filibusters even if that wasn't what was at issue. Ie. "The filibuster subverts the will of the majority" doesn't differentiate between what the majority is being subverted about.

Sheesh... you crazy kids.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spittledip
That is pretty cynical. They probably are retiring b/c they stole enough money to retire comfortably at this point.

ok, I admit I lol'd. It's the complete flip in tone. Unexpected = funny. Well done.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

You're right, there are no Democratic lobbyists. And the minority Dems didn't gridlock GOP majority Senate.

Of course the minority blocks legislation from time to time. The republicans have filibustered more legislation in the first HALF of the 110th congress then any ENTIRE congressional term in all of American history. Shown here.
At this rate they will come in at almost triple the previous record. That's right... triple.

So sure, you can say the Democrats were obstructionist in the past, but it's not even on the same planet as the Republicans. Funny how fond they've become of the filibuster. I seem to remember them talking about how undemocratic it was a few years back....

Wrong. Go back and look at what the issue was there. Sheesh, I swear you kids only remember the little bits you want to and forget the rest.

Wrong. The issue was the filibuster of judicial nominees. While that is different from regular legislation, the primary arguments used for the elimination of the filibuster were generally applicable to all filibusters even if that wasn't what was at issue. Ie. "The filibuster subverts the will of the majority" doesn't differentiate between what the majority is being subverted about.

Sheesh... you crazy kids.

It's ok to filibuster liberal judges but it's not ok to filibuster judges who stick to strict Constitutional interpretation.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

It's ok to filibuster liberal judges but it's not ok to filibuster judges who stick to strict Constitutional interpretation.

Hurp-a-dur-pa durp!

Nice attempt there to say that only conservative judges stick to the constitution. I'll ignore how stupid that is though. (starting now)

My statement had nothing to do with what the filibusters were about. You attempted to equate the 'obstructionism' of the Democrats in recent congresses with Republican 'obstructionism' now. The primary way for the minority to obstruct the majority is through the filibuster. The republicans have used it at a rate that is unprecedented in all of American history so far in this Congress. To any reasonable person that would mean that their level of obstruction is higher, not equal to, previous Democratic minorities.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

You're right, there are no Democratic lobbyists. And the minority Dems didn't gridlock GOP majority Senate.

Of course the minority blocks legislation from time to time. The republicans have filibustered more legislation in the first HALF of the 110th congress then any ENTIRE congressional term in all of American history. Shown here.
At this rate they will come in at almost triple the previous record. That's right... triple.

So sure, you can say the Democrats were obstructionist in the past, but it's not even on the same planet as the Republicans. Funny how fond they've become of the filibuster. I seem to remember them talking about how undemocratic it was a few years back....

Wrong. Go back and look at what the issue was there. Sheesh, I swear you kids only remember the little bits you want to and forget the rest.

Wrong. The issue was the filibuster of judicial nominees. While that is different from regular legislation, the primary arguments used for the elimination of the filibuster were generally applicable to all filibusters even if that wasn't what was at issue. Ie. "The filibuster subverts the will of the majority" doesn't differentiate between what the majority is being subverted about.

Sheesh... you crazy kids.

Nope. Try again. There were a few who may have taken it that far but the main issue was it was not something done to judicial nominees. That is why I stated you were wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope. Try again. There were a few who may have taken it that far but the main issue was it was not something done to judicial nominees. That is why I stated you were wrong.

By all means enlighten me!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope. Try again. There were a few who may have taken it that far but the main issue was it was not something done to judicial nominees. That is why I stated you were wrong.

By all means enlighten me!

Did you forget about the gang of 14? Sheesh, that's what the whole issue was about! The democrats using the filibuster to block the JUDICIAL nominees. I know you won't give in on this but it's the truth and really not about the topic at hand anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope. Try again. There were a few who may have taken it that far but the main issue was it was not something done to judicial nominees. That is why I stated you were wrong.

By all means enlighten me!

Did you forget about the gang of 14? Sheesh, that's what the whole issue was about! The democrats using the filibuster to block the JUDICIAL nominees. I know you won't give in on this but it's the truth and really not about the topic at hand anyway.

Right. The judicial nominees... that's exactly what I said in my post that you replied 'nope. try again' to. Actually, I'm trying to reconcile your previous post and this latest one and I'm coming to the conclusion that you're probably drunk or something.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope. Try again. There were a few who may have taken it that far but the main issue was it was not something done to judicial nominees. That is why I stated you were wrong.

By all means enlighten me!

Did you forget about the gang of 14? Sheesh, that's what the whole issue was about! The democrats using the filibuster to block the JUDICIAL nominees. I know you won't give in on this but it's the truth and really not about the topic at hand anyway.

Right. The judicial nominees... that's exactly what I said in my post that you replied 'nope. try again' to. Actually, I'm trying to reconcile your previous post and this latest one and I'm coming to the conclusion that you're probably drunk or something.

:roll: You are stretching the rational used for judicial to all voting and that just wasn't the case which is what I've been trying to get you to understand. So again, your original BS doesn't hold true because the argument wasn't about unamerican or undemocratic - it was specifically about justice votes which are a 50% up/down vote.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope. Try again. There were a few who may have taken it that far but the main issue was it was not something done to judicial nominees. That is why I stated you were wrong.

By all means enlighten me!

Did you forget about the gang of 14? Sheesh, that's what the whole issue was about! The democrats using the filibuster to block the JUDICIAL nominees. I know you won't give in on this but it's the truth and really not about the topic at hand anyway.

Right. The judicial nominees... that's exactly what I said in my post that you replied 'nope. try again' to. Actually, I'm trying to reconcile your previous post and this latest one and I'm coming to the conclusion that you're probably drunk or something.

:roll: You are stretching the rational used for judicial to all voting and that just wasn't the case which is what I've been trying to get you to understand. So again, your original BS doesn't hold true because the argument wasn't about unamerican or undemocratic - it was specifically about justice votes which are a 50% up/down vote.

All votes are an up or down 50% vote unless filibustered. You aren't trying to get me to understand anything? You're repeating what I said as if I don't get it, and then adding in your own wrong interpretation. Here, I'll give you some quotes:

By Trent Lott: ?Filibustering is wrong. It?s not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I?m perfectly prepared to blow the place up.?

By Cornryn: ?I support the nuclear option, I support a rule change, I support elimination of the unconstitutional filibuster by any legal means.?

None of those arguments are based in any way on some idea that judicial appointments are different then normal bills to be passed as the filibuster would apply. You're simply wrong, or you're drunk. Your posts have been (more) incoherent then usual and so I feel like you might not be in good shape to talk about this right now.

 

[JSt0rm]

I bet they are getting out because the party is over and they don't want the spot light shined on them. AssHoles

 

[rockyct]

The issue was the filibuster of judicial nominees.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Did you forget about the gang of 14? Sheesh, that's what the whole issue was about! The democrats using the filibuster to block the JUDICIAL nominees. I know you won't give in on this but it's the truth and really not about the topic at hand anyway.

Talk about splitting hairs.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
29th Republican to retire from U.S. House this term


Seems like a lot of republicans are quiting beofre the next election. Better to go out on a win then a lose I guess.

Should help Dems get even more seats and maybe better press in those areas for Dem Prez.

How come bush isn't following these rules.... I think someone ought to tell him! 🙂

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope. Try again. There were a few who may have taken it that far but the main issue was it was not something done to judicial nominees. That is why I stated you were wrong.

By all means enlighten me!

Did you forget about the gang of 14? Sheesh, that's what the whole issue was about! The democrats using the filibuster to block the JUDICIAL nominees. I know you won't give in on this but it's the truth and really not about the topic at hand anyway.

Right. The judicial nominees... that's exactly what I said in my post that you replied 'nope. try again' to. Actually, I'm trying to reconcile your previous post and this latest one and I'm coming to the conclusion that you're probably drunk or something.

:roll: You are stretching the rational used for judicial to all voting and that just wasn't the case which is what I've been trying to get you to understand. So again, your original BS doesn't hold true because the argument wasn't about unamerican or undemocratic - it was specifically about justice votes which are a 50% up/down vote.

All votes are an up or down 50% vote unless filibustered. You aren't trying to get me to understand anything? You're repeating what I said as if I don't get it, and then adding in your own wrong interpretation. Here, I'll give you some quotes:

By Trent Lott: ?Filibustering is wrong. It?s not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I?m perfectly prepared to blow the place up.?

By Cornryn: ?I support the nuclear option, I support a rule change, I support elimination of the unconstitutional filibuster by any legal means.?

None of those arguments are based in any way on some idea that judicial appointments are different then normal bills to be passed as the filibuster would apply. You're simply wrong, or you're drunk. Your posts have been (more) incoherent then usual and so I feel like you might not be in good shape to talk about this right now.

Trent Lott Quote: "The filibuster of federal district and circuit judges cannot stand. ... It's bad for the institution. It's wrong. It's not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up. No problem."
The Cornryn quote is also specifically about the Judicial filibuster- not a general comment on filibusters like you seem to want to claim it is.
Sure seems like you and the other leftist blogs like to leave out the import context piece of that quote. So again - your original statement was BS because you twist positions to fit your accusation. It's simply BS.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope. Try again. There were a few who may have taken it that far but the main issue was it was not something done to judicial nominees. That is why I stated you were wrong.

By all means enlighten me!

Did you forget about the gang of 14? Sheesh, that's what the whole issue was about! The democrats using the filibuster to block the JUDICIAL nominees. I know you won't give in on this but it's the truth and really not about the topic at hand anyway.

Right. The judicial nominees... that's exactly what I said in my post that you replied 'nope. try again' to. Actually, I'm trying to reconcile your previous post and this latest one and I'm coming to the conclusion that you're probably drunk or something.

:roll: You are stretching the rational used for judicial to all voting and that just wasn't the case which is what I've been trying to get you to understand. So again, your original BS doesn't hold true because the argument wasn't about unamerican or undemocratic - it was specifically about justice votes which are a 50% up/down vote.

All votes are an up or down 50% vote unless filibustered. You aren't trying to get me to understand anything? You're repeating what I said as if I don't get it, and then adding in your own wrong interpretation. Here, I'll give you some quotes:

By Trent Lott: ?Filibustering is wrong. It?s not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I?m perfectly prepared to blow the place up.?

By Cornryn: ?I support the nuclear option, I support a rule change, I support elimination of the unconstitutional filibuster by any legal means.?

None of those arguments are based in any way on some idea that judicial appointments are different then normal bills to be passed as the filibuster would apply. You're simply wrong, or you're drunk. Your posts have been (more) incoherent then usual and so I feel like you might not be in good shape to talk about this right now.

Trent Lott Quote: "The filibuster of federal district and circuit judges cannot stand. ... It's bad for the institution. It's wrong. It's not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up. No problem."
The Cornryn quote is also specifically about the Judicial filibuster- not a general comment on filibusters like you seem to want to claim it is.
Sure seems like you and the other leftist blogs like to leave out the import context piece of that quote. So again - your original statement was BS because you twist positions to fit your accusation. It's simply BS.

It's not twisting anything. The constitution makes no distinction between any kinds of filibusters. They aren't even mentioned. The argument that filibustering judicial nominees is not supportable under the constitution applies equally well to all filibusters as the passage of laws and the consent of the senate are both constitutional duties being obstructed by the minority. This is just basic logic.

If you really think the two are so different please spell out to me why in a legal sense the filibuster of judicial nominees is a different act then the filibuster of senate bills. Do not just offer your opinion, support your argument.

It's not BS at all. They tried to once again limit the filibuster then, and are using it rampantly now. The Democrats were the first ones to weaken the filibuster, instituting a rule change that took it from 66 votes to 60, so it's not like they are some sort of high minded idealists on the subject either.