Doing the People's Business? Are We Happy Now?

Filibuster Alive and Well in U.S. Senate
Senate Democrats Filibuster Bolton Nomination
Even Americans with short attention spans or little interest in politics will recall the backslapping and self-congratulatory statements from the "gang of 14" Senators who brokered a deal earlier this week on President Bush's judicial nominations.

You may have seen the words of our own Senator Graham of South Carolina who had this to say about the deal:

"The American people won tonight. The Senate is back in business....With better communication and a spirit of putting the country ahead of ourselves, I believe we can avoid future filibusters. We are a nation at war which desperately needs a functioning Senate. Our men and women in harms way deserve Senators with personal courage and respect fo the institution. They are risking their lives to defend our freedom and those of us in the Senate should have the courage to put the welfare of the country ahead of our own personal political interests. That's the least we should do. "

Senator Graham has been very vocal about the need to keep the Senate working and the "deal" being key to preserving the working relationships necessary for the Senate to do the people's business.

Yet here we go again. After exhaustive hearings, repeated delays and an organized smear campaign against the nomination of John Bolton to be our Ambassador to the United Nations, Democrats defeated a cloture vote that would have ended debate on Bolton and allowed a vote on his confirmation. Democrat Minority Leader Reid insisted that this was not a filibuster.

Yet, any succesful vote against cloture (which requires 60 votes to pass) means a filibuster is taking place. The definition here is even clearer than the "extraordinary circumstances" which the deal on judicial nominees would allow for filibusters.

So how did the "gang of 14", those who wanted the country to move ahead with important business vote on this filibuster? All the Republican members of that cabal voted for cloture and an end to the filibuster. Four of the Democrats voted to continue the filibuster, with Inouye not voting and only Landrieu and Pryor voting against the filibuster.

Another vote is scheduled for June 7. Once again, the people's business at this important time is being held hostage to a minority of Senate Democrats who offer the people little else but obstruction and delay.

In the office of Senator Graham, they've been getting so much heat from the voters of South Carolina, they had to bring in bags of ice and stack them like sand bags to deflect the ire of angy conservatives.

SC's "John McCain" Indeed!

Senators Avert Showdown Over Filibusters To be read: Senator Lindsey Graham Panders to the Liberal Democrats

I hate to see that our senior senator is a panderer. Liberals don't see this concession as you do, Senator Graham. You may see this as "working well with others." Harry Reid sees it this way:

"We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical right of the Republican party an undeniable message ... the abuse of power will not be tolerated."

You see, when you pander to the libdems, they see it as it is, them winning the fight. I will never vote for you again. If you run against a democrat, I won't vote for either of you. You have made me ashamed to call you my representative. Put the minority party in its place.

In 1988, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, the former Grand Wizard of the West Virginia Ku Klux Klan, then Senate Majority Leader forced an end to a filibuster by the Minority. He ordered the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Republicans and physically place them on the Senate floor. Did this nuclear option destory the Senate? No...

Republicans have a choice: allow an increasingly shrill, bitter, highly partisan minority to overturn the will of the people as expressed in the past two elections or use the power of their majority to restore the Senate tradition of prohibiting filibusters on judicial nominees.

We voted for President Bush and expect him to nominate judges in line with OUR conservative views. We voted for senators and expect them to represent US by confirming those judges. Anyone who thinks that not implementing the constitutional power of the majority will encourage the Democrats to be nice to Republicans should we return to minority status (GOD FORBID...oops... sorry... I meant oh great earth mother) is fooling themselves.

Lindsey Graham: The "John McCain" of SC?

Fellow Graham Constituents:

I have sent the following letter to our Senator Graham. I am also sending it as an open letter to the Island Packet: letters@islandpacket.com and The State newspaper: stateeditor@thestate.com

I urge each of you who feels strongly about supporting President Bush and his constitutional authority to appoint judges to do the same.

From my personal exprience working for Senator Alphone D'Amato of New York, I would add that original, personal letters carry much greater weight than more numerous phone calls, email or form faxes.


The Honorable Lindsey Graham
United States Senate
290 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Graham:

You ran for office on a platform of supporting President Bush, including his constitutional authority to appoint judges to the federal bench.

I am alarmed by stories in the press suggesting you may be developing a compromise to appease Senate Democrats that would undermine the President and his constitutional power to appoint.

Even your opponent, Mr. Sanders, claimed to respect the President’s prerogative in this manner.

As you know, this fight over judicial nominations is merely a prelude to a confrontation over a nomination by President Bush to the Supreme Court. Appeasing Senate Democrats now will embolden them at that crucial time. Reports are that Democrats would promise not to filibuster a Supreme Court nomination unless there were “extraordinary circumstances.” With Senators like Boxer, Kennedy and Reid still struggling with the meaning of the word “is” you can imagine how easily they might redefine those circumstances.

Senator, I respect the work you are doing on behalf of our state. However, I would not want you to become known as the John McCain of South Carolina. I strongly urge you to fully support the President’s constitutional authority to nominate judges and perform your duty to advise and consent by voting FOR confirmation of the President’s appointees.

Michael Miller
Moss Creek

Ann Coulter: The Problem at Newsweak

AnnCoulter.com: "When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post � which owns Newsweek � decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate � and interesting! � than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge. "

Getting Rid of Dumb Ol' Froth

I've decided to change our Blog settings from "allowing any registered user to post" to "only blog members can post". This will eliminate the likes of Ol' Froth and his typical insipid liberal name-calling: facist and liar (see the two posts under Jame's letter) His profile said he's in his 40's but his conduct is that of an immature kid. My teenagers formulate ideas better than he does - no contest. Anyway, problem solved. From now on, you must be a member of GBRC to post here. I had originally left it open to all users to see if we got anything interesting from visitors, but should have known that the silly lefties wouldn't be able to contain themselves.

Google Search: estimate of number illegal aliens in us

Google Search: estimate of number illegal aliens in us Assuming that there are 10 million illegal aliens in the US, and we taxed each one $1000 every year, the government would take in $10 billion dollars a year! Think about a national sales tax....

Letter

Senators Warner, Frist, Collins, and Specter :

I'm writing to share my thoughts on your "moderate" conservatism. You need to remember that those who voted for you did so because they want Republicans in charge of the US. We have a majority in every branch of government but the courts. Even if all of President Bush's nominees are voted in, we still wouldn't have a majority in the court system. You need not concern yourself in "being nice" to the minority party. Why would you think this would help our party at any time? Do you really think democrats care about the traditions of the senate? Filibusters have NEVER been used to steal an up or down vote from a nominee until now. Advise and consent is a priviledge of the majority party ONLY. They are the majority for a reason- that is the way the people want it. Give the nominees an up or down vote and stop trying to work with Democrats who only want to work with you to get their way now because they have no way of doing it on their own.

James Martin