Tuesday, February 06, 2007
|
|
The Washington Post's New Standard
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:43 AM
|
|
From the Washington Post's story on the Senate's Iraq debate:
Reid and McConnell were expected to resume negotiations today after conferring with lawmakers. With the tremendous national interest and media buildup to this week's confrontation, it would be extraordinary if the two sides did not reach an agreement on ground rules.
What is "extraordinary" is the willingness of Harry Reid to lie about the use of the 60 vote rule repeatedly over the Bush years, and now for the company town newspaper to boldly airbrush history. A genuine news report would note how often the Democrats had invoked the 60 vote rule in the recent past --including inappropriately over judicial nominations-- and then perhaps even quote Hillary from Friday when she lectured the DNC on the 60 vote rule in the Senate.
This hilarious bit of Orwellian rewrite of recent history with Minority Leader Harry Reid's tactics sent down the memory hole is less shocking than the Post's William Arkin's application of the term mercenaries to U.S. troops, but all of a piece. The Mitch McConnell-led Senate GOP is getting a taste of what the next two years will be like, and it needs to get organized now for the almost daily assaults on its legislative rights led by Reid and supported by the Beltway-Manhattan media elite. If it holds together this week, it will hold together as necessary throughout the year, and the base will support its members who defend the principles of the party as aggressively as Reid's Democrats did during the 2005-06 Congress. Forcing Senators Schumer and Durbin to be the face of the angry Democrats is a very good thing for the public to see, and defending the troops and their mission an even better example of why the GOP deserves the majority back.
The Republican senators caucus today. They should have a good laugh over the crocodile tears of the Democrats and start planning their approach to the continuing resolution debate. And they need to point out at every step that their tactics are the democrats' tactics, except the democrats went much further and crossed into extra-Constitutional obstructionism by denying up-or-down votes on judicial nominees, a responsibility committed by the Constitution to the whole Senate. Using the current debate to begin to highlight the Leahy-led obstructionism of the Judiciary Committee would also be a fine idea, just as pumping out detailed examples of past Democratic obstructionism would be useful to the MSMers with little grasp of how silly their stories appear to anyone familiar with the past few years on the Hill.
There will no doubt be a few in the Republican caucus who would prefer to get back to business as usual, give the Democrats their club with which to beat the troops and the president.
But the senators must know that collapse on this issue will effectively debone their number for the next 20 months, discourage their supporters, and make nearly impossible the sort of campaign in 2008 that will be necessary to regaining the majority. Senator Jim DeMint sets a fine example with his op-ed in today's Politco: full-throated and detailed defense of victory in the war.
Contact the key senators and urge them to act like the loyal opposition --loyal to the troops and opposed to Democratic defeatism:
Senator Lamar Alexander (TN): (202) 224-4944
Senator Norm Coleman (MN): (202) 224-5641
Senator Susan Collins (ME): (202) 224-2523
Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK): (202) 224-6665
Senator Gordon Smith (OR): (202) 224-3753
Senator John Sununu (NH): (202) 224-2841
Senator John Warner (VA): (202) 224-2023
|
|
|
Well Fenderdeluxe, it's like this neither errors in spelling or syntax (both peronal specialties of mine) can obfuscate the reality that Democrats are four-square behind the proposition of losing at any cost because only losing will further their agenda. |
|
...should be:
"And even under those circumstances, they don't have the guts to actually do it because they're unsure of the politics of the issue."
There are a couple of others, as well as a ton of poorly constructed sentances.
Hey, long day... |
|
Per the Washington Post (assuming the staff writers actually are correct on this. But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate to that fact):
"But Republicans continued to demand that the two remaining resolutions -- one written by Warner and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), and a pro-Bush proposal from Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) -- meet a 60-vote threshold to pass.
Republicans are advocating the Gregg resolution because they know, as do Democrats, that only it could garner 60 votes. Gregg's proposal would recognize the power of the president to deploy troops as well as the "responsibility" of Congress to fund them.
Democrats regard the measure as a political stunt but are loath to go on the record opposing it, for fear of giving the impression that they would harm troops in the field. They also recognize that a vote in favor of Gregg would amount to a tacit endorsement of Bush's troop plan."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020600553_2.html
So here we have a Democratic Party that has claimed, REPEATEDLY as of late that they have a responcibility to 'oppose' or 'change course' or... whatever. According to them, generally speaking, their job is to thwart the dastardly Pres. Bush at all costs, or words to that effect. Well, I know... that's a rhetorical exaggeration, obviously. But let's just say that they feel the people sent them in to do battle... you get my drift.
Heck, our Democratic friends have even sounded all jazzed up for it the fight agains the President. Except of course, when it comes time to actually stand up and DO JUST THAT. Ooops. I mean, it's non-binding. It's nothingness. All of it. And even under those circumstances, they don't have the guts to do actually it because they're unsure of the politics of the issue. What? they're unsure??? They're unsure of things mind you, even though all the polls tell them that they've got public opinion on their side. They're afraid Gregg's is the only one that'll get 60 votes and show a solid majority - a real majority. That, friends, is pathetic.
So people, for me at least, when my Democratic friends insist to me that their party is truly full of serious leaders who are in turn heart-attack serious about a long term strategery against jihadism, color me skeptical since they can't even pull the trigger on something like this pile of foolishness. Now, my Demo friends may be serious people, but their leadership?
Oh my...
|
|
|
By blocking debate on an unpopular war and ignoring the bad (and perhaps fake) polls, and steadfastly supporting our leader, the GOP has publicly taken a stand for indefinite war (whatever it takes for victory) and loyalty to the leader and the party and the program. This will lead to a great victory in 2008. |
|
The dhimmiecrats expanded the and abused the filibuster. Preventing debate on divisive issues is not an expansion or abuse of filibuster.
You effin' seditiouis twit losers can stick it where the sun don't shine if you don't like it. |
|
At every chance, and with every oportunity. That corrupt hypocritical Las Vegas Tammany Hall incarnation is a mean spirited, bitter greedy hack.
Let people see his falseness and his cowardice and intellectual emptiness up close and often. Eventually the cover and free ride the MSM has given him over his illegal land delaings will wear out, and people will see the entire package - bitter corrupt and ineffective.
The dhimmicrats wanted this creep, this desert rat, this lying twit to lead them? Let him give it all he has. |
|
....gets it wrong.
First, the media is accurately reporting that the Dems were unable to get agreement to "proceed" with debate. Right now, the Republicans are filibustering against debate, as the so-called "MSM" is reporting.
Second, the Dems have already agreed that both the Warner and McCain Resolutions will be subject to the 60 vote threshold. At the last minute, McConnell insisted that a third resolution by Judd Gregg, simply opposing troop fund cutoffs, be added to the unanimous consent agreement. Reid objected to this, mostly because it might lead to even more resolutions clouding the process, resulting in the filibuster.
In other words, if the Republicans wanted a debate subject to the 60 vote threshold on both Warner and McCain, we'd be having that debate right now. The "evil MSM" has it right- the Republicans are the ones stopping the debate. |
|
|
The above-the-fold headline in this morning's Denver Post read: "GOP BLOCKS IRAQ DEBATE". The ensuing article, written by John Aloysius Farrell, the Post's favorite Progressive Staff Writer began "Republicans blocked a Senate debate and vote on the War in Iraq on Monday, stalling consideration of a resolution opposing President Bush's plans to send 21,000 more U.S. troops to patrol the streets of Baghdad." And it was all downhill from there. Nowhere in the article was the alternative McCain/Lieberman/Graham resolution mentioned. The clear bias and subjectivity displayed in media outlets like the Denver Post are abhorrent. |
|
|
...we could just call a spade a spade and label the MSM and the Democrats, when the evidence exists, boldfaced LIARS! |
|
|
The chutzpa of MSM never ceases to amaze. |
|
|
|
|
|