Mark, your council is well taken. I think our problem is just plain old "we're finally in the majority, let's get it done quick, while we can!" If we could point to one thing at a time, perhaps our patience would kick in. Perhaps if Sen. Frist actually gets enough votes put together to accomplish the constitutional option, and gets up and down votes for judicial nominees, we can sit back, and start the process of supporting the RNC. It would sure be a step in the right direction. Getting the senate to follow the house's lead on the death tax would be a great next step...we'll see.

Mark -- All good points. However, I take exception with your simplifying the Illegal Immigration issue to simply wanting 25,000 more troops put at the border. You know the issue is much more complicated than that.

From what I have read about the Illegal Immigration problem, the issue is moreso the current border patrol not being able to do their jobs instead of not having enough troops. Another issue is not enough punishment for Illegal Immigrants. Instead of deporting them, President Bush suggests giving them jobs. That sends a nice message to send even more Illegal Immigrants over the border, since they know all they have to do is get over the border and then they can have jobs.

There are so many things that need to be done to fix the Illegal Immigration problem. Just ask Michelle Malkin. Just adding troops is NOT the solution and it is not what people are calling for. The least we want from our President is to say that we will not put up with the illegal immigrants, not him saying that we welcome those who are already here and give them amnesty.

And to say that it is a 60 day problem is ridiculous. This has been a problem for years now and the Bush Administration not only has done nothing to fix the problems, but with President Bush's comments about amnesty, the problems have been made worse. So I would not throw illegal immigration into your 'It's only been 60 days, people, relax!' mantra. It has been a lot more than 60 days since 9/11/2001, Mark and that is when this Administration should have started working on Illegal Immigration.

Mark, what your post most desperately needs is one thing: *focus*.

I keep up on current political events. I surf all the political sites on a daily basis. And while there's dissatisfaction on issues like illegal immigration and going wobbly on Social Security private accounts, I haven't seen anybody express fratricidal anger that they haven't been resolved to perfection in this particular Congress.

With immigration, the problem is that the Bush White House is on the wrong side of the issue. Eventually that will become such a liability that the majority coalition Karl Rove built will splinter over it (e.g. after another major terrorist attack here at home). Maybe not on Dubya's watch, but certainly after he leaves office.

With Social Security reform, the fact of the matter is that private accounts are the only true "reform" measure to be taken, and the Bush White House is sending signals that private accounts are no longer the priority, or even *a* priority, but now a bargaining chip. And they have a history of this kind of thing, abandoning school choice in the No Child Left Behind Act and Medical Savings Accounts in the prescription drug legislation.

Without private accounts as an integral component of any final SS reform bill, no such bill will be worth enacting, and Bush should veto it forthwith. But having made such a to-do about Social Security reform, he'll hardly be in any position to do so. Which is why private accounts should be non-negotiable.

As to breaking the filibuster, sorry, Mark, but that isn't a "60-day" issue. First, because the 109th Congress has been in session for over *90* days, but more importantly, because the Democrat obstruction of the President's appellate court nominees has been going on for nearly FOUR YEARS, and the filibustering for the past TWO. Getting the numbers in the Senate to break that filibuster was the whole point of last year's Senate elections, and we delivered. Now it's their turn.

And if Bill Frist has the votes to activate the "Byrd option" - and Robert Novak is reporting that he does - then what is he waiting for?

"Patience" is all fine and good, but it's not supposed to be infinite. And while politics is, indeed, the art of the possible, one also has to have a clear-eyed idea of just what *is* possible. Absent that, "patience" becomes resignation by another name, and the realm of the possible atrophies to irrelevance.

Look at the Democrats, Mark. Out of power in both elective branches of government, their concept of the possible should be depressingly meager. Do they look "patient" to you? Or do they look like they think they're still running the country?

And they've got us on the run.

Tactical politics is like football, Mark. Momentum is everything. If you're not advancing the ball, you're losing yardage. There's no such thing as a status quo.

And right now, we're inside the five-yard line, and 'Pubbies like you are counseling that we punt in the hopes of "getting better field position."

Which just goes to show that patience can also be a vice.

I haven't seen anybody express fratricidal anger that they haven't been resolved to perfection in this particular Congress.

You're not looking very hard.

With immigration, the problem is that the Bush White House is on the wrong side of the issue.

Bush supports a system that you happen to disagree with. That doesn't put him on the wrong side of the issue. I can see pros and cons to his ideas as well as to those who disagree with him. At this juncture, I don't think the issue has been decided either way. I personally would like to see the borders closed except to legal immigrants. I live in Michigan and there are plenty of places here where foreigners can just drive into the country with little scrutiny. They aren't Mexicans and they aren't usually looking for work, but we have so little control that we're really not sure who they are.

Eventually that will become such a liability that the majority coalition Karl Rove built will splinter over it (e.g. after another major terrorist attack here at home). Maybe not on Dubya's watch, but certainly after he leaves office.

Maybe, maybe not. It could be that the issue gets some kind of resolution between now and 2008.

With Social Security reform, the fact of the matter is that private accounts are the only true "reform" measure to be taken, and the Bush White House is sending signals that private accounts are no longer the priority, or even *a* priority,

Only in your mind.

Without private accounts as an integral component of any final SS reform bill, no such bill will be worth enacting, and Bush should veto it forthwith. But having made such a to-do about Social Security reform, he'll hardly be in any position to do so. Which is why private accounts should be non-negotiable.

It must be why you are on the team to negotiate for the White House, right?

As to breaking the filibuster, sorry, Mark, but that isn't a "60-day" issue. First, because the 109th Congress has been in session for over *90* days, but more importantly, because the Democrat obstruction of the President's appellate court nominees has been going on for nearly FOUR YEARS, and the filibustering for the past TWO. Getting the numbers in the Senate to break that filibuster was the whole point of last year's Senate elections, and we delivered. Now it's their turn.

Since it appears that Frist may or may not have enough votes to end it (depending on which MSM reporter you read), I'd say that we did NOT deliver. Delivery would look more like 60 Senators on the Republican side - all of which will do the honorable thing and support their party.

And if Bill Frist has the votes to activate the "Byrd option" - and Robert Novak is reporting that he does - then what is he waiting for?

Already addressed that on B4B, but the short answer is: I don't know and neither do you.

"Patience" is all fine and good, but it's not supposed to be infinite.

Infinity - that's a lot longer than we've waited so far.

And while politics is, indeed, the art of the possible, one also has to have a clear-eyed idea of just what *is* possible.

Hey, maybe you've just stumbled upon why Frist is taking it slowly.

Absent that, "patience" becomes resignation by another name, and the realm of the possible atrophies to irrelevance.

Nice words, but ... feh.

Look at the Democrats, Mark. Out of power in both elective branches of government, their concept of the possible should be depressingly meager.

If you're out of power, I'd say your concept of what is possible would be more like "get back into power." They have nothing left of importance to lose. They can act like total idiots - it can't possibly lose them more than it already has. Are you suggesting we act like they do?

Do they look "patient" to you? Or do they look like they think they're still running the country?

They are not patient, and they'll ALWAYS think they're running the country. They are fantasist - reality is not their strong suit.

And they've got us on the run.

No, just people like you are running.

Tactical politics is like football, Mark. Momentum is everything. If you're not advancing the ball, you're losing yardage. There's no such thing as a status quo.

Football? Hahahaha. For a moment there, I thought you were serious. Football?

I've said it before... and i will say it again.

The Repubs. have lost the publicity/marketing/awareness campaign badly. I can be patient about the actual execution... but at least they should show the spine to come out blazing against flat out lies which are being peddled by the minority party.

Sure the media is biased... but that doesnt mean we cant get out message out more effectively.

"Delivery would look more like 60 Senators on the Republican side - all of which will do the honorable thing and support their party."

Actually, delivery would be 60 Senators who are unified behind the GOP leadership on issues such as this. If we had 60 GOP Senators right now, including the RINOs that we have, then we still do not have enough Senators to stop the filibuster. Is the reality that a party's agenda cannot get passed unless it has a supermajority in the Senate? Is that how the Democrats got their legislation passed? Or is it just that the GOP can't pass anything unless it has a supermajority?

(Serious question here, I would have to go back and look up the history of the Senate to find out the history of the numbers for each party in the Senate the past 20-30 years.)

"The Repubs. have lost the publicity/marketing/awareness campaign badly."

This is the major weakness of the Republican Party. Without the blogosphere taking down Dan Rather and getting the positive results out to the public from the War on Terror and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth taking down John Kerry, who here believes that President Bush would have won re-election? No Swift Boats and the public believes that John Kerry is some sort of war "hero". No blogosphere and Dan Rather paints the President as a draft dodger and inept National Guardsman. No blogosphere and the Media succesfully paints the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq as another Vietnam. Would FOX News and Conservative Talk Radio been enough to push the GOP and President Bush to victories? I'm not so sure.

The GOP better get some better public relations people fast.

Actually, delivery would be 60 Senators who are unified behind the GOP leadership on issues such as this.

What did you think I meant by "all of which will do the honorable thing and support their party?"

If we had 60 GOP Senators right now, including the RINOs that we have, then we still do not have enough Senators to stop the filibuster.

Not what I said. That is a straw man.

Is the reality that a party's agenda cannot get passed unless it has a super majority in the Senate? Is that how the Democrats got their legislation passed? Or is it just that the GOP can't pass anything unless it has a super majority?

The only way to get an agenda passed in the Senate is to make deals, compromise, and water stuff down. That is true in all cases except for things like the Iraq War Resolution where most Senators knew better than to vote against it. But normally, it is wheel and deal. Either that or be ready to vote for cloture - which takes 60 votes. The Democrats water down bills with stupid amendments and if they are defeated there, they can then filibuster. Only cloture votes can defeat them in this tactic. Normally, they will deal on some things but the Republicans will end up giving up some things they'd rather not give up. For example, with NCLB, the Republicans had to drop school vouchers to get the bill passed. Either party in the majority is faced with these trade-offs or the resultant filibusters. But the Democrats have stooped to new lows by filibustering judicial nominees - something that has never been done before. And they've threatened to filibuster every bill, shut down the Senate and worse if we pull the trigger on the nuclear option. Some Democrat observers don't think that Reid and his Democrats are really willing to suffer the negative publicity associated with appearing to be obstructionist, so they may not shut the place down, but they might.

In any case, if your party tries to pass some kind of legislation that the other party doesn't like - and you are unwilling to compromise and change it so they can agree to it - you are faced with a filibuster. And it takes a super majority of 60 votes to get past the filibuster. This does not change no matter which party is in the majority.

...who here believes that President Bush would have won re-election?

I beg to differ on this. First of all, you give way too much credit to the blogosphere for its ability to influence public opinion. Not that many people even know what a blog is and few read them. In the Rather case, a couple of bloggers were responsible for stopping the MSM from burying the story by refusing to give up on it, but it was the MSM that publicized the story that finally brought CBS to getting rid of Rather. Similarly, the Swift Boat guys turned to the MSM to publicize their story. They had/have a web site, but their major efforts came in the media from purchased ads. I don't doubt for a minute that bloggers like Charles Johnson and Hindrocket had some effect, but if they hadn't gotten the story into the MSM it would have died.

I also think that what the Swifties did was to discredit Kerry's military service, but people did not vote for or against Kerry based on this. They voted on which candidate they thought would protect America better and Kerry was running around contradicting himself, flip-flopping and telling all who would listen that the UN should be determining if and when we need to defend ourselves. That went over like a lead balloon with the voting public. So I am not buying your conjecture. Sure they hurt Kerry's chances and maybe helped Bush's chances but most of the damage came right out of Kerry's mouth and stories in the MSM.

It appears that the time is near for a showdown on the filibusters:

Majority Republicans are chipping away at Senate Democrats' ability to defeat a change in internal rules involving filibusters — the Democrats' most potent weapon to block GOP legislation and judicial appointees they oppose.

One Republican who has been undecided on the rule change, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, said Sunday he is leaning toward supporting revives filibuster rules "when push comes to shove."

"I would not take a stand against my party's view that we should have up-or-down votes on judges and that this is a part of the filibuster thing that really needs to be settled and set aside," Lugar told "Fox News Sunday."

Lugar said he hopes differences can be settled "through negotiation."

A second Republican who has been on the fence, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, said, "I've said to both sides, don't include me in your count right now."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is under pressure to force a Senate showdown before Congress breaks on May 27 for its Memorial Day recess.

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is under pressure to force a Senate showdown..."

Hmmm, I wonder where that pressure is coming from?

"The only way to get an agenda passed in the Senate is to make deals, compromise, and water stuff down."

So, in other words, even if the GOP had 59 Senators all standing together on Legislation, such as say Private Accounts for Social Security, and the Democrats unite to refuse to compromise, we don't get private accounts for Social Security. And then the only way to get Private Accounts would be to eliminate filibusters on legislation or get 60 unified Republicans in the Senate who would pass legislation on Private Accounts for Social Security.

Hmmm, I wonder where that pressure is coming from?

Probably from other Republican Senators, the White House, constituents, lobbyists, PAC's, and phone calls, emails, and letters.

So, in other words, even if the GOP had 59 Senators all standing together on Legislation...

Um, yea. Unless you're willing to compromise - and for Social Security, the Democrats would likely insist on making private accounts an "add on" feature to get their agreement. Of course, that would mean some combination of tax hikes, benefit reductions, raising of the benefit age, and means testing. Don't like that compromise? Neither do I. What can we do about it? Get enough votes in the Senate to kill a filibuster. Barring that, nothing will get done - or worse, the wrong thing will get done.

From an email I just got:

In a recent letter regarding President Bush's judicial nominees, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) threatened to shut down the government and not allow any important legislation to be considered. "...we will be reluctant to enter into any consent agreement that facilitates Senate activities, even on routine matters. Just this year we passed the class action and bankruptcy bills under procedures negotiated in good faith between the majority and the minority. We would decline to provide such cooperation in the future...".

Instead of working in a bipartisan manner to pass meaningful legislation to help the American people, Senate Democrats are threatening to hold the Senate hostage if they don't get their way. Senators have a duty under the Constitution to provide advice and consent on judicial nominations, but Senate Democrats continue to prevent the President's judicial nominees from even being voted on.

It is time to tell Senate Democrats not to shut down the government and start fulfilling their constitutional obligation by giving the President's judicial nominees a fair up or down vote!

Call Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Robert Byrd, Senator Ken Salazar, and Senator Chuck Schumer TODAY and tell them we will not tolerate their efforts to hold the Senate hostage and that they have a constitutional obligation to give all of the President's judicial nominees an up or down vote.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid - (202) 224-3542

Senator Hillary Clinton - (202) 224-4451

Senator Ted Kennedy - (202) 224-4543

Senator Robert Byrd - (202) 224-3954

Senator Ken Salazar - (202) 224-5852

Senator Chuck Schumer - (202) 224-6542

Want something constructive to do, give them a call. They won't listen to you, but they will hear you.

Michael,

No doubt about it, illegal immigration is a thorny issue...and the fundamental problem is not what we're doing on our side of the border (though there's large room for improvement) but what the Mexicans are doing on their side of the border.

We can't, unfortunately, do anything about what the Mexicans are doing...their corrupt and useless political structure will continue to send their unemployable up to the United States because, for them, its easier than reform. Absent an Operation Mexican Freedom, we're rather stuck.

This is why the President's plan (called an "amnesty" plan by its conservative critics) is not just the best way to go, it is the only way to go. It is, after all, to allow them to come in, legally and under US regulation and control...if they can come in legally, they wont be crossing people's private property in Arizona, and we'll be able to keep tabs on who comes in, thus giving us a better chance of catching the criminal/terrorist element intermixed with the broad mass of honest workers.

Once again, it is the art of the possible: It is not really possible to seal the border, nor is it possible for us to change Mexican government policy...it is, however, possible for us to change the manner in which non-citizens enter our nation and to gain control over it.

iamcool388,

In my view, we've largely won the debate; remember, a lot of the stuff you're reading is mere MSM/Donk propaganda, entirely divorced from the realities of the situation...the Democrats, of late, have not been showing up for Judiciary Committee hearings, thus preventing a vote...they are doing this because they know we've got the votes and the will to break their filibuster...additionally, I see the blow up of the phony Delay story as being a mere tactic...get the country talking about Delay rather than about the filibuster issue.

We've already won, but the obstructionist tactics of the Democrats ensure that it'll still be some months before it is all wrapped up in a pretty, little bow.

Have a little faith...do you think nothing is better today than it was on January 20th, 1993?

"...if they can come in legally, they wont be crossing people's private property in Arizona, and we'll be able to keep tabs on who comes in, thus giving us a better chance of catching the criminal/terrorist element intermixed with the broad mass of honest workers."

Let me see if I understand this. Right now, our border is closed to immigrants. The only way they can get into the United States is illegally by "crossing people's private property in Arizona"? But now with the documented worker program, we are opening our borders? I thought our borders were already open for people to pass through legally, but criminals were choosing to come in illegally. Do you really expect criminals to document themselves??? If the only action we are taking is to say that we will document workers who come in legally, and not do anything to tighten border security, why on earth would any criminal decide to take the legal route over the illegal route? We have laws in this country. Law abiding citizens follow them. Criminals do not. Making more laws does not get the criminals to follow them.

Unless you are saying that with the documented worker program, the only people illegally crossing the border now will be terrorists and those up to no good instead of innocent people looking for jobs AND terrorists and criminals.

"This is why the President's plan (called an "amnesty" plan by its conservative critics) is not just the best way to go, it is the only way to go."

Someone tell me how this makes sense:

1) The Palestinians terrorize the Israelis for years, killing their people. The suggested solution for Israel? Give up Gaza and give in to the terrorism.

2) Mexicans (and others) illegally cross the border into the United States, 18-20 Million, flaunting our laws, a good percentage of them committing additional crimes in this country. The suggested "only way to go" is to give into their bullying and flaunting our laws and allow them to freely enter our country.

I thought we were not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, yet that is exactly what we are telling Israel to do and that is exactly what we are doing with people breaking our laws here in the United States. Whatever happened to not negotiating with terrorism? Wouldn't you call 18-20 million people breaking US law, terrorism? And isn't the documented worker program just backing down to this terrorism from our Mexican neighbors?

All this tells me is that a problem just needs to sustain itself and grow to such magnitude that the opponent is no longer willing to try to stop it and eventually just gives in and compromises their position.

Someone tell me how this makes sense:

What's making less and less sense around here is you. I just don't understand why you're acting like an impetuous child with all the hyperbole, exaggerations, and misstatements.

Michael,

I believe our border with Mexico is a bit more than 1,000 miles long, so we can't build an Israeli-style wall the length it short of billions of dollars and years of construction...meanwhile, cross-border legitimate trade is huge and unless we want a massive economic depression, we have to allow the free and swift flow of goods and people cross-border to continue...so, we take our lemons and make some lemonade.

I'd prefer that we didn't take in any more immigrants...running upwards at 300 million people, I think we've got enough; but the practical difficulties of such an action are insurmountable...thus I go with President Bush's plan to legitimise the cross-border traffic; bring it above-board and under our scruitiny and regulation.

I agree with iamcool---the Dems OWN semantic infiltration and the art of disinformation. We absolutely have to start a program to get the facts out to the public. For example, way too many people think filubusters are part of the Constitution, that the Republicans filibustered against Clinton apointees, etc.

But I also agree that we have to be patient in many areas. The problem is, patience can look like weakness. We are making the mistake of thinking the Dems are using the same playbook as we are. Look at Bush's overtures to the Dems when he got in office---and look at how totally useless they turned out to be. Did they respond in kind? No, they took what he offered and used the time to invent more and nastier lies

As for the border, yes, we have to have a way to control who comes in, or at least to know who they are. If guest worker passes will help us do that, then that's fine with me. But it's not enough to tell illegals that they have to register for guest worker cards. We first have to pass, and then enforce, very stringent laws against being here illegally. So a two or three year period in which those already here can get registered, accompanied by a major crackdown at the border to slow the flood of new people coming in, might work---IF it was followed by strong and consistent enforcement. Daddy had two years to get his guest worker card and didn't, and now he's caught? The whole family goes to Mexico, and Daddy goes to jail. No exceptions.

Another deterrent might be to tighten regulations on sending money out of the country. The last figure I heard was 30 billion dollars a year being sent to Mexico. That is 30 BILLION dollars. Cut that off, and the whole reason for being here is shut down. With the metal in paper money these days, envelopes could be scanned for cash. If banks could not cash checks written to people in other countries, and if other venues, such as money orders and wire transfers, were eliminated, it would make more sense to try to find work in Mexico than to take risks to come here.

If I need to buy materials from Mexico, I can register to do so, and my records can be audited to prove I am not funneling money to people there from relatives here. Not foolproof, perhaps, but better than the long lines at banks and convenience stores and wire transfer services every Friday afternoon, as people send money back home.

Not to mention what the loss of thirty billion dollars a year does to our economy.

Almiranta, I agree that we should include a big stick to got with the carrot (documentation), but I'm not on the "stop them from sending money" thing. Our GDP is over 11 trillion dollars. If all they are taking home is 30 Billion, that is chicken feed in comparison. That is 1/367th of the whole. Our energies in regards to immigration would be best spent documenting who's coming and going, helping Mexico create an infrastructure that can support a powerful economy, and (that would enable us to) do (more) business with and in their country.

Lets take a hypothetical situation which is possible, if not probable.

A mexican comes in illegally. He is helped by the Mexican president as well as their army/police/guard for getting into USA. Repubs and Dems fall over themselves in trying to not hurt his feelings and not trample on his civil rights. Of course, he has come to make a better life for himself... For the 'undocumented workers' it is about finding their destiny... about feeding their children... about living a better life. Of course its not a big deal for our economy. Our GDP is 11 TRILLION dollars... yeah... thats a 'T' !! But i digress. Back to the story of our friend.

He decides to migrate to richer pastures. Comes to NYC. Before we find out he is an operative of Al Qaeda, he blows up Wall St.

What economic strength were we talking about again?

Lets take a hypothetical situation which is possible, if not probable.

If "ifs and buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a real good time.

A mexican comes in illegally. ...Before we find out he is an operative of Al Qaeda, he blows up Wall St.

So what's to stop a Mexican who comes in legally from doing exactly the same thing? Or a Canadian? Or a Californian? Or somebody like Tim McVeigh?

Scaramonga,

At least we know what his name is. What his hometown is. What the hell he is here to do.

I myself am a student from India. U.S. Govt. has enough dope on me to at least know what my purpose was for coming to the US, how long i am going to stay here, when i am scheduled to leave etc etc.

I am also a student of finance, and so have learnt that if you cannot maximize return, then minimize risk. Sure there is nothing stopping anyone, you or me from doing exactly what Tim Mcveigh did. But at least we can stop that risk from growing by allowing more and more illegal immigrants into the USA.

As Pres. Bush keeps reminding us, we have to take care of everyone, keep an eye open for any disturbance, make sure no leads go unexplored, no tips not followed. This is simply not acceptable after 9/11. We should always, ALWAYS err on the side of caution.

But i would agree with your view here. Also with Mark above that building a 1000 mile wall is just not feasible. I dont see any definitive solution to this problem in the near future. My guess is all we'll get are measure to stop the bleeding, not cure the disease.

BTW, I go to NYU and fail to understand why it takes an Indian guy to tell American students to love their country and support it? I support America more than most of the students here combined.

Oh, and i also agree with the candy statement. I like candy.

{Want something constructive to do, give [Dem senators] a call. They won't listen to you, but they will hear you.}

If they won't listen, how is calling them "constructive"? Isn't it a waste of our time?

You want to do something constructive, ladies and gents? Contact Republican senators and urge them to call Harry Reid's bluff.

This is a power play. The only way to win it is through a showdown. If Republicans aren't willing to do that, their majorities are pointless.

Funny Mark,

My read of your call for a Conservative 'time out', finds it missing a few glaring omissions of reality.

What if the American people oppose your agenda? - I'm still baffled by the illusion Conservatives maintain over the viability of your Social Security overhaul. When you offer contradicting, yet distorted polling to prop up your argument, the Right seems in denial. Yet, when it's clear now that a majority oppose Bush's plan, your continued demand for privatization without a hint of compromise looks like an arrogant disregard for the people's wishes.

You've gotten the most Conservative judges confirmed, ever. Still not enough? - The part of your faulty argument on 'the nuclear option' that's missing, is that a lot of Bush's Conservative nominees have been confirmed by Senate Dems. The only litmus test is not ideology (as you deceitfully claim), but proof the Constitution and existing laws will be interpreted as written. And, that hard and fast rule that triggers the filibuster, has always needed bi-partisan GOP Senators to sustain it.

Bert M. Caradine,

The last time we got a read on what the majority of Americans wanted back on November 2nd, they indicated their support for a man (President Bush) who was promising to reform SS with a privatisation element included. Polling is important and useful, but we don't set policy based upon polls...and, at any rate, the polling on SS is inconclusive, at best...some polls indicate opposition, some don't...what President Bush and the GOP will do is push the reform proposal and if the majority disagree, they can register such disagreement in 2006 and 2008. I'm confident that an SS reform with privatisation will be endorsed by a majority of voters.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that only your particular view of the Constitution is valid...we on the right disagree heartily with the leftwing view of the meaning and intent of the Constitution and what you view as a "radical, right-wing extremist" is viewed by us as a mere strict constructionist who will enforce the laws as written, not make up laws as he goes along. We won the election and we get to appoint the judges...if you are disappointed in this, then I suggest you get a better Presidential candidate in 2008 and try again. As for the filibuster, it takes no GOP support to sustain it as 40 Senators may sustain a filibuster...last year, the Democrats counted 49 members in the Senate, this year then count 45...in both cases, more than the necessary 40...to break a filibuster requires some Democratic support and such has not been forthcoming...thus the necessity of us ensuring that the Senate carries out its Constitutional duty to provide and up or down vote on the nominee, not refuse to allow a vote to happen because a tiny minority knows it will lose the resultant vote.

"The part of your faulty argument on 'the nuclear option' that's missing, is that a lot of Bush's Conservative nominees have been confirmed by Senate Dems. "

There is no "faulty argument", only "stupid leftist". The part that you are missing is that you Donks are holding up the circuit cout appointments. Unprecedented. 49....45..... :) Keep it up!

"I'm still baffled"

That is an understatement.

they indicated their support for a man (President Bush) who was promising to reform SS with a privatization element included.

Funny Mark,

The details of his SS reform were conspicuously missing from his stump speeches, just as any hint of eliminating portions of farm subsidies.

The continued refusal of the Right to even acknowledge reality, will be your downfall. The arrogance that your razor-thin margin of Bush's victory is a mandate, is a joke. You point to polling data to make the case against Gay Marriage and 'activist judges', but dismiss them as inconclusive and/or biased when they show you've failed on SS or being stupid doing the bidding of James Dobson.

And, thanks for the correction on the votes needed to invoke the filibuster. However, the 60 votes needed in the Senate to end it, still requires defections of Republicans.

...we on the right disagree heartily with the leftwing view of the meaning and intent of the Constitution and what you view as a "radical, right-wing extremist" is viewed by us as a mere strict constructionist who will enforce the laws as written, not make up laws as he goes along.

Those 'radical, right-wing extremists' like Randall Terry and James Dobson are fast becoming the face of your party. And, their calling even Conservative judges who ruled against them 'murderers' and 'killers' in the Schiavo case, will be considered a failure of a 'strict Constructionist' interpretation of the law.

Bert,

You must have watched a different Presidential election than I did...I recall, quite clearly, that the Prez routinely touted his SS reform plan and, also, noted that he wanted a privatisation element included in any reform...but I guess when you say "detail" you mean that the President didn't lay out a point by point plan exactly during the campaign...as if any politician would hem himself in like that. You can quibble all you like, but the American people voted in a strong majority for a man who, among other things, said he wanted to reform SS with privatisation as part of the plan...

You make what seem otherwise a pretty strong lefty argument look foolish when you say that Republicans have to join in to break a filibuster...the GOP isn't holding the filibuster, ergo it can't be part of breaking it...the Democrats are holding the filibuster and as long as 40 or more of them stay in line, the filibuster holds even if all 55 GOP Senators vote to break it...no, buddy, it takes Democrats to break a Democratic filibuster, not Republicans.

Mark,

If I follow your logic, by re-electing Bush, Americans fully endorse his second term agenda - not needing to see the details and/or get a convincing argument?

Poll after poll I've seen on Bush's SS proposal, the more voters heard the details, the more they opposed them. Which further confirms why Bush and the GOP have been so successful in selling the Iraq invasion, two tax cuts and an abhorrent bankruptcy bill - the less the American people know of the details, and the better the distorted propaganda they are fed, the higher your winning percentage!

The point about the false, partisan claims of the Right over the filibuster, is simply that it takes the refusal of enough moderate Senate Republicans for it prevail, which invariably means there exists a bi-partisan objection to confirmation, which accurately reflects the state of our nation.

Bert,

Once again, it depends on the poll...as Matt has pointed out over at our sister site Blogs for Bush, a recent poll of college students shows strong support for private accounts among what must be considered the best educated segment of the younger populationi. On balance, my experience has been that people want to control their own retirement accounts, but do worry a bit about the risks involved...but that worry drops among younger people and people who currently own private retirement accounts. Essentially, the plan is to start small and let the result speak for themselves...just as Chile did a few years back; initially, only a small percentage of Chileans opted for the private accounts, but once the returns were in, the move to private accounts became a stampede and now only a couple percent of Chileans rely upon their old, US-style SS system. You should keep in mind that the US system is actually a carbon copy of the German system instituted in the 1870's...we're talking a 19th century idea and the only really bizarre thing is that "liberals" want to keep it going into the 21st century.

You're really hitting the Liberal-Dense-O-Meter with the filibuster thing, you know? Each and every blocked nominee has already garnered majority support in the Senate...ie, in all the cases a majority of Senators have indicated their support for the nominees in question and thus they'd sail through a floor vote; there is no actual controversy about the nominees, just obstructionist tactics by the Democrats at the behest of a very tiny, out-of-touch minority of Democratic special interest groups. Additionally, no GOP Senator has indicated any support for a filibuster...what you're confused about is that a few GOPers have expressed opposition to changing the Senate's filibuster rules to allow for a floor vote on judicial nominees. The filibusters themselves, however, are 100% sustained by Democrats, no GOPers joining in.

Mark,

It's obvious that you cannot comprehend my point on the filibuster, so I'll leave you with this:

Few in GOP back plans to stop Dems

Bert,

I am afraid I get your point about filibusters all too well...it is you, on the other hand, who doesn't seem to understand how a filibuster works....it is always the political minority trying to stop the majority...ergo, any filibuster in the current Senate would be a Democratic thing.

As for your news story...weird story; I wouldn't put too much stock in a story that purports to say that 80% of GOPers want an up or down vote on nominees but only 30% favor ending the filibusters to have said up or down vote...

....it is always the political minority trying to stop the majority...ergo, any filibuster in the current Senate would be a Democratic thing.

And, what you do not realize Mark, is just because you hold a majority, does not mean that the will of the people represented by the minority has no say so in crafting the laws and courts of this country. And, it will take at least 60 votes in the Senate (meaning a bi-partisan majority), to deny them that right.

And, as for the news story, not surprisingly that 80% percent of a majority party want their way on a simple up and down vote. But, they should not have that right when permanently putting jurists on the bench. However, that right can be obtained under current rules, by simply getting more of your candidates elected.

Finally, you should put great stock in the fact that only 37% percent of the GOP support Frist's threat. Because, it reflects the reality that a solid, credible case has not been made, and that by using the extremist, hate rhetoric of James Dobson as a substitute, win or lose, great damage will come to your party.

Bert,

I recall that we of the right were told to drop our pro-life position because it was just killing us out there....I was first advised of this back in 1982....yeah, it's really killed us. Tell ya what, how's about we on the right don't take "friendly" leftwing advice about what we should do?

You are correct, however, that the majority does not and should not have untrammelled power to enact its will...on the other hand, there should be neither a religious nor a political test for office...unless a nominee is either unqualified or morally suspect, they should be accorded an up or down vote. I've actually got a blog post on it coming up Saturday on this blog at a bit after 9am...so, we'll take this up there.

Mark,

I'll conclude this rather substantive debate with one last observation.

There are actually some positions of the pro-Life argument that I can agree with, like parental notification for women under 18. And, I believe that if arbitration of the issue was left to the pragmatic and conscientious members of the ideological Middle (like me!), a consensus could be reached.

Meaning, I would never have given such advice to abandon your pro-Life advocacy in '82, because there's a big difference - it was based on substantive, credible arguments that held up to scrutiny, making it unnecessary to deceive or impugn your opponent.

My 'friendly left-wing advice' therefore, is that your argument on 'the nuclear option' looks nothing like that.

Bert,

Fair enough, and we can pick this all up...but now it will be about 2pm-ish that the next post on the subject comes up.

As for this thread, I'll end by stating that I'd rather lose an election on this issue than retreat from it and win...