KRC

They have a tough time grasping the concept that the questions are designed to give specific results. Change the wording of the question, and the results will change. You have bias when writing the questions and you have bias when interpreting the results.

That is not just the media.

What the hell would you know about this stuff? We need to pay attention to the MoveOn.org wackos. Only they know the truth. Seriously. They make it up on a regular basis. Just run along and go back to your job. You know, the one that deals with this stuff on a daily basis. You have absolutely NO qualifications to talk about this stuff. Let's have a left-wing hack enlighten us on the truth. Go ahead, Promo...

Your argument might carry some weight if I were actually a Republican and if I actually were a Bush supporter. I am neither. PTR said WMD never existed. Facts prove otherwise, namely the people killed from Iraq's use of the stuff. Sorry if the truth is getting in the way of your agenda. You might want to do something about that. It hurts your credibility. As far as PTR's post, he complains about right-wing apologists, but it is pretty hypocritical of him to do the exact same thing for his side. It is pretty embarassing, if you ask me.

That is because Bigfoot exists. It was reported in all the papers. The National Enquirer had a big story on it. I think the Weekly World News also had a multi-part piece on it. Seriously, Tom. You really need to start reading more.

The administration and the military did not deny it, so therefore it is true. What proof do you need? Isn't the lack of denial enough for you?

They set the bar pretty high (or low, depending on your POV), don't they.

Stop bowing down to the administration. You don't need any actual concrete proof when it comes to these types of things. Innuendo is enough. Friggin Republicans.

From what I understand of the procedure they will employ, it will just be for judicial nominations. It is not a law, but a Senate rule.

Since we are discussing the Constitution, lets look at the exact clause which applies here: Section II Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

"They" refers to both parties, Republicans and Democrats.

The Dems are doing exactly what the Republicans did during Clinton. It wasn't right then, and it isn't right now. Again, the Senate can only make rules that do not violate the Constitution. Filibustering judicial nominees is a violation of the Constitution. They are required a majority vote, not a super majority. Filibustering other topics is acceptable, just not for judicial nominees. I agree with the monkey in that it should be a true filibuster, not this faux filibuster being used now. Make these people earn their salary.

You mean, he is a hypocrite. It is like a bunch of the Dems who are staunchly in favor of filibustering these nominees. They are also on record stating that judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote. They are praying on the fact that people will not actually pay attention to things they said in the past.

The Senate can make rules, as long as they do not violate the Constitution. It is specified in the Constitution that a majority vote is required for judicial nominees, not a super majority. Super majorities are only for treaties. In the words of Ted Kennedy, "The filibuster rule is not enshrined in the Constitution. Instead, it is a rule that was made by the Senate, and it is a rule that can be unmade by the Senate." He also said, "The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees – yes or no."

Sad, isn't it.

The Constitution requires only a majority vote on all judicial nominations. The Democrats are trying to force it to a super majority, which is a violation of the Constitution. Nothing like typical MoveOn scare tactics to cloud the actual issue.

It is just like the AARP and the SS debate or most of the junk put out by MoveOn.org. They are preying on the fact that people are not actually going to research the issue and that they will just blindly believe what is fed to them.

Iraq never had WMD's? You should let the IAEA and UN know that they were wasting their time since the end of GWI. All those inspections and resolutions were for nothing. Also, you need to let the Iranians know that all the deaths they incurred from Iraq's WMD's were just an illusion. Also, while you are at it, let the Kurds know that the thousands slaughtered via Iraqi WMD did not actually die. Funny, you seem to know something that the ENTIRE WORLD didn't.

So, you want to use unconstitutional tactics to guarantee that we get judges who uphold the Constitution?

The Senate is allowed to change the rules, as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution. The only thing requiring a supermajority is the treaty thingy. Other than that, it is a simple majority. Judicial nominations, according to the Constitution, require a simple majority.

What the Reps are doing is also within the rules. The procedure for this rule change is legal. Not saying that it is right to do it, but they are not breaking any rules in using this tactic. So, they have the right to do this to stop the Dems. Both options are within the rules, but what makes one OK and the other not? In fact, since you brought up the Constitutional argument before, it can be argued that this filibuster is unconstitutional. The specific article and clause mentioning advise and consent does not require a supermajority on judicial nominations, but only on treaties. The Senate cannot make rules which are unconstitutional. Therefore, this rule should not even be in place. In the words of Ted Kennedy, "The filibuster rule is not enshrined in the Constitution. Instead, it is a rule that was made by the Senate, and it is a rule that can be unmade by the Senate." He also said, "The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees – yes or no." Boys and girls...this is what we call a hypocrite. Now, as far as the compromise thingy, let me explain it to you again. The voters pressure the senators to work it out. If you are looking for a specific plan from me, then I say follow the Constitution and bring them up for a vote. Simple enough?

What the hell is your problem today? I told you exactly what I thought should be done. I would say it again, but you have already made up your mind that you want to be pissed off and are trying desperately to justify it. I want to make sure that things never reach the obstructionist stage. Working together for the benefit of the country. Novel concept.

Concerts lose a little in the translation to the written word.

Not unreasonable. Knowing that every word will be critiqued and be used against her if she cannot back it up, it is only wise for her to footnote the hell out of the book. If I were to take my papers for class, and extrapolate to 250 pages, it would come out to 50 pages of footnotes. Every fact and point of data is noted.

How is holding the elected officials accountable immature? They want to make new rules to get their way or obstruct things to prevent anything from getting done. Both sides have shown little room for compromise. They are both acting like petulant children. My solution: vote them out to send a message that this BS is not acceptable. It will force them to try harder to compromise. The voters need to make their voices heard.