The Repubs ARE CAVING ON THE NUKE OPTION!!!!!

[Beetwasher]

Santorum reads nuke polls, applies the brakes
By Alexander Bolton

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a leading advocate of the “nuclear option” to end the Democrats’ filibuster of judicial nominees, is privately arguing for a delay in the face of adverse internal party polls.

Details of the polling numbers remain under wraps, but Santorum and other Senate sources concede that, while a majority of Americans oppose the filibuster, the figures show that most also accept the Democratic message that Republicans are trying to destroy the tradition of debate in the Senate.

The Republicans are keeping the “nuclear” poll numbers secret, whereas they have often in the past been keen to release internal survey results that favor the party. David Winston, head of the Winston Group, which conducts Senate GOP polls, did return phone calls seeking comment.

Confirming public disquiet over the “nuclear” or “constitutional” option, Santorum said, “Our polling shows that.” But, he added, public thinking had been muddied by what he called false Democratic arguments that checks and balances were being eroded.

--snip--

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/042105/santorum.html

The numbers must really, really suck! Ha Ha!

I'm holding out a little hope here that the Dems are starting to hit their stride!

[Walt Starr]

1. Democrats stand in unison to fight,

Republicans cower in fear like the craven cowards they are!

[AndyTiedye]

6. That Would Be Something To See

Democrats stand in unison to fight

We haven't seen anything like it happen in years,
but if the Dems can't do it now, it's all over.

I am still hoping that we can stop this thing and save our democracy.
It's hanging by a thread.

[Swamp Rat]

11. ... a very thin thread.

[Cats Against Frist]

16. I think that's your best graphic, ever

So much subtext.

[Swamp Rat]

43. HAHA! I love your sigline!

As for the pic, thank you.

[HeeBGBz]

47. Wow, SwampRat, must've had a lot of hits on your pic

No more bandwidth.

[Swamp Rat]

48. Here you go:

[HeeBGBz]

62. Well done

Scary, though.

[Lexingtonian]

28. the numbers are out there

One of the major pollsters did this one a week or two ago. It was 57% for retaining the thing, 35% for Republicans getting their way, the rest Unsure.

I imagine the thing has slipped further to its "natural" support of the 32% hardcore Republican/anti-Democrat electorate. The ~60% against it means Democrats, Democratic leaners, and nonpartisan people are all pretty much convinced of the Democratic "balance" need/argument.

The 8-10% Unsures are the key- probably the soft Republicans who figure things are getting out of whack. It may be these Unsures are at this point slipping over to the Democratic side, actually, as all the facts emerge- and that would be very bad news for Frist.

The reason Santorum is this queasy is that 32% support is no longer real support for the action, it's just willingness to thwart/screw Democrats. Those 8-10% moderate Repubs going away, saying this is a bridge too far (and implying that the Culture War in the courts is coming to an end: liberals win), that's really the key political fact within the Republican Party. And all the nonpartisan/Indie voters already siding with Democrats means it's bad national politics- another Schiavo affair- waiting to happen.

[ClintonTyree]

33. I thought they didn't "govern by polls"....

the swaggering, cocksure Republicans have crowed forever that they didn't govern by polls, that they were above that and would stick to their guns. :cry: Yet another instance of how the Slugs say one thing and do the opposite.

They haven't backed down yet though, and until they do, we have to keep unyielding pressure on the Democrats to NOT BACK AWAY and STAY TOGETHER! Write your Senators and Congressmen, tell them that this action by the Slugs, SHALL NOT STAND!

[Zenlitened]

2. Better thread title: Democrats are WINNING on the filibuster issue!

;)

(Just ribbin' ya. :toast: )

[Beetwasher]

4. Half Full Or Empty?

;-)

I like my title better because it paints the Repubs as cowards. I like twisting the knife! Yours is good because it paints the Dems as winners!

[Zenlitened]

7. Then we must duel, sir. Martinis at six. Er, I mean six paces.

:D

[Beetwasher]

10. How About Six Martinis?

:evilgrin:

[Zenlitened]

20. Sixsh mirtoonies it ish!

:D

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

41. I'm Sure You Have Legitimate Links

To back up those quotes and to back up the proposal and voting claims, yes? Got link?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

45. Just As I Thought, No Links

Forgive me if I don't just take your word for anything. Put up Chester, I'd love to see everything in context.

Additionally, so what? This post is about the Repubs backing down, not whether it's constitutional or not, so, even if I take you at your word (and I don't), it's irrelevant. So what's your point? If it is indeed a matter of principle for the Repubs, why back down? That would make them a bunch of fucking hypocritical, slimy cowards with no real ideals, wouldn't it?

I suppose you'll tell me you felt the same when the Repubs blocked Clinton's appointment? :eyes:

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

53. The National Review???? BWHWHHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!

Good Lord Are You Full Of Shit and Intellectually Dishonest. I knew it!

You don't know what you're talking about. The quotes of Dems were talking about having VOTES on the nominees as oppposed to not even bringing them to floor. The Repubs weren't even USING the fillibuster, they weren't allowing Clinton's nominees to the floor for an up down vote. Those quotes were not about ending fillibusters. Duh.

I knew you were posting shit out of context. How dishonest.

If you expect me to take the National Review article at face value? What are you smoking? There just as intellectually honest as you are, which is to say, not at all. There is nothing whatsoever to back up their claims about that supposed '95 legislation to end fillibusters. Somehow I doubt very much that it is as they portray it. Put up Chester, where's this supposed legislation backed by 19 Dems to end fillibusters. I think this guy is full of shit and so are you. If it were true, it would be plastered all over Fox news instead of in one bullshit article in the National Review by some nobody. There are no references in that article, no links, nothing to back up his claims about this supposed legislation. I call bullshit.

If (and this is a big if since I think you and the NR are full of shit and not giving the whole story or properly representing the supposed legislation or presenting it out of context, for a change :eyes:) the claims are true and the Dems DID really want to end all fillibusters, so what? It STILL changes nothing, it only makes the Repubs even BIGGER hypocrites for being FOR it now. I would not have agreed w/ the Dems doing it then and I don't agree w/ the Repubs doing it now.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

60. Pathetic, You Can't Stay On Topic Can You? Hey Einstein, Guess What

You make the claim, you provide the evidence and the sources:

"what the Harkin proposal was? Answer....crickets.....Well, it sought to limit all filibuster even on legislative matters...talk about a nuclear option...you could look it up .....if you know how..."

This is your claim and I think you're full of shit and so far the only thing you've provided to back it up is your own claim and a non-referenced article in NR. That won't cut it here Chester. We don't believe you, so back up your bullshit or admit your full of shit and go crawl back to your hole.

All you do is trot out idiotic, unsourced, republican talking points that are irrelevant to the thread. This thread was not about the constitutionality or unconstitutionality and I made no arguments regarding that point, so either you have severe reading comprehension problems or like to argue strawmen.

If the fillibuster is such a bad idea, why were the Repubs apparently OPPOSED to ending it when the Dems were allegedly (I still don't buy it) were trying to get rid of it?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

64. Stay On Topic, Einstein

If you want to start a thread about that, do it. This thread is about those hypocritical, moronic, unprincipled, lilly livered, sissy,douchebags otherwise known as Repubs who are caving on the Nuclear Option because of a poll.

Ok, I'll answer you anyway, cause I'm such a nice guy (bein' a liberal and all). I'm for the fillibuster, always have been. Supposedly, the Repubs have always been for it too, right? What happened, Chester? Now they're not for it. Are they a bunch of unprincipled douchebags or what?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

66. LOL ! English Much? Arrrrrgghhh! I'm A Pirate, Matey!

LOL! Shiver me timbers!

Put down the crack pipe, Chester and put up or shut up. Still haven't backed up your bullshit, what a surprise. Loser is as loser does. Losers pussy out when asked to back up their bullshit because they know they can't.

[More Than A Feeling]

54. delete due to excessive naivete

[Beetwasher]

55. You're Generous, You Take Him At His Word

I don't. I would very much like to see this supposed legislation. Somehow, I doubt it's what they are portraying it as or there's MUCH more to the story.

[More Than A Feeling]

56. My bad, can't find anything on this except more GOP talking points

Thanks for the reminder!

[Beetwasher]

57. If It Were True, Why Aren't The Repubs Screaming About This

Think about it, we'd be hearing everyday from every Repub that the Dems wanted to end fillibusters in '95. :shrug: Not a peep about it except from this guy. Must be that damn liberal media! ;-)

[More Than A Feeling]

58. I wonder whats up with low post trolls

who have membership dates back in 2001-02 and are really pesky and last awhile. There was one just yesterday who lasted 33 posts and was really keen that we accept that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Took a team effort to take him/her down.

[bushisanidiot]

3. Well damn. That would have been a big nail in the repukes coffin for '06

chickenshits..

[mmonk]

38. Total control is not a nail in their coffin

but a nail in our democracy.

[mmonk]

40. This is their chance to change the U.S.

maybe forever. I won't breathe normally until I'm assured they won't go this dictatorship route. They have already been the most in your face congress and administration I have ever seen. I wonder who is calling the shots on this. I'm not convinced it's primarily Frist, he's probably just the vehicle.

[ewagner]

5. Don't count on them caving

If you read the article you will see that they say the bad poll numbers are a result of "false Democratic arguments that checks and balances were being eroded."

What does that mean?

It means that they won't pull the (nuclear) trigger until they have REFRAMED the argument in their favor. They will use the poll numbers as instructions on how much more bullshit they have to spread and where they have to spread it before they make their move.

Dems need to keep on the attack...loud and clear.

[ClintonTyree]

34. Frank Luntz will be busy...

searching for the right words to properly propagandize the situation. His crap is wearing pretty thin though, people are catching on. Finally.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. Obviously

Pretty obvious. They're trying to cover their own butts. It's just like how Bush doesn't put out the terror reports anymore. Because it shows he's a failure.

[cajones_II]

9. That's one small step for man.....

I thought it would have been interesting for them to pass it and then stand there in disbelief at their stupidity 6 years later as a dem majority steamrolls them.

Kind of like passing the ammendment to stop Roosevelt, and then they had Reagan, and couldn't coronate him after all.

I think we should give these assholes lots of rope; they do a fine job of screwing themselves over without our help

[CatWoman]

12. Hey, sweet thing

:hi:

Crooks and Liars has a bunch of stuff on it, too: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/04/21.html#a2563

[Beetwasher]

14. Cool! Thank You Darlin'!

:hi: :loveya:

[BurtWorm]

18. Thank the Underpass Stain, Santorum is facing election in 2006.

In a blue state. :patriot:

[elehhhhna]

13. Someone better tell GW we HAVE "turned the corner", finally.

[BurtWorm]

15. But let's not say Mission Accomplished just yet.

:evilfrown:

[elehhhhna]

23. Not 'til we shock & awe the Chimpermeister. DEMOS INCOMING!

[Cats Against Frist]

17. (reserved) Yay!

I'm hoping that it works out, so I can say, "Sit DOWN, cat killah," repeatedly.

BTW -- they closed the thread, so I just wanted to say that you were CRACKING ME UP in the religious mocking thread.

[Beetwasher]

24. I Aim To Please!

:hi:

Though that was just too easy. I mean come on, that guy was just askin' for it.

[gratuitous]

19. I don't know that they're caving, necessarily

But they are surely having a little more trouble than they thought they would in running roughshod over the principled opposition of the Democrats. David Reinhard of the Oregonian was pissing and moaning about Democratic "obstructionist" tactics this morning, so you KNOW we're on the right track.

Lesson: We fight, we win.

If Reid starts making Daschlean noises about "bipartisanship" and "compromise," I'll start worrying. But as long as he isn't fazed by the scurrilous bleating of the GOP crybabies, I'm quite hopeful that the more extreme facets of their misbegotten rule can be countered.

Looking forward to 2006.

[Nothing Without Hope]

21. We need to get the word out: CORNYN LIED ABOUT LEGAL BASIS OF

his anti-filibuster arguments: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=180x12594
(scroll down to the bottom of the Cornyn entry - the link is to the page assembled on this issue of Cornyn's lying.)

I'll try to post a thread with an update on this later today. It's clearly important ammunition for the Democrats.

[lala_rawraw]

22. GOP will not survive this administration n/t

[stevedeshazer]

25. Rope-A-Dope

Let's not concede anything.

But, DAMN THAT IS ENCOURAGING!!!!!

:toast:

[Roland99]

26. NOT OVER YET! They're just waiting for this spate of bad news to dissipate

Santorum has left it up to Frist to set the timing on it.

[Guaranteed]

27. KABOOM! Another loss for the Repukes!

My God, this is getting REALLY, REALLY GOOD.

We've got our Howitzers dead to rights on them.

Just BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM....

Beautiful.

[wicket]

29. WOO HOO!

:kick:

[ktowntennesseedem]

30. I'm STILL skeptical, but getting a little more hopeful.

This is but one cup of water in the middle of a desert, but damn that water was refreshing! Thanks for the good news!

:kick:

[Vogon_Glory]

31. I'm Also Skeptical, But Maybe

I'm also skeptical, but maybe some of the more thoughtful Republicans are thinking of the longer-term consequences of abolishing the filibuster. Two could play at this game, given the opportunity. If the numbers shift in the Senate, the R's might be facing an angry, vengeful Democratic majority more than willing to steamroller their own political agenda over the protests of the remaining Republicans.

[stray cat]

32. Most Americans don't trust "one party rule"

The need for the fillibuster is because no one party should have absolute power - most Americans don't trust any politician that much. Fillubusters = government checks and balances.

[K-W]

35. Heh, but they themselves are arguing that it would erode checks

If it werent a check, why would they care abut it?

Their actual argument is that the check is unreasonable.

Damn liars.

[LatePeriduct]

36. Now is the time for any decent american....

To drive the dominionists and their chess piece GOP squad back into the ethersphere, and start filling up the looneybins.

[Beetwasher]

37. KICK W/ YAHOO ARTICLE: GOP Survey Shows Few Plan to Stop Dems

WASHINGTON - Private Republican polling shows scant support for a plan to stop minority Democrats from blocking judicial nominees, officials said Thursday, as two of President Bush's most controversial appointments advanced toward a possible Senate confrontation.

These officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a recent survey taken for Senate Republicans showed 37 percent support for the GOP plan to deny Democrats the ability to filibuster judicial nominees, while 51 percent oppose.

--snip--

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050422/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight_15

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

46. Of Course You Don't

I wonder why? :eyes:

I suppose that you felt the same when the Repubs blocked Clinton's nominees?

BTW, your post is off topic. This thread is about those pussy fucking Repubs backing down, even when they control the Senate. What a bunch of fucking incompetent losers and pussies. If they really believed as a matter of principle that fillibusters are wrong, why would they pussy out of this because of a poll? Pathetic.

[Swamp Rat]

49. LOL!

[Zenlitened]

50. Funniest post of the day!

:rofl:

[Lone Pawn]

51. I'm entirely surprised.

You know, if you want to pull a "I just don't agree with the Democrats on this..." it helps to actually have said a thing or two in agreement with Democrats first. It doesn't surprise anyone that a Brand New Member with No Posts disagrees. We just brush them off as disruptor.

EDIT: Whoops. Tombstoned.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

63. Of course Senator Sanctimonious also knows that

he's facing a tough re-election campaign against Casey next year and that he'll probably have to appear as moderate and rational as possible in order to score points with the moderate base of voters that keeps returning Specter at successive elections. That's why he's toned down his stance on the death penalty and now he's trying to appear "reasonable" on this issue. Expect this facade to immediately disappear if the unthinkable happens and Senator Sanctimonious wins re-election

I know this is a bit OT but I always get a bit cynical these days when I read that Senator Sanctimonious is trying to appear anything other than the egomaniac that he is