<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fili-busted</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/954/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/954</link>
	<description>BTC News: News, politics, opinion and satire</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:52:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: PubliusToo</title>
		<link>http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/954/comment-page-1#comment-5419</link>
		<dc:creator>PubliusToo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2005 20:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=954#comment-5419</guid>
		<description>Who won?  Who cares?!  Hardly another Profile in Courage, this “compromise” merely postpones the day of reckoning.  What the Senate really needed was 67 Senators with enough courage premanently to prevent dishonest rule changes by a mere majority vote.  Changing unequivocal rules on a point of order is dishonest and disrespectful of the rule of law, so to speak.  What’s next?  A ruling that the Senate has never (or only once or twice) &quot;filibustered&quot; tax cut bills, so the debate on any tax cut bills can be ended by a mere 51 votes.  

Lyndon Johnson once compared being a member of the Senate and the House as the difference between chicken and chicken shit.  It seems that the Senate has largely bridged that gap.  These days, the more appropriate comparison between the House and the Senate would be the difference between chicken shit and bullshit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who won?  Who cares?!  Hardly another Profile in Courage, this “compromise” merely postpones the day of reckoning.  What the Senate really needed was 67 Senators with enough courage premanently to prevent dishonest rule changes by a mere majority vote.  Changing unequivocal rules on a point of order is dishonest and disrespectful of the rule of law, so to speak.  What’s next?  A ruling that the Senate has never (or only once or twice) &#8220;filibustered&#8221; tax cut bills, so the debate on any tax cut bills can be ended by a mere 51 votes.  </p>
<p>Lyndon Johnson once compared being a member of the Senate and the House as the difference between chicken and chicken shit.  It seems that the Senate has largely bridged that gap.  These days, the more appropriate comparison between the House and the Senate would be the difference between chicken shit and bullshit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JackD</title>
		<link>http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/954/comment-page-1#comment-5418</link>
		<dc:creator>JackD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2005 02:23:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=954#comment-5418</guid>
		<description>Gotta agree with the comment above.  What does anyone think will be Frist&#039;s move when a Supreme Court vacancy is at issue?  It will be that the Democrat&#039;s are acting in bad faith and the deal is off.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gotta agree with the comment above.  What does anyone think will be Frist&#8217;s move when a Supreme Court vacancy is at issue?  It will be that the Democrat&#8217;s are acting in bad faith and the deal is off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LaryE</title>
		<link>http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/954/comment-page-1#comment-5414</link>
		<dc:creator>LaryE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2005 17:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=954#comment-5414</guid>
		<description>I really think looking to effects on the 2008 presidential race is overreaching. Yes, memories, especially among such s the &quot;religious&quot; right, are long, but it&#039;s still two years and maybe even a little more before things get really serious, which can be a lifetime in politics - especially since Frist can still go to his backers and say &quot;hey, we got three and probably more and we can still pull the trigger anytime we want to, if need be. Why fire a weapon and so use it up when you&#039;re getting what you want just by brandishing it?&quot;

Beyond that, I agree that this &quot;compromise&quot; is &quot;slow asphyxiation&quot; for the filibuster - in fact, I&#039;d go beyond that to say it&#039;s a death knell: Despite all the studiously parsed language about Senators&#039; &quot;consciences,&quot; the net effect is that these &quot;moderate&quot; (it shows how far things have moved that John McCain is apparently too &quot;moderate&quot; to be called a &quot;conservative&quot;) Republicans have said to the Democrats &quot;you can filibuster whenever we decide it&#039;s okay&quot; and the Democrats have swallowed it whole.

&quot;What else were they supposed to do?&quot; They were supposed to say no. Might Frist have pulled the trigger? Yes. &lt;i&gt;But the effective outcome here is not much different&lt;/i&gt; and Frist can still detonate the bomb - as he himself has noted - anytime a sufficient number of &quot;moderate&quot; Republicans think that Democrats are &quot;not living up to their part of the bargain.&quot;

Finally, one last observation: An AP story said the nulear option &quot;threatened the comity the Senate needs to function.&quot; I think in our discussions of the whole affair we have tended to overlook how important it is to Senators to maintain that atmosphere, or at least the pretense, of collegial courtesy. I think that had a lot more to do with producing this &quot;compromise&quot; than any other single factor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really think looking to effects on the 2008 presidential race is overreaching. Yes, memories, especially among such s the &#8220;religious&#8221; right, are long, but it&#8217;s still two years and maybe even a little more before things get really serious, which can be a lifetime in politics &#8211; especially since Frist can still go to his backers and say &#8220;hey, we got three and probably more and we can still pull the trigger anytime we want to, if need be. Why fire a weapon and so use it up when you&#8217;re getting what you want just by brandishing it?&#8221;</p>
<p>Beyond that, I agree that this &#8220;compromise&#8221; is &#8220;slow asphyxiation&#8221; for the filibuster &#8211; in fact, I&#8217;d go beyond that to say it&#8217;s a death knell: Despite all the studiously parsed language about Senators&#8217; &#8220;consciences,&#8221; the net effect is that these &#8220;moderate&#8221; (it shows how far things have moved that John McCain is apparently too &#8220;moderate&#8221; to be called a &#8220;conservative&#8221;) Republicans have said to the Democrats &#8220;you can filibuster whenever we decide it&#8217;s okay&#8221; and the Democrats have swallowed it whole.</p>
<p>&#8220;What else were they supposed to do?&#8221; They were supposed to say no. Might Frist have pulled the trigger? Yes. <i>But the effective outcome here is not much different</i> and Frist can still detonate the bomb &#8211; as he himself has noted &#8211; anytime a sufficient number of &#8220;moderate&#8221; Republicans think that Democrats are &#8220;not living up to their part of the bargain.&#8221;</p>
<p>Finally, one last observation: An AP story said the nulear option &#8220;threatened the comity the Senate needs to function.&#8221; I think in our discussions of the whole affair we have tended to overlook how important it is to Senators to maintain that atmosphere, or at least the pretense, of collegial courtesy. I think that had a lot more to do with producing this &#8220;compromise&#8221; than any other single factor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

