Frist Seeks Fast Approval of Bush Nominee (Reid silent)

[gulfcoastliberal]

WASHINGTON - Setting the stage for an early showdown in the new Congress, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist intends to seek quick approval for one of President Bush's judicial appointees, threatening a rules change if Democrats try to block action.

Frist said he would seek approval in February for an unnamed appointee. "Self-restraint on the use of the filibuster for nominations — the same self-restraint that Senate minorities exercised for more than two centuries — will alleviate the need for any action" to change the rules, he said.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the newly elected Senate Democratic leader, did not respond publicly to Frist's comments. In the past, he has cautioned Republicans against a unilateral rules change.

Frist made his remarks as the new Congress convened, more firmly under Republican control than the old one, ready to tackle Bush's ambitious second-term agenda.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=2&u=/ap/20050105/ap_on_go_co/new_congress

We're doomed.

[shoelace414]

1. As long as you let us

Do whatever we want, and you do nothing, then we'll get along just fine

[Pirate Smile]

2. Everyone already knows what Reid said so I don't think he has to

repeat it every time Frist starts flapping his wings and squawking.

I kind of like the strong, silent response. Reid didn't back down.

[insane_cratic_gal]

5. Frist

Grrr.. I can't stand him.

wth is up with his hair piece. It can't be real! That or the hole in the ozone can be blamed on his Aqua Net habit of hair-spray.

In other matters I'll be interested to see how Reid preforms, this will his first test.

[Supersedeas]

12. a response is unnecessary....let's see who they push (re-push) first

[Mithras61]

3. Re: We're doomed

How so? The current fraudulent majority will not last forever, and we can play the same game with them when the time comes.

The fundamental problem we have to deal with is how to reverse their "gains" in the election defrauding process so that we can actually have open, honest elections and then we'll have the chance of taking back our country. Until then, any reverses we suffer are casualties of war, to be restored afterwards.

Remember, life is like a wheel... what goes around, comes around.

[Massachusetts]

7. Not soon enough

and we will have to make the hard decisions to clean up their mess!:grr:

[Mithras61]

8. We already HAVE to make them...

so the thought of additional hard decisions doesn't frighten me even a smidgeon. The fact is that we've been playing by their rules for most of the last 25 years, and it's mostly just gotten us into a sh!th0le that could easily have been avoided!

The fact is that we have a government that has been co-opted by the corporations, and until we get rid of the government by, for and of the corporations and get back to by, for and of the people, we're going to be royally screwed! That includes taking back OUR media from the corporate interests and (among other things) reinstating the fairness doctrine. It also means that we have to stop pretending that playing both sides of an argument is fairness or analysis!

[DavidDvorkin]

9. I'm not so sure it won't last forever.

If voting were honest, we could expect the normal ebb and flow of political power in Washington. That ebb and flow may be gone forever.

[Mithras61]

10. Gone forever?

I don't think it has. It will just take more effort to win this war (and yes, I do mean war).

[DavidDvorkin]

11. I agree that it's a war

But the enemy has all the weapons.

Okay, maybe "forever" is too much. But it can be long enough to be forever for some people. It took 45 years for Apartheid and the regime's artificial lock on a Parliamentary majority to go away in South Africa. I'm 61, and that looks like forever to me!

[pmbryant]

4. So Reid isn't giving away the Dems' strategy in public

What is the problem with that? He's dealing with a minority here, and has very little power to affect anything.

Let's try not to be so defeatist. We will certainly lose a lot of political battles over the next two years because we are outnumbered, but that doesn't mean "we're doomed".

--Peter

[pansypoo53219]

6. no name???

what the fuck? why can't they be up front if the nominee is worthy?

because they are trying to set a trap.


fuckers