On College Football 2022: Week 6 Recap and Week 7 Pre... Ken said: |
Yeah, we've both had our share of hope and disappointment in this game. Let's just hope for a good b... |
On College Football 2022: Week 6 Recap and Week 7 Pre... Dan* said: |
I'm not sure how I feel about this game. On one hand, I feel pretty optimistic that we have the tale... |
On College Football 2022: Week 1 Preview Dan* said: |
Glad to see you'll be back writing football again, Ken! Congrats on the easy win today. You didn't ... |
On College Football 2021: Week 10 Recap and Week 11 P... Ken said: |
Yeah, sorry one of our teams had to lose. I've come to appreciate Penn State as a classy and sympath... |
On College Football 2021: Week 10 Recap and Week 11 P... Dan* said: |
Hey Ken, congratulations on the win yesterday! Some really odd choices by our coaching staff in that... |
Pretty Sneaky, Sis | Wednesday, 2005 May 18 - 7:58 pm |
The more I learn about what the Senate Republicans are trying to do, the angrier I get about it. This morning, NPR came on my clock radio, and as it often does, it infiltrated my dreams. I was in the middle of some dream about my dad, and we were on a playground. Suddenly my dad became Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and I became the Democratic Party, and he was trying to get me to do something I didn't want to do, so I told him I'd rather do NOTHING than whatever it was that he wanted. It was very odd. So I almost decided to stay home and watch C-SPAN2 all day, to see how the "nuclear option" Senate debate was shaking out. But after hearing Frist spew twelve "talking points" in ninety seconds, I thought better of it. He did, however, mangle one of those talking points in an odd way. For several months he's been trying to euphemize the possible rule change (to prevent the filibuster of judge nominations), calling it "the Constitutional option" instead of "the nuclear option". So today he said, "We don't want the Constitutional option. We didn't ask for the Constitutional option." Right, because GOD FORBID you should actually abide by the principles of the Constitution. (In case you forgot, Mr. Frist, the Senate is supposed to be the body that's more immune to current political winds; it's supposed to move cautiously and slowly, not radically and recklessly.) I think the most telling thing about this debate is that, reportedly, the Senate parliamentarian (the person who rules on whether proper Senate procedures are being followed) is opposed to the rule change. See, the thing is, it's supposed to require 67 votes to effect a rule change in the Senate, but the GOP is trying to be sneaky and call this "setting a precedent" instead of "making a rule change", so they'd only require 51 votes to make it happen. I mean, COME ON. I'm going to start ringing the bell among all my friends about the upcoming 2006 elections. There will be 33 Senate seats up for re-election and perhaps the Democrats can get the majority back. Of course, that doesn't mean that I'm actually going to answer the phone when the Democratic National Committee calls looking for money... as they do NINE TIMES EVERY DAY. (Thank goodness for Caller ID.) |
Permalink 1 Comment
Posted by Ken in: politics |
Comment #1 from MonoCerdo (Guest) 2005 May 19 - 9:31 am : # |
Doesn't this all make you wonder what happened to the definition of CONSERVATIVE? They complain about "activist judges" (soon to be on my banned list) who want to change the law to fit their liberal agendas or whatever, and then they pull shit like this and intervene in personal cases like that of Terry Schiavo. I'm going to get a nose bleed just thinking about it. |