Matt:

The promise of bipartisanship does not mean that Democrats need to confirm any of Bush's right wing nuts to any position.

Bolton was responsible for cooking intelligence about Iraq that got us into Iraq that ultimately cost Republicans their political power.

Americans sent a message this Tuesday that mindless "cowboy" diplomacy Bush-style is not appreciated.

Wade

Do you really need to wait for the Bolton vote for your answere? When was the last time you saw a bipartisanship on anything in the last 6 years.
As we all should know by now, you can't win them all. We will be back to keep fighting the good fight and once America figures out just how badly they got duped to voting for "a change" that will not be for the better, we will once again step in to clean up the Dems mess.

John Bolton, rocks. He's one of the few positives in the U.N. The loss of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador would be a real loss to America.

As a Brit, I have to say I'd never heard of John Bolton until all the fuss began when his name was put forward to represent the US at the UN.

Watching the ensuing name calling and attempted character assination of him I began to think he must be some kind of monster. I've watched him often in his UN job since then and I've always found his demeaner, language and atitude to be nothing but propper and correct.

Just another example of liberal "fair play", huh?

Hearing Pelosi talk about "now working together in
a bi-partisan way", was almost enough to make you want to puke. Sorry, but she is such a total hypocrit, and "NOW" wants to do this? Isn't this
Just what Bush said when he was first in office-
wanting to work together as in Texas, in a bi-partisan way"? Unbelievable....

Down the road, it will become clear, that this is
NOT what is wanted and the people will see, just what they voted in. Today, Charlie Rangle WOULD NOT answer direct answers on 'taxes down the road'
when pressed by Cavuto to do so, So THAT, will be the LOUD MESSAGE THAT THE VOTERS HAVE SENT AS OF YESTERDAY-LYING DEMS, AS USUAL.

It's funny you're talking about bipartisanship. It's the GOP who desperately want Democrats to forget the fact that they couldn't introduce legislation, weren't informed of secretly held committee meetings, and in general had no role in Congress other than shaking their heads for the past 6 years.

Frankly, whatever bipartisanship you get, be happy for it. And don't confuse exerting constitutionally granted oversite over something as important as a, shall we say, controversial, UN ambassador as somehow improper.

This will be one of the first test of bipartinship. Bolten has no shot at confirmation. The President will have an opportunity to send over a statesman instead of a thug for confirmation.

It is very clear why the neorads want Bolton gone. He doesn't kiss the UN's butt. Sad, but true.

Josh is clearly one of those who defines "statesmanship" as mealy-mouhted "make nice and put popularity first" appeasement rather than principled and firm insistence on law and American interests.

Calling Bolton a "thug" is just more typical thuggishness from the Left. Mr. Bolton has acted with courtesy, decency, and intelligence, while standing up for America in a notoriously anti-American United Nations. It is only the most radical and loony of the far left who can even force themselves to indulge in such mindless name-calling and defamation of a fine man: ie; Josh.

But remember, the Left holds Madeline up as a model of "statesmanship".

And Wade, we love the wimpy-simpy uber-Left whining about the word "cowboy". As if being a cowboy is a bad thing. I live in the West, and I would rather have any cowboy I have ever met watching my back and standing up for me than any of the limp-wristed popularity whores who agonize over being LIKED and think sucking up is the definiton of "statesmanship".

The thing is, you seem to define manliness as being sexually serviced under the desk by underage subordinates, while we think it is knowing what is right and being true to ones' principles even when under fire from weenies and simps. To you, ignoring yapping ankle-biters is a sign of some character flaw, while you obviously prefer someone who can't make a move without taking a poll first.

Each to his own, but give me a cowboy any day. Cowboys built this country, so weenies like you could get all fluttery whenever things don't go your way.

I love Cowboys!
:)

I love Cowboys!
:)

^^^^

Me too. So much better then little p.... er, kitty cats.

Well, if republicans practice 'cowboy' diplomacy, that means democrats practice 'transgender' diplomacy.

Bolton has been nothing but civilized and calm in his U.N. post, the only reason the libs hate him is because Bush put him there. Lefties also hate Bolton because he wont kowtow to the dictators and thugocrats who dot the U.N. assembly, but mostly because he belongs to the Bush administration.

Bush can make another recess appointment Bolton and tell the libs to go pound sand.

John Bolton should be dismissed; he has done nothing but undermine the rule of internationalonal law.

The Democrats should support the setting up of an International Tribunal to try Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al for Crimes Against Peace

PEJ News The Nuremberg trial established key principles to apply in the case of Crimes against Peace, and War crimes. Two key principles are the following: (Principle 3) The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as head of state or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. (Principle 1) Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. It is time to finally establish an international tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law and to try President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Former Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld et al and the Coalition of the Willing . This tribunal will incorporate the principles from the Nuremberg trialand will be based on the International Tribunal established to judge the former federation of Yugslavia and revised to apply to the United States. [see pej.org

If Bolton is not confirmed, Bush should send over NO ONE. Screw the friggin UN.

Then throw them out of the country.

Good idea, Bongos. No better way to assert your legitimacy and credibility than to make a second recess appointment...

I'm all for an up-or-down vote on Bolton. Put both parties to the test.

Have Americans ever erected a statue of a “moderate”? Are there any moderates that we celebrate in poem or song? Is there an epic struggle in our past to which we looked to a moderate to deliver us from our enemies? Would we consider Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, or Roosevelt (either one) a moderate?

I don’t think I want to make a moderate my idea of a hero; I’ll take “courage of convictions” and those who “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” on which to aspire. You can keep your unprincipled moderates, struggling to please all parties; friend or foe, offering up ideals, right and wrong, good and evil as interchangeable parts to an argument which must be pacified rather than won or lost. I’d rather lose on principle then win and not be able to face my child because I sold out that which I believe to get along with the great unwashed.

I can accept compromise, and what I’ve seen of Bolton he can and does compromise on details but not on principles. To lose Bolton in favor of a moderate would make the UN less relevant to the US than it already is.

I just received an e-mail chastising me for being so hard on poor Josh and weeniehead. So in the interest of fairness, I am open to reminders of, say, movies or books in which the hero is a vaporish Liberal who seeks approval and permission for his every action.

I may have been too focused on the John Wayne/Alan Ladd/Gary Cooper stereotype of American manhood, and overlooked serious literature celebrating the Neville Chamberlain types and contributions they may have made to our civilization. My personal heroes have been more of the "Damn the torpedoes---full steam ahead" types rather than the "Ooooh, I wonder if the torpedoes mean I should rethink my position" types. I've tended to admire the Davy Crockett/Dan'l Boone types, the holdouts on Corregedor, the movie stars who left Hollywood to fly combat missions to defend our country, the guys who stood up for what they thought was right. I Liked Ike, or would have if I had been old enough, and his courage in making the huge decisions that he had to make to win the war.

I've ticked off a Brit or two by suggesting that one of America's greatest contributions to Great Britain was Mrs. Simpson, because she got a wimpy appeasement-minded loser off the throne and in so doing allowed England to have a real leader in the war.

Even the Scarlet Pimpernel only PRETENDED to be fluttery and offended by real men.

So my reaction to the Joshes and weenieheads is not new. I've had the same reaction to the same types for my whole life, ever since I got that silly dippy hippy crap out of my system way back when and started to see the world for what it is.

But I am open to reminders of the important role played by famous patriots and leaders whose chosen role was to sit back and snipe at those who were actually doing something. It's my conservative bias, I know---it colors everything, it seems. It certainly affects how I choose those whom I admire and those for whom I feel only contempt. But I am fair-minded, and willing to consider any hero of our time and country----or any other, for that matter----who did NOT stand up for his beliefs, who DID curry favor over principle, and who folded under criticism and attack.

In other words, who was not a "cowboy".

No, my e-mail was NOT from Bane, though his post, posted while I was writing mine, is oddly similar.

Yes it is, I think I heard it on Rush two or three days ago, though Im not sure who the author is.

Lets hope it all works out and we all win in the end.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

A: I didn't think you were too hard on the neorads. You tell it like it is ... and if they can't take it, they can leave.

So anyone here care to eliminate the filibuster right about now.....

anybody?

Remember, up/down vote only....

So who still is opposed to the filibuster, eh?

I would guess you all will "flip-flop" on that one, too.

Wade

I am open to reminders of, say, movies or books in which the hero is a vaporish Liberal who seeks approval and permission for his every action.

Grasping at straws even harder than usual, I see.

When in the last six years, honestly, did any of you want bipartisanship?

You people wanted your party to steamroll over the Democrats and get your agenda across. You did just that. Congrats.

Now, it's going to be the same thing, but your party will be on the receiving end of the unfairness. It sucks, but that's life in politics.

So what youre saying is the voters who wanted change were duped; the only change they get is to be led by people who havent a clue how to fight our enemies. Joy and joy.

This just in: 10,000 RNC lawyers are canvassing the nation, investigating uncountable numbers of voter-fraud reports. Yeah.

Odd how the democrats were preparing their pre-election excuses to blame any losses on voter-fraud, yet now that theyve won, the evil Diebold machines really arent that bad. Not a peep from the dems, not a single investigation of voter abuse.

There is the stark difference between democrats and republicans when they lose; democrats claim cheating, republicans blame themselves.

Little wonder the democrats cant win on their issues or their values.

I posted something with this sentiment this morning, but this says it so much better and it reflects how I feel perfectly. Your GOP leaders have shown my party nothing but hatred and dismissal since 2002. I don't want revenge on you, even though most will perceive that as a weakness. What, indeed, would Jesus do?
________

Dear dismayed conservatives:

I hereby make these promises to you.

We will protect your lives and livelihoods.

We will listen to and respect your beliefs.

We will never try to force you to change your religion, sexual orientation, or first language.

We will do our best to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

We will have no tolerance for corruption and cronyism, even in our own party.

ESPECIALLY in our own party.

We will never tell you that you are unpatriotic.

We will never tell you that your opinion doesn't count.

We will never waste your lives for power.

We will hold our leaders to a high ethical standard and when they succumb to lust for power, WE WILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

If we forget this, please, please, please, remind us.

We need you to do this. You are America as much as we are.
Let's go.

Wade,

That was filibuster of Presidential appointees, not legislation. Perhaps the difference between the two is too confusing for your limited intellect.

GEESH!!! Why all the pessimism and negativity???

Why not give America a chance to succeed???

Why do you distrust Americans and why are you so negative and ready to give up when the Dems haven't even taken power yet?

The Republicans have had 12 years- 6 with one-party rule!

Give America a chance! I'ts ironic that you purport to support democracy, but don't trust the will and wisdom of the people!!!!

Wade...

Is this the new talking point? Someone else asked this same thing in another thread today. I'll give you the same answer:

Yes, absolutely. The filibuster is completely useless, and it's only purpose is to stop something that has sufficient popular support to pass. It doesn't matter which party is in power, it's still stupid.

And, as mentioned above, filibuster of a nominee is completely different from filibuster of legislation. Filibustering a nominee is the legislative branch preventing the executive branch from preforming the duties to which the people elected them, and ought to be considered unconstitutional. Nevertheless, I'd like to see it gone altogether, for legislative issues as well as nominations.

I only read the first comment with disgust. Sometimes you just wish Wade would blow it out his ass so he would feel better. Bolton is not a wing nut, it is stuck up your wazoo!

Republicans have shown very little bipartisonship during the last 6 years. Only when under heavy pressure have they agreed to do so. The Dems have been treated like second class citizens. Now you want the GOP to be treated fairly? This is politics ,so good luck with that.

Personally, I like Bolton. He is a strong voice in the UN, if that means anything. It is the UN after all. Bolton should stay. He's doing a great job with those corrupt mofos in the UN. If anyone can get it done in the UN, it should be Bolton.

GEESH!!! Why all the pessimism and negativity???

Why not give America a chance to succeed???

Why do you distrust Americans and why are you so negative and ready to give up when the Dems haven't even taken power yet?

The Republicans have had 12 years- 6 with one-party rule!

Give America a chance! I'ts ironic that you purport to support democracy, but don't trust the will and wisdom of the people!!!!

Posted by: coulterfan at November 8, 2006 11:24 PM

You have got to be kidding CF. What the hell have we been saying for the last three years! Now it's Dems to the rescue? Give me a break! What's the plan CF? Please, just a little nibble, we are still waiting. I have lost faith in the electorate through this election. They voted AGAINST their own values & principles to make a statement to the other party! My God, what is this country in for! Awake America, awake!

The democrat agenda:
Kill Babies
make sure men can marry men & women can marry women.
Raise our taxes, therefore stifling the economy.
Retreat from Iraq & watch it tear itself to peices(must be nice for you with NO value on life to be repeating vietnam all over again. I wonder how many MILLIONS of civilians will die for our lack of resolve and respect)?

Almiranta you do realise that the royal family have had no law making powers since Oliver Cromwell was victorious and beheaded Charles teh Second in like the 17th Century. The Monarchy was forbidden from controlling Parliament and basically was forced to rubber stamp all government proposals. Very Much the same as teh Queen today rumour has it the Monachy was rather uneasy about Iraq. Am guessing Charlie boy was he's quite a human rights advocate, am sure the Duke of Edinburgh was quite happy gave him an excuse to slag off another race lol. So you really only have to worry about teh PM not the Monarchy.

Anyway as for Bolton hes not any worse than any of teh rest. I did rather enjoy the irony of one of his statements during the Israeli destruction of Lebanon That "we do not talk to terrorists", Ironic really, I honestly thought that was exactly what the IRA was.

On another note I don't get the opposition to same sex marriage. I don't see how it affects anyone but the people involved. You're not going to stop them being gay so what difference does it make? I just don't see hopw it will errode society just because some one is gay isn't going to make me gay or affect me in any way is it?

"The democrat agenda:
Kill Babies
make sure men can marry men & women can marry women.
Raise our taxes, therefore stifling the economy.
Retreat from Iraq & watch it tear itself to peices(must be nice for you with NO value on life to be repeating vietnam all over again. I wonder how many MILLIONS of civilians will die for our lack of resolve and respect)?"

Bearman, don't you get tired of arguing against strawmen? Listen: I am a Democrat. I do not want to kill babies. I think we should have civil unions with all legal/medical rights. The only taxes I want to raise are on the very rich, which will not stifle the economy. I do not want Iraq to fall; I want to break Iraq into three states for the three factions there who apparently cannot get along at all. This is not an issue of 'resolve' or 'respect', it's an issue of actually coming up with a viable long-term solution. I am a Democrat, and you are way too limited in the way you think about your political opponents.