ummmm...bush can just "CHANGE THE RULES"???

[LynnTheDem]

In an article at Foxnews.com on possible Supreme Court nominations, C. Boyden Grey, former counsel to the first President Bush said the following about the filibuster rules in the Senate ...

"As it stands today (Democrats) can block (a nominee) ... But I also believe that the president and majority leader may well decide to change the rules given the elections ... The president has a very strong political support, potential support, for asking for and getting this change."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_31.php#003940

REMEMBER THIS, freeping rightwingnuts. It's OK for a President to JUST CHANGE THE RULES. REMEMBER this when Ms. CLINTON is the President. WE WILL. :)

[grasswire]

1. Gray is a Bush fixer.

A sickening fixer. Like James Baker. One of the "plumbers" for the Bush family.

[0rganism]

2. Did he mean president bush, or the president pro-temp of the Senate?

In any case, a rules change to eliminate or restructure cloture voting would itself have to come through the normal floor vote with debates, which could include filibusters. The leaders can't just walk onto the senate floor and say, "here are the new rules, get used to 'em."

[seattleclarkie]

4. He meant the President.

-- Josh Marshall
(November 05, 2004 -- 12:21 AM EST // link // print)
In an article at Foxnews.com on possible Supreme Court nominations, C. Boyden Grey, former counsel to the first President Bush said the following about the filibuster rules in the Senate ...

As it stands today can block ... But I also believe that the president and majority leader may well decide to change the rules given the elections ... The president has a very strong political support, potential support, for asking for and getting this change.
What does this mean exactly?

Certainly, a reelected president with an expanded senate majority has a lot more leverage to get his judicial nominees confirmed. There's no getting around that. And it will be very difficult for Democrats to hold their whole caucus together to stymie a judicial appointment with a filibuster. Moreover, the 60 vote rule, on the merits, is subject to a lot of very valid criticism.

But what is it about the president's victory on Tuesday that provides a moral authority or logic to changing the rules under which nominations are now approved?

This is a critical difference.

Democrats have to deal with the fact that President Bush is now no longer a minority president, however slim his majority may have been. They also need to contend with his expanded senate majorities.

But this is what I fear will be a growing pattern in this second term: an effort to use a narrowly secured majority not only to govern, even govern aggressively, but to make institutional changes that strip away the existing powers and rights of large minorities. These formal and informal checks and balances constitute the governmental soft-tissue that allows our political system to function.

An earlier example of this was the DeLay double-dip redistricting from last year. I believe we'll see much more. And it's a pattern that everyone should be watching closely.

[seattleclarkie]

3. And guess how the media will report it?

"Bush, armed with his mandate from the people, has decided to end Democrat obstructionists holding up "the will of the people." Faced with Democratic resistance, the President asked Capitol Police to escort the Democratic senators from Congress.

When asked if he believed this was the best course for action, the President replied, "I'm dismayed by this, of course, but the nation has given me a mandate and I cannot let the diversionary tactics of a few distract us from successfully going about our business, especially as we live in a post 9/11 world."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Take this to the bank. We're in for a dictatorship, and democracy is barely breathing.

[Sugarbleus]

5. I'm sorry but if there isn't some huge movement to stop these

NAZIS PDQ, there WILL NOT BE A HILLARY or any other dem for years to come if ever. I even heard that same sentiment sqeak out of P. Buchanan's mouth. AND, you should HEAR the Fundie Christian radio broadcasts now. It is very DISTURBING!

This has been a neo-christian, fascist coup. We are going to have to organize and fight like wild cats.. This isn't going to be a mere four more years!!!

[Cats Against Frist]

6. This needs to stay kicked

for all the people around here who seem to think deciding how far left or how far center we go -- to try to "talk them into it" -- is going to fix this problem.

I'd like to add this quote for a reminder:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

--from the Suskind NYT article on Bush