« Guess The Tattoo | Main | When squeegees are outlawed, only outlaws will have squeegees »

Is There More To The Filibuster Compromise Story?


James Kuhnhenn, of Knight Ridder's Washington Bureau, reports on Sen. Trent Lott's secretive participation (limited though it may have been) in the deal between 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats on filibusters and the "nuclear option."

Patterico reports on a segment on Fox News that indicates two of the seven Republicans were sent to join the negotiations to ensure the best deal possible.

Put those two together and I'm not sure what you've got, but it's certainly information that didn't get covered in the aftermath of the agreement.

Comments (6)

I caught a segment on Rush'... (Below threshold)

I caught a segment on Rush's show where he said he investigated the White House/Frist involvement in the deal -- he said it was totally fales.

My guess, the Dems spreading conspiracy or the deal makers trying to find a way out of their mistake.

Deals, secret meetings, bac... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

Deals, secret meetings, back-stabbing, gut-punching and still the Republicans are no better off than they were six months ago. Seems to me these seven Democrats were put forth to help suck the Republicans into a bad deal. We have had these seven Republicans thinking they are going to recognized and spoken to by the MSM because they want unity while the Democrats have planned to obstruct from the get-go. I am a simple-minded person, I just want the Democrats served up on a platter.

Hmmm.I agree that ... (Below threshold)


I agree that all this nonsense is an attempt by the Renegade7 to spread disinformation in order to squirm out of trouble. What clued me in, and really offended me, was senator Graham's tasteless remark that his constituents would be "angry" at him, but they'd get over it.

The amoutn of anger has been incandescent, and wholly unanticipated by these twits.

I am a constituent of Senat... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

I am a constituent of Senator Graham, informed him by letter and email that I would never vote for him again. His remark also offended me, and I made a promise to him that I will keep, unlike him to me.

Yeah, as to what Eneils Bai... (Below threshold)

Yeah, as to what Eneils Bailey and ed and others have noted, I was repelled by Graham's rationalization of his ignoble deed(s), wherein he said that (I'll paraphrase), "(he) won't hate people" (implying that others are posing some weird 'hate-suggestion-pull' to his voting decision process (and so he opted to vote as he did, which, he says represents him 'not hating' and not only not hating but not hating as per what others instead do/are doing).

Very strange. It sounded like the nonsense of a nine year old who'd been asked to return the candy behind his back to the store from whence he'd just taken it, who was refusing by saying, "their prices are hateful and the store manager hates me so I refused to succumb to his hate and hateful ways" or some sort of similar nonsense.

The entire "standing up for the minority" trashy rationalization that seems to have overtly (and aberrantly) influced Graham, originating with Harry Reid (his mantra, it seems, of late, as with Barbara Boxer who is now echoing the same, among other Democrats, and mislabelling that rationalization of their own bad behaviors as an issue of "checks and balances"), the entire abuse of these important concepts and requirements of our governmental process inorder to rationalize truly awful behavior by obstructionist Democrats...I was thinking about this earlier this morning and I guess it's all that Democrats have left to cry out about, since they aren't lately voted into office either ethically or by majorities, so they have to say something to rationalize why they refuse to participate in what the majority wants.

Their behavior has nothing to do with "checks and balances," nor with "protecting the will/wants of the minority," but it's pearly rhetoric that does effectively fly over the heads of many among liberal interests. They can't lose control of legislating judiciary at all costs, their (Democrats') only realm of continuing to rule the majority with minority interests.

Theirs is the truest form of -- to use their favorite word -- 'fascism' in our country yet: get what you want by ruining and derailing what the majority of voters do want, and they really need the judiciary to do that, along with ongoing voter fraud. Sad legacy for the Democrats but it isn't like they haven't brought this on themselves.

Thus, the demand we return to the Clinton era, reinstate those era's lies ("everything is fine, there's a surplus, Reagan is crazy, Christianity is the bane of our existence"), and call everyone else whatever name they can.

I am hoping that Frist and the majority of Republican Senators remain firm and consistent and...I think they will but the Ineffective Seven (RINOs in our Senate) don't merit re-election.

AND THIS, as per that WAPO ... (Below threshold)

AND THIS, as per that WAPO article, as if by magic!:

Excerpt Starts--

"My attitude is always to try to do the right thing, no matter what it is or how hard it is," Lott said. "But if you can't get it done in your ultimately desired fashion, then get it done the best way you can."

Frist didn't have that kind of mobility. Conservative groups were pressuring him to seek a vote on the nuclear option, nothing less. Lott kept up the pressure, perfectly ready to vote for the nuclear option if no deal emerged.

"He tried to create a sense of compromise," said Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the seven Republicans who signed on to the deal, "and openly and then in the background tried to suggest that this would be good for all of us."

Excerpt Ends --

That just fulfills and reaffirms the Left's rant and rationalization that "conservative groups" is the boogey-thing of today.

To THEM, perhaps, yes, but they continue to refuse to realize or recognize that the majority of voters fulfill one if not all of these terms: conservative, religious, right (and 'far' right from the perspective of most liberals, who are not anywhere near 'moderate')...WAPO just endorses that reality, however inaccurately, in that article, suggesting that there are "reasonable, movable, able to be influenced by the left" Republican Senators, and THEN there are the meany Frist-types, "pressured by conservative groups..."

Notice that Graham is right there to conclude the article with his "yessma'am" nonsense.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy