Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How do we know this wasn't Bush's plan all a long?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:12 PM
Original message
How do we know this wasn't Bush's plan all a long?
Edited on Mon May-23-05 11:13 PM by FreedomAngel82
Earlier tonight on Malloy he told how Bush and the White House said the compromise was a positive thing. How do we know this wasn't their plan all along? How do we not know they have something else planned? I think this was all "Smoke and mirrors" to get these top three judge's through with no problems and they succeeded. They choose these judge's for a reason. Especially Owen. When I first heard the news I had this REALLY horrible and big negative feeling in my gut. I think they have something else planned and that's why Frist is really pissy because he didn't get his way and they didn't let him know of their plan and he is seen as a wimp and all that with the base. The base (fundies) is really pissy now but you know good and well before this year is out (or early next year before the midterms) they'll do something and they'll be back lapping it up. We all know how buddy-buddy McCain has been lately with Bush since his whoring for Bush last year. He and Liberman (who got a kiss from Bush earlier this year) were key players I believe. They sold us out. I think something else is coming and this was a warning to the democrats not to get in the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. well sir, dems do not have the numbers to stop them. so what
would you have them do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. THEY din't have the numbers
for the Nuclear Option.

Thus, the "compromise".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. sir, the repugs didn't have the numbers for the nuklear option
Edited on Mon May-23-05 11:39 PM by okieinpain
because of the compromise. I think you're putting the carriage in front of the horse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loveable liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. because bush is an idiot.
Edited on Mon May-23-05 11:15 PM by loveable liberal
Lieberman should not be re-elected. moderates are ok for moderate times, but in a dog fight, pick an effen side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. This is the oldest ploy on the books...
Edited on Mon May-23-05 11:15 PM by Q
...demand something 'extreme'...that you know you'll never get and then look 'reasonable' by accepting a compromise where you get everything you wanted anyway.

D'oh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Of course
They would've voted for this anyways with people like Liberman and Biden letting them go through. I just believe this was all theatre and for something bigger. Isn't it interesting how they made the compromise after the news started reporting people weren't interested etc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yeap, and they got much more than many are willing to see. To wit:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. When did this fuck ever have a PLAN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I guess I should
say Cheney instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. It was Cheney's plan, not Bush's nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. Two words: Priscilla Owen.
Brandy and cigars all around at the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
10. This second guessing and pessimism is killing me
I'm just glad we aren't fighting in the streets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ugarte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. I don't agree
While I hate the thought of Priscilla Owens and the others being approved, this whole thing was never about the appellate nominees. It was always about the Supreme Court, and the Democrats have managed to keep the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

From a position of numerical weakness, I think they did the best they could and actually achieved their chief goal, which was to live and fight the bigger battles to come.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Sure as shit he will nominate owens for the SCOTUS
Edited on Mon May-23-05 11:27 PM by The_Casual_Observer
and on what grounds will they filibuster that one??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. I agree that this was about the Supreme Court but
what is going to prevent this from happening again? The nuclear option is still out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
13. i agree with you again freedomangel
we had a commercial on in texas backing owens. it was disgusting. i hear it is to install her here so when enron comes up they will be protected with her in there.

i dont think they planned on nuclear option. i think they only wanted owens, and the more they said no to owens the more the repugs fought for nuclear. i think they simply wanted her in. when i started reading the threads, i thought surely she wont be in it, and she was. they turned on that. i dont feel good about this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Exactly
And also they wanted her for that reason (the Enron ordeal). They knew she'd protect them and their oil buddies. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL PEOPLE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
15. Bush will try to spin this as a "positive thing" and....
we should agree with him. Because most of his supporters think it was not a "positive" for them. We agree with Dubya and smile and go on our way. It'll blow their minds. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. Good idea. We should smile while the 3 fascists take their seats.
And, go happily on our way. It will blow their minds to realize that the Democrats are so easy to bully into submission with threats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
18. Because they want all the power. They wanted the nuclear option!
Edited on Mon May-23-05 11:37 PM by merh
Saying they think the compromise is a good thing is putting their "good" spin on it so it appears that they are not upset that they lost.

Don't kid yourself or let anyone try to tell you otherwise. THEY WANTED TO DO AWAY WITH THE FILIBUSTER.

This compromise scares the shit out of them, they are losing their control of the sheeple. :scared:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
19. They got what they want for now
three of their worst ones in and maybe they figure that after the '06 elections their won't be enough dems anyway and there won't be enough to filibuster. They got the machines and bad as it looks for them now they always seem to turn it around by parading out some big lie of the season. I just don't trust them to keep their word on anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
21. Why? Just because Bush got exactly what he wanted?
He got his judges. He gets to play the part of "uniter". The nuclear option is still ready to be used at the first whimper our "opposition" party manages to squeek out. That the Dems have displayed their readiness to fold at the first threat.

But, we got...we got...what was it we got?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindoctor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
22. You mean....they knew that we knew that they knew and so...
...and McCain and Byrd were in on it all along...all this time they only pretended...

BRILLIANT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-05 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
24. Would Bush take to the airwaves and say, "I have suffered defeat,
a devastating setback from which I will never recover"? Of course he said it was a win for him. What else do you think he would do? Tell the truth for the first time in his life?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC