Wednesday, November 5, 2008

2 Year Stall in the Senate - Our Only Hope

As the votes continue to be tallied, it is now clear - The Liberal Democrats do NOT have their Super Majority. The count looks to be Democrats 56, Republicans 44, assuming that Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats - if not, that would make it 55/45 - enough for a 2 year stall while we figure out how to act like libertarian conservatives again!

I am reminded of Star Wars scene of Leia - only this time, it is "Hold on Senate - You're our only hope!"

The Senate Results in the 4 remaining close-call states:

99% Reporting in Alaska: R-Stevens 106351 (49%) to D-Begich 102998 (48%)
Since Steves is now a convicted felon, I believe that the process is that the seat will be opened for Sarah Palin to appoint a replacement. Fingers crossed for Todd Palin.

75% Reporting in Oregon: R-Smith 525942 (48%) to D-Merkley 510999 (46%)
Smith is the incumbent, and a necessary hold for the Northwest Republicans

100% Reporting in Minnesota: R-Coleman 1210940 (42%) to D-Franken 1210370 (42%)
Coleman is the incumbent... this race will be recounted - but I feel that Coleman will retain this seat.

99% Reporting in Georgia: R-Chambliss 1834836 (50%) to D-Martin 1723760 (47%)
Chambliss is the incumbent, and it looks like this seat is safe from recount.

A stall in the senate could slow the appointment of liberal justices, block ultra liberal social policy (like Freedom of Choice act and Fairness Doctrine), and hold out for the 2010 election, at which point the country may be ready to balance the power at the federal level.

One thing is for certain, to those on the right, who are anti-Authoritarian / anti-Socialist - an Obama election was a slap in the face - the same way a Lincoln election was a slap in the face to Southern States. Lincoln was a radical who promised fundamental change in America. A true historian knows that the fundamental change was not about slavery, but about state's rights and the sovereignty of states. Obama has the notion, the desire, and the momentum to finish the job started by Lincoln - eliminating the States as sovereign entities, and eliminating the ability of the people to self govern. Lincoln accomplished his task by the use of military force. Obama will take the White House with combat troops deployed to the US, and with the battle cry of a 'civilian military police force' - with the same power and funding as the US military... perhaps it is not 1984, but 1860...

One thing is for certain - those 4 senate seats may be all that is keeping this country together.


  1. Alaska law requires a replacement election, not an appointment.

    Georgia law requires a runoff if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, so that one may yet be undecided.

    But those are technicalities.

    Why do you hold Obama responsible for Bush's evil reallocation of troops and hundreds' of years of the erosion of states' dominion?

    I do wish you luck getting the Republicans to act like libertarian conservatives again. It would be a big improvement.

  2. "A stall in the senate could slow the appointment of liberal justices..."

    Hip Hop, Hip Hop, Hip Hop (shaking head sadly),

    So apparently, now that the Dems have control, we won't be hearing Rush, Hannity, et. al. (or you, for that matter) arguing that judiciary appointees should be given the chance for an up or down vote? Oh, how the worm has turned!


    G Money

  3. Your interpretation of Lincoln is skewed.

    I don't think the filibuster should be used to block judicial appointments.

    Otherwise, we're pretty much in agreement.

  4. Jessi - I am not holding Obama responsible, so much as fearing that the foundation has been eroded and Obama will not repair, rather continue to misuse. Thanks for the updates on the senate elections... I had not looked into each state's laws.

    G-Money - remember, the GOP was calling for a vote of Republican elected judges by a Democratic congress... I am calling for a block of Democratic judges being voted on by Democrat controlled congress. Obama has personally said that he does not want constructionist judges, but those who support a liberal agenda... indicating that he does not want them to abide by the constitution, but legislate from the bench.

    Ben - I'll take a look at your essay and move this discussion there. Regarding justices, a filibuster should not necessarily be used, but it does give us some ground to at least block, or at least contest liberal activist judges at some level.

  5. 'N here's my respohnse t' ol' Ben's post:

    'N I suspect he 'n I ain't done yet.

    But ye need not rely ohn th' likes-a Ben 'n me. Th' historical facts speak fir theysevves, as indercated in no small part by how even Stinkin' Lincoln's defenders in th' academy go t' tortuous langhts t' defend his tyrannical behaviors.

    Howbeit: it's gud t' see Mr. DeGrow finally respohndin' t' ye ohn th' matter, Steven. We thot he wuz lost t' us forever.


  6. "G-Money - remember, the GOP was calling for a vote of Republican elected judges by a Democratic congress... I am calling for a block of Democratic judges being voted on by Democrat controlled congress."

    Actually, no they weren't. The whole reason they were asking for an up and down vote is because the GOP still had a majority in the Senate, and thus could get far right judicial appointees passed over the objections of the Dems. Think about it. If the Dems controlled the Senate, those justices never would have passed confirmation, and the Dems would have been HAPPY to hold an up or down vote on them.

    Thus, what you're hoping to block (lib. judges w/ Dem Senate) is the same thing that the Dems were trying to block (con. judges w/ GOP Senate). You just don't like it now that the shoe's on the other foot!

    "Obama has personally said that he does not want constructionist judges, but those who support a liberal agenda"

    So you're expecting Obama to nominate justices who support a conservative agenda?! As much as you might not like it, Obama won and has an ACTUAL mandate (unlike Bush, who in 2004 claimed a mandate with a MUCH smaller electoral college and popular vote majority), so he gets to nominate whoever he wants. You guys got Alito and Roberts, who Dems couldn't stand. The GOP and conservatives are going to get 2 or 3 justices that they won't like. If Bush and the GOP hadn't done such a terrible job governing the past 8 years, they wouldn't be in this situation. Reap what you sow.

    G Money

  7. Mandate, schmandate.

    A win by seven million votes - made up mainly of independent swang voters and disaffekted cornservatives who were simply sick of Bushco - don't make no mandate for libby-leftism. Here, let me remind ye of th' percentage of th' pop'lar vote:


    Regardless, if'n Obamanation is fixin' t' run rufshod over Middle America ('n his choice-a Emanuel as COS mite mean he is 'r he ain't, dependin' ohn who yir tawkin to), he's gohnna run into a brick wall, I assure ye. We got yir "mandate" right here:

  8. Man, leave Lincoln outta this. He most certainly was against slavery--and most certainly was no socialist.

    To compare Uhbama to Lincoln is an awful slap in the face to Lincoln. Desiring one nation under God is not what Bama has in mind. He and his socialist set want the US to meld into this one world scene--with nary a thought about God.

    Our Founders are turning in their graves over the assualts upon our Consititution. And now they have four solid years of pouncing on it some more.