FRIST REVERSES HIMSELF - PUSHES BOLTON VOTE

[powergirl]

I guess when you deal with the devil, you need to produce RESULTS. What a bunch of jerks. I would have loved to have been a fly on that wall when Bush, I mean Rove, told Frist to get Bolton voted in.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050621/ap_on_go_co/un_ambassador

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he would keep pressing for a vote on embattled U.N. nominee John Bolton's confirmation after President Bush insisted that throwing in the towel was not an option.

. . .

Hours earlier, Frist, R-Tenn., told reporters he would not schedule another vote on Bolton "at this juncture," having lost two since May at the hands of Democratic critics. They are demanding more information from the Bush administration on Bolton's tenure as the State Department's arms control chief before allowing his nomination to advance to a final vote.


"At this juncture, we have to go back to the president and see what the decision he's going to make is," Frist said. He said scheduling a third vote to advance the nomination would be fruitless.

At the lunch, the president stood by his tough-talking nominee, according to lawmakers who attended. "He just said he supported Bolton and wanted him confirmed," Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said.


:woohoo:

[Cocoa]

1. did he deny his previous statement?

:rofl:

[uppityperson]

2. What previous statement? He didn't give a previous statement.

:sarcasm:

[Gothmog]

3. Flip Flop Frist

We need to label Frist with a name that will hopefully stick: Flip Flop Frist. This is the type of name that can come back to haunt Flip Flop Frist if he runs for President.

[powergirl]

6. Begala on "Inside Politics" called him as a flip flopper with impunity

The Republican hack seated next to Begala was visibly cringing every time Paul Begala used the term. :rofl:

[Independent_Liberal]

4. Frist is such an ass!

Didn't he throw a temper tantrum not that long ago when they were talking about blocking the nomination?

[BrainRants]

5. It'll be nice to see all the waffles & flip-flop costumes in '08

if the asshat decides to (BWAHAHAHAHA) run for pres-nit.

[peekaloo]

7. Chimp whipped!

you would think the evil Dr. could come up with more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.

[elextech]

8. up-or-down vote

Please "hear" me out before you go on to the next post.

I'm a conservative. I voted for Bush in 2000. I stayed home, and sat on my hands in 2004. Why? Good question, I'm glad you asked. Bush and his big-player-wannabe Rep. Ric Keller (R-Orlando) are screwing disabled military retirees.

Background for those who are not familiar with this issue: Military vets who are receiving disability benefits from the Dept of Veterans Affairs (formerly the Veterans Administration)are entitled to both their disability payments and their federal government retirement pensions, if they are retired from any federal department or agency except if they're retired from the military. For example, if some young man was wounded in the Vietnam conflict, was discharged from the military, then worked the requisite number of years in the Dept of Agriculture, the Treasury Dept, etc., he can and will collect money for his military disability in addition to the normal retirement check which he (or she) might receive from the Dept of Agriculture, State, Treasury, etc. If a person stays twenty or more years in the military, retires with a military pension, and, in the following years, claims a disability based upon some medical condition which happened while on active duty and is growing worse, then that person cannot receive both his/her disability benefits and military pension. That obviously is unfair and contrary to Bush's claim to be a great friend of military people.

Sometime before the Nov 2004 election, perhaps around early 2004, if memory serves me correctly, Ric Keller (R-Orlando) co-sponsored a bill to give these concurrent benefits (hence the term "concurrent receipt") to disabled military retirees. The Senate and the House on both sides of the aisle were ready to ok concurrent receipt, but the bill was hung up in one of the committees. The word came down from Bush to Speaker Hastert that, if that bill were passed or attached as a rider on any other bill (it was expected to be attached to the military appropriations bill), he would veto the entire bill to kill that one provision. All that was needed to get that bill on to the floor for an "up-or-down" vote despite Bush's objection was for a certain number of Representatives to sign a "discharge petition." All of the Democrats and a handful of Republicans signed the petition, but about eight more signatures were needed to get that up-or-down vote. Interestingly, Ric Keller, who cosponsored that bill, refused to sign that discharge petition, probably because he doesn't want to lose the good will of the White House.

It seems to me that this is a good issue to bring up nationally to highlight Bush's hypocrisy with regard to up-or-down votes; he's pro up-or-down for Bolton and his judge nominees, but anti up-or-down when it might benefit disabled veterans. I can't bring this to a national forum, but bringing it to the Dem Underground seems like a good way to bring this to the attention of those who might make it a national issue.

I saw a blurb in this morning's Orlando Sentinel that there's a committee out there targeting Keller in the 2006 election. I hope they see this posting. It might help get rid of that fat (well, ok, he did go on a diet) little hypocrit.

[uppityperson]

9. Welcome to DU. OK, Why?

"I stayed home, and sat on my hands in 2004. Why? Good question, I'm glad you asked. " OK, I'm asking. Why?

I see you are pointing out Mr.bush's hypocrisy as far as his "up-or-down" jingo and it seems like this may be why you are now here at DU? We have Democrats from the liberal dem and conservative dem sides here and hope this means you will have an interesting time here too. Hang around, read a bit, post a bit. Welcome to DU.

[elextech]

11. why? here's why

I partially answered that in my first post; Bush et al are screwing military vets. I didn't mention other reasons, because I didn't want to distract people from the vet-screwing concept.

Another important failing on Bush's part is allowing the Mexican and Canadian borders to remain almost completely porous. There are gangs of renegade Mexican troops (trained by us, unfortunately) who are running drugs and any people who have muchos denero up across the border into the U.S. They've fired upon U.S. border agents. Other Central and South American gangs are setting up in every large U.S. city to nurture their piece of the drug trade. These new gangs are more vicious than established gangs (e.g., the Italian mafia, the "Russian mafia," the Vietnamese gangs, etc.). Rather than allow them to set up in the U.S. so easily, Bush should be tightening the border. Congress authorized an increase in the number of border patrol agents, but the Bush administration won't hire the authorized number. Why? All of those border-crossing Mexicans are willing to work for much lower wages in the employ of those who make big donations to the RNC.

I'm not a big environmentalist (I'm conservative. Remember?), but for purely practical reasons we should reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. We could start today by increasing r&d support (tax credits, grants, etc) for those who are trying to develop alternative energy technologies. (I found myself agreeing with Tom Harkin on cspan yesterday, when he was introducing an amendment to some legislation for developing hydrogen technology and infrastructure. Me agreeing with a liberal Democrat! <shuddering!>) Bush's administration is actually cutting research dollars for alternative energy technologies and other basic research, which does not bode well for our nation's place as the technological leader in many fields.

Military retirees benefits, especially the medical benefits, have already been adjusted to ensure that they are not unfairly better than the average civilian medical plan, but that wasn't enough for Bush and "Rummy." They tried to get Congess to reduce the benefits to a level well below the average civilian medical plan. These guys are definitely not friends of the average GI.

I knew that Bush, like all high-level politicians, was a liar before I voted for him in 2000, but I considered him less undesirable than the alternative liar. I wasn't fooled by the tag "compassionate conservative" nor the speeches in Spanish. I hoped he'd be more of a pragmatic, populist conservative, but he's obviously turned out to be a classic, elitist, step-on-the-little-guy (i.e., me!) Republican.

I don't want to incite a riot here by saying why I would chew off my own fingers before I would vote for Gore or Kerry, so I'll close with a generic lamentation about the poor quality of politicians at the national level, which leaves me with the desire that, on the ballot, we could do as the Canadians are given the option to do: vote for "None of the Above."

[uppityperson]

14. Sounds like you agree with many that neither candidate was good.

However, we disagree that letting Mr.bush be president is in any way ok. It is not just that he is a liar, but that he has done sooooo much to hurt us all, then spins it to say it is ok. And soooo many people would rather believe his words than what is really happening. I would like the option to vote "none of the above" combined with someone needing to be a clear enough winner of a clear enough majority, or else we would need to do it over and over and over. And have verified papertrail voting.

It is not just that neither candidate was very good or a liar, it was who was worse. And what Mr.bush is doing now vs what he says. Actions speak louder than words.

Again, welcome to DU.

[FreedomAngel82]

16. Welcome to DU

If I didn't like either canidate I'd myself stay home but never in a presidential election. I think where you can really make a difference is locally with your city and state. There are good and bad people on both sides if the isle. Lately it's mostly been on the republican side because, I believe, so many of them are greedy with power and let it get to their head and they forget why they're doing what they're doing and want to help the people who helped get them there (corporations etc).

[elextech]

18. focus

Well, let me repeat that my reason for coming here was to plant the seed of an idea: Wanting an up-or-down vote for Bolton or some federal judgeships, but denying disabled military retirees an up-or-down vote on concurrent receipt of pensions and disability benefits is stark hypocrisy, something which might be used to advantage during the current debates about up-or-down votes. If that hypocrisy becomes highlighted in the national news and on the various tv and radio talk shows, you folks on the left get a chance to embarass Bush, and disabled military retiree right-wingers like me get an increased chance of receiving concurrent receipt; we both win. It's a bit of politcal logrolling.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi elextech!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Rainscents]

19. Welcome to DU!!!

:hi:

Did you know that, about a month a go, Democrats introduced a bill for Vets coming back home from Iraq with their medical bills and help them whatever need regarding disability due to this war. However, NOT one republicans voted for the bill. This is so sick.

[elextech]

21. why isn't Bush supporting troops?

I'm very disappointed in Bush. He's passed the word down to the folks in Congress that veterans needs are not to be supported any more than is absolutely necessary to keep the public from becoming restive.

[tavalon]

24. I don't want to get into an argument about when it happened

but I think that the Bush administration is just keeping up the veneer of a representative republic. I think there was a coup and we now live in a fascist state. Fascism being defined as the merging of corporate and governmental power.

We just weren't notified.

"keep the public from becoming restive"

You hit that one spot on.

[tavalon]

22. Thank you for putting it right out there that you are a conservative

I went back and read all of your posts because they screamed conservative, but, and this is a big but, you aren't a Freeper as far as I can tell. I hope you don't get banned. You are erudite and spur discussion and sometimes this place gets a little too endemic.

I wonder though, why you decided to come here? I mean, you aren't likely to find more than a dozen people here who already agree with you and you're unlikely to influence any of the rest. It seems an inherently hostile situation you've put yourself in. I just wonder why?

And for any of you who think I'm being snarky or calling this person out. I'm not. He called himself out, so to speak and I'm genuinely interested in understanding.

[tavalon]

23. That'll teach me to jump in with questions before reading the rest

of the thread. I think you've already answered most of what I asked.

[elshiva]

10. FEELIN' FRISTY?

[CityDem]

13. Bad day for Frist and Durbin

Both are now wearing skirts and lost their balls yesterday. Durbin lost his nuts to Daley and Frist surrendered his sack to Bush. Oh, what strong leaders we have in DC.

[gratuitous]

15. So, who's running the Senate, Mr. Frist?

You or the Executive? Are you comfortable giving away your duties under the Constitution? Is the law such an impediment to your political agenda and aspirations that you'll chuck it out the window anytime it's convenient?

[FreedomAngel82]

17. Yep

He's obviously not the majority leader. My guess is it's Rove who called him in and he was there with Bush.

[Blue_In_AK]

20. You just know Bolton is WAY dirtier than we even know...

...when ** is pushing so hard to get him confirmed. It shouldn't be difficult for him to come up with someone not quite so unpalatable to so many people.

[PretzelWarrior]

25. "get some more devastation in behind me"

that would be in your political wake, dumb@ss. we've got to remind our senators to STAND FIRM against Bolton happening to the U.N.