published Saturday, November 23rd, 2013

Free

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

55
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
PlainTruth said...

Hey Toon-Boy. We shall see how much you like it when the worm turns. As it always does.

November 23, 2013 at 12:06 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

“The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play . . .tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” - Sen. Joe Biden 2005

November 23, 2013 at 12:28 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

“We need to change the rules, but to change it in the way we changed it today means there are no rules except as the majority wants them. This precedent is going to be used, I fear, to change the rules on consideration of legislation, and down the road — we don’t know how far down the road; we never know that in a democracy — but, down the road, the hard-won protections and benefits for our people’s health and welfare will be lost.” - Sen. Carl Levin 2013

November 23, 2013 at 12:31 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

"What [the American people] don't expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.

…everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster—if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate—then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

… I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy." - Sen. Barack Obama, 2005

November 23, 2013 at 1:28 a.m.
BigErns said...

It's the hypocrisy that's nuclear…

Mitch McConnell: "The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate's traditions and precedence to ensure that regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. It's time to move away from ... advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent." - 2005

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): "You disparage the Republicans' view that 51 votes should be enough for judicial confirmation. Yet the 51-vote rule is a consistent Senate tradition. By calling for an end to filibusters, the Senate is simply contemplating restoring its traditions by traditional methods you disparage as 'nuclear.' " - 2005

Sean Hannity: "I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster." - 2005

Rush Limbaugh: "The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes." - 2004

Karl Rove: "We believe that fairness means that [nominees] deserve an up-or-down vote." - 2005

Rich Lowry (National Review editor and Fox News contributor): "Judicial Filibusters are a perversion of traditional checks and balances and should be eliminated through the so-called Nuclear Option." - 2005

Wall Street Journal: "Using Nuclear Option is better than letting a willful minority deny the President's nominees a vote on the Senate floor." - 2005

Bill Kristol: "Congress' role in approving executive-branch nominees is to have an up or down vote." - 2005

November 23, 2013 at 4:56 a.m.
fairmon said...

Does the constitution address this issue, I think not. Filibustering is a delay of the inevitable.

November 23, 2013 at 6:37 a.m.
EaTn said...

It doesn't matter which side is in control, filibuster was a roadblock. The voters should decide the issues, not the Senate minority. Hats-off to Majority Leader Reid for finally killing this ridiculous rule.

November 23, 2013 at 7:10 a.m.
cooljb said...

Let him draw his cartoons, the biggest cartoon even he can't fathom is Obamacare and that is one the will keep giving for along, long time.

November 23, 2013 at 7:18 a.m.
limric said...

Nice one today Clay.

Harry Reid finally called out the Republicans on their never ending (and oxymoronic) ‘silent filibuster’ . Real filibusters (which are pretty rare) remain unaffected. Republican official policy of obstructionism Über Alles isn’t about Obama’s nominees per se, but that he’s tried to nominate anyone at all.

This then re-enforces the intent of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution (not Republicans wishful interpretation), which clearly states that the Senate’s obligation of advice and consent is based on majority support, not super majority support.

Turtle Man McConnell and his reptilian contemporary’s got what they deserved.

Come on now! Try to tell us all, 'Ooh we just HATE majority rule. It's sooo gauche ---- and then use everything in your (dirty tricks)playbook to gain the majority next year & in 2016.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39yOGqPX0KI&feature=player_embedded

Shh --- Shh, What’s that sound? It is the sound of babies crying in the distance.

November 23, 2013 at 7:24 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

I'm sure that in 2014 when/if the Republicans take back the Senate they will set things back the way they were...after they repeal the ACA.

November 23, 2013 at 8:07 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

...and make their cabinet selections...

November 23, 2013 at 8:08 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

....judiciary appointments...

November 23, 2013 at 8:09 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

....Roe vs. Wade...

November 23, 2013 at 8:10 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

...14th Amendment...

November 23, 2013 at 8:11 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

....same sex marriage...

November 23, 2013 at 8:12 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

...emancipation proclamation...

November 23, 2013 at 8:13 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

...etc...etc...etc...

November 23, 2013 at 8:14 a.m.
yddem said...

Great post by BigErns.

SS must be smoking the good stuff this morning.

A filibuster is not about debate. It is about blocking a vote on a nominee, a bill or a treaty, pure and simple. The senate did not go far enough, as senators can still block a vote on a nominee for the Supreme Court, or a vote on a bill. The senate should return to the rule when Thomas Jefferson presided over the senate, reasonably limit the debate, and call the question.

November 23, 2013 at 8:23 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Yddem ... for now.

November 23, 2013 at 8:27 a.m.
caddy said...

ha ha "toon boy" !

November 23, 2013 at 8:31 a.m.
yddem said...

As I said yesterday, I have never been a fan of the filibuster - my dislike began in the 1960's when southern senators, led by Strom Thurman, used the filibuster to block civil rights legislation. Thomas Jefferson had something in common with Strom, but it wasn't unlimited debate.

Here is a link to an interesting history of the filibuster. Spoiler: the filibuster was a mistake and resulted from a suggestion by then v-p Aaron Burr.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/04/22-filibuster-binder

November 23, 2013 at 8:31 a.m.
caddy said...

We will be back to nixing photo IDs again shortly, so all the dead, illegal aliens can insure the progressive way...

November 23, 2013 at 8:40 a.m.
caddy said...

The nix of the thing works both ways. No big loss.

November 23, 2013 at 8:42 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

JT, for you to point out the hypocrisy of one party while ignoring the hypocrisy of the other party is, well, hypocrisy.

November 23, 2013 at 9:27 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

The bottom line is the filibuster defeats majority rule. It has been used primarily for political purposes to force a minority view on the majority. As yddem says, the best example is its use to thwart legislation outlawing segregation.

In every time and place, only the character of the elected representatives can guarantee fairness and justice. The filibuster needs to go. Every one can speak to a motion and then vote on it.

November 23, 2013 at 9:34 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

IQ says "As yddem says, the best example is its use to thwart legislation outlawing segregation." You lefties can't discuss any topic without bringing up RACE. So 50+ years ago the filibuster was used to "thwart" segregation legislation? You lefties took your time getting rid of it, no? (and utilized it countless times since then) I loathe Rat-face Reid. But this move came directly from BHO. As ordered by Jarrett.

November 23, 2013 at 9:46 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

PlainTruth...I'm sure you'll proved the proof for that statement.

November 23, 2013 at 9:53 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

So Smoke. What part don't you believe?

November 23, 2013 at 10:27 a.m.
yddem said...

No Truth, I don't know whether O or someone else persuaded Reid to make "this move," and I don't care. The return to a majority vote was long overdue. Frist should have done it when he had the opportunity. The democrats would have bitched and moaned and peed their pants and misstated history, as some republicans and so-called conservatives on this site are now doing, but it would have been the right thing to do then, as it is now. W would have gotten up or down votes on his nominations, as O will now. That's the way the system was designed to work.

November 23, 2013 at 10:43 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

No, yddem. the Senate was intended to be a very deliberative body, lots of debate, hence the filibuster. It's not the end of the Republic. Just patently obvious the Dems fear losing the Senate in '14 and want to stack the Courts while the stacking is good.

November 23, 2013 at 11:15 a.m.
Maximus said...

Harry Reid's voice is that of Chester The Molester. When I hear the sound of the old Man's voice I know that America is getting weaker. Appropriate, Harry Reid from the state of legalized prostitution. Reid has been one Barry The Welfare Pimp's whores since day one.

November 23, 2013 at 11:58 a.m.
fairmon said...

GaussianInteger said...

I have mixed feelings about the filibuster vote yesterday. Yes, it is a tradition; however, the GOP is abusing the privilege. They filibustered executive nominees 27 times during Obama's first term (four years). This is 7 more times than a executive nominee filibuster was used in the terms of the last ten presidents, combined.

gauss.. Could it be that he does just as poorly selecting those to appoint as he has done on selecting those for his staff? It is amazing to see how many in both parties can switch positions on the issue. It is almost comical seeing Biden's position when the situation was reversed. This action destroys a critical part of the legislative process. The question that needs to be addressed is how many judges should any president be allowed to appoint, what percent of the total active?

November 23, 2013 at 12:18 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Banning the filibuster is akin to one party rule. Course some of you loons are all for it.

November 23, 2013 at 12:27 p.m.
Maximus said...

Can't wait till the mid terms. Obamacare nightmare will be over cause we takin over yo! Republicans in da House and the Senate be sendin Nancy and Harry to da back of da line dog! Barry Da Pimp need to start packin his boxes y'all!

November 23, 2013 at 1 p.m.
yddem said...

No Truth, you just don't get it.Thomas Jefferson wrote rules that did not allow unbridled debate. TJ knew how the senate was designed to work. A change to his rules, by mistake of the senate or design of v-p Aaron Burr, allowed the filibuster. The rule change was not used to filibuster until after the deaths of TJ and most of the other Founders. Senators on each side of the aisle subsequently used the filibuster to obstruct the business of the senate. I say good riddance to a stupid rule, but they should have gone farther and reinstated TJ's original rule, which would have prevented any filibuster on any issue.

November 23, 2013 at 1:04 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

BigErns said...

It's the hypocrisy that's nuclear…

GaussianInteger said...

JT, for you to point out the hypocrisy of one party while ignoring the hypocrisy of the other party is, well, hypocrisy.

You seem to have missed one point. In 2005 the Republicans were running a bluff to try and get the Fleabaggers to allow through some of their judicial nominees. They had no intention to nor did they eventually overrule the filibuster. They knew the potential harm to themselves in the future if they did so. Something the Fleabaggers obviously haven’t thought of.

November 23, 2013 at 1:15 p.m.
yddem said...

JT, you seem to have missed the point of BigErns' 4:56 a.m. post.

November 23, 2013 at 1:29 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

Exactly Yeddem. Jt6 is however very good at it making up as she goes.

just wait, you'll see.

November 23, 2013 at 1:31 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

I’m also glad the filibuster is being phased out. Something you Fleabaggers forget is the Senate unlike the House is not a democratic body as applies to the nation’s population as a whole. Each state no matter their population gets two votes thus no one man, one vote.

As the more rural and less populated states become redder and redder their residents’ votes represented in the Senate will carry greater weight. If you look at a map of the U.S. you will see the greater area and number of states that are becoming Red. Once they acquire at least 51 votes they will continue to control the Senate no matter the demographics or population in the Blue states. At the present Republicans have a better than 50% chance of taking the Senate in 2014.

Good luck with your choice.

November 23, 2013 at 1:44 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

yddem said...

JT, you seem to have missed the point of BigErns' 4:56 a.m. post.

Not at all. For it to be hypocrisy the other side has to have the intent to take an action and follow through on it. I know that's a little too deep for you and BigEars but maybe you can catch up later.

November 23, 2013 at 1:48 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

SeaSmokie59er said...

I'm sure that in 2014 when/if the Republicans take back the Senate they will set things back the way they were...after they repeal the ACA.

Hopefully not and after this little episode the “mainstream moderate” Republicans will realise that reaching across the aisle just gets them sh!t on. They will wake up or be primaried out of existence.

Why don’t you explain how gaining control of the Senate will give the Republicans the power to repeal the ACA. You obviously don’t know how the executive and legislative branches operate or their limitations.

November 23, 2013 at 1:56 p.m.
limric said...

PlainTruth,

It (the nuclear option) only applies to most nominees — it doesn’t cover the nominees to the Supreme Court or legislation.

In case you’re interested. Filibusters of nominees: Eisenhower 0, Kennedy 0, Johnson 0, Nixon 0, Ford 0, Carter 2, Bush I 0, Clinton 9, Bush II 7, Obama 44.

See anything slightly peculiar?

November 23, 2013 at 2:07 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Limmy says "It (the nuclear option) only applies to most nominees — it doesn’t cover the nominees to the Supreme Court or legislation." Yet

November 23, 2013 at 2:14 p.m.
yddem said...

"Jt6gR3hM said... yddem said...

JT, you seem to have missed the point of BigErns' 4:56 a.m. post.

Not at all. For it to be hypocrisy the other side has to have the intent to take an action and follow through on it. I know that's a little too deep for you and BigEars but maybe you can catch up later."

That's rich. It isn't hypocritical because Mitchell and Cronyn lied about the tradition of the senate; Hannity lied when he said it was unconstitutional to filibuster [hint: he's so stupid he may have believed it]; the second coming of christ Rush lied when he said the constitution said a simple majority, 51 votes; W's main man Rove was lying when he said fairness requires an up or down vote; and Lowry lied when he said filibusters are a perversion of traditional checks and balances and should be eliminated by going nuclear?

Right. Thanks for explaining it, jt.

November 23, 2013 at 2:48 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

PT read your history book, you have it all wrong. The filibuster was a mistake fostered by A. Burr. The mechanism for stability "engineered" by the constitution was to elect senators by state legislatures and to establish a longer period of service to insulate them from the tempest of instantaneous whimsey of public opinion.

We are better off without the filibuster.

Unfortunately being elected by state legislatures was a fiasco and finding honest elected officials willing to vote reason over love of re-election (public opinion) has been a lost cause. Most, not all, honorable people have declined to run again for service leaving us with folks like the senator from Canada.

PT I'm sure there were a liberal or two who were fighting segregation, as well as some conservatives, but it was not a liberal/conservative struggle, it was a struggle by people interested in freedom and justice for all. Everyone deserves a mark by their name that did not make it happen sooner.

Your confusing identification of anti-segretationists as liberals probably reveals your youthful lack of memory of the past (or sleeping in American History class) and your bias. The logical conclusion of your statement must be "conservatives were for segregation" if liberals were for integration. In the South it turned into "republicans are for segregation" as the democrats slowly lost sway in the south after the Civil Rights Act was passed. LBJ actually said it would destroy the democratic party in the south, so don't forget your segregationist heritage. The GOP owes its Southern support to passage of the Civil Rights Act and the persistent racism in the South.

The whole republican "state's rights" argument was/is nothing but a subterfuge for supporting slavery and segregation, and other nefarious legislation that violate the constitution. I note the same state's rights argument persists today and behind it is the same inherent racism cloaked in cute little arguments.

The undoing of the republic, if it comes to that, will not be the loss of the filibuster, it will be the disruptive antics of the senator from Canada and his minions.

JT6gR3hM's comments support that view. He may be right about the Senate going red, who knows, but he also overlooks a fine detail called the Presidential veto. It takes a ⅔ vote to override the veto. So good luck with ACA. :-)

November 23, 2013 at 3:15 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

“If a Senate majority demonstrates it can make such a change once, there are no rules which binds a majority, and all future majorities will feel free to exercise the same power, not just on judges and executive appointments but on legislation,” - Sen. Carl Levin 2013

November 23, 2013 at 3:16 p.m.

Obama's nominees are far, far, far left. Obama is radical and wants radical lefties on the bench.

Carl Levin, is right on the mark. Obama is happy about this because he wants to get his way through judges and executive orders. He hates the legislative process. He's a dictator.

November 23, 2013 at 3:51 p.m.
limric said...

The Republicans under the tutelage of Mitch McTurtle attempted to govern by obstruction & sabotage. They then put this destructive creativity to work by campaigning that government doesn’t work. And for a large segment of the population, such propaganda was quite effective.

But - they got cocky, tied the senate into a political Gordian knot and dared Harry Reid to try to untie it. Thankfully he did.

November 23, 2013 at 3:54 p.m.
limric said...

"Obama's nominees are far, far, far left."

Who, and how?

November 23, 2013 at 3:56 p.m.

If it were Republicans who went through with the nuclear option, then Bennett's cartoon would condemn it. Stupid, stupid, power grab that will harm everyone in the long run. Only a dumb ass with a scorched earth approach, with no sense of history, or any grasp of the consequences would be happy about this. I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, this is a terrible thing. Anyone that has any praise for Reid for doing this is simply and an a$$wipe.

If this was done by Republicans, I would just as disgusted. Obama is by far, by far, the dumbest, and most partisan moron that has every occupied the White House.

November 23, 2013 at 4:02 p.m.
fairmon said...

limric said.....

In case you’re interested. Filibusters of nominees: Eisenhower 0, Kennedy 0, Johnson 0, Nixon 0, Ford 0, Carter 2, Bush I 0, Clinton 9, Bush II 7, Obama 44.

See anything slightly peculiar?

It is very telling. It suggest he can't identify people talented enough for the job. Not surprising, he is probably using his staff as the benchmark. It is not his fault, he has zero experience that would prepare him to hire and fire and assure the business does well. No worries, he has a very weak minded and forgiving board of directors (voters).

November 23, 2013 at 4:06 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

IQ. Not real sure why you're addressing me in your 3:15 thesis.

November 23, 2013 at 4:07 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

I'm only watching this presser for the moment the entire nation bursts into laughter at the notion that Iran will stop building nukes. We are so screwed by this guy.

November 23, 2013 at 11:05 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Fairmon, what is so "critical" about the filibuster? What does it accomplish other than adding to one's political resume?

November 24, 2013 at 4:36 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.