Robert Byrd stating, “majorities can sometimes be wrong”. I guess he knows from experience being a leader in the KKK!
How does Sen. Byrd know that Jesus was crucified with the approval of the majority? Was there a poll done that we missed?

However, I was also alluding to the issue of the “nuclear option” being a step toward rolling back the checks and balances in the legislative system. Senator Robert Byrd made a great point when he said that Majorities can sometimes be wrong -He went on to point out, among other things, that Jesus was even crucified with an approval of the majority. My point- where does it all end? Do we keep stripping the minority of certain filibuster rights when the minority wants a nominee confirmed or a certain piece of legislation passed?

Certainly nobody here is suggesting that the minority party shouldn’t fight back against the party that controls the White House? They have so little ability to initiate anything anyway, why shouldn’t they be able to push back on a few things here and there?

I don’t believe that the filibuster is a constitutional right; rather it’s a Senate rule, which can be changed or amended by the rules committee.

Second.
According to your list:

1987 Melissa Wells, Ambassador 1
1987 William Verity, Commerce 1

In 1987 Ronald Regan was the president so there would be no reason for republicans to filibuster his nominations for Ambassador & Commerce.

Republicans don’t care that Democrats are using fillibusters. The bone of contention is that they’re using it on nominees to the bench.

None of your examples of the GOP being “unkind” apply to a fillibuster. Not one.

You really do need to read more and stop being such a partisan hack.

I hope you realize that the fillibuster is a tool that extends beyond judicial nominees
in use, as well as in a matter of importance.

Here is a rather lengthy list of Republican filibusters that extend to and beyond Judicial nominees. -You can see that similar to the way Democrats are so vehemently opposed to Bush’s proposed legislation and appointments, Republicans were not particularly kind to the Clinton Administration in the early 90′s. Sound like Hypocrisy?

1968 Abe Fortas, Supreme Court 1*
1980 William Lubbers, NLRB 3
1980 Don Zimmerman, NLRB 3
1980 Stephen Breyer, 1st Circuit 2
1987 Melissa Wells, Ambassador 1
1987 William Verity, Commerce 1
1993 Walter Dellinger, Justice 2
1993 Five State Department Nominees 2
1993 Janet Napolitano, Justice 1
1994 Larry Lawrence, Ambassador 1
1994 Rosemary Barkett, 11th Circuit 1
1994 Sam Brown, Ambassador 3*
1994 Derek Shearer, Ambassador 2
1994 Ricki Tigert, FDIC 2
1994 H. Lee Sarokin, 3rd Circuit 1
1995 Henry Foster, Surgeon General 2*
1998 David Satcher, Surgeon General 1
2000 Marsha Berzon, 9th Circuit 1
2000 Richard Paez, 9th Circuit 1

-The Clinton Administration’s 1993 economic stimulus package

-Campaign finance reform

-lobbying reform

-health care reform

…and that’s just a fragment of the list.

Except there are current attempts by Republicans to strip the minority party of some of the very rights you just noted.

Republicans are now trying to strip Democrats of their filibuster right which, coincidentally, was a favorite tool of Republicans when Democrat’s held the majority in the early 90′s.

Of course leaders take risks, and Bush, to his credit, has launched a number of different activities that don’t “play it safe.”

What I’m talking about is communication and leadership and being open to opposing points of view. When you undertake those risky ventures, you need to be prepared to TALK about them, to deal with the fallout of people wondering if the risks are worth it, or if the venture is even going to succeed.

Part of the reason you do that is to learn about a point-of-view that maybe you hadn’t though about yet, because it’s not one you already agree with.

But Bush doesn’t do that. Some leaders feel that because they’re in a position of power, they do not need to solicit the opinions of others. In fact, I think Bush said it himself, something along the lines about “the best thing about being president is that you don’t need to explain yourself.”

That’s not communication, in my book. I’d much rather disagree with someone, then to live in ignorance of their opinions. To each their own, I guess.

Playing it safe? Was going into Iraq playing it safe? Is trying to revamp the Social Security system safe? Is pushing through tax cuts during a war on two fronts safe? Is calling for an overhaul of the tax code safe? I could go on but the point is clear. This President is one of the most controversial and in many circles one of the most hated presidents in modern history. Is that a result of playing it safe? I don’t think so.

Over and over, this administration has always done an excellent job of sticking to their talking points, and carefully controlling external variables. They are excellent at choreographing and staging.

Frankly, I prefer a much more open, available government. Regardless of which political party is in The White House, I think that the president — as a civil servant, given his job by the people of the United States — should be required to answer tough questions. Once a month at least, but maybe even once a week. I’ve had too much experience in the business world (including very recently, unfortunately) with people who avoid tough questions.

I have a sickening disdain for leaders who would choose to surround themselves with “yes” men or women. Over the years, I’ve built an increasing amount of distrust for authority figures who deal with potentially bad news by “going dark.”

You are a better and stronger leader for putting yourself in a position where you might not have all of the answers, where your beliefs might be challenged. It’s a risk.

But leadership isn’t about playing it safe, or being comfortable, or managing the situation so you never get push back. Adversity makes you stronger. What comedian worth his salt doesn’t know how to deal with a heckler now and then? What professional athlete isn’t that much better for doing his best while facing a hostile crowd?

A much longer response than I’d originally planned, and I’m sure that my convictions about leadership don’t play well to focus groups, nor do they make for good politics, but such is life. Some of the most painfully difficult conversations I’ve had over the years have invariably helped me to become a better person. I can’t imagine where I’d be if I’d insulated myself from some of those criticisms, well-deserved or otherwise.

Sorry man. I know you want to paint Bush as an evil manipulator of all things, but that’s one comparison you just flat out can’t make.

Your excuse for W’s cousin maintaining a comfortable spot on FoxNews’ payroll?

The fact is, the campaigns, on both sides were riddled with abuses. However, the last thing one should expect from a presidential administration which has made a mission of spreading democracy worldwide is an attempt to manipulate the press. Sounds similar to things occurring in Russia.

How about a Kerry campaign strategist being on the active payroll of a major news network?

Oh wait, there’s an excuse for that and I’m sure you’ll offer it…