Soon-to-be 53-year-old John McConnell has a job for life, a federal judgeship, thanks to Georgia's U.S. senators and a few other Republicans-in-name-only, including Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who voted to end discussion (filibuster) on his nomination and bring the matter to a full vote. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson have again purchased a Happy Meal and will tell Georgians that it's a porterhouse with all the trimmings.
The American Bar Association rated McConnell "substantial majority qualified, minority unqualified." Most would deem that pretty pathetic for a 25-year career. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote, "According to Mr. McConnell's questionnaire, he is scheduled to receive approximately $3 million a year, through 2024, from an organization closely tied to his current employer, the Motley Rice plaintiff's firm. This appears to present a conflict of interest, and it is difficult to see how Mr. McConnell could render impartial judgments in matters involving plaintiffs' law firms while simultaneously receiving millions of dollars in compensation from Motley Rice."
To this, we can add that McConnell is a longtime hefty donor to radical EMILY's List, which is not surprising considering that he was Rhode Island's director of Planned Parenthood, a rabid and maniacal organization.
What conservative -- heck, what moderate -- would want this man on a bench, let alone a federal bench with the opportunity to one day rule on unconstitutional goodies such as Obamacare? Chambliss and Isakson voted for "the bailout," and Hillary Clinton's and Eric Holder's confirmations. Both speak in support of amnesty. Chambliss sponsored Senate Bill 510, the federal government's grab at taking over our food supply. The hits just keep on coming.
Whom do they represent? The Augusta Chronicle's word limit prevents a full airing of grievances, but it is obvious that neither Chambliss nor Isakson are true conservatives or flirt with adhering to Republican principles. Hopefully Chambliss and Isakson will receive Republican challengers, and voters will look reality in the eyes.
Lee Benedict
Martinez
Both of them are typical go along to get along republicans.
One day, people will wake up and realize that Republican and Democrats are all the same. Both parties are fooling some of the people all of the time, yet, if we were united, they couldn't fool all of the people, all the time.
You can play the game and cooperate with the Democrats or you can call them the evil empire and fight them until socialism is destroyed brick by brick like the Berlin Wall. Compromise is for sissies, Isakson and Chambliss.
http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/JUSTICE%20THOMAS'%20FAILURE%20TO%20DISCLOSE%20INCOME%20OF%20SPOUSE.PDF
Lee Benedict, in his never-ending quest for ideologically pure Republicans, leaves out a few things in this letter. He is upset that a few Republicans voted to end a Senate filibuster and allow a straight up-or-down confirmation vote on John McConnell of Rhode Island. What Benedict fails to mention is that not too long ago when Republicans controlled the Senate, the leadership threatened to change Senate rules to end filibusters of judicial appointments. They even claimed such filibusters were unconstitutional! Of course, then it was Democratic filibusters holding up Bush's Republican judicial nominations. Somehow, when it's Republicans filibustering Obama's nominees, all that "straight up-or-down" stuff is forgotten. Double standard? How about it Lee? Were Republicans wrong back then for trying to end judicial filibusters? It's a pretty simple question.
Benedict also (conveniently?) "forgot" to mention that the ongoing payments McConnell is to receive come from a settlement he earned as a plaintiffs attorney in a suit against the big tobacco companies. Big tobacco was willing to pay LOTS of money they earned giving people cancer to prevent paying even more money when they finally lost in court. McConnell is worth every penny big tobacco has to pay him.
Folks like Mr. Benedict will be the ultimate downfall of the Republican party, which will squander it's gains in the past elections... You fellers have drifted just way too far to the right, where the sensible independents and middle-of-the-roaders don't like to tread... Your hysteria has been really grinding on folks that can see past the end of their noses... You and Mssers. Ryan and Morris just don't get it...
MB: I agree totally. The radical right, represented by people such as Benedict and Ryan, are soon to learn the truth about the old warning "beware of what you wish for." I am enjoying watching less radical, more real-world Republicans search desperately for a more moderate Republican candidate to run in 2012. If Benedict and Ryan get the candidate they seem to prefer (Palin?, Huckabee?, Bachmann?, Santorum?), Obama is a shoe-in for re-election. Benedict is going to "purify" the Republican party into political oblivion.
What's wrong with Happy Meals? You get a toy. What's wrong with toys?
What ever happened to the good old 'Goldwater Republicans' ? Arguing about spending and leave the social issues up to the courts. Between the money (Delay and Abramoff) and Gingrich (fundamentalists) the party has pretty much driven itself into a shell of what it once was. The 'ipod' generation see the republican party for what it is... and the party doesn't have a snowballs chance in '****' to get the reigns of government back in their hands. trust me, until a cogent, unified and tolerant 'messenger' is found, the effort by the minority party to get elected will be dashed by fundamental personalities who represent a world view that is inconsistent with the times we live in.
faithson: nice post. Just one thing: Gingrich is not a "fundamentalist," at least in the sense that he has a deeply held conservative ideology.
He is a calculating opportunist. Like Reagan in the 80s, Gingrich used the right wing of the Republican party in the 90s to gain political power for himself. He sees which way the political winds are blowing and follows them. The latest Gingrich model, the born-again Catholic Christian, may be based on a real conversion, but it a conversion that he intends to exploit for his own political ambitions. He's not really about saving souls
--his or anyone else's--he's all about caging votes. He and Romney want to be President so badly it is embarrassing to listen to them. Each will say whatever he believes is necessary for purely political purposes. Gingrich is a fundamentalist only in the sense that he fundamentally thinks only about himself.
By the way, Lee Benedict, while we are waiting for you to explain why conservatives claimed judicial filibusters were bad in 2006 but now in 2011 are good, here's another little detail you forgot to mention in your letter. It is true that the ABA rating for McConnell was ""substantial majority qualified, minority unqualified." I read more about this vote. The ABA uses a 15 member panel to vote on the qualifications of nominees. In the case of McConnell, 12 or 13 voted that he was qualified; three did not cast a vote; 1 or 2 voted unqualified. I'd say that is a pretty solid vote of support, wouldn't you? Hardly the "pathetic" outcome you claimed.
You apparently believe you can post half-truths here on the assumption no one will come behind you and uncover the truth. You're wrong.
You need to do no more than look at the posts on here to see which side of the fence Isackson and Chambliss are on.
effete elitist liberal if you will be honest, each party will say and do whatever they think will get them elected. Don't just blame one party.
Good gosh people, all I did was quote from a US Chamber of Commerce letter, a letter not penned by me. As far as filibustering being good, bad, or otherwise, the point is that it is a recognized US Senate procedure, and if the RINOs used it to keep that ___________'s nomination from going forward, then so be it. If Senators want to end the practice, then end it, period. Whether Democrats use it, Republicans use it, both whine about it, it's all theater, and it will never be abolished. If you were not such an elitist liberal, you would have understood the letter's message. Funny, "tolerance" and "compromise" and "bipartisanship" seem only to apply to Republicans.
Michael, I've gotta tell ya', the Johnnys and Saxbys and Lindseys will be the GOP's downfall. Take a peek at the GOP platform, and take a lil' looksey at their campaign rhetoric and tell me if they keep their campaign "promises". If these ______________ keep getting doing the same old nonsense and taking "usual Republican voters'" votes for granted, enough will not vote for them and then viola, US Senator Alvin Greene. Perfect example, 2008, Saxby, in a run-off with a Democrat that was made fun of by Columbia County Democrats. Don't blame me, Johnny and Saxby are the ones losing touch.
If any party has become radicalized, it's the Democrats. It's obvious this is not the same party of LBJ and Kennedy. Today the open, prevailing philosophy of the Democrats is redistribution of wealth with social programs. Business is never spoken of in a good way (unless it's GE). It's their party and they can do what they want, but it is obvious that a transformation to an organization with socialistic goals has occurred. I could turn Nancy Pelosi's pronouncement around and long for the time when parties were similar, but from a different perspective.
Astounding, Lee, truly. Your letter criticizes Isakson, Chambliss, and Graham for allowing a straight up-or-down vote on McConnell. They failed to vote to keep the filibuster in place that might have prevented that vote. That was your point. Then, in your 5:00 post, you write " if the RINOs used it to keep that ___________'s nomination from going forward, then so be it." Huh??? In your letter, the problem was that the RINOs did NOT sustain the filibuster. Do you even know what you are talking about? Your original letter and your 5:00 post flatly contradict each other. And thank you, I understood your letter just fine. I saw the half truths and misdirections, and after 5:00, the inconsistencies and confusion. Clear as day....
good point Riverman... definitely a movement influenced by minds that don't give enough value to the 'entrepreneurial' spirit. But those dang social issue people turn off many a voter who just want the business of congress to be 'governing' not 'moralizing'.
Riverman you are right on the Democratic party. According to the Democratic philosphy of today, if one doesn't want to work, that is okay because they will just take money from someone else and give to those who choose not to work. With this type of mentality, eventually there will not be anyone left to take from and redistribute. It certainaly doesn't encourage anyone to try to prosper bcause they know the government is going to take whatever they make. Maybe it is time for me to stop working and apply for some of this free stuff!!!
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
