Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Re: Moderates take charge, defuse filibuster fight, May 24.
When I opened the Times and read the headlines, I realized that the U.S. Constitution really does work as the framers intended. I wish I still taught American government so I could use this event as an illustration of government at its finest.
Looking at the photo of those moderate senators of both parties standing (on a train platform) together, I knew that none of them was completely happy with the outcome of their deliberations but that all of them accepted the end result: a workable compromise! This is the most valuable concept that the framers incorporated into the Constitution and throughout the early history of our system of government with its checks and balances.
I am a native of Maine, living in Florida for 25 years, and correctly predicted that the two Republican senators from that state - Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins - would be standing with the moderates. As a lifelong registered Democrat, I must say how proud I am that they are among those 14 senators.
Last Friday I called Sen. Mel Martinez to suggest that he follow their lead to learn how to practice the path of moderation he claims to represent. I didn't see him standing with the moderates.
Re: No fortitude from Florida.
Your May 25 editorial proclaims that the "nuclear option" compromise reached in the U.S. Senate "offers hope for the future of the institution." I certainly cannot agree with those optimistic sentiments.
The compromise recalls an earlier time when Neville Chamberlain returned from Germany declaring "peace for our time."
This compromise merely postpones the inevitable showdown which, when it does arrive, will be more catastrophic than before to the future of the Senate and this country. Your characterization of citizens who have valid concerns over the nominees' judicial decisions as "interest groups" only serves to trivialize further the seriousness of this crisis.
Re: Moderates take charge, defuse filibuster fight, May 24.
Fourteen moderate senators (seven Republicans and seven Democrats) made a historic compromise this week. The nuclear option was averted and the filibuster was saved. The minority party continues to have a voice in government.
Three of President Bush's appellate court nominees will have an up or down vote for confirmation. The other two nominees are up for grabs if considered extraordinary by the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist didn't get his nuclear option.
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said this was a bailout by the Republicans and an insult to the religious right, which has been electing Republicans. Dobson and the religious right need to be reminded that we have separation of church and state and this country is ruled by all the people.
The sole purpose of the filibuster is to subvert the will of the people. The people's will is expressed by electing representatives who express their views of how the country should be run.
The only purpose of the filibuster is to allow the party with less citizen support to stop legislation and political appointments its members disagree with. Of course they don't agree with their views. The legislation and appointments are being proposed by the president of the opposing party.
The incredible farce now occurring in this nation's Senate is an excellent example of why this ridiculous legislative maneuver should be totally abolished. That it is a time-honored Senate tradition is a lame excuse for keeping it. The filibuster has always been wrong and it should end immediately.
Re: Pat Oliphant cartoon, May 23.
Pat Oliphant can draw any cartoon he wishes, but the St. Petersburg Times (Florida's Best (?) Newspaper) does not have to publish it. Freedom of the press includes the freedom not to publish everything.
Oliphant's May 23 cartoon is totally inaccurate, depicting a group of weirdos as federal court candidates. And the Times knows it, having published only the day before a front-page article setting forth the outstanding legal qualifications of two women nominees for the federal courts.
Once they are confirmed, I predict that you will be praising their opinions in the years to come.
Re: Bush's 2 nominees are many things to many people, May 22.
As a right-winger, I am often at odds with the slant of much of your reporting. I favor facts, data and objective reporting over inflammatory posturing and unsubstantiated generalizations.
The piece by Wes Allison and Bill Adair, from my perspective, was one of the most balanced I have read on a very important issue. Particularly impressive was their use of quotes from Owens' and Brown's speeches and opinions. Third party opinions were also balanced. Hard as I tried, I could not find any slant in the piece. Very nicely done.
Re: White House: No tours for cash, May 24.
So apparently you have to donate a ton of money to get to speak with Rep. Dave Weldon! Well, if I had known that two years ago I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to see him when I was in Washington, D.C.
My husband and I, constituents of Weldon's thanks to gerrymandering, were there for a convention in which there was a "lobby day." Apparently since we don't share Weldon's views, we weren't worth seeing, nor were we worth even contacting after the fact once it became apparent that we were not going to give him any money and just wanted some of his time.
Weldon is just another example of how selfish our representatives are, and, big surprise, he is a supporter of Tom DeLay. At least the White House did the right thing in this case.
Perhaps Weldon has to go to such great lengths to get donations because his constituents are tired of him pandering to the religious right and have finally realized he's not worth supporting. Instead of blaming McCain-Feingold, he should take a long hard look at himself and how he "serves" the people in his district.