"D" stands for "D"on't get it

Today, I received two letters from the US Senate. One from Frist and one from Feinstein. I've sent several emails to Senators this past year and these are the first two responses I have ever received.

My comments to Senator Frist were surrounding Terri Schiavo. Essentially, the Senator and I see eye to eye on this issue.

That brings me to Di Fi. We don't see eye to eye. Lets jump in the way-back machine and head to March 1, 2005. Anyone care to guess what the your friend (chuckle) and mine, Robert Byrd had to say on that fateful day in Washington? Let me summarize his bloviating with a few short quotes.

"If we restrain debate on Judges today, what will be next: the rights of the elderly to receive social security; the rights of the handicapped to be treated fairly; the rights of the poor to obtain a decent education? Will all debate soon fall before majority rule?"

"We unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men."

And finally, the money shot...

"Hitler need a two-thirds vote to pass that law... Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside our and made illegality legal."

I asked Di Fi when she would be condemning the above comments made by Mr. Byrd as they clearly cross the line and compare Republicans to Nazis. They don't draw a parallel to skirting the law. They most steamily insinuate that if you want an up or down vote on Judges, you are a Nazi. The plain and simple truth.

So what did Di Fi have to say? Not much. I will save you the boring details of the entire response and leave you with several highlights.


"I have read Senator Byrd's statement and I do not share your view of the meaning of what he said"
Go figure, I guess the "D" after her name has to do with either her grade in her Critical Thinking 101 class or perhaps more clearly "D"ocuments her "D"enial of the truth. Hmm. More of her letter.

"Taking away the full right to debate nominations could render meaningless the Senate's obligation to provide its 'Advice and Consent.'" DiFi, last I checked, there really hasn't been any debate. Only some left wing grandstanding. All we want is a true debate and a up/down vote.

"Elimination of this time-honored rule would harm the functioning of the Senate, which by our own rules, gives the minority party strong rights." I didn't know that the rules of the Senate trumped the Constitution? Did you? How about this: Since I am just a single individual and there are 100 senators, I am clearly in the minority. Because I am in the minority, I should have special rights -- just like you Dems in the Senate. Is that how things work in the good old USA?

"Such freedom of debate and considered deliberation can only be accomplished by respecting the rights of the minority. I do not support actions that would cause such long-term damage toe the United States Senate." Oh, right. The Senate is more important that the PEOPLE you represent (well, at least in theory).

BTW, she sent me a copy of Byrd's whole statement. Our tax dollars hard at work. Yawn.