Comments on: More Overwrought Rhetoric from the Commissar

By: Charles D. Quarles

Charles D. Quarles — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:34:51 +0000

The Commissar was out of his mind. The Captain was spot on.

By: Mrs. Davis

Mrs. Davis — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:52:16 +0000

Though Dirksen (search for filibuster) had reservations about the public accomodations section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was ultimately his leadership of the Republicans in the Senate that overrode the Democrat filibuster, in which Sheets Byrd gave a 14 hour oration to the nation’s embarassment, allowing the landmark legislation to be passed.

By: clark smith

clark smith — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 05:26:21 +0000

Captain Ed vs. Commissar. No contest; not now, not ever.

In his post, Capt. Ed was citing a linkage, not an equivalence, between the present and the past. What’s so difficult in understanding that linkage does not equal equivalence?

Why have so many–as evidenced by the trackbacks at Capt. Ed’s–got their panties in such a wad? Who knows. There’s no “gotcha moment” to be had … really. Move along, folks.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 03:49:18 +0000

It appears to me that the Commissar is emphasizing part of what Captain Ed is saying, and missing the whole point. Captain Ed is trying to put the lie to the statements of the Democrats that the filibuster has only a “proud tradition.” That “proud tradition” was used to uphold and support racism in times past.

I do remember Everett Dirksen from Illinois filibustering on some issues, I thought they were usually budgetary, but that was a long time ago. There are good uses for the filibuster, and bad uses. Captain Ed pointed out some bad uses to counter the hysteria of the liberal media and the Democrats, but I repeat myself, over the “proud tradition.”