Weekend question
The nomination of Kathleen Sebelius for HHS Secretary is growing more tenuous by the minute.
Thursday GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid go the easy route, so Sebelius now has to get 60 votes instead of simple majority to win Senate approval, with a vote scheduled Tuesday, after 8 hours of debate to begin at 10a EST….
Now we get into the numbers, which gets fascinating. There are 41 Republican senators. But Democrats hold only 56 seats, plus Kennedy and Byrd have both been ill and missing votes. MN’s senatorial race hasn’t been decided yet. There are 2 Independents, Sanders from VT and Lieberman from CT, although they usually vote with the Dems.
All of that was to say 38 votes in opposition to Sebelius’ nomination will be needed to defeat it.
I just spoke with a high source in the Senate, who said if KS Sen. Sam Brownback sticks with Sebelius, she may only get 20 votes in opposition. But if Brownback bails on her, that number would rise to 35, or within striking distance.
Expect the 3 GOP Democrat-lites (Collins, Snowe, Specter) to vote for her. (The 1st 2 have already committed.) KS Sen. Pat Roberts voted for her in the Finance Committee, so he’d have to flip, although Sebelius’ veto of a late-term abortion bill Thursday would give him cover. Don’t know who the other 2 pro-Sebelius Republicans would be.
Democrats likely needed to oppose Sebelius would be pro-life Senators Casey (PA) and Nelson (FLNE).
According to Prime Buzz, CQ Today reported yesterday Brownback told the magazine it is getting “harder and harder” to support Sebelius and he “plans to think more about his endorsement in light of her veto Thursday of late-term abortion legislation.”
Two weekend questions: Do you think Brownback will withdraw his support of Sebelius? And this time next week, where do you think the Sebelius nomination will stand?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Two weekend questions: Do you think Brownback will withdraw his support of Sebelius? And this time next week, where do you think the Sebelius nomination will stand?
——————————————————
1) Yes
2) Ask me again this same time next week.
Just because Roberts voted to send the Sebelius nomination to the full Senate for a confirmation vote does not mean he supports her nomination.
It could mean that he has sufficient doubt about her qualifications that he believes the full senate should make the call.
There may be enough doubt in Roberst mind that he is unwilling to confirm her soley on the vote of the Judiciary Committee.
The doubts may be sufficient to defer on the full senate to make the call.
The ‘advise and consent’ function was never meant to be a rubber stamp for the executive branch. It is the senates constitutional responsibility to determine a nominees qualifications, or lack thereof, to serve in the executive branch of the federal government.
This is supposed to be a demonstration of the ‘checks and balances’ between the legislative and executive branch of government.
A nominees honesty and integrity are legitimate and appropriate avenues of inquiry and lack thereof are grounds for disqualification.
yor bro ken
According to Prime Buzz, CQ Today reported yesterday Brownback told the magazine it is getting “harder and harder” to support Sebelius and he “plans to think more about his endorsement in light of her veto Thursday of late-term abortion legislation.”
Had Ms. Sebelius not established her pro-abortion credentials before her veto on Thursday? Was Mr. Brownback perhaps uninformed? Or is he merely trying to hold onto his socially conservative supporters, to convey the impression of a completely weighed, carefully made final decision to vote for Ms. Sebelius this coming Tuesday.
Perhaps I’m too cynical, but I can’t see that Ms. Sebelius’s veto constitutes a compelling reason for Mr. Brownback to re-evaluate his support for Ms. Sebelius. She’s just being consistent with her nefarious track record. However, if this veto of Ms. Sebelius provides a pretext for Mr. Brownback to repent and come back on course, then I’ll be very happy and repent of my cynicism.
If the Senate does not confirm the nomination of Sebelius, that does not ensure the second or third choice will be a superior selection.
Remember Janet Reno was Bill/Hillary Clinton’s third choice for Attorney General.
I am sure the survivors of the siege of Mount Carmel and Elian Gonzalez have not forgotten.
This is kind of like the NFL draft. You have to continually re-evaluate the remaining pool of perspective candidates and determine who is the best person and/or the lesser of the known evils.
Who is waiting in the wings?
yor bro ken
Posted by: Jon at April 25, 2009 12:07 PM
…then I’ll be very happy and repent of my cynicism.
——————————————————
Jon,
Do not be hastey?
Abandoning your cynicism is good.
Just do not surrender your healthy skepticism.
We are dealing with politicians.
Men are egos wrapped in skin, but politicians are over inflated egos afflicted with an acute and chronic skin shortage.
yor bro ken
Thanks, Ken. What are women?
Ken, I’m not sure there is anyone more in the tank for the abortion industry than Sebelius. I suppose he could nominate Cecil Richards or something, but I think that’s the only way we’d get a more anti-life candidate.
Two things:
1. The two pro-life Democratic Senators needed to overturn a Sebelius nomination are Casey from Pennsylvania and Nelson from NEBRASKA, not Florida. Florida’s Senator Nelson is a pro-abort. Nebraska’s Nelson is the only truly pro-life Dem in the Senate, as Casey betrayed us with his Mexico City Policy votes and support of “emergency contraceptives” AKA abortifacients.
Either way, seeing as both Casey and Nelson endorsed Obama, I doubt we’ll get support from either one of them.
2. The LA Times has a rather twisted article about this whole affair that belittles pro-lifers, painting the opposition to Sebelius’ nomination as a partisan ploy. It also attempts to give Sebelius cover for one of her many Tiller-connected vetoes: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
In the end, I bet Brownback will vote for her. He doesn’t want her running for his Senate seat in 2010, which she would likely win.
Thanks, Ken. What are women?
Posted by: Jon at April 25, 2009 12:35 PM
—————————————————-
“Think of a man and take away reason and accountability.”
Seriously, ‘men’, as I used it, was intended to be a gender neutral descriptive. I could have substituted ‘humans’, but I am not hung up on being politically correct. Sometimes I deliberately impune a particular gender just to be contrary.
yor bro ken
Here’s a question to ponder. If Brownback does withdraw his support, would he have regained your trust? Would you support him in the future and have confidence he’ll do “the right thing?”
I’m just wondering at what point the people opposing Sebelius’ nomination will come out and admit it has nothing to do with her “super ultra mega extreme abortion positions” and everything to do with wanting to see Obama get more egg on his face over another failed nomination.
Corsair,
LOL. Please, Obama doesn’t need our help to make himself look inept. He does just fine on his own.
“I’m just wondering at what point the people opposing Sebelius’ nomination will come out and admit it has nothing to do with her “super ultra mega extreme abortion positions”…”
Why would you think it has nothing to do with her position on abortion? This is a blog devoted the eradication of abortion. I don’t get it…
Oh, here it might. I’m speaking in a general sense though. I find it unlikely that all the people opposing this nomination and citing her history of abortion support are really as adamantly opposed to abortion as the kind of pro-life types that end up on a site like this.
OK, fair enough. And I can only speak for myself, but I’d be quite certain that most of us on here do really not support her solely because of her abortion stance.
Corsair,
If people on other blogs are citing Sebelius’ position on abortion as their reason for not supporting her, I would tend to believe them. I think we can all agree that we want Obama to find a HHS Secretary who fits the bill and sooner than later. This isn’t about creating more problems for him than he already has.
Bob Casey from PA is NOT PRO LIFE. I think he’s pro ESCR, is he not? His father was PRO LIFE.
Like Jon it’s hard for me not to be cynical. Brownback’s true character is about to be revealed to the whole world. Will he side with life and take a stand in defense of the wholesale slaughter of the most innocent and vulnerable among us? Or will he feign concern for the unborn even as he casts a pivotal vote in favor of a diabolical agenda promoting the torture and death of little children?
His comments sound like mealy-mouthed, man-pleasing political double-speak. It doesn’t sound like he has any backbone, courage or conviction.
We’re about to find out who Brownback is, a soldier for righteousness or a weak, spineless. lousy excuse for a man, selfishly acting for political expediency.
I’m praying that Brownback surprises me and demonstrates some true Christian character.
At which time I will thank God for moving on Brownback’s heart, commend Brownback for being true to his calling, and apologize to him for doubting him.
As much as I want to see the Senate vote against her nomination, I think it might be too much to expect Casey and Nelson to vote against her. I would love to be proven wrong.
And we still need Roberts and Brownback’s votes and that isn’t a sure thing either.
I’ve said before if she was from any state I’m certain Roberts and Brownback would not consider supporting her. It’s insane they seem to be doing this just because she is from the same state. And also Brownback doesn’t want her winning his Senate seat. I doubt she would anyway.
With the way Barry is going I think a lot of Democrats are going to be in big trouble in 2010.
I had dinner last night with my aunt and her Jamaican husband.
I will call him Marley. Marley is of African descent. His skin is almost black.
Marley’s mother died when he was two years old and a wealthy white British women took him in and raised him like he was her own son.
Marley grew up to be a successful entrepreneur who, after working hard and using his intelligence and his training, became wealthy and is now in his 70’s and enjoying his retirement just outside of Kingston.
Marley is not a fan of President Obama. Marley is not a fan of socialism. One has something to do with the other. Marley knows something of both.
Marley says most Jamaicans are crazy about Obama simply because Obama is black.
I said to Marley, “Obama is an intelligent man who has charisma.”
Marley said, “You can say the say the same thing about a pimp.”
My aunt said she does not tell their Jamaican friends she did not vote for Obama.
She is not fearful, she just doesnt want to jeopardize the peacefulness of her surroundings.
My aunt is a successful entrepreneur and independently wealthy in her own right.
What an unlikely pairing. The American daughter, both of who’s parents were white southern pentecostal evangelists, and an Africa-Jamaican orphan son raised by a white christian British aristocrat.
My aunt’s oldest son, from her first of three marriages, a mormon and a bit of a racist, who married an emigrant from Guatemala and together adopted a daughter from Korea says,
“Out of the three men to whom my mom has been married, Marley is the only one who has treated her with respect.”
And GOD laughed so long and so hard HE cried tears of joy.
yor bro ken
Posted by: Jon at April 25, 2009 12:35 PM
…Ken. What are women?
—————————————————
They are ‘not’ men [in the gender specific sense].
Praise and thank GOD!
yor bro ken
Andy K., whoops and thanks. Fixed.
With the way Barry is going I think a lot of Democrats are going to be in big trouble in 2010.
Posted by: Joanne at April 26, 2009 12:41 AM
Earth to Joanne: what are you talking about? He’s doing great.
Earth to Joanne: what are you talking about? He’s doing great.
Posted by: Hal at April 26, 2009 11:35 AM
Hussein is leaving a debt so bad for future generations to pay. He seems to think we can spend our way to prosperity, and the way to get rid of debt is to create more debt.
Even if he was pro life I would be against Hussein because of his runious economic policies.
I dont think you are old enough to remember when Carter’s presidency ended with double digit unemployment, interest rates around 20 % and inflation in the double digits as well.
I have no doubt Hussein will leave as big a mess behind if not worse when he leaves office in 2013.
Earth to Joanne again- the economy was in ruinous condition before President Obama took office.
Earth to Joanne again- the economy was in ruinous condition before President Obama took office.
Posted by: Erin at April 26, 2009 12:06 PM
That is partly correct….. the economy was beginning to tank last fall but why?
Because far left liberals like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi etc believed in giving mortages to anyone whether they qualified or not. As recently as last summer Frank said we had nothing to worry about.
So although the economy was heading for serious trouble last year already it was because of the DEMOCRATS. They are responsible for the economic mess. And they will be 100% responsible in the elections in 2010 since Republicans have had the good sense to vote against Hussein’s economic policies so they won’t be held accountable to the voters.
The economy will be the sole responsibilty of Hussein and his far left friends.
Calling President Obama “Hussein” isn’t cute or witty. It’s just stupid.
I am indeed old enough to remember the Carter presidency. Obama is a better President than Carter. And better than Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Clinton.
Calling President Obama “Hussein” isn’t cute or witty. It’s just stupid.
I am indeed old enough to remember the Carter presidency. Obama is a better President than Carter. And better than Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Clinton.
Posted by: Hal at April 26, 2009 12:21 PM
Sorry but I refuse to call someone who goes on a world apology tour for America President. I”ll call him Barry again if you wish.
Only time will tell but his economic policies may end up so disasterous that the Carter presidency will look like a success in comparison.
And we all know how Carter’s presidency ended. Reagan won the two biggest landslides ever. History may very well repeat itself in 2012.
Hal @ 12:21 PM,
It’s been 100 days. You might think Obama is a better man than the others, but it’s too early to judge his Presidency.
I’d bet that if you were pro-life, your opinion of the man’s character would be the opposite, but then, you are not….
I agree with you on the name-calling. It’s “President Obama” – calling him anything else doesn’t really help in getting someone to listen to your viewpoint.
Janet, I’m sure if I was pro life I would certainly disagree with Obama, at least on that issue. Not sure about on the “character” thing. A disagreement on abortion doesn’t tell me much about a person’s character.
And,Of course it’s too early to judge Obama’s Presidency. But so far, so good.
For what it’s worth, I believe our President’s first 100 days has been an unmitigated disaster. It’s just too early to see the “fruit” of his deplorable policies so those that don’t know any better think he’s doing great.
Make no mistake. Save for an act of Divine Intervention, things are going to get pretty rough around here – which is probably exactly what our country needs.
You might call it the ‘worst first 100 days’ of an presidential administration in american history.
But it might not continue to be ‘worst 100’ consecutive days.
Things could more ‘worst’.
Time will tell.
yor bro ken
Well, Ed, you’re entitled to your opinion. Time will tell.
And Joanne, don’t count your 2012 chickens just yet. I was certain GWB would never get re-elected. I had to eat those words.
I don’t see anyone who can beat President Obama in 2012. But, it’s still early.
Posted by: Hal at April 26, 2009 12:39 PM
“A disagreement on abortion doesn’t tell me much
about a person’s character.”
—————————————————
Hal’
That is disengenuine.
Disagreement on a particular issue may not tell you everything about a persons character, but it ought to at least give you an inkling about them.
Would a disagreement on ‘torture’ tell you something about a person’s character.
Would a disagreement about the ‘lynching of Negroes’ tell you something about someones character?
Would a disagreement about ‘genocide’ tell you something about someones character?
Would a disagreement about murdering premature infants or the elderly tell you something about someones character?
Would a disagreement about misogyny tell you something about someones character?
yor bro ken
“I don’t see anyone who can beat President Obama in 2012. But, it’s still early.”
Mike Huckabee.
I see your point, Ken. But I don’t know of any people of good character who support torture, lynchings, or genocide. I do know of people of good character on both sides of the abortion debate.
Come on Hal!
Are telling us you haven’t educated yourself on the subject of abortion, yet??
http://www.abortionNO.org
Posted by: Hal at April 26, 2009 2:31 PM
I see your point, Ken. But I don’t know of any people of good character who support torture, lynchings, or genocide. I do know of people of good character on both sides of the abortion debate.
—————————————————
Hal,
That is because you view the debate as about abortion and not about the humanity of the victims.
The debate about lynching of Negoes was not about the kind of rope they used or even the method of execution. It was about recognizing Negroes as fellow human beings.
I am sure there was some fine upstanding church going men by day who donned cloaks and hoods by night. These same men were doctors, lawyers, mayors, U.S. Senators who were highly respected members of the community. They may have been men of good repute in every other respect. But they were not men of good character.
yor bro ken
yor bro ken
Excellent points, Ken!!
Hi Carla!
“A disagreement on abortion doesn’t tell me much
about a person’s character.”
***
Hal, A few quotes regarding “character”:
“Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking.”
H. Jackson Brown, Jr. (American best selling writer, author of Life’s Little Instruction Book)
“Character is the sum and total of a person’s choices.”
P. B. Fitzwater
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
Abraham Lincoln
Thanks Janet, those all support my position.
Hi Hal!
Hal:
Anyone who can support sticking scissors in the back of a baby’s head and sucking out his brain has poor character–let alone if they advocate still killing the baby if he has the poor taste to get born before the murderer has had the chance to do so.
This includes you, too.
yor bro ken: Great comments this weekend! Posted one as QOD.
I wonder if the Sebelius nomination for HHS Secretary will be rushed through in light of the flu “crisis” being reported. The timing is quite ironic. Does the MSM have an agenda?