Full Caf Americano™
Is it just me, or is John McCain one three-martini lunch past stick-a-fork-in-it?
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sunday expressed opposition to possible GOP efforts to filibuster a Senate gun-control measure, saying he did not “understand” the move to block debate.
“I don’t understand it,” said McCain on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.”
“What are we afraid of? Why would we not want… if this issue is as important as all of us think it is, why not take it to one of the world’s greatest deliberative bodies – that’s one of the greatest exaggerations in history by the way – but you know why not take it up, an amendment and debate. The American people will profit from it,” said the Arizona senator.
Yeah, buster! How would’ve all those great RINO compromises like McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold get done if I’d started standing up for constitutional rights? This is not a Frank Capra movie, you know.
We tried to warn you guys in Arizona. J.D. Hayworth may be a doofus, but he was our doofus. What? McCain transformed himself into a border hawk overnight, called in a chit from Sarah Palin, and you guys bought it? Hahahahahahah!!!
… With all due respect to Sen. McCain, that is almost completely backward.
The purpose of the US Senate is not to be some federal debating society. It is not tasked with taking the great issues of the day and giving its “august” members a platform for their musings on policy. The public does not look to the Senate for guidance in its deliberations on the issues.
Okay, so far we agree with everything but the ‘With all due respect to Sen. McCain’ part, but continue.
The Senate’s first, and only, task is to uphold the Constitution.
Today, Senators are just House members juiced-up on steroids. Worse, they have a habit of putting decorum and the traditions and processes of the institution above foundational principles. …
If one believes a legislative proposal is, on its face, unconstitutional, the ability to offer amendments is of little solace. Sens. Cruz, Lee and Paul, among other Senators, believe legislation to limit gun rights is, by its nature, unconstitutional. …
A filibuster against gun control legislation is upholding the greatest tradition of the Senate, i.e. acting as a bulwark against the federal government’s natural inclination to expand its power. … Any proposal that tramples on constitutional rights should never grace the floor of the Senate.
Troublemaker! Now this is the same preposterously radical tea party gibberish we heard in 2010! You guys think just because you won a couple of House victories…
Ah, for the good ol’ days. Teddy Kennedy, a quart of Jameson’s, and good old fashioned drunken bipartisan progress.