YAF

Yes, we are experiencing YAF by the Senate Democrats. This time it is over John Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations.

While I am unable to prove it in this forum I suspected the Dems would filibuster the Bolton nomination before this became apparent.

Yes, we have this agreement about filibustering the President's nominees. No we don't, we have a deal on the filibuster of judicial nominees and John Bolton is not a judicial nominee so the agreement does not hold. Yes yes, I agree the Democrats are behaving like lawyers? Well, yeah! A lawyer's job is to take a broad principle and narrow it down to near insignificance and this is what has happened. If you thought this agreement applied to all filibusters then you did not read
the fine print and Lucipher is coming for your soul in a couple of weeks. Also, I strongly Suspect were our positions reversed our Senators would be taking the same narrow view.

All is not lost. The MSM stooges of the DNC are studiously avoiding the use of the word "filibuster" and we need to understand what that means and how to act. We need to be describing this action in the plain word (who would have thought filibuster would be a plain word) FILIBUSTER. Yes, the Dems are extending debate on John Bolton but what is the word for that? FILIBUSTER! Yes, the Dems are refusing to vote for cloture but what is the word for that? FILIBUSTER! The Dems do not intend to allow a vote for John Bolton and will use the FILIBUSTER tactic yet again.

The Senate leadership should then target the Dem senators who came to agreement with respect to judicial nominees and put them on notice their pet porkies are in danger. Remember one of the senators in the deal on the judicial filibusters is the king of pork.

FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER FILIBUSTER!