A Quote by Pat Buchanan

President Trump should tell the Senate, 'No more admissions to NATO, no more U.S. war guarantees, unless I have recommended or approved them.' Foreign policy is made in the White House, not on the Senate floor.
Bob Torricelli, Democrat member of the Senate, was basically about to be thrown out of office on corruption charges, and he went to the floor of the Senate to deny everything. And we juxtaposed his denials with an attorney from someone in an action against Torricelli who was listing all of the gifts and all the bribes that Torricelli had been given and offered in exchange for policy considerations on the Senate floor. So he's on the Senate floor denying it.
I believe on foreign policy that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We believe that the best course for containing North Korea's nuclear program is through diplomacy, and we disagree with the language the President Donald Trump has used, and the fact that he's made it more difficult for diplomacy to work.
The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate's traditions and precedents to ensure that regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
President Bush, whose scorn for journalists is balanced by a soft spot in his heart for the conglomerates they work for, threatens to veto the Senate action. Keep in mind that when the public was asked to submit comments to the FCC about consolidation, only one percent approved it. The President may not be listening, but the Senate is, and the public won this round. The House has a similar resolution under consideration.
If you look at the Constitution, the two clauses of the Constitution make it very clear the president shall nominate, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It's been since 1888 that a Senate of a different party than the president in the White House confirmed a Supreme Court nominee.
Let there be no reservation or doubt that I believe the Senate should vote on each and every judicial appointment made by the President of the United States and that no rule or procedure should ever stop the Senate from exercising its constitutional responsibility.
Americans across the country are expressing their belief that the best chance for a better life in our country is with continued Republican control of the House, Senate, and the White House under President Trump.
On the House side, typically the party that has the White House loses the majority in the midterms - that's been the historic trend. We want to buck that trend. We want to deliver for President Trump majorities in the House and the Senate so that he can govern.
If I were Donald Trump, I would definitely not pick Mitt Romney because it's very easy for Mitt Romney to have have a separate foreign policy operatus in the State Department that would run a dissenting foreign policy from the White House foreign policy. There, I think the populist America-first foreign policy of Donald Trump does run against a potential rival.
That Republicans now control the Senate means, of course, that they control the confirmation process. Their majority enables them to stop an unacceptable nomination at various points: They can deny the nominee a committee hearing; they can vote the person down in committee; they can refuse to schedule a vote on a nomination sent to the floor; and the full Senate can vote to reject the nomination. The Republicans' majority status also strengthens their negotiating position with the White House, making it more likely that a mutually acceptable candidate will be chosen for a given seat.
I would hope that the Senate would do its job and confirm the nominee that President [Barack] Obama has sent to them. That's the way the Constitution fundamentally should operate. The president nominates, and then the Senate advises and consents, or not, but they go forward with the process.
The Democrats are angry, and they're out of their minds. You know, we're seeing in the Senate, the Senate Democrats objecting to every single thing. They're boycotting committee meetings. They're refusing to show up. They're foaming at the mouth, practically. And really, you know, where their anger is directed, it's not at Republicans. Their anger is directed at the American people. They're angry with the voters, how dare you vote in a Republican president, Donald Trump, a Republican Senate, a Republican House.
Trump's more outre economic ideas, like repealing trade bills and implementing a massive surcharge on imports, would seem like non-starters in a Republican-led House and Senate, except when you consider a second point as a kind of syllogism: Republicans fear their angry, white electorate. Their angry, white electorate chose Donald Trump.
The Democrats stand to lose even more seats in the Senate. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It's certainly a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix everything that has been on our minds for 30 years. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and it's not being utilized - and it isn't being utilized, sadly, because the perception is that it's House and Senate Republicans that are refusing to work with Donald Trump, that they're embarrassed of him, that they don't want Trump to become the definition of a Republican.
The Senate should consider a rule ensuring that every judicial nominee receives a vote by the Senate within 180 days of being nominated by the president.
The Senate was an odd compromise between the founders and the early leaders of the republic who wanted a single house which was based on popular sovereignty representing the people and those founders who wanted two houses, the upper house, the Senate, being the more aristocratic.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!