Talk:Gang of 14
|WikiProject U.S. Congress|
Post Election 2006
It would be nice to have a section on which senators in this group lost their races on November 7 2006. I know DeWine is out, but I came here looking for information on who was left and didn't find any. Andrew Kintz 7:52 CST 8 November 2006
I'm not so sure calling the set of 14 senators "moderate" is appropriate. Sure, some of them are -- but not all IMO. John Warner (R-VA) wouldn't be described as a moderate, for example. In fact, it's pretty certain that he is a member of the Gang of 14 because he has a sense of Congressional history similar to Byrd (D-WV) and also remembers what it is like to be a member of the minority party in the Senate, unlike many Republicans since the GOP was last in the minority prior to the 1994 elections. Warner was concerned in protecting the "rights" of the minority party in the Senate, and maintaining a historical difference between the Senate and the House, where filibustering isn't possible.
So, calling them moderate is both inaccurate and not necessarily the point. Warner (and others, perhaps) were part of the deal not because of their political stance per se, but because of their interest in preserving history and their understsanding of the gamesmanship of the Senate. -- stomv 10:16 EST 1 November 2005
This article needs to be updated - I don't think these 14 are the 14 that are active now. Kind of a confusing article. Fox News just had a Senator who's part of the Gang of 14 so I had to check this article out to figure out what it is. I'm still confused :P Ash Lux 00:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
they are at it again and are expected to be the people that ok roberts.
Proposal to Merge This Article
Gang of fourteen has a little more information but its article quality is a bit lower. Combine the two and maybe we'll have one decent article ... FYI, "Gang of 14" seems to be the most common usage, so this should remain the primary article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I just discovered that all of the discussion is here instead of at Talk:Gang of fourteen. I provided the names of the senators that were originally missing from Gang of fourteen, as well as all of its external links. I completely agree with Dhartung on the matter of the merger proposal. Who is authorized to perform the merger? John Rigali 07:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the merge, and I also agree that I prefer the name and most of the material from "Gang of 14" article. However, I do question whether the name actually derived from the Chinese "Gang of 4". I doubt (but don't know for sure) that anybody had that in mind when the name was created. Is there evidence to back that derivation? Michael J. Hudson 04:56, September 26, 2004 (UTC)
I vote that these two articles ought to be merged. My opinion is that they should Phil 21:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Gang OF 14
I suport the gang of 14 stay strong and together so the radicals dont get their way. David Denver.
Any ref on the alternative name of Mod Squad? I haven't heard of that elsewhere. --BDD 08:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not know who first coined the term, "nuclear option" whether Democrat Party or Republican Party. I believe that it was a hyperbole and sensationalism that became popular in usage. It refers to a supposed "total sweeping away" of the use of the fillibuster tactic, which may or may not be Constitutionally provided for, in the blocking of a President's judicial nominees. Persons upholding the use of the fillibuster to block judicial nominations viewed the tactic as viable, while persons opposed to the fillibuster of judicial nominations viewed it as outside the Constitutionally designated parameters of the fillibuster. The Nuclear Option was to be a straight "up or down" vote in the U.S. Senate to determine the Constitutionality of the use of the fillibuster rules to block a President's judicial nominations.220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps some mention of the fact that some liberal/progressive factions of the Democratic Party are now suggesting an exercise of the 'constitutional option'? In retrospect in seems they shouldn't have fought the Republicans on it 6 years ago. --ptaylor (1:04, 7 December 2010)