Cowardly democrats

[charrison]

Cowardly democrats

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee today engaged in an unusual voting maneuver that signaled their disapproval of one of President Bush's judicial nominees even as they cleared the way for his confirmation.

They first allowed the nominee, Judge Dennis Shedd, to be approved by a voice vote. Then, one by one, each of the Democrats present asked to be recorded as having voted against him.

It is time for the democrats to stand for something.

 

[Bluefront]

Like what for instance?

 

[FoBoT]

it will be two years of this, they might be the minority , but they will use all the tricks to roadblock and stall

 

[DonaldC]

Politics as usual.

 

[NARtheWang]

Anyone who can't face an issuse will be shot before they are smart enought to crush it...
I am probably a bit Republican for most peoples tastes but at least we don't steal from law abiding citizens nearly so badly

 

[josphII]

dont be so repeditive, to be a democrat means you are cowardly to begin with

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bluefront
Like what for instance?

Well if they really dont think this judge should be appointed, they should vote what they think.
This roll over and then vote no is pretty silly.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: josphII
dont be so repeditive, to be a democrat means you are cowardly to begin with

To make blanket statements means you are ignorant to begin with.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: josphII
dont be so repeditive, to be a democrat means you are cowardly to begin with

As much as I disagree with the Democratic party, it's attitudes like yours that make me detest the Republicans. You call them cowards because they stand up for what they believe even though they are in the minority? Somehow that sounds more heroic than cowardly. Cowardly is playing it safe, doing what the majority wants, calling those who have different views than the mainstream cowards. Disagreeing with them in one thing, but to label them as unpatriotic or cowards because they have different views than you? Sounds like something the National Socialist Party did in Germany during the 30's

 

[Yossarian]

Why do so many people find it impossible to understand that for every dumb fvcking thing a democrat does, a republican has done something just as bad? The whole "team" mentality when it comes to politics always baffles me.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Bluefront
Like what for instance?

How about something other than simply disagreeing with everything the Republicans say? That's all the Dems do these days. They have no alternative plans, they just criticize the plans the Republicans present.

 

[Jugernot]

Haha, so what... you think the republicans would be different if the government had switched the other way? It's politics as usual.

 

[SuperTool]

Good, the more gridlock the better. Am I the only one who thinks the less congress gets done the better?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Bluefront
Like what for instance?

How about something other than simply disagreeing with everything the Republicans say? That's all the Dems do these days. They have no alternative plans, they just criticize the plans the Republicans present.

They are currently the opposition party, because that is all they can or want to do, oppose.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: josphII
dont be so repeditive, to be a democrat means you are cowardly to begin with

As much as I disagree with the Democratic party, it's attitudes like yours that make me detest the Republicans. You call them cowards because they stand up for what they believe even though they are in the minority? Somehow that sounds more heroic than cowardly. Cowardly is playing it safe, doing what the majority wants, calling those who have different views than the mainstream cowards. Disagreeing with them in one thing, but to label them as unpatriotic or cowards because they have different views than you? Sounds like something the National Socialist Party did in Germany during the 30's

Red they did not stand up, the folded and complained afterwards. Leadership is about going against the grain, not playing it safe.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Good, the more gridlock the better. Am I the only one who thinks the less congress gets done the better?

You are not alone.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I agree that they should not have voted in this fashion. Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Do recall though that the republicans blocked Clintons appointments by some creative moves. To criticize one party for doing x when the other side does the same when it is their turn is hypocritical. All parties pull crap because they are in opposition in many areas. Political fact of life. That does not mean I think it is right, but I acknowlege the shortcomings of their guy AND mine.

 

[NARtheWang]

I see no reason for us to stand there while we get our a$$e$ kicked! And having a political gridlock will just weaken us further

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I agree that they should not have voted in this fashion. Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Do recall though that the republicans blocked Clintons appointments by some creative moves. To criticize one party for doing x when the other side does the same when it is their turn is hypocritical. All parties pull crap because they are in opposition in many areas. Political fact of life. That does not mean I think it is right, but I acknowlege the shortcomings of their guy AND mine.

Look it up dimwit! Most of Clinton's nominations were APPROVED by a Republican controlled Congress! Bush even approved several Democrat nominees AFTER he became President.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I agree that they should not have voted in this fashion. Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Do recall though that the republicans blocked Clintons appointments by some creative moves. To criticize one party for doing x when the other side does the same when it is their turn is hypocritical. All parties pull crap because they are in opposition in many areas. Political fact of life. That does not mean I think it is right, but I acknowlege the shortcomings of their guy AND mine.

About 80% of the clintons judges got approved. That is not a bad record at all.

 

[C'DaleRider]

Most of Clinton's nominations were APPROVED by a Republican controlled Congress!

And the same thing can be said about Bush's appointments and the Dem. Congress.........the vast majority of Bush's nominations were approved without a challenge.........something like 80%.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider

Most of Clinton's nominations were APPROVED by a Republican controlled Congress!

And the same thing can be said about Bush's appointments and the Dem. Congress.........the vast majority of Bush's nominations were approved without a challenge.........something like 80%.

No, his judge approval rate is well under 40%, unless you mean Bush Senior...

 

[C'DaleRider]

Red they did not stand up, the folded and complained afterwards

Actually, what you quoted originally does not say that at all.......it says the nominee was approved by voice vote. As you don't understand voice votes, guess you slept through civics, it means a mass Yea or Nay, no counting. The approval is determined by the volume of the voices; the more volume, the more voices/votes. Having each Nay individually heard and counted is to make sure each is recorded and not just an en masse count. Nothing cowardly about having your vote actually individually recorded instead of the mass Yea that the Repubs. did.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider I agree that they should not have voted in this fashion. Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Do recall though that the republicans blocked Clintons appointments by some creative moves. To criticize one party for doing x when the other side does the same when it is their turn is hypocritical. All parties pull crap because they are in opposition in many areas. Political fact of life. That does not mean I think it is right, but I acknowlege the shortcomings of their guy AND mine.

Look it up dimwit! Most of Clinton's nominations were APPROVED by a Republican controlled Congress! Bush even approved several Democrat nominees AFTER he became President.

Ok,to the petty side of things, I shall be Dimwit, and you shall be numbnuts.

Numb, the Republicans tried blocking. They perhaps did not as vigorously pursue it. Please show above where I said it was good for either side. I believe the judges should be weighed on their merits. One of the first realizations of the last election was that we were finally going to get judges and I was pleased. Oh Numb, I voted for Bush, and at this moment do not believe I would have changed that vote if I could. Now Numb, I realize it is difficult for you to understand that some people believe a thing is right or wrong based on its merits, not its party affiliation. This occasionally does happen. Last thing Numb, Wasnt it hard getting the helmet up your ass in the first place?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider

Red they did not stand up, the folded and complained afterwards

Actually, what you quoted originally does not say that at all.......it says the nominee was approved by voice vote. As you don't understand voice votes, guess you slept through civics, it means a mass Yea or Nay, no counting. The approval is determined by the volume of the voices; the more volume, the more voices/votes. Having each Nay individually heard and counted is to make sure each is recorded and not just an en masse count. Nothing cowardly about having your vote actually individually recorded instead of the mass Yea that the Repubs. did.

They control this committee, if they all voted nay, it would have stopped there.