Interesting Slate article on the Republicans' continuing descent into self parody

[Lemon law]

Where did this it took the republicans four full years to go from the party of opposing filibusters to the party that embraces filibusters. The point being, immediately after the GOP lost its Senate majority position in the election of 11/06, the GOP set new world records on the use of the filibuster as the GOP
became the party of gridlock.

What the GOP leadership seems clueless about is the wages of sin, the American people were so grateful to the GOP that the GOP lost another eight Senate Seats, another 20 house seats, and the Presidency in the election of 11/08.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The name politician should maybe be changed to lying piece of shit.

I prefer the term "self-serving scum suckers".

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The name politician should maybe be changed to lying piece of shit.

I prefer to think of politics as a noble profession - albeit one which too many fall short on.

As Eisenhower said:

Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Unfortunately, Kruschev was close to the mark - think of our 'bridge to nowhere':

Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.
-- Nikita Khrushchev

The current problems aren't exactly new. With the last 8 years of 'terror alerts', does this quote from nearly a century ago sound familiar?

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed [and hence clamorous to be led to safety] by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-- H. L. Mencken

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Article here.

I for one have always supported the right to filibuster because I view it as an important tool to protect the rights of the minority. I can't help but notice however that the Republicans, having thrown such a shit fit over this issue in the past, are now preparing to use something that only 4 years ago they described as 'unconstitutional'.

At this point I think they are just embarrassing themselves.

This is politics. When the pendelum swings the other way expect the Democrats to do the same.

But you already knew that.

And of course you are an ignorant ideologue full of crap, who makes up the facts, which are lies you tell, to 'prove' the partisan conclusion you obtain from your ideology.

I've shown in many very lengthy, detailed, researched posts that there's a vast difference between the staggering,consistent, massive hypocrisy of Republicans, and Democrats.

But you have no interest in the facts, and you spew this BS because you don't have any such interest.

 

[sandorski]

The only bright spot was that they flip flopped slower than usual. Clinton/Balanced Budget advocates----Dubyah/Cut Taxes-Borrow-Spend-WhoCaresAboutDeficits----Obama/OMG guys, Balanced Budgets-Cut Taxes, you stoopid or something?!!

John Kerry could learn a thing or 2 from these guys.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
It's quite simple - this thread never was intended to be a discussion about Judicial nomination process. It was just coincidence this is the current news item that could be used against Republicans on the whole.

I fully expect you to show up in every single Winnar101!! post and announce the same thing. You won't though. I don't think I need bother to point out why you won't...

In any event, these blatant displays of hypocrisy need to be documented. If they weren't, what would Alchemize do in his spare time? :laugh:

 

[DealMonkey]

And for the record, I fully support the filibuster. It's an important tool in the arsenal of the minority party and deserves to be protected.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Article here.

I for one have always supported the right to filibuster because I view it as an important tool to protect the rights of the minority. I can't help but notice however that the Republicans, having thrown such a shit fit over this issue in the past, are now preparing to use something that only 4 years ago they described as 'unconstitutional'.

At this point I think they are just embarrassing themselves.

This is politics. When the pendelum swings the other way expect the Democrats to do the same.

But you already knew that.

And of course you are an ignorant ideologue full of crap, who makes up the facts, which are lies you tell, to 'prove' the partisan conclusion you obtain from your ideology.

I've shown in many very lengthy, detailed, researched posts that there's a vast difference between the staggering,consistent, massive hypocrisy of Republicans, and Democrats.

But you have no interest in the facts, and you spew this BS because you don't have any such interest.

Where you born yesterday or do you enjoy keeping your head in the sand? I am curious because even the OP agree's with me.

 

[alphatarget1]

I think it's pretty stupid how each side tries to pack the courts with liberal/conservative nominees when "their time comes". It seems like the idealogy shifts every so often. Just vote them in unless they're incompetent or something.

If Reagan can nominate O'Connor, why can't the presidents of this generation nominate some moderate like her?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I think it's pretty stupid how each side tries to pack the courts with liberal/conservative nominees when "their time comes". It seems like the idealogy shifts every so often. Just vote them in unless they're incompetent or something.

If Reagan can nominate O'Connor, why can't the presidents of this generation nominate some moderate like her?

You'd have to ask the Democrats, who've lockstep opposed 4 of the last 6 republican nominees. 5 of 7 if you include Chief Justice Rehnquist.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The Republicans spent 8 years trying to consolidate power and insure they reigned supreme forever. Now they are freaked out that they've handed this power to the opposition. Too funny that the political infrastructure they built to be invulnerable is now in the hands of those they sought to marginalize and exclude.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Article here.

I for one have always supported the right to filibuster because I view it as an important tool to protect the rights of the minority. I can't help but notice however that the Republicans, having thrown such a shit fit over this issue in the past, are now preparing to use something that only 4 years ago they described as 'unconstitutional'.

At this point I think they are just embarrassing themselves.

This is politics. When the pendelum swings the other way expect the Democrats to do the same.

But you already knew that.

Zero and Biden were themselves mega pro-filibusterists. I wonder how they're going to whine about that now.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The Republicans spent 8 years trying to consolidate power and insure they reigned supreme forever. Now they are freaked out that they've handed this power to the opposition. Too funny that the political infrastructure they built to be invulnerable is now in the hands of those they sought to marginalize and exclude.

Aren't the democrats trying to do the same?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This OP is on the same level of a winnar or ProJo thread. It's yet another shadenfruede thread that basically goes - 'Haha! Look. The (insert political opposition party name) suxors.

Grow up folks.

Hey TLC, thanks for a stupid comment. (then again, you are TLC... hardly a shock)

The 'nuclear option' was a huge deal 4 years ago. It dominated the headlines for quite awhile and almost led to a governmental meltdown. Now one of the parties involved has explicitly endorsed the procedure that they declared unconstitutional and were willing to melt the government down over.

That's news.

EDIT: If the Democrats suddenly attempt to invoke the nuclear option over this, it would be every bit as stupid, and every bit as newsworthy.

Uh huh. Stupid. Whatever. I'll take that into consideration the next time you whine like a little bitch about a ProJo or winnar thread delving immediately into blatant partisanism, just like this one.

Seems you want it both ways but the truly stupid ones don't understand that you can't have it both ways. Take a good look in the mirror and figure that out, IF you can stand the moronic hypocrite staring back at you while you're doing it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This OP is on the same level of a winnar or ProJo thread. It's yet another shadenfruede thread that basically goes - 'Haha! Look. The (insert political opposition party name) suxors.

Grow up folks.

Hey TLC, thanks for a stupid comment. (then again, you are TLC... hardly a shock)

The 'nuclear option' was a huge deal 4 years ago. It dominated the headlines for quite awhile and almost led to a governmental meltdown. Now one of the parties involved has explicitly endorsed the procedure that they declared unconstitutional and were willing to melt the government down over.

That's news.

EDIT: If the Democrats suddenly attempt to invoke the nuclear option over this, it would be every bit as stupid, and every bit as newsworthy.

Uh huh. Stupid. Whatever. I'll take that into consideration the next time you whine like a little bitch about a ProJo or winnar thread delving immediately into blatant partisanism, just like this one.

Seems you want it both ways but the truly stupid ones don't understand that you can't have it both ways. Take a good look in the mirror and figure that out, IF you can stand the moronic hypocrite staring back at you while you're doing it.

It doesn't surprise me that you have never had the ability to know the difference between the two. Winnar and Pro-Jo's threads are often worthless not because they attack Democrats, but because they are frequently dishonest in either their facts or their conclusion. If you find my OP to be dishonest in either of those ways, by all means let me know.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: cubby1223
It's quite simple - this thread never was intended to be a discussion about Judicial nomination process. It was just coincidence this is the current news item that could be used against Republicans on the whole.

I fully expect you to show up in every single Winnar101!! post and announce the same thing. You won't though. I don't think I need bother to point out why you won't...

In any event, these blatant displays of hypocrisy need to be documented. If they weren't, what would Alchemize do in his spare time? :laugh:

Somebody summon me? :light:

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
And for the record, I fully support the filibuster. It's an important tool in the arsenal of the minority party and deserves to be protected.

I think my opinion is changing on that now I guess it is more of a problem for either party when it's basically trotted out BEFORE any discussions of compromise take place...but that's politics in a two-party system.

 

[DealMonkey]

In addition, many conservatives have waved off Obama's stated interest in ending the sharp-edged battles over judicial nominations. So far, Obama has not moved to fulfill a request from all 41 GOP senators who have asked him to rename some of the judicial nominees who went unconfirmed last year after being appointed by President George W. Bush. By contrast, in his early months in office, Bush appointed two judges who had been nominated by President Bill Clinton but were blocked by GOP senators -- a bipartisan gesture that was encouraged by several Republican senators.

WaPo

Oh, now I see why GOP senators are talking filibuster so quickly: Obama has thus far refused to bow to their wishes to rename some of the unconfirmed noms appointed by Bush.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Somebody summon me? :light:

Heh, heh.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

In addition, many conservatives have waved off Obama's stated interest in ending the sharp-edged battles over judicial nominations. So far, Obama has not moved to fulfill a request from all 41 GOP senators who have asked him to rename some of the judicial nominees who went unconfirmed last year after being appointed by President George W. Bush. By contrast, in his early months in office, Bush appointed two judges who had been nominated by President Bill Clinton but were blocked by GOP senators -- a bipartisan gesture that was encouraged by several Republican senators.

WaPo

Oh, now I see why GOP senators are talking filibuster so quickly: Obama has thus far refused to bow to their wishes to rename some of the unconfirmed noms appointed by Bush.

Bush renominated 2 failed Clinton nominees. Democrats then changed the rules.

Payback.

 

[Fern]

Republicans now endorse the judicial nominee filibuster!

Yes, that's one way to look at it.

The other is:

Dems who insisted upon the validity of the filibuster while in the minority now complain bitterly about it when in the majority. Hypocrisy?

Jeesh, they've got 58 seats (with 59 likely upon Franken being seated) in Congress and they can't pick up 2 'R votes' with the likes of Olympia Snowe, Collins and Specter etc?

Just how non-mainstream are these nominees?

With such a huge majority, any vote is merely ceremonial, thus the only vote Repub get in a filibuster. And they can only afford to lose 1 of their votes or they can't even do that. (and they can't even afford to lose even 1 vote if Fraken is seated)

I find it really hard to believe Obama can't nominate someone who is acceptible to at least 2 Repubs.

It sure can't be over abortion, several Repub Senators are pro-choice.

So what's the complaint with these nominees? Does anybody know?

Otherwise, not a big deal IMO; the Dems will soon have 59 votes anyway.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

At the end of the day, its hard to see how this filbuster any judge nominated by Obama will benefit the GOP.

If nothing else, the GOP is throwing away the ability to horsetrade, we will allow this guy, but this guy is too liberal.

And since, for four long years, all Judicial nominees must come from the Obama side, they will have to either get democratic help, or keep 41 out of 41 GOP senators in line. And even if they get Coleman back, it does not change that much.

And once the GOP does that on judicial nominees, they will probably try to extend it to all legislation also. Again losing any horse trading ability and bipartisanship.

We already know how negatively the voters reacted in 11/06 and 11/08 regarding GOP gridlock, if the GOP tries it again, they may be able to fit the remaining GOP Senate members into a pup tent after the election of 11/2010.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Republicans now endorse the judicial nominee filibuster!

Yes, that's one way to look at it.

The other is:

Dems who insisted upon the validity of the filibuster while in the minority now complain bitterly about it when in the majority. Hypocrisy?

Jeesh, they've got 58 seats (with 59 likely upon Franken being seated) in Congress and they can't pick up 2 'R votes' with the likes of Olympia Snowe, Collins and Specter etc?

Just how non-mainstream are these nominees?

With such a huge majority, any vote is merely ceremonial, thus the only vote Repub get in a filibuster. And they can only afford to lose 1 of their votes or they can't even do that. (and they can't even afford to lose even 1 vote if Fraken is seated)

I find it really hard to believe Obama can't nominate someone who is acceptible to at least 2 Repubs.

It sure can't be over abortion, several Repub Senators are pro-choice.

So what's the complaint with these nominees? Does anybody know?

Otherwise, not a big deal IMO; the Dems will soon have 59 votes anyway.

Fern

Except I see no evidence of the Democrats trying to remove the ability of the GOP to filibuster. Do you have any support for that? If not, then the two sides are not even remotely equal.

Nominees? Did you read the article? He's only nominated one so far. As for the extremity of their opinions, that doesn't matter. The Democrats confirmed the vast, vast majority of GWB's judicial appointments, only filibustering those they found way out in right field. The Republicans declared that was unconstitutional anyway, and so the fundamental point isn't changed at all.

The point of all this is not in terms of the Republicans being able to thwart Obama's agenda, they are far too weakened at this point to do much of that, it's to laugh at them for their unabashed, absolutely naked hypocrisy on an issue they deemed so important that they were willing to grind government to a halt in the past.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

In addition, many conservatives have waved off Obama's stated interest in ending the sharp-edged battles over judicial nominations. So far, Obama has not moved to fulfill a request from all 41 GOP senators who have asked him to rename some of the judicial nominees who went unconfirmed last year after being appointed by President George W. Bush. By contrast, in his early months in office, Bush appointed two judges who had been nominated by President Bill Clinton but were blocked by GOP senators -- a bipartisan gesture that was encouraged by several Republican senators.

WaPo

Oh, now I see why GOP senators are talking filibuster so quickly: Obama has thus far refused to bow to their wishes to rename some of the unconfirmed noms appointed by Bush.

Considering Bush's radical choice of judges - the Federalist Society orientation - this is outstanding that Obama won't rename them, and a big mistake by the GOP to want them.

During the campaign, Obama said his model justice would be Warren and McCain said his would be in the same mold as Bush's.

So, it's great for Obama to not re-appoint Bush nominees.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Nothing but left-wing slant here.

Nothing to discuss. You hate Republicans and want them to die.

Time to move along.

So, what's your complaint? Seems like a great idea to me!!!

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Anyway, one more election cycle and the filibuster may well be useless. Right now we can rely on the Republicans to say and do something stupid about every 30 seconds. Why should anyone worry? I'll bet Reid isn't.

-Robert