Frist Implodes on Senate Floor
Frist Implodes on Senate Floor
This morning on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Chuck Schumer asked Majority Leader Bill Frist a simple question:
SEN. SCHUMER: Isn’t it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?
Here was Frist’s response:
The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination — we’ll come back and discuss this further. … Actually I’d like to, and it really brings to what I believe — a point — and it really brings to, oddly, a point, what is the issue. The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way.
So, Frist is arguing that one filibuster is OK. His problem is that several Bush nominees have been filibustered. This position completely undercuts Frist’s argument that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. (Which is, in turn, the justification for the nuclear option.) If judicial filibusters are unconstitutional there is no freebee. But Frist digs his hole even deeper:
The issue is not cloture votes per se, it’s the partisan, leadership-led use of cloture votes to kill — to defeat — to assassinate these nominees. That’s the difference. Cloture has been used in the past on this floor to postpone, to get more info, to ask further questions.
When Frist voted to filibuster Paez’s nomination it had been pending for four years. It’s hard to believe he couldn’t get all the info he needed or ask all the questions he had during that time. Make no mistake about it: Bill Frist was trying to kill the Paez nomination. A press release issued the following day by former Sen. Bob Smith, who organized the filibuster effort, read “Smith Leads Effort to Block Activist Judges.” All the details about Frist’s hypocrisy here.
Note: Transcripts via Tivo recording
UPDATE: Watch the video.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Perhaps he can join Senator Coleman in the punk’d corner.
May 18th, 2005 at 11:26 amWhy is integrity no longer important?
May 18th, 2005 at 11:37 amHas anyone ever believed a word that Frist has said? Not me. The man is as partisan as possible, almost as stupid as Bush, and has no discernable integrity. Of course filibusters are Constitutional, because they are in accordance with Senate rules, and the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to set their own rules. What isn’t Constitutional is for the Senate not to follow those rules, and this nuclear option violates the Senate rule that a 2/3 majority is needed to change any rule, including the cloture vote rule.
May 18th, 2005 at 11:37 amHypocrisy from the right? Surely you jest. That pantheon of upright-uptightness would never say one thing and do another…would they? Shock!
I’m at the point where its just not interesting anymore. Either people will see this as a crass political manuver to garner the Doc a presidential nomination, or they’ll keep watching Fux. But are they really sitting around trying to CONVINCE people that trashing a 200 year old rule is GOOD for the Constitution? And are people really buying that crap? If so, then there is no hope for us.
I think that’s not the case, though. I think much like the Schiavo debacle, the American people will see this for the wingnut overreaching that it is. I mean c’mon, the country is so problem free that the Senate has time to dick around about archaic rule? There aren’t any hungry kids or cancer patients anymore? We’re out of Iraq and it’s a great resort destination now? Oh, and we have the world’s best schools and safest cities – so those don’t need any attention from our country’s leadership.
Riiiiiight.
I say let ‘em go nuculur – I just wanna hear old W. say it every night for a week.
May 18th, 2005 at 11:38 amhole, or whole hole.
May 18th, 2005 at 11:44 amThis is all about W and Rove hanging Frist out to dry, so as to further some other right-winger. Frist wins – he destroyed the Senate. Frist loses – he’s insufficiently conservative (which he’s already been called, by others on the Right, for taking so long to move).
May 18th, 2005 at 11:44 amOur Democrats may not speak out as forceful as Galloway but they sometimes say what is needed in a quiet spoken short sentence. GO Dems. hold the line for us, until we can return you to power.
May 18th, 2005 at 11:46 amFilibuster Frist while you still can! Mock filibuster protests in support of the filibuster are spreading natoinwide. Find out more at http://www.filibusterfrist.com.
May 18th, 2005 at 11:49 am“At long last, Senator Frist, have you no shame?”
May 18th, 2005 at 11:49 amOther elements of Frist’s filibuster in the Paez nomination can be found here.
Note also that Dr. Frist, Mr. Tort Reform himself, committed the equivalent of witness malpractice in the Schiavo tragedy.
May 18th, 2005 at 11:52 amI’m not shocked or surprised. This is just the next logical move by the money to take full control. Wealth is an addiction and addicts have no shame.
May 18th, 2005 at 12:07 pmNone of us are suprised by these events. What I don’t understand is the group of 6 Democratic Senators who are trying to reach a “compromise” which is the equivalent of complete and abject surrender. That scares me more.
May 18th, 2005 at 12:09 pmI am beginning to think, go ahead remove it. The way things are going they will not be in the majority a year and half from now, and will start crying about it.
May 18th, 2005 at 12:11 pmd’oh!
May 18th, 2005 at 12:14 pmI suggest we call rabid Republicans like Frist “BSers”. This stands for “Big Spenders”, as we all know.
May 18th, 2005 at 12:15 pmFrist Reacts To Shumer
May 18th, 2005 at 12:23 pmSenator Frist did not react well to a question that Senator Shumer posed this morning about the filibuster issue.
I sometimes think “How do they sleep?” then I remember, they don’t care! They have no shame, no morals(that could be recognized as such) and don’t care that they are hurting the country. There is no moral arguement for them becasue their moral code can be summed up as “If I win, what I did must be moral because God wouldn’t let me win if I was immoral.” Can anybody refute this?
May 18th, 2005 at 12:29 pmPS: Most Americans are happy to let them get it away with it.
Now I need a drink..
Will we be the majority a year from now? With rigged Repuklic owned voting machines, the Repuke owned MSM? I think the New Reich is cementing itself into power for along time to come. I wish it wasn’t so as our environment will be raped, the middle class turned into the lower, (but still the brainwashed morons will blame the Dems), women and minorities sent back to 2nd class citizen status and more.
Maybe I’m just depressed by the New Reich’s power and agenda, but I don’t see Dems getting control of govt with a voting system being rigged by the Reich owners of that system.
They stole 2 elections of our former Democracy and what will stop them from continuing?
May 18th, 2005 at 12:35 pmWhere is Paez sitting now.. he is sitting one the court because he got a up or down vote you commies…
May 18th, 2005 at 12:37 pmThe senior senator from Texas just said that the dems *torture* the repugs’ nominees.
May 18th, 2005 at 12:40 pmWhere is Paez sitting now.. he is sitting on the court because he got a up or down vote of more than 59 senators you social democrats…
May 18th, 2005 at 12:56 pmRegarding the Paez nomination and Mr. Greenbergs “comment”. And your point Mr. Greenberg? Do you deny that Frist fillibustered Paez’s nomination? If you don’t, then its time to start being honest with yourself and the hypocrisy of the right.
May 18th, 2005 at 12:58 pmGive the man a break, he’s a physician and for all he knows you can get AIDS through the filibuster as easily as through sweat or saliva. He’s just looking out for everyone’s health.
May 18th, 2005 at 12:59 pmI sometimes think “How do they sleep?�
While visions of Cat Killing danced in his head.
From “Twas the night before Fristmas”
May 18th, 2005 at 12:59 pmThe end of the filibuster, should it happen, as now looks very possible, is quite simply the end of American representative democracy. Unfettered majority rule will be the name of the game.
Senator Palpatine–I mean Frist!–and his unscrupulous, antidemocratic colleagues will be judged harshly by history.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:01 pmHistory is (ghost) written by winners, even if in this case they’re not much into reading it.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:03 pmPaez GOT A VOTE UP OR DOWN, STEVE!
May 18th, 2005 at 1:04 pmHistory is (ghost) written by winners, even if in this case they’re not much into reading it.
Comment by aleks  May 18th, 2005 @ 1:03 pm
Uh, sorry, no.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:04 pmFrist a hypocrite? Cant be!
May 18th, 2005 at 1:05 pmThink Progress watches, so we do not have to
Paez GOT A VOTE UP OR DOWN, STEVE!
Comment by Brandon Greenberg  May 18th, 2005 @ 1:04 pm
Only because Frist’s fili busted at the post, you interhamwe wannabe.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:09 pmHey Greenberg, stick a sock in it. Just because he is sitting on the court doesn’t remove the fact the fRshitz tried to filibuster. Now go back where you came from, that is to sucking c*** in the closet.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:10 pmBrandon, if Paez got an “up or down” vote, it’s because the GOP filibuster FAILED, not because they didn’t try it, you fool.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:12 pmYou Dems are missing the whole point (again). Using the judicial filibuster would not even be under discussion if the Democratic Party had not been so soundly rejected by the majority of working Americans.
If the Democrats didn’t have the young (& uneducated) and the welfare vote, the party would cease to exist.
If the judicial filibuster is taken off the table, what will be left for the Dems? Spit balls? Toilet papering the GOP’s cars?
May 18th, 2005 at 1:12 pm1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10…weeeeeeeeeeeeee….I can count.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:13 pmBuckshot, your name is appropriate. Take away a minority’s right to speak out, to filibuster, we’ll go to our guns. Notice how we’ve been quiet about the 2nd Amendment lately?
May 18th, 2005 at 1:15 pmHey Buckshot, go join Greenberg in the closet.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:16 pma bit off-topic, but we at skippy international are proud to announce “skippy select“!
May 18th, 2005 at 1:16 pmI wonder where the Republicans would be without people who think that 1. Saddam was behind the September 11 attacks, 2. We’ve found tons of WMD in Iraq, and 3. Fossils were placed by Satan to trick people into believing in evolution and a world more than a few thousand years old?
May 18th, 2005 at 1:16 pmActually, Buckshot, if the Dems didn’t have women, anyone with a college education, and minorities, the party would cease to exist. If Republicans didn’t have white males who graduated middle school and religious fanatics they would cease to exist.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:19 pmCivil war is comin’. And you Grey, I mean Red Staters, ought to keep in mind who won last time.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:33 pmPaez got to the court because the filibuster failed: it did not get the 60 votes to continue as required by Senate rules. Let the Republicans end the current (threatened) filibuster the same way; then they can get their up-or-down vote.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:43 pmDemocratic Party had not been so soundly rejected by the majority of working Americans.
How does one argue with something so incredibly stupid like that? Do believe your own bullshit or is that a troll’s bait?
Since when is Bush’s 51% result a total, overwhelming victory? What about the other 49% who did not want him? Is that a tiny insignificant minority?
May 18th, 2005 at 1:50 pmBuckshot, the young, the uneducated, and those on welfare have votes that count just as much as yours does. That’s called democracy. The clear implication of your comment is that you think that their votes are not as legitimate as yours.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:55 pm1 OK, but not 10
May 18th, 2005 at 1:56 pmSee the hypocristy, from ThinkProgress:This morning on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Chuck Schumer asked Majority Leader Bill Frist a simple question:SEN. SCHUMER: Isn’t it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the fi…
Buckshot,
More welfare goes to poor rural conservatives than those icky urban poor liveral people, so your “welfare vote” argument isn’t really valid.
But you are right on the money with your last thought. With the filibuster off the table, what will any minority party have to fight back with? The reason to keep it alive is precisely for this purpose. One party shouldn’t change the rules once they’re in power, just to win a political battle. There is a bigger picture here.
If the whiny Dems had done away with the filibuster when Frist was for it years ago, we wouldn’t even be talking about it today. They saw that they would be removing a valuable tool for our democracy, and left it intact. The Republicans in charge now should have that same long-range vision, instead of the slash-and-burn short view they now take.
You made a valuable point, whether you realized it or not. Nice work.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:59 pm“Democratic Party had not been so soundly rejected by the majority of working Americans.”
Uhhhh how exactly do YOU define “soundly” in this statement? How much did Bush win by again? 2%? That’s nowhere near soundly in anyone’s definition I can think of. A “majority of working Americans”? Get real.
“If the Democrats didn’t have the young (& uneducated) and the welfare vote, the party would cease to exist.”
So the young and people on welfare don’t count eh? They’re second class citizens who are foolish in your eyes? Yeah, I guess that makes sense to the friggin’ ignorant selfish rethugs.
May 18th, 2005 at 2:01 pmThere were rabid filibusters in many cases, including the Nixon-era Republican attempts to scuttle Johnson appointees.
It is clear that the GOP is leveraging their slim majority to do as much damage as quickly as possible, and that without stacking the courts and marginalizing dissent they fear failure.
May 18th, 2005 at 2:03 pmDoes anyone know if there is a video clip of Schumer V Frist yet? And if so, where i can find it. Thanks.
May 18th, 2005 at 2:27 pmRegarding the “well, Paez did get a vote” argument: Folks have shot it down for the obvious reason, viz., that the fact that Frist’s attempt to block an up-or-down vote via filibuster failed doesn’t change the fact that he tried to do something that he now claims to be unconstitutional.
But there’s another point. Paez had been waiting for 4 years. Fletcher, another 9th Circuit judge, waited for 4 years. When Clinton’s nominees *did* get floor votes, it was often only after GOP senators did their damndest to stop them.
Remember when Miguel Estrada withdrew, and the GOP shouted racism? Apparently, they had forgotten about the several Latino circuit court nominees under Clinton who had to withdraw–a couple after waiting for several years for a vote–because of GOP refusal to allow a vote.
And the idea that it’s unconstitutional for 40 senators to deny a floor vote is tremendously silly next to the fact that the GOP allowed *one* senator to block nominees during the Clinton years. Under the “blue slip” rule, any senator could block even a Judiciary Committee hearing on a nominee from his state. Jesse Helms blocked every single North Carolina nominee to the 4th Circuit for 8 years. And he wasn’t the only one. A 6th Circuit nominee appointed during Clinton’s *first* term was still waiting for the sacred up-or-down vote at the end of his second term. (When the GOP took back the Senate in 2002, the first thing Hatch did was change the blue-slip rule). In a lot of cases, Hatch simply didn’t schedule a hearing for the nominee. Or he didn’t schedule a committee vote. Or, after the nominee was voted out of committee, the GOP majority didn’t schedule a floor vote. No need to filibuster if the up-or-down vote never happens.
In all, more than 60 Clinton nominees were still waiting for a vote when Clinton left office, and that doesn’t count the ones whose nominations had been withdrawn.
The strategy then was obvious: keep seats open at all costs so that a GOP president could fill them. Occasionally, the nominee was someone the GOP opposed on ideological grounds, e.g., they were worried about Fletcher because his mother has been a liberal on the 9th Circuit. But for the most part, the Clinton nominees were a pretty tame lot (unlike Carter’s circuit court nominees, such as Fletcher’s mother and her colleague on the 9th Circuit, Stepehen Reinhardt).
There were officially declared judicial emergencies on several circuits, so that your appeal was often heard by a three-judge panel that included only *one* active judge from that circuit. The situation was so bad that Rehnquist–no liberal activist he–chided the senate in one of his year-end state-of-the-judiciary letters and told them to vote yea or nay, but hurry up and vote, dammit! But that was the strategy–keep tons of seats open so that, should the GOP win the White House in 2000, the new president could appoint enough Federalist Society types, along with the Reagan and Bush I nominees, to dominate the courts. And you know what? They do: the 6th is pretty much split down the middle and the 9th has so many judges that it’s all over the place depending on which 3 you draw; but otherwise, every circuit has a solid majority of conservatives. As for the claim that there is *now* an emergency, don’t make me laugh; the number of vacancies is much, much lower than it was under Clinton, when the GOP didn’t seem to think there was any rush, plus which Bush himself has failed to nominate anyone for a couple of dozen (mostly district court) seats, so even the number of vacancies that do exist are mostly his fault.
Personally, I have a great deal of trouble with the idea of filibustering judicial nominees. I hope that somehow, some way, once this battle is over, we will get to a healthier process for Democratic and Republican presidential appointees alike. But the GOP (Frist in particular) really has no defense to the charge of hypocrisy on this issue.
In short: Brandon Greenberg, you’re an idiot. Not only is your argument illogical on its face, but your ignorance of the historical facts is apparent. Don’t shoot off your mouth in public when you don’t know what you’re talking about, son. To repeat: You are an idiot.
May 18th, 2005 at 2:31 pmWhy don’t the wingnuts ever admit to the fact that the reason they did not fillibuster Clinton’s judicial nominees, was because they let them die in committee instead. Even those with the same “majority support” they keep talking about now. Those Clinton nominees would have won an up or down vote. But, they never let them out of committee to the floor for a vote. So, they accomplished exactly the same thing, but without having to use a fillibuster. Any time anyone questions them on this, they just ignore it and repeat their mantra that the fillibuster was never used. I don’t see any difference other than semantics, but apparently they have convinced all their far right supporters that there is one. And now, they even claim there is a difference between a fillibuster and a “Fristibuster”. Just how stupid are the masses? Wake up everyone before the puritans are back in control and they start erecting stocks in the town square for all the heathens…
May 18th, 2005 at 3:05 pmOpens mouth Inserts Foot
I got this from Think Progres
If you follow any blogs or news, you know that Frist has cocked the trigger, and gets ready to shot on the “Nuclear Option�. Well it looks like Sen. Chuck Schumer may have painted Frist into a little bit of a corner.
…
May 18th, 2005 at 3:08 pmIf you guys want to keep up with massive weblog response to the Nuclear Option and the debate that is going on, check out The Political Forecast.
Thanks guys!
May 18th, 2005 at 3:15 pmWhy do you republicans think this is a win issue for you? You see the polls consistently saying 60%+ of Americans are against it. I can only think you feel that when the Democrats shut down the government, folks will blame them. Damn you are feeble.
May 18th, 2005 at 3:16 pmto Kindness,
May 18th, 2005 at 3:20 pmThe Repugs are probably right to think it is a winning issue for them. If they were able to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in the last election and keep control over all 3 branches of government, why should we think the sheep will wake up next time around? Especially since it is still over a year away?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/18.html#a2998 has the video fo Frister getting fisked
May 18th, 2005 at 3:25 pmI’m not entirely sure where I read this, but in the Senate, more Americans are represented by democratic senators than GOP senators…like 55%-45%
May 18th, 2005 at 3:26 pmKindness,
May 18th, 2005 at 3:29 pmThat 60% means nothing to Repugs. Last election, I thought voters would be concerned about economy etc. But, it turned out that Repubs were able to convince additional millions of their base to turn out so that their grandchildren would not be forced to marry homosexuals. What makes you think they can’t do it again?
Arnold P. California summed it up quite nicely- I only wanted to add a comment or two. While I would like to see a Senate in which the filibuster was never used, the reason we’re all talking about the filibuster and the nuclear option is not because there is a breakdown in the Senate, or because the Senate lacks a ‘healthier process,’ but because W is determined to get every last one of his extremist activist judicial nominees confirmed.
Since his reelection, Bush has shown that he has no interest in being a “uniter, not a divider.” He has nominated probably the worst possible ‘diplomat’ anyone can think of to be our UN representative; he nominated a yes-man who had written in justification of torture to be our Attorney General (and tragically, this nomination was confirmed); now, he is trying a second time to get the Senate to confirm nominees who are far to the right of the mainstream, who are activist in every sense of the word, and who ignore precedent and the law in pursuit of conservative ideological ends.
In ‘normal’ circumstances, yes, the filibuster shouldn’t be used- but these aren’t normal circumstances, precisely because these aren’t normal judicial nominees. Just two minor details about two of the nominees: Among the many scathing criticisms of Judge Owen’s decisions, Owen had one of her dissents called “an unconscionable act of judicial activism”- by Alberto Gonzalez; Brown, on the other hand, was found to be unqualified for the California Supreme Court by the California State Bar.
If our Glorious Leader would nominate judges who were even close to the mainstream, then a filibuster wouldn’t be necessary, and indeed shouldn’t be used. But as it stands, the handful of right-wingers that didn’t get confirmed the first time around quite frankly DESERVE to be filibustered.
May 18th, 2005 at 3:52 pmOK, lets look at a little context… notice the vote turned out to be 85-14… nowhere close.. and Frist had to know his vote WASNT gonna stop the nomination, unlike in the current situation… so maybe he just voted his conscience but did so knowing it wasnt gonna derail a nomination.
Bottom line is neither side of this issue has the moral high ground, both sides are grinding political axes, but I have a big problem with 40 senators being able to bring the government to a halt and undo the will of a solid majority of both houses, whichever side is in control.
May 18th, 2005 at 4:08 pmBless you all.
In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Frist. Amen
May 18th, 2005 at 4:15 pmNewspeak: “up or down vote” – a vote who’s result is predetermined because of “party-line discipline”
May 18th, 2005 at 4:28 pmI’m frankly MOST shocked that the GOP hadn’t prepared a canned response for the good doctor. Surely SOMEONE on the right must have anticipated that the Paez filibuster was going to get thrown in his face.
Kind of lends credence to the theory that the Neocons are torpedoing Frist’s presidential ambitions – probably to clear another speed bump out of the path for Darth Cheney.
May 18th, 2005 at 4:46 pmI’m trying to decide on an appropriate form of civil disobedience. I’m considering parking my car in a lane of traffic in DC.
May 18th, 2005 at 4:50 pmone way we may be able to stop the neocons is for all to spread the word to our friends and associates about the 911 complicity. Use the movie ‘In Plane Sight”, Quote and give copies of Griffin’s ‘New Pearl Harbor’ or copies the the Journal of Psychohistory (a well regarded psych professional journal) that exposes the Bush complicity as well. Don’t rest, don’t stop. Keep telling the truth no matter what. Ultimately it will bring bush and the neocons down.
May 18th, 2005 at 5:09 pmdr. rw
First for Frist
Cacophanies aside, Frist goes wildly off message on the floor of the Senate.
The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination – we’ll come back and discuss this further. … Actually I’d like to, and it really brings to what I believe…
May 18th, 2005 at 5:31 pmANSWER TO JOE: “Does anyone know if there is a video clip of Schumer V Frist yet? And if so, where i can find it.” If the nightly news does not have it one (probably won’t since the Repubs have bought out the media), then go to C-SPAN 1 or C-SPAN 2 and they should have it sometime tonight. C-SPAN 2 is usually for the Senate, but if the story is good enough, and juicy enough, they will put it on C-SPAN 1.
May 18th, 2005 at 6:14 pmHope that helps. It would be nice to see Frist try to say something that he hasn’t been scripted to say — oh, wait — they script Bush’s words, too. And then when Bush speaks, they have to come back and clean it up with excuses.
The senior senator from Texas just said that the dems *torture* the repugs’ nominees.
According to this administration, it’s not torture unless there’s death or organ failure.
May 18th, 2005 at 6:17 pmI watch with satisfaction as your leader, Howard Dean, makes slanderous statements about GOP Leaders. The more your party looks like hate mongers, the better we, as Republicans will do in the elections. Because America is tired of hate speech and sour grapes. The Democrats were, at one time, the party of Compassion. It was a progressive party, that looked out for the welfare of America. It had ideas, not hate. It had hope, not strife. And it had visionaries, not whiners. That is what makes your party weak. And when you attack, you get nowhere, and the people stop listening, except the few, how like observers of a horrible wreck, simply not resist the temptation to view the carnage.
May 18th, 2005 at 6:20 pmFrist voted for the filibuster before he voted against it.
May 18th, 2005 at 6:46 pmFrist comes clean, sort of, on filibusters
May 18th, 2005 at 7:38 pmVia Kos, comes an interesting exchange on the floor of the Senate between Charles Schumer (D – New York) and Bill Frist (R – Tennessee) that Think Progress reports on:
Wayne,
I think you’re confusing hate with the truth. You see for people like yourself that are still in denial about how much of a f%^&*in disaster the Republicans have made of our country, you can’t wrap your brain around the fact that these right-wing nuts have completely gone over every line and they don’t care about you, your family, or this country. They care about money and power and that’s it. Republicans policies are always about squuzing the middle class, privatization, undoing regulations that benefit big business, destroying the New Deal, etc. The Democrats are pathetic because they aren’t doing enough to stop the march toward fascism but you will keep voting against your own interests which allows the plutocratic thieves to steal our tax dollars and lie with impugnity about EVERYTHING. If this administration is talking, it’s lying. That’s not hateful, it’s true.
If you need specific examples, just name the topic. But please recognize the difference between hate and patriotically speaking out against the destruction of a great country.
May 18th, 2005 at 7:46 pmWayne,
You are in denial. The sooner you wrap your brain around the fact that the Bushies are stealing our tax dollars and lying about EVERYTHING the better off we’ll all be. Why is speaking the truth considered hate? How is it hateful to patriotically speak out against the rise of Fascism? Stop listening to Limbaugh and Hannity and O’Reilly or whomever it is that’s got you so brainwashed and wake the f%^ up! We need you and your Republican friends to stop the madness.
Howard Dean is honest and he’s not afraid (like so many other Dems) so he speaks the truth and the well-oiled well-funded right-wing smear machine whips up the wingnuts into a frenzy. Fact is, he has more honor in his baby toe than every member of the Bush admin combined.
May 18th, 2005 at 7:52 pmDid he actually say that the opposition wanted “…to assassiante these nominees”!!!
May 18th, 2005 at 7:56 pmSorry, assassinate
May 18th, 2005 at 7:58 pmSchumer nails Frist
May 18th, 2005 at 8:09 pmFrom Steve Soto of The Left Coaster: Senator Chuck Schumer pounced on the GOP’s ultimate hypocrisy this morning as Bill Frist began his march to force the nuclear option with the nauseating nominations of corporate today Priscilla Owens and 19th-century
You guys are being too hard on Frist for fillibusting nominees in the 90s. When he was young and irresponsible, he was young and irresponsible.
May 18th, 2005 at 9:18 pmTom – Were you upset when the Republicans blue slipped or otherwise prevented Clinton’s nominees from receiiving a vote? Did you voice your concern over the Paez filibusterback then. Did you write to the republicans in 1987 when the democrats had a substantial majoriy of Congress and tell them to stop interfering with the majority? If the answer is no then you are a repub stooge
May 18th, 2005 at 9:41 pmis something shocking here? isn’t hypocracy part of the definition of republican?
May 18th, 2005 at 9:45 pmTo Tom Riddle (comment 59)
May 18th, 2005 at 10:01 pmPlease read comments 49 & 50 and then try again to understand that the Repugs got the same exact result, just with different tactics. It can’t be OK for them with Clinton nominees and now be wrong for Dems with Bush nominees. If you want to make evrybody start playing nice now, why don’t we just forget the committee and just automatically send all nominees to the floor for their “up or down” vote. No republican “blue slips”, no stalling in committee, no not scheduling the votes on the floor which is exactly what the repugs did to Clinton nominees that would have gotten over 50 votes in a repug controlled senate…
Regarding Tom Riddle’s post:
“Frist had to know his vote WASNT gonna stop the nomination, unlike in the current situation… so maybe he just voted his conscience but did so knowing it wasnt gonna derail a nomination.”
So, if I understand Tom’s point, Frist voted his conscience by siding with the filibuster, a procedure that he considers unconstitutional. It’s a heck of a way to vote your conscience, by doing something that you consider wrong.
Honestly, where have they hidden these right-wingers brains? If you’re going to make such a moronic argument at least have the decency to addend something like, “because back then Senator… uh, I mean “Dr.” Frist didn’t realize that filibusters were unconstitutional. Oh wait, that would mean admitting the fallability of one of your ideological cohort. But wait, aren’t we invoking the “nucular option” because we’ve got to put an end to all this partisanship…?
Is it painful to be that stupid or does the hypocrisy blunt it so long as you’ve got a steady dose of Fox News to lull you to sleep?
May 18th, 2005 at 10:02 pmwhen the economy tanks next year the public will wake up. It is important that the Dems keep a drum beat of all the lies and distortions committed by the Bush gang.
May 19th, 2005 at 12:12 amIt’s funny how the part where Frist answers Schumer’s (My senator) interuption by saying that paez did get an up or down vote is mysteriously left out. The filibuster there was to postpone the vote. Frist clearly answers that he recieved a vote in the audio I heard. A time and again used tactic to get more information or to check vote counts, whatever. Maybe its not so mysterious. Whats evan less mysterious is how right Tom Riddle (post59) was about both parties have alot of history here, lots of axes to grind.
The more important point. The one contrary to popular belief (at least on this site) is that your winning this arguement. Polling does not show in your favor, at least not scientific polls which don’t phrase the question in the most favorable terms for you, like the often quoted abc/usatoday poll.
The other reasons this is a no win for the Dems is that not alot of people care. Lets say 30 % of the people in this country who vote care about this issue, thates tops 18% total. Alot of strong feelings on whose right and whose wrong all held by political partisans on both sides.
If the Dems do shut down the senate they will make alot more people care about it, most of whom are gong to agree that 45 senators shouldn’t be able to take hostage the buisness of the entire country!!!!!!
This is only a win for for Dem media hounds like sen schumer. Whose going to rake in the bucks from all the angry people posting here. As a vote getter this is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LOSER! All of you already vote dem and as the last election showed money is not enough to win an election. You need votes. Votes like mine, which used to be 75% Dem but are now 95% Gop like 40-45% of the union vote nationwide. Dues money’s less usefull since MCain-Feingold and I refuse to give PAC money to people I wouldn’t vote for so now a once locked voting blocks a toss-up. Not a way to build a strong national majority.
To get votes you need ideas not just empty pandering with no results. Obstrutionism without solutions. Its why your not winning on Social Security at least not as much as you think you are. Bush has gotten through that theres a problem and evan if people don’t like it he offers something. What do the Dems offer nothing.
Once there was a party that had people with bold ideas like space flight. Once there was a senator from New York who called the UN a cesspoll of thugs and dictators. Who offered solutions on fixing the problems with social security by making sure every persons contribution was theres not some empty accounting trick. If that party ever comes back maybe it will get some of my votes but for now my votes and my money (1400 last election) Will goto the party with the ideas.
May 19th, 2005 at 12:27 amWHY IS THERE SO MUCH TALK BUT LITTLE OR NONE ACTION? (This is rhetoric btw, and, I’m not talking about you bloggers)
The non-conservatives are for all intent and purposes, doing nothing. It’s too low to measure so that’s nothing, to me. It’s like a big bully wacking you with a stick, kicking and punching you and you keep stating how wrong it is for him/her to be doing it. It’s against the law and can cause you serious injury – – – – – – – as he/she continues to swack, kick and punch you.
BUT THEN… You Say it Louder! – – – as he/she continues to swack, kick and punch you.
THEN YOU STATE… “This may be against the law – – – as he/she continues to swack, kick and punch you.
……..need I go on??????
May 19th, 2005 at 2:44 amWHY IS THERE SO MUCH TALK BUT LITTLE OR NONE ACTION? (This is rhetoric btw, and, I’m not talking about you bloggers)
The non-conservatives are for all intent and purposes, doing nothing. It’s too low to measure so that’s nothing, to me. It’s like a big bully wacking you with a stick, kicking and punching you and you keep stating how wrong it is for him/her to be doing it. It’s against the law and can cause you serious injury – – – – – – – as he/she continues to swack, kick and punch you.
BUT THEN… You Say it Louder! – – – as he/she continues to swack, kick and punch you.
THEN YOU STATE… “This may be against the law – – – as he/she continues to swack, kick and punch you.
……..need I go on?
May 19th, 2005 at 2:45 amThe people in power that are stomping all over the constitution, breaking all the laws, hoarding all the money DONT GIVE A CARE ABOUT WHAT’S RIGHT OR WRONG. They Do Not Care. They will continue until they’re stopped. Kind of like a serial killer, robber, etc. THEY already KNOW it’s wrong. THEY alreasy KNOW it’s wrong. THEY already KNOW it’s against the law. THEY already KNOW it’s hurting others. THEY already KNOW that they may be caught at some point. AND THEY DO IT ANYWAY!!! And they won’t stop until stopped, usually by force. Police force. Retaliating force. Some TYPeA force.
May 19th, 2005 at 2:53 amAbsolute power corrupts absolutely …and the Majority Leader Bill Frist is a good example of same …just how much longer is the American people going to take this stuff from the GOP?
May 19th, 2005 at 6:30 amTo Union Guy (comment 82),
May 19th, 2005 at 7:55 amSince you agree that the Repugs have a lot of bad history with this type of behavior as well, maybe the solutino to this problem is to replace half of Bush’s current nominees with some of the Clinton nominees that the republicans used the senate rules to block from getting an “up or down” vote.
Sounds FAIR to me
David Lee (comment # 56)
R senators represent slightly over 49% of the populace (not a majority, that is). The interesting thing is that it’s possible to assemble 51 votes from R senators who represent 42.6% of the populace. The Senate is not, nor was it intended to be, a democratic institution.
I personally think we should make more of Sen. Schumer’s statistic that the R’s have voted 2,703 – 1 for Bush circuit and appellate nominees. That suggests a skewed distribution. Has the MSM picked up on that remark? If not, why not?
May 19th, 2005 at 9:48 am“All of you already vote dem and as the last election showed money is not enough to win an election. You need votes.”
And you need to have major influence on the people that own the machines that do the majority of the vote counting.
“Votes like mine, which used to be 75% Dem but are now 95% Gop like 40-45% of the union vote nationwide.”
What exactly has Bush done for unions again? Well, or anyone for that matter.
“To get votes you need ideas..”
Ideas like:
“I’m gonna steal lots of money from unsuspecting fools”
or
“I’ll convince everyone they’re in terrible immediate danger and start attacking everything that looks at me sideways. Then I’ll tell them I’m the only one that can save them, just like Baby Jesus.”
“Bush has gotten through that theres a problem and evan if people don’t like it he offers something. What do the Dems offer nothing.”
There MAY EVENTUALLY be a problem and the Dems have offered solutions. You’re just lying there or are misinformed.
May 19th, 2005 at 10:27 amLosing Faith,
I’m pretty sure the “defenders of awful” that post on progressive websites are just misinformed. They just repeat Repub talking points. I swear its like arguing with Faux News.
They just need to snap out of it and maybe if we continue to engage them they’ll finally get it. The fact that they show up here leads me to believe that they’re either chronic antagonists or they have little voices in there head telling them something ain’t right in Bushworld.
May 19th, 2005 at 10:53 amTo Buster Phil (comment87)
May 19th, 2005 at 11:34 amWhile I do agree that theres alot of guilt on both sides of this topic, I also believe that elections have consequences. If the american people wanted to have liberal judges they would have voted in Dem senators.
Theres a definate problem in the judicary in this counry. Judges telling legislators what laws to write. Using foriegn law or treaties never ratified by this country to determine if our laws are constitutional. Striking down ballot measures passed by almost 3/4 of the people. The founders never intended the judges to have this much power, they beleived in checks and balances but they more so believed in the power of the people.
To Losing Faith (comment 89)
Its sad that you feel the need to be so angry and dismisive of my comments. If your side could keep the anger in check you might learn something about why you’ve fallen so far and start winning elections again.
“And you need to have major influence on the people that own the machines that do the majority of the vote counting.”
While this is a nice excuse for why you were once again cheated by the evil Repugs I’ve seen no evidence of it anywhere. Do you think if this story had any legs the NY Times wouldn’t be running it every day, that Jesse Jackson wouldn’t be marching somewhere. How about that Washington Gov race, Dino Rossi “lost” by 129 votes.
943 felons illegally voted
49 dead people voted
3 people voted in Washington and another state
2 illegal aliens voted
12 people voted multiple times
174 provisional votes were counted but later found to be cast people who had already voted or were unregistered
Not to mention how many micky mouse’s and mary poppins you registered in Ohio. Please give it a break your guy lost. If the what if game was to be played we could go all the way back to Nixon Kenedy and illinois. How about what if Ross Perot didn’t run theres two election Clinton would have been beaten since both his election he NEVER BROKE 50%!!! (evan though I voted for perot the first time around)
“What exactly has Bush done for unions again? Well, or anyone for that matter.”
As I explain to my fellow Union members Bush owes Unions about as much as you would expect Senator Boxer to owe Haliburton, which is nothing. But heres some of the thing hes done that were helpfull.
His tax cuts- When you live somewhere ridiculously expensive like New York having 3%more money and child credit from 400 raised to 100 comes in really handy. I know what your going to say tax cuts for the rich blah blah blah. How about the fact that the the bottom 80% of income earners pay just 20%, 22% of the federal income tax burden as reported by the CBO. Most low income families now with the bush cuts pay no fed taxes.
Steel tariffs- Stopping the dumping of overseas steel saved the american steel industry and gave them a chance to pull out and become profitable again.
The cooling off period invoked for the west coast dock strike- Those guys were locked out and were able to get back to work and work out a contract.
If the Dem senators would stop filibustering the energy bill for the 5th straight year we might have some energy investment in this country and not only would energy costs come down but it would create jobs. Jobs for Linemen and Steel workers and Teamsters. Instead of that great gift to Unions by former prez Clinton. NAFTA!!!! Now that did alot for Union members. Sent tens of thousands of Union jobs to Mexico. Good thing us Union people have the Dems in our corner.
The problem here at least for me is that the Dems have turned into a bunch of UN suckup, socialist, america haters. Evan if I was gong to vote based only on my union membership they’ve done nothing for all the millions of dollars we’ve given them while our jobs keep shrinking. All the hatred in the world, all the pies thrown in all the colledge lecture halls and all the screaming Dean hate fests are going to prove they deserve to lead this counrty.
May 19th, 2005 at 11:59 amUnion guy,
I like your posts. I’d like to see more of them, spread out on some of the other articles of this blog.
Perhaps shorter posts (but more of them) would add quality to the discussion.
Most of these folks don’t have the attention span to read a 400 word post, even though your points are valid.
Many of the people writing here have a VERY STRONG entitlement mindset. They despise America, they hate business, and many clearly do not like themselves.
Your best point may have been (let me use capital letters…) …………
IF AMERICA WANTED LIBERAL JUDGES, THEY WOULD HAVE ELECTED LIBERAL SENATORS.
I hope you stick around. These people need help.
May 19th, 2005 at 12:12 pmUnion guy.
Great comments. These folks don’t have the attention span to digest everything you said.
Perhaps shorter posts (and lots more of them) would be better. These folks need help.
May 19th, 2005 at 12:15 pmUnion Guy,
May 19th, 2005 at 1:14 pmSo you believe that elections have consequences, it just didn’t apply when Clinton was elected twice????? How convenient for you….
Hey dumbsh*t, I mean buckshot: ever heard of statistics? Look up the word “inference” and then read on, bucko– Democrats are not comprised of the ‘uneducated.’ Democratic precincts are heavily correlated with good public library systems, universities, and bookstores. The unwashed masses to whom you refer are actually a faction of the moronic convergence that is today’s republican party. Got fascism?
May 19th, 2005 at 2:11 pmI don’t agree with Frist and also don’t agree with the filibusters, but the video clip cut him off at an important point. I think he was going to say that Paez eventually got a vote – because the filibuster failed. The motion to postpone indefinitely lost 31-67, and Paez was nominated 59-39. So 8 senators {Abraham (MI), Bunning, Enzi (WY), Hagel, Hutchinson (TX), Roberts, Thompson, Voinovich} voted against the filibuster and then against Paez. Republicans, if they were united in this cause, could have filibustered Paez. So Frist maintains his high ground because he was ineffective.
May 19th, 2005 at 2:31 pmUnion Guy wrote:
“Using foriegn law or treaties never ratified by this country to determine if our laws are constitutional. Striking down ballot measures passed by almost 3/4 of the people. The founders never intended the judges to have this much power, they beleived in checks and balances but they more so believed in the power of the people.”
You need to get some education, Union Guy, in constitutional law and union history.
I’m a union guy too — Communication Workers of America (CWA), Local 9415, AFL-CIO. What union do you have the honor of belonging to? If you weren’t required to join your union by the employment rules of the contract with your employer, would you have joined your union anyway? Would you have voted to organize your shop if it were not a union shop when you joined?
If your answer to either of the above questions is “no” — especially the last one — you’re not really a “union guy.”
There is hardly a single instance where the Republican Party has stood up for the rights of workers to organize, and an abundance of instances where they stood for exactly the opposite — look up the so-called “right to work” laws, and find out who drafted them, endorsed them, and voted for them. Republicans all, yet you give their Party your money and your vote, and spit in the face of Joe Hill, Samuel Gompers, Kate Mullaney, and Bessie Noramowitz. Look them up too.
And while you’ve got your search engine up, do a search for “quisling”. That’s you.
As far as the separation of powers goes, the Judicial Branch is utterly powerless to propose or draft legislation, pass laws, appoint cabinet members or ambassadors, levy taxes, spend taxes or declare war. In those realms, the power of the other branches is absolute. In the realm of arbitration and interpretation of the law and the constitution, the power of the Judiciary is absolute. That’s how the game works. It doesn’t matter if 90% or 100% of people in a referendum vote for something, if it’s unconstitutional, it’s invalid. Period. Otherwise, it’s mob rule. Is that what you’re proposing?
May 19th, 2005 at 3:43 pmI understand the frustration the GOP is experiencing in trying to confirm President Bush’s nominees but I am gravely concerned that this frustration is leading to a very bad decision–the decision to end the Senators’ right to unlimited debate.
As Senator McCain has asserted, the GOP will not be the majority party forever. The proverbial worm is sure to turn and when it does the GOP will find itself the unwilling accomplice to numerous judges of dubious distinction and political views.
I agree with conservative columnist Goerge Will when he writes the GOP “will rue the damage done to their cause” be elilminating the filibuster. He concludes that it has almost been a century since the GOP last had 60 Senators but in the last 50 years alone the Democrats have had 60 Senators in seven (7) Congresses.
The GOP should remember that today’s expedient is likely to turn into tomorrow’s diaster.
May 19th, 2005 at 4:07 pmUnion Guy,
Really? You thought that was hate filled? Wow, thin skinned. I could see one comment being a little on the offensive.
“If your side could keep the anger in check you might learn something about why you’ve fallen so far and start winning elections again.”
I’m not a Dem. I don’t have a “side”.
“While this is a nice excuse for why you were once again cheated by the evil Repugs I’ve seen no evidence of it anywhere. Do you think if this story had any legs the NY Times wouldn’t be running it every day, that Jesse Jackson wouldn’t be marching somewhere. How about that Washington Gov race, Dino Rossi “lostâ€? by 129 votes.”
Firstly, again, I’m not a dem. I’m just me. I talk about the discrepencies HERE in WA also. Although, really, there’s much less proof of wrongdoing here in WA than OH. Saying there’s no proof their really makes you look partisan or again misinformed (which is not an insult). There’s the same types of proof and more in OH, but WA an WI seem rather fishy too. All in all, our elections are in need of repair and/or improvement.
“Not to mention how many micky mouse’s and mary poppins you registered in Ohio.”
I had nothing to do with OH, nor am I dem (if you’re implying the dems did something)
As far as your specifics of what Bush has done “for people”, I don’t completely agree that they were as beneficial to everyday people as you feel, but unfortunately I don’t have time to debate these specifics. I also have to note that after I posted that comment I remembered a few things Bush has done that I agreed with.
Quickie: NAFTA sucked, CAFTA will too and it’ll be the Repubs shoving it down our throats.
“IF AMERICA WANTED LIBERAL JUDGES, THEY WOULD HAVE ELECTED LIBERAL SENATORS.”
And it’s as simple as that eh? People take this into account when voting on Senators? There’s tons of information to determine how Senators will be voting on possible future nominees? Hmmmm…just not that simple. DoH! outta time, cya’ll
May 19th, 2005 at 4:30 pmUnion Guy, in post #92 you blamed Clinton for NAFTA:
“Instead of that great gift to Unions by former prez Clinton. NAFTA!!!!”
You’re all wet with your facts about NAFTA. The person most associated with pressing for NAFTA was the Canadian, Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney. His 1988 election, that allowed him to agitate for NAFTA, was the honeymoon of his term. He left office as a very unpopular Prime Minister due to the unemployment and economic stagnation that followed in the wake of his election. (Sound familiar?) NAFTA was negotiated by the administrations of Mulroney, George Bush (the elder) and Carlos Salinas de Gortari of Mexico. It was signed by Mulroney, Bush and Salinas on December 17th, 1992.
You seem like a decent fellow but, please, isn’t it fair to ask that you get your facts right if you’re going to share such forceful opinions? You are certainly not advancing the cause of unions by spouting-off such demonstrably false information as this in public forums, right? It’s certainly not ethical to do this under the moniker of, “Union Guy.” What’s up with that?
Wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest if we all tried to get our facts right before the shouting starts. And what about acknowledging when you’ve got something wrong? Here, I’ll start. I left off a quotation mark and omitted an apostrophe in my last posting. If I get my facts wrong I’ll admit it. Will you? Let’s get real and see if we maybe don’t just happen to find a common ground? Seems to me that would be a mighty patriotic thing to do.
May 19th, 2005 at 6:33 pmFirst, let me say that I’m against the nuclear option. Unlike many on both sides of the aisle, I think the filibuster is an important aspect of the Senate’s role as a more deliberative body than the House.
Having said that, I want to correct what seems to be a misconception among many of the posters. I don’t think that Frist has seriously asserted that the filibuster is unconstitutional. What he is trying to do is to change the rules of the Senate, specifically Rule XXII, which is what currently permits the filibuster of judicial nominees (not the Constitution, as some others in this thread have claimed). Amending Rule XXII is called the “constitutional option” by the Republicans because they are relying on the Constitution’s provision giving the Senate the right to make its own rules. Democrats argue that it would effectively abolish the filibuster for judicial nominations, which is not constitutionally required but a long-standing rule of the Senate.
The reason that the idea that anyone is talking about the judicial nominee filibuster being unconstitutional is that the votes of two-thirds of the members are needed to end debate and force a vote. This also applies to any attempt to amend Rule XXII. The Republicans know they could not get enough votes to do that (any more than they can get enough votes to close debates on Bush’s judicial nominees), so they are attempting to make a procedural end-run seeking a ruling from the Senate’s presiding officer on whether filibustering judges is unconstitutional. That judgment would be made by Vice President Dick Cheney, who oversees the Senate during major floor fights. If Cheney rules judicial filibusters unconstitutionalâ€â€?a move that itself cannot be filibustered and is presumably not subject to judicial review (because of the constitutional provision giving the Senate the right to make its own rules)â€â€?his decision could be upheld by a simple majority.
Finally, I should note that, in the past, the Democrats have complained about the use of the filibuster by the Republicans, so the Republicans may live to regret this when the want to use the filibuster for their own purposes.
May 19th, 2005 at 7:29 pmCorrections and Clarifications
To Losing Faith,
I did not call your replies to my comments hate filled. I did say they were angry and dismisive of what I was saying. Sorry if I did assume you were a dem from what you posted. Seemed a pretty safe assumption to me at the time but again apologies.
May 20th, 2005 at 2:42 amChicken and Broccoli, (post 101)
While you are factually correct Nafta was signed by Mulroney, Bush and Salinas on December 17th, 1992. Look at that date, Bush was already a lame duck. Do you think he would have signed an agreement with 2 other countries if he knew it was going to be shot down by the incoming president in the ratification process. Since a treaty is not valid unless ratified by congress it is more factually correct to say that Bush started the process but Clinton certainly finished it and could have scuttled it if he wanted to. However he and his running mate both supported it in 92.
Speaking of ratification:
“Bill Clinton began to lay the groundwork for NAFTA ratification soon after taking office in January 1993, and the debate over the treaty gradually intensified and reached a crescendo in early November 1993. It was approved by the House of Representatives on November 17 and by the Senate on November 20.”
Heres my sorce link just in case you don’t beleive me.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_199904/ai_n8846707
“You’re all wet with your facts about NAFTA.”
I’m feeling pretty dry over here. While we might debate whose most responsible for getting it started theres no debate over the fact that if Clinton didn’t approve of the treaty it wouldn’t have gotten ratified. So I stand by my statements.
I could go on for awhile about how your a nice guy but not advancing the cause of asian cuisine but whats the point. As for my moniker being un-ethical or not I’m only a “quisling” according to Joe Max and not interested in the advancing there cause. Is it really ethical for you to support the use of MSG and the awful headaches that they cause. All kidding aside you don’t think you were a bit condesending there?????
May 20th, 2005 at 3:07 amJoe Max (post 98)
I’m a union guy too – Communication Workers of America (CWA), Local 9415, AFL-CIO. What union do you have the honor of belonging to? If you weren’t required to join your union by the employment rules of the contract with your employer, would you have joined your union anyway? Would you have voted to organize your shop if it were not a union shop when you joined?
CWA 1108 (Long Island, NY)
Yes
Yes
Third generation union. Second gen CWA. Shop steward for roughly 5 years and two strikes. Temporarily acting as senior or chief steward during our post layoff job actions.
I have no need to take a union history course, already have thanks. Nor do I care about right to work laws passed decades ago or who did more for unions 50+ years ago. I’m more concerned with the future or lack there of for the union movement. If one were to follow your logic on party affiliation blacks should be voting GOP since Dems filibustered all there rights in the 60’s. If we continue to be the partisan political lackys of a party that only gives lip service to our needs.
“As far as the separation of powers goes, the Judicial Branch is utterly powerless to propose or draft legislation”
Maybe you should also tell the Mass. Supreme court they need a constitutional law class since that is exactly what they did over gay marriage. While were on the subject since the supreme court said blacks were only 3/5 ths a person I guess you would call the outcome of the cival war “Mob Rule”. You must have also been in favor of the internment of the Japanesse during WW2 since that was also ruled constitutional.
What I’m proposing is that they are fallible. That they have made some horrible mistakes which cased untold grief and strife in our country.
That the founders never intended to give the Judicary this much power.
PS Much as I loved your telling me I’m a quisling I’ve tried to keep my debate here above second grade name calling. Just because they get my dues money doesn’t mean I (and the 45% who agree with me) have to support candidates I’m morally opposed to.
May 20th, 2005 at 3:48 amDaycarts, I believe you’ve got the somewhat complicated procedural stuff basically right, but doesn’t it prove the opposite of what you say it does? The nuclear option, or constitutional option, or whatever the GOP wants to call it today, cannot be imposed by changing the Senate rules. As you note, that would require a 2/3 vote, which is even more than it takes to break a filibuster.
So the only way they can get rid of the cloture rule is to have Cheney declare it unconstitutional, and then for at least 50 senators (i.e., virtually every GOP senator) to vote that Cheney is right.
So if Frist does go nuclear, he has to get the caucus he leads to declare, formally, that the filibuster is unconstitutional.
If it’s not unconstitutional, then even the GOP admits they can’t change it until the next Congress. If they change it now, they’re saying it’s unconsititutional.
I think Josh Marshall says this much better than I at his blog.
May 20th, 2005 at 9:39 amUnion Guy,
A couple of responses:
1. “since the supreme court said blacks were only 3/5 ths a person ”
The Supreme Court didn’t say that. The Constitution said that. Counting slaves as 3/5 of a person wasn’t something that the courts imposed on the elected branches.
Your error in this regard is like when Bush said during one of the debates that the Court had said in Dred Scott that slavery was legal. For the President to be that ignorant of U.S. history was stunning. The Court didn’t impose slavery on the country; the compromise at Philadelphia in 1787 did that.
2. “You must have also been in favor of the internment of the Japanesse during WW2 since that was also ruled constitutional.”
Yes, Korematsu and Hirabayashi were horrible decisions. But they go directly against the point you’re trying to make. Again, the internment policy wasn’t imposed by the Court. The President authorized the interment by Executive Order, and what the Court did that was so horrible was to fail to overrule the Executive.
So if your point is that the judiciary has now usurped too much power to overrule the decisions of elected officials, Korematsu is exactly the wrong case to use, because that’s a case where we all think the Court should have overruled elected officials.
In both the 3/5 example and the Japanese internment example, you’re citing terrible aspects of our history that were done democratically, not by the courts. A “liberal activist” Court that ignored the Constitution’s text would have struck down the 3/5 rule; and “liberal activists” like Brennan and Thurgood Marshall would have struck down the internment policy. In both cases, what you seem to be complaining about is the lack of judicial activism.
The Massachusetts gay marriage cases are clearly examples of a court striking down a law passed by elected officials. So were the desegregations cases, and the abortion cases, and the Miranda and search-and-seizure cases. But so also have been a bunch of decisions by conservative judges of the ilk that Dubya wants to appoint, e.g., the Rehnquist Court’s striking down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (in at least a few of these cases, the lets-strike-down-Congress’s-laws side was argued by Jeffrey Sutton, who made his name by winning precisely this class of cases and now sits, unfilibustered, on the Sixth Circuit thanks to a Dubya appointment).
Judicial activism–in the objective sense of overruling political-branch decisions, not the subjective sense of “if I don’t agree with it, it’s activist”–is a difficult issue. Almost everyone wants it in some cases–Korematsu–and not in others–Dred Scott (which was awful, even if it wasn’t responsible for legalizing slavery, because it extended slavery to the territories over Congress’s objection). But activism is not the unique preserve of liberals, and indeed many of us liberals would be happy with Bush’s appointees if they did what Bush says he wants them to do–interpret the laws, not make them by overruling democratically enacted statutes.
May 20th, 2005 at 9:54 amArgh. I wrote
the President authorized the interment by Executive Order
The policy was bad, but it didn’t go so far as burying people alive. Read “internment” for “interment.”
May 20th, 2005 at 9:57 amUnion Guy (re: your post #104:
First of all, thanks for addressing my posting and, yes, you’re right, I probably was a bit condescending toward you. My apologies I’ll try and keep it in line.
Having said that, I note that you didn’t acknowledge your error about NAFTA in such a forthright manner. Yes, I too was very well aware when I sent my response that G.H. Bush was a lame duck president at the time that he signed NAFTA. I simply didn’t want to write an entire history lesson in this forum. What I _was_ doing was exposing that your blaming NAFTA on Clinton was, at best, a gross oversimplification and, given the manner in which you made the statement, more correctly deemed wrong.
Although you did grant that I was right about who signed NAFTA, instead of acknowledging any error in your own posting, you equivocated. It may simply be revealing of my own particularities but I have this theory that people who are unwilling to be open about making errors in debate are not actually seeking to resolve anything. Rather, they’re seeking self-aggrandizement. I don’t doubt that I’m guilty of this as well on occasion but it seems to me that if we want to ever make this more than a display of egos and actually address the points, then admitting when we’re wrong is at least a good initial remedy. I honestly would like to see a serious debate on issues even if only in a small forum like this message list. (Heck, it’s a start!)
So, instead of giving me a history lesson and belaboring some spoof comparing my argument with, as it were, “the price of rice in China” (or MSG), how about ponying up and admitting when you’re wrong? Or simply acknowledge that you misspoke or might have worded your statement about Clinton and NAFTA more accurately? I’m just trying to figure out if you’re one of those guys who’s never wrong. If that’s the case, there’s not much point in our messages since, to my mind, anybody who’s never wrong is clearly, wrong.
As for whether your list name “Union Guy” is unethical, perhaps it’s not. However, the other option is that it’s poorly chosen. The monkier “Union Guy” (assuming it’s not an ironic choice) suggests someone who has a proud affiliation as a union member and presumably supports what they stand for (e.g., the song “Just look for the union label…” etc. I’m not making this stuff up, right?). A counter-example: I wouldn’t use the monker “Beer Belcher” unless I wanted people to think that I liked beer and was somewhat unrestrained in my gusto. Suppose I came on here with the name “Beer Belcher” and was fervently urging everyone to give up drinking altogether. It would be a bit of a non sequitur.
(OK, here’s a paragraph just for the sake of breathing room.)
The point is, why would “Union Guy” be bashing the Democrats so badly given that they are the only one of the two major parties that has ever given consistent (rather than short-term politically expedient — e.g., the recent steel tariff shuffle) support to the cause of American workers’ right to unionize? The Republicans have historically–with the exception of the occasional deft maneuver for short term political gain–worked to undermine the right to collective bargaining. It would require a massive treatise of historical revisionism to argue otherwise so please don’t.
For the record I consider myself a (you guessed it!) Independent and think both parties may well be terminally corrupt. However, I don’t see that as a reason to empower one of them to follow their corruption all the way to its natural conclusion of bankrupting America while turning it into a totalitarian state. I see this “nuclear option” as a strong step in that direction.
I hope I’m not once again being condescending as I’m trying not to be. However, I am trying to make my points as forcefully as possible and that means not beating around the bush (no pun intended).
Best wishes and thanks again for your response.
May 20th, 2005 at 11:18 amChickenandbroccoli (post 109)
“While you are factually correct Nafta was signed by Mulroney, Bush and Salinas….”
“While we might debate whose most responsible for getting it started theres no debate over the fact that if Clinton didn’t approve of the treaty it wouldn’t have gotten ratified. So I stand by my statements.”
I very much think that I ackknowledged that I am not 100% factualy correct. Clinton was not responsible for starting it but did campaign for it in 92 and his apporval was instumental in having it ratified. Do you dispute that Bill Clinton with a house and I think senate majority couldn’t have stopped it if he wanted to????
The context of my point was that for all the money and support Unions sent to clinton we got a treaty that gutted the manfacturing sector of this country. Do you dispute that Bill Clinton couldn’t have stopped it with (I believe) majorities in both houses?
My use of the moniker Union guy is to show (as I’ve stated in previous posts) how the Dems have lost there overwhelming majority of the Union vote. Depending on what election or whose guesstimate you use the number of GOP voting union members is between 40 and 45 %.
Thats quite a large number to lose and is the difference between winnning and losing an election in a Union state like Ohio. Instead of Kerry saying if 85000 people would have switched there votes maybe he should say if the Dems could have gotten more then 60% of the union vote he would be prez.
The reasons for this are as many as the people who switched there vote. The start of it was probably the gun control fights which Al Gore rightly blames for his losing in 2000. Me I’m fed up with the radical socialist fringe that have taken over this party (move-on.org, howard Dean)they stand against almost every personal belief I have and I will not support them. While there are many things I disagree with on the Gop side I have a labor friendly GOP congressman (peter king) who represents what I believe very well while supporting most of the more reasonable labor goals.
“I don’t see that as a reason to empower one of them to follow their corruption all the way to its natural conclusion of bankrupting America while turning it into a totalitarian state. I see this “nuclear optionâ€? as a strong step in that direction.”
While I have seen things where I agree with you there the filibuster is not one. I have made it known to the party chairman my dismay at the out of control spending. I also called to encourage bush to veto the highway bill and my opposition to increasing the patriot act.
I find it quite remarkable how people are so upset about this one case where you wouldn’t be able to filibuster, unless there was some alterior motive. When you can’t filibuster: Budgets, Appropriations, Acts of War (not 100% sure on this one). The sentate rules have been changed many times in the 200+ years including by senator Byrd while majority leader to cut off GOP filibusters.
For my part I believe this situation would have already been settled if there existed the “Mr Smith goes to Wash” talkfest. This gentlemans filibuster is a cop out and makes it to easy for a minority to filibuster anything they know there going to lose. If all the Dem’s wanted was debate they would have taken Frists first compromise which guaranteed 100 hours of debate then an up and down vote. As I’ve said before elections have consequences and if the american people wanted the Dems point of view to prevail they would have voted for them. Which I as someone in a previous post asked do take into account when I examine a candidate but I’m an admited political junkie.
I share your desire for serious debate. I also hope you can except my expination of why I believe I was correct at least in the context of the point I was trying to make and its brevity.
May 20th, 2005 at 3:27 pmUnion Guy:
I think we’re starting to get on the same page here and I agree with you that Clinton’s support of NAFTA was quite overt and significant — it was part of the Democratic Leadership Council’s strategy to move to the middle (actually the right) in order to try and win elections. I simply had a problem with your original casting of it that sounded as though NAFTA was Clinton’s fault. Unfortunately, I think it was one of those moves where it was obvious NAFTA was going to happen (just too many moneyed and powerful interests behind it) so the DLC decided it best to ride the wave.
I too am appalled by the reckless fiscal policies of this administration (”reckless” hardly does the situation justice) as well as the Patriot Act and the list goes on… However, I think that you are underestimating the significance of this filibuster situation. The point I believe is that they’re intent on installing some of the most extreme (to use the phrase of the rightwing, “out of the mainstream”) judges to lifetime appointments on the level of courts just below the Supreme. Forget worrying about Democratic ulterior motives, they’re not hidden. The concern is about getting justices on courts who decide for entire regions things like whether you have the right to sue a corporation that has poisoned your ground water and now several members of your family have an otherwise rare form of cancer. How would you like to fight that battle, and likely lose, in the middle of dealing with catastrophic medical issues in your family? Make no mistake, there are people who are this rigid in their ideology (or this corrupt or just plain unfathomably loony) who are also judges. I think there are a number of them in this pool being resubmitted by the Bush administration. I would assume that you must think I’m wrong about that assessment or else you would be in agreement that this is indeed very troubling.
Yes, the Democrats are using the filibuster in an attempt to block these nominees. The “up down vote” is a Republican talking point and is being effectively used as though it is somehow now magically the Gold Standard by which filibusters are judged. It’s a red herring. Filibusters are commonly used to block nominees and Bill Frist has participated in exactly these same maneuvers in trying to block Democratic nominees. See Sen. Bob Smith’s March 9, 2000 letter where he explicity states that this was the intention of the failed filibuster to block the nomination of Richard Paez–a filibuster in which Bill Frist was a participant. (I can send you a link to a pdf of the original document if you’d like.) The Republicans’ argument is a sham and a lie. They are saying something equivalent to, “if I steal your wallet that’s OK but if you steal mine, well, by golly, that’s just wrong!” It is the most repulsive hypocrisy and, really, given that it’s the way they’re trying to sell this bamboozlement, shouldn’t we all be a little concerned about what people of such meager character (and that’s being charitable) have planned for our future? I don’t understand how you’re more concerned about the Democrats’ motives in this situation.
I’m not knowledgeable about what Senator Byrd did in the past so I can’t comment on it. However, I did see on the talkingpointsmemo blog that it appears that this is the new phrase of choice for the Republicans–once they found out “nuclear option” didn’t poll well (so they then tried to pawn it off as a Democratic phrase while they switched to the “constitutional option” which apparently hasn’t been polling well either and I think that’s the genesis of the latest meme, the “Byrd option.” I’m skeptical of whether this Byrd issue isn’t just another attempt to trick the public by comparing apples to coconuts.)
I may not check in here for a couple of days (out of town and unsure of my internet options) but I’ll look for a reply should you feel inclined to send one. In any case, I enjoyed communicating with you and appreciate the effort and goodwill you put into it.
Best wishes.
May 20th, 2005 at 6:30 pm(Response to #105)
Looks like Union Guy and I are in the same union! Will wonders never cease…
He says:
“I have no need to take a union history course, already have thanks. Nor do I care about right to work laws passed decades ago or who did more for unions 50+ years ago. I’m more concerned with the future or lack there of for the union movement.”
So am I. How can you believe the CURRENT powers that control the GOP are in any way concerned with the rights of union workers like you and me?
Here in California, we have the honor of a “moderate” Republican governor. His last “moderate” proposal regarding labor was to try to gut the CALPERS pension fund and turn it into a ersatz 401K stock investment scheme. Since I’m employed by the University of California, that’s MY pension fund. Our former B-movie action hero turned governor was salivating over the prospect of handing the largest employee pension fund in the country over to his investment banker political contributors. Luckily, we still have a balance of power in our state and he couldn’t slam-dunk his idea past a Democratic controlled legislature, and the mostly Democratic electorate made it abundantly clear that any voter referendum to do this would be soundly defeated. So he backed off. Score one for the unions, thanks to the Democrats. What do you think would have happened if the GOP ran the state legislature?
The same governor has reneged on his promise to state workers to restore the cuts in pay that the public employee’s unions agreed to, to help meet the state budget deficit last year. (My union local just held a strike vote, which passed by 85%.)
That’s Arnold, the MODERATE Republican.
“Maybe you should also tell the Mass. Supreme court they need a constitutional law class since that is exactly what they did over gay marriage.”
Morally opposed to gay marriage, eh? Then you should under no circumstances marry someone of the same sex, as it would be against your morals.
But what gives you the right or responsibility to dictate your morality to anyone else? The Taliban thinks it’s morally wrong for women to appear in public without a burka covering them from head to toe. They think it destroys the moral fabric of society, and seeing a woman’s ankle really grosses them out. Does it follow that they get to impose that view on anyone who isn’t Taliban? Or would that be an unconstitutional imposition on the rights of the individual?
And BTW, “quisling” is far beyond the level of 2nd grade name calling. If that were the case, I’d have called you a “big doo-doo head.” I doubt many 2nd graders know what “quisling” means. So it’s college level name calling, at least!
So please tell me: what union supporting legislation has the GOP proposed lately, unless it was forced to do it for short-term political expediency? How about in the last ten years? How about what they propose to do in the future? Anything? Anything at all? Are they planning to turn back NAFTA, or expand it? I can’t wait to hear your mature, civilized, non-name calling response.
Or is making sure those icky homos can’t live together in a legal civil contract like any hetro couple more important to you than a living wage, job creation, stopping outsourcing, affordable healthcare, or preserving our union pensions? Or is “god, guns and gays” all you care about enough to vote on?
What makes more of an actual difference in life to you, your family, and your union brothers and sisters? I think you have a pretty warped and self-destructive attitude about what you’re “morally opposed to.”
Me, I’m morally opposed to not being able to pay my bills.
May 20th, 2005 at 11:23 pmI’ve seen several times in these postings where people are saying the Dems are “whining”. I don’t understand this at all. For one thing, currently the Dems are the minority group, and as such MUST speak louder to be heard. But in any case I see the current “NeoCons” shouting louder than any group of political activists in my lifetime, and they are the ones IN POWER. I don’t remember the Dems whining at all when they were in charge in the Clinton era. Probably because they were in power. But the current administration is acting like they are minority group being suppressed by the mighty dems. I guess it is at least a brilliant marketing strategy: Look at me, yeah I might be rich, I might be in charge, I might be steam-rolling more of my judicial appointees through confirmation than ANY of my predecessors, but damnit I’m oppressed unless 100% of my appointees are approved regardless of their qualifications. It’s similar to their strategy of claiming that the press is “liberal” enough times until people actually start believing that and then even the reporters start putting a conservative spin on the news to counteract the stereotypes, out of fear of being branded a misfit by the republicans.
I also hear people saying the Dem party has abandoned its once glorious idealism and having a vision. This might be somewhat true, as the party has moved from the left to the center, first in an attempt to appease “Dixiecrats” (why even bother associating with poeple calling themselves Dems when they are CLEARLY Repubs…?), and then in an attempt at grabbing undecided votes of people who are most often in the center on issues also. While all this might be true, the Republican party as also abandoned ALL the qualities which made it a good party. Before the 1964 defection of race-haters from Democratic party to the Republican party, the rebublican party was known for a history of supporting civil rights. Now, that is a thing of the past. Everyone knows, especially the minorities, which party represents their interests. Before Reagan (as far as I know) the Republicans actually believed in AND tried to implement fiscal conservancy, smaller Federal government, and more States’ rights. Starting with Reagan those qualities started down a slippery decline. He and is successors GREW the federal government, have initiated broad federal acts involving business and people’s personal lives (think of the defense of marriage acts, etc.), and have increased government spending. The only administration to balance the budget WAS DEMOCRAT (much to the shock of all “true” republicans, the ones who still believed in republican principles…). If I remember correctly, it was even the Republicans who were ONCE big on the Separation of Church & State. They didn’t want their kids having to recite some other person’s religious prayers in a public school or at a sporting event (Look it up, but yes I’m pretty sure these were Republican groups…). And who could blame them for not wanting that ? The ideals I listed above were really the only ones of the party which I actually respected and at least partially agreed with. But they have gone out the door and the party has been Hi-Jacked by a new breed of politicians we are now calling “Neo-Conservative”, which as far as I can tell are NOT Democrat or Republican, but some kind of fascist re-incarnation of Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s dictatorial and conspiratorial spirit. They want BIG government, less states’ rights, more involvement between government and religion, and they can’t balance the books. And unfortunately they exhibit exactly the kind of machismo respected by some of the low-wage, uneducated of our society, even though those politicians’ other actions only serve to make these people more poor and more uneducated.
One self-contradictory tone I see is “Union Guy” saying that an “overwhelming majority” of his union associates, which he claims is something like 45% (yeah…I don’t get his math either) agree with him about his support for the Repubs over Dems for their ability to help unions. Using this logic then, I can assume that an “overwhelming majority” (around 45%, right) of people in America DO want the Dems to filibuster and HAVE voted in the people they need to appoint Dem activist judges. But NO, he points out this doesn’t work the same way when talking about our Federal government. He says America did NOT want activist judges and that is why only 45% of Senators are Dems. Well, which way is it, you can’t have it both ways. Either 45% is an “overwhelming majority” or it isn’t (I believe it isn’t). Either you’re representing yourself as a “Union Guy” in support of the majority union belief that Dems do more to further the interests of unions, or maybe you’re really the “Minority View Union-Guy” whose vote doesn’t matter just like the Dems in Congress. I cannot seem to reconcile your beliefs. I’m not saying that you should NOT label yourself “Union Guy” just because you hold a minority opinion within unions, I’m just saying it’s a little strange and maybe a little misleading to do so.
I’m NOT talking about Union Guy when I say this, but: The current batch of so-called “Republicans” are the most self-contradictory, negative, and whining people I’ve ever heard. If you’ve ever listened to Bill O’Reilly (a Repub who says he’s not), Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and even the administration officials themselves, YOU WILL SEE WHAT WHINING REALLY IS. Whereas I cannot say the same thing about the liberal media outlets, of which there are very FEW. Like Air America, for example. You might say they are whiny, but then again all I hear them talking about are mostly facts that can be substantiated. THE TRUTH. Yes, they add in their own opinions about these truths, but everyone does that. Compare that to the facts spouted by NeoCon blowhards and you can’t confirm half of their “facts” because they are NOT facts, they are fabrications. I know it doesn’t sound like it, but I’m trying to fair here. I’ve listened to both types of propaganda, but when I’ve gone back and actually researched their facts, what can I say other than that the conservative hosts are often mistaken about historical fact and the progressive hosts are rarely mistaken about historical fact. This different level of honesty is one thing leading me to believe in the Dems over the Repubs.
Also, whatever happenned to W being a “Uniter, not a divider”. What happenned to “compassionate Conservatism” ? I’ve never seen the Republicans be more ruthless and dividing as they are today.
I wish the Republican party would go back to Republican values. Then maybe they would get my vote back. Somewhere along the line, they gave up their respect for the individual, in favor of respect from businesses and fear from individuals. And I have nothing against business, I just happen to believe in the traditional American principle that an individual’s rights precede a business’ rights.
May 21st, 2005 at 4:10 pmJoe Max (post 112)
“How can you believe the CURRENT powers that control the GOP are in any way concerned with the rights of union workers like you and me?”
For the most part they don’t. Why should they though. What have we done for them or better yet when have we been anything but totally hostile to them. To the point that the AFL-CIO was sending goon squads into RNC offices in florida to harrass and rough up the people inside last fall.
There have been many cases where GOP reps have done or tried good things for workers not only Union members just in the last few years.
The President:
Steel Tariffs
Anti textile dumping with China
The west coast dock lockout
Trying to pass an energy policy that will allow this contry to keep up with its growing demand.
HE appointed a federal mediator for my Unions strike against Verizon something Clinton never did.
Last but certainly not least His Tax Cuts.
Read this link if you don’t think they only benifited the rich.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8189
Congress:
Bailouts of the airlines after 9/11
Attempted to pass Health association legislation: Allows small buisnesses to band together to get large buisnes rates on health insurance. Why would the DEMs oppose this in the senate. Why would Hillary whose so pro healthcare for all, hmm?
Energy plan that includes domestic work: Work thats done by highly paid working men as well as teamsters to haul it and steelworkers and makers to build it.
Massive extensions to unemployment: How did this pass a GOP majority in the house? How did it run on so long. The only reason it did end was a loss of a vote in the senate that needed 60 votes but got 59. John Kerry apparently could make it to DC to vote against Conners Law but couldn’t spare the time for this.
These are just the ones that I’m very familiar with. There may actually be more.
What could we get if our leaders didn’t put all there political eggs in one basket and what do we lose out on because they do?
In NY while gov Pataki was making deals with other Unions CWA backed Cuomo. Pataki won and we lost the PSC and service quality standards that kept us working Sundays for double time.
California is mostly in the sad shape its in because of the DEM legislator you praise. When CALPERS can’t meet its obligations just like the airlines will you be happy getting maybe 60% of what you were promised. As jobs and younger workers flood out of your state whose going to be left to pay for all the things you believe your so entitled to?
What sort of debt will WE (Unions) pass onto future generations so we can have our ever increasing demands meet while offering nothing in return?????
In a country with increasing GOP majority, where the dems have lost all power, what does it profit us to be allied with losers?
What have those losers done to deserve our votes and money over the last decade or so?
PS: I believe arnolds defined as a moderate on social issues but a fiscal conservative who knows that without a healthy buisness climate your state will like mine fall further behind those states that keep there taxes low and there spending in check.
May 22nd, 2005 at 1:20 pmDavid F (post 113)
David I have to wonder if you actually read my post or just glanced over it and infered what you wanted to hear. Moreover I find your entire posting deeply flawed and alot of it lacking any sort of factual basis in reality.
I DEFY you to find where I say that 45% is a majority! I talked about how Dems lost votes not only as Union member households have shrunk but also have seen there OVERWHELMING majorities in that voting block cut down to close to even.
I also have never said or implied that this group of Union memebers thought that the GOP did more for Unions. I clearly stated everyones reasons were their own then stated my own views.
Try re-reading my post 110 paragraphs 4-7 if your still confused. Then try reading 114 for more of my points about this if you want.
You have also completly mistated my views in this current judge fight. I have writen posts saying that the polling is misleading, the ABC/USA asked very skewed questions. Other polls show that people want an up or down vote but also don’t want the rule changed.
Basically as I stated elections have consequences. If the country wanted liberal judges they would have voted in more senators and a different president. Clinton didn’t get his judges past the commitee under its rules at the time. Those he did got up and down votes.
Read this article on a clinton appointe passed overwhelmingly despite radical liberal views.
http://www.nationalreview.com/benchmemos/063778.asp
For now I will keep this name, I love how much it really drives most of you here nuts. I see no need to qualify myself for you or Joe Max or anyone else just like I have no problem disagreeing with my fellow union members or leadership. My vote, my money as well as my activism are helping grow my point of view. Something that can’t be said of the Dems in congress, or liberalism in general.
Does everyone else on this site have to identify themselves as in the minority or is it only those whose opinions you disagree with????
I noticed that you like labeling people in your post: NEOCON, Dixiecrat. Does that make it easier to dismiss views you don’t agree with or does it just easier for you to decide what others are supposed to think.
A fine example is when you say:
“Everyone knows, especially the minorities, which party represents their interests.”
Is because maybe they’ve been told which party that is for most of there entire lives. I can’t remember anyone except those news outlets you denigrate as whiners pointing out where the votes to pass the cival rights act came from. How about all those minority kids passed through public schools with no idea how to read. Which party has really been looking out for there interests? Endless Welfare handouts to keep people lazy and dumb don’t really show me you care about someones well being.
If they really know this then why did more of them vote for Bush in this election then they did in 2000? Not alot but growing nevertheless.
You go on alot about news sources and some sort of vast right wing conspiracy to mislabel them as being liberal. Well the facts as well as the news media itself disagree’s with you. In fact abc’s washington correspondent Terry Moran acknowledges a bias against the military and anything they do leading to his Newsweek fiasco. Theres Dan Rather and the memo’s not to mention them working closely with the Kerry campaign on the story. Kitty Kelly gets 3 days with Katie Couric for a nonsourced hit piece biography on the Bush’s yet Swift Boat Vets doesn’t even get a day to show up and get grilled.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#conservative
O’reilly’s a bit over the top but I’ve seen him give it hard to both sides. He’s especially no fan of Bush on illegal immigration. Same can be said for Hannity although hes more or less a GOP poster boy on 90% of the issues. Rush Limbaugh’s a old style Regan conservative. I listen to his show regularly and have never found him to make up facts. In fact he hourly uses sound bites so you can hear people say things in there own voice as well as linking to many of the days topics and supporting info on his web site .
The fact that you have chosen Air America as your ultimate TRUTH shows me that you might disagree with me on this. However many, many people obviously disagree with you there since those media outlets you denigrate are growing by leaps and bounds. Air America is getting the same ratings they were when the station played Carribean music!!!!
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_07_20_the_ratings_for_air_america__bad_news_and_good_news.asp
It also leads me to doubt your sanity as well as the fact you used to vote for these people you spend hundreds of words calling whining propagandists. What the hell to each there own but I hope you don’t mind if I and everyone else make up our own minds here.
May 22nd, 2005 at 10:36 pmUnion Guy wrote:
“Attempted to pass Health association legislation: Allows small buisnesses to band together to get large buisnes rates on health insurance. Why would the DEMs oppose this in the senate. Why would Hillary whose so pro healthcare for all, hmm?”
It would take almost a book length response to refute every point Union Guy brings up as examples of how much the GOP just LOOOOVES the American worker. It appears that Union Guy has drunk the Rush Limbaugh kool-aid and has lost most of his ability to discern truth or rationality. (Notice how all his references come from right-wing bloviators like the American Spectator.) So here’s just one example, regarding this so-called “Small Business Health Fairness Act” (don’t you just love the Orwellian spin the GOP puts on everything?)
This response is from the National Conference of State Legislators, and shows once again how, in everything like the “Clear Air Act”, the GOP comes up with legislation that sounds nice but contains details that serve only their rich contributors, not the citizenry. It was a sop to the already obscenely profitable HMO industry, a payback for all the contributions and graft, gussied up in a fake wrapper.
On the face of it, “lower cost health insurance” is a laudable objective. Where are the savings really coming from? There will be lower administrative fees, but that only applies to 10 – 20% of the total cost of the plan. The balance will be savings achieved through reduced benefits. Thoughtful and reasoned opposition to the bill dates back to the first time it was introduced. The following is the text of a letter written to Congressional leadership in 2003 on behalf of The National Conference of State Legislators:
On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) I am writing to express our opposition to H.R. 660, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003. Despite sincere efforts to make improvements to the legislation to address state concerns, our key issues remain unresolved.
This legislation would:
- preempt state laws that provide critical protections to consumers and fails to replace them with adequate federal protections;
- destabilize the state small group insurance market, undermining previously enacted state and federal insurance reforms, and reintroducing practices that had been banned by those laws; and
- provide insufficient resources to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to perform the necessary regulatory and oversight duties associated with regulating health insurers, providing fertile soil for unscrupulous entities to flourish unfettered by state laws, state lawmakers and state regulators.
We are mindful of the extreme hardship many small businesses face as they try to provide affordable and high quality health care coverage for their workers. NCSL remains committed to working with you and other members of Congress to find solutions that will provide high quality, affordable health care coverage for employees of small businesses and for all of our constituents.
Senator Angela Monson
Oklahoma State Senate
President, NCSL
Charles Scott
Wyoming State Senate
Chair, NCSL Standing Committee on Health
(Oklahoma and Wyoming — two “red states”, I do believe.)
Oh, and by the way, Union Guy. Rush Limbaugh LIES WITHOUT EXCEPTION EVERY DAY HE’S ON THE AIR. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.
Take a look at MediaMatters.org for a running list. Al Franken has Mark Harmon, his resident Dittohead, on his show every day just to run down that day’s lies by Limbaugh. Here’s a special article about just this subject:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180006
Wake up, man. The GOP is not your friend. They’re USING you, and all your 45%, to make themselves and their cronies richer and shaft the working man and woman. And you guys let them do it. Thanks, I bet the ghost of Joe Hill is really proud of you.
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:35 amTo Joe Max (and any other angry libs still paying attention here) Post 116
“How can you believe the CURRENT powers that control the GOP are in any way concerned with the rights of union workers like you and me?”
Joe you asked me a question and I spent the time and energy to answer you in the name of debate. You could have at least attempted despite your protestation that it would have taken a book to refute my every GOP loving, Rush kool-aid drinking points. I thought you were a staunch defender of Dems and there support of 60+ year dead corpses of Union men.
I have to say I’m disappointed despite your SAT level name calling abilities and your refusal to except anything that doesn’t come from Al Frankens lips as gospel. You pick some bill not even law yet because of Dem obstructionism while ignoring the most important questions I asked.
“What could we get if our leaders didn’t put all there political eggs in one basket and what do we lose out on because they do?”
“What have those losers done to deserve our votes and money over the last decade or so?”
Your attempt to twist a law to give small buisness workers reduced cost access to health coverage into some sort of evil BUSH plot is just priceless. I guess those 21 democratic co-sponsers including 3 from your state must all be quislings. Your example letter written by 2 state legislators isn’t real hard proof that it was a bad law evan if they are from a red state. It just proves that the state pols didn’t want the feds striping them of a big cash cow by taking the taxation and control rights away from them.
Here’s a link to the CBO’s estimate and overview of that bill. Since Ted Kenedy quotes there statistics I hope you won’t try to tell me their right wing bloviators.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4413&sequence=0
Your post also failed to answer my question:
Why would your Pro-working man party oppose this legislation? Where is their alternative???? OR are they only pro healthcare for working people if the governments completly in control ala Hillarycare.
Your posts clearly illustrate whats wrong with you so-called progressives.
First you start by trying to disqualify any opinion by saying I’m not a REAL UNION GUY. Since I don’t follow your herd like some kind of sheep I must be stupid. Who couldn’t fall all over himself basking in the brilliance of the left.
Second you trot out the DEM talking points. WERE THE PARTY OF THE WORKING MAN, THE PARTY OF THE MINORITY.
I gave you a chance to prove it or at least disprove me. Apparently not worth the effort or were you just lacking the skills. Can you do anything other then trot out corpses that should or shouldn’t be proud of me.
What is it with you people and living in the past anyway??? You have to trot out some old socialist song writer or drag out FDR’s grandson. Like FDR’s ghost is going to make me feel that much better about throwing away money in social security every month. I guess if I was living my life dependent on a political party of losers I’d be dreaming of the glory days when I could still hope they’d throw me a few crumbs.
Last but not least is the name calling. Second grade or college level doesn’t matter this is the last desperate move of someone who can’t win an arguement but we see it so much from you guys. What ever happend to liberals and your PC values.
The problem you people have with being in the minority is that you refuse to accept it. Once you accept that you can fallback and regroup. Come up with some new ideas for a change since no ones buying the everyones evil and stealing from you one anymore. Ditching the ridiculous angry people might help also. Its kinda hard to have someone take you seriously if you run around like you need antipsychotics all the time.
Personally you might benifit from listening to others points of view yourself instead of having it feed to you by others. Frankens Rush watch was quite funny. Having listened to most of those cut up soundbites live I can’t evan begin to describe how taken out of context and edited they are.
Me I look at alot of liberal viewpoints like CNN, the NY times, the washington post. I don’t trust anyone to tell me what to think. This has been my first real look at your blogs.
Sometimes I have to admit listening to you all I’m depressed. I think that you all still control the media and that we’ll never be able to overcome that. Then I see most of you here. Some like CHICKENANDBROC or ARNOLD P can actually make an articulate point without calling someone names. The rest of you might want to try honestly looking at yourselves but hey don’t take my word for it. Heres something from the SF chronicle (hope one of those non bloviating news sources) one of your own wondering whats happend to the movement he grew up supporting. He marched for farm workers hope that gives him enough Joe Hill street cred with you.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:47 pmHi there, I must say that you have done a wonderful job on your site and I thoroughly enjoyed my stay here, I thank you for sharing it with me…
June 15th, 2005 at 2:19 amÖÎÃÆ
June 30th, 2005 at 12:40 pmzz51.51.net
i think that all you liberals suck and should die love it or leave it preferably leave it you commie idiots
July 2nd, 2005 at 4:41 amo rappa
Think Progress »…
July 14th, 2005 at 1:28 amhttp://loans.especiallyferrets.org/compass/ dayemeraldinadvertently
July 25th, 2005 at 1:52 pmmusicas
Think Progress »…
July 29th, 2005 at 2:47 pmmc 5
Think Progress »…
July 29th, 2005 at 3:05 pmhttp://www.carrozzina.org/shorts/ pressurereturnedseventh
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:21 ambest mp3
Think Progress »…
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:31 pmmp3 album
Think Progress »…
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:32 pmhttp://pole.kulu-best.com/oxs2bbk7x/ chastisedgyrationsroundest
August 7th, 2005 at 12:03 amhttp://card_games.neasoc.org answertimesunde
August 9th, 2005 at 5:25 amxxx-hardcore-sex
Think Progress »…
August 11th, 2005 at 2:09 amAciphex
Think Progress »…
August 16th, 2005 at 3:11 amtreat-enlarged-prostate
Think Progress »…
August 21st, 2005 at 9:26 amherpes-zoster
Think Progress »…
August 24th, 2005 at 11:47 pmatherosclerosis-drugs
Think Progress »…
August 27th, 2005 at 2:57 amhttp://loanbankruptcy.m-moore.org/s34n6a7t1/ braidconjunctionstairs
August 28th, 2005 at 11:02 pmpay per view porn
Think Progress »…
August 29th, 2005 at 3:53 pmHair Loss Pill
Think Progress »…
September 6th, 2005 at 4:37 pmhttp://www.kylehahn.com/wwwboard/messages/29718.html abruptlytangibletwinkles
September 7th, 2005 at 4:54 pmhttp://www.womendontask.com/discussion/messages/22709.shtml bowelsswitchboardturns
September 10th, 2005 at 1:44 amlolita-cp
Think Progress »…
September 12th, 2005 at 8:04 amhttp://play.eastgranbylibrary.org/2392682/ attackdreamlandprotestations
September 12th, 2005 at 7:49 pmhttp://www.loveitalia.org/wwwboard/messages/18752.html ciliatorturouslyvibrating
September 20th, 2005 at 10:58 pmIn your free time, visit some information in the field of… Thanks!!!
September 24th, 2005 at 6:53 amhttp://tadgllc.com/wwwboard/messages/33682.html currentmontgomerypause
September 25th, 2005 at 11:02 pmhttp://teen.presselibre.org/free_teen_incest/ botherfrigidstraddle
September 26th, 2005 at 3:00 pmTake your time to check the sites dedicated to… Thanks!!!
September 26th, 2005 at 8:15 pmPlease check some information dedicated to- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
September 27th, 2005 at 12:03 pmTake your time to check out some helpful info about- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
September 28th, 2005 at 6:39 pmIn your free time, take a look at the sites about…
September 28th, 2005 at 8:32 pmYou can also check the pages about- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
September 29th, 2005 at 1:44 pmYou are invited to check out some helpful info about…
October 4th, 2005 at 2:47 pmDon’t forgoet to check out http://mrchewsasianbeaver.sexlotus.com/
October 9th, 2005 at 2:35 amfor the best asian cuties around
Take your time to visit some relevant information about- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
October 11th, 2005 at 11:23 amTake your time to check out some relevant pages on- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
October 11th, 2005 at 1:17 pmYou can also take a look at the sites on… Thanks!!!
October 15th, 2005 at 2:36 amTake your time to take a look at some information about- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
October 16th, 2005 at 10:03 pmtechnologie
You are invited to take a look at some information about reichtumsrad
November 3rd, 2005 at 6:46 pmtranslations endeavored inexhaustible?Debussy,Stapleton bugles totallers,tallest,
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:29 pmthe senate and house repesatives have there purpose is to make money for there buddys who gave them contbutions to there elections they are bought and sold like in ancient rome .it will fall eventually
November 4th, 2005 at 4:22 am1212
In your free time, take a look at some relevant information in the field of 1192
November 4th, 2005 at 9:09 amHaugen seek justices earths?shoot paves,underplays Hickok
November 4th, 2005 at 1:12 pm1725
In your free time, visit some relevant information in the field of 1414
November 5th, 2005 at 2:48 pmtoilets oblong!stereotyped:Nair.Katz … Thanks!!!
November 7th, 2005 at 4:15 amhttp://pointal.lookin.at/pantyhose-sex/index.html clungglisteningkeyboard
November 16th, 2005 at 2:14 amdusted:incentives orchestrate.styli miniaturized seethes!correct
November 25th, 2005 at 9:23 amfamily salvage insulated elusiveness already meandering:Richards knits
November 25th, 2005 at 11:19 amNice site, looks great.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:14 amGreat job on the site.....
December 4th, 2005 at 9:56 pmhttp://www.suomifutis.net/firnal/beastzoo/6558836/beastialitystoriesadult.html beckonframedrotating
December 8th, 2005 at 9:51 ampanacea Estes lilac bronchioles gums expended scales Telex!
December 10th, 2005 at 3:55 pmprilosec
spares Andean baking sacrificer!surpass kited instrumentalist gasped worsted mobic http://www.allkinds-pills.com/mobic.html
December 11th, 2005 at 2:08 pmThanks for all the useful facts; they were easy to understand for me. Keep up the great work!!! your site is very pleasant and very cool! Thanks a lot!!! I’m glad I found this site.Mitch Berenson %e-mail%
December 25th, 2005 at 4:51 amfearing exactness distant Valhalla.genres tiresomeness transistorizing stable
December 28th, 2005 at 4:38 amcoring?signer?canopy retrofit picker Siam glares .
December 29th, 2005 at 12:19 amdivulged Flynn elemental?York.assigners resides rush
December 29th, 2005 at 12:48 amrailroaded calmest dictum.approximate whines determiners
December 29th, 2005 at 8:06 pmHi, Your site is worth to be the first! Thanks a lot for such a wonderful site i see that you created it going the whole hog!! It was really interesting to surf your website. A lot of useful info can be found here!Respect!
January 4th, 2006 at 3:29 pmGreat site. I like it very much! Thanks for the information. Keep it up. Best greetings. So long, I hope, that it is the beginning only, and you will please us with your site again and again
January 8th, 2006 at 9:44 amCassiopeia billow transforming!mien osteoporosis finish blared!disappoint
January 8th, 2006 at 9:49 pmhomework notifies shoving as downplays mentions!rationals
January 8th, 2006 at 10:36 pmCheapest Disney Vacation and Orlando Vacation Homes Links and Resources. Great source of information …Book Online and Save. Locate Dream Disney – Orlando Vacation.
http://www.cheapdisneyvacationspackagesandtickets.com/
Disney Vacation
Disney World Vacation – Disney World.
http://www.cheapdisneyvacationspackagesandtickets.com/
Disney World
January 18th, 2006 at 2:00 amI love big butts, I just cant help myself, I know alot of ppl out there will disagree with me, But I just love them. For me I just gotta have them
March 9th, 2006 at 10:59 pmbest there is
March 9th, 2006 at 11:27 pmtrackbacklsod
March 10th, 2006 at 11:04 amWrite your comments here, please.
May 24th, 2006 at 9:42 amGreat blog, thanks for sharing. If you have time you should check out my blog oreck air purifier or oreck air purifier xl
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:44 pmMore information about Colored Contact Lenses, visit http://dpboltx.net to find more information and buy online your theatrical contact lenses. 400 styles of colored contact lenses. http://dpboltx.net visit now.
July 8th, 2006 at 4:30 amCrazy Contact Lenses
>>BAF PRO goea life
September 13th, 2006 at 7:53 amabuse adolescent alcohol9
September 21st, 2006 at 4:53 pmWe invite you to free membership at Musician Club on the internet
October 4th, 2006 at 9:10 am今大人気ã®ã‚ªãƒ³ãƒ©ã‚¤ãƒ³ã‚«ã‚¸ãƒŽã®ã‚²ãƒ¼ãƒ ã§éŠã¼ã†!ã„ã‚ã„ã‚ãªã‚²ãƒ¼ãƒ ã®ç¨®é¡žãŒæº€è¼‰ã§å®‰å¿ƒæ—¥æœ¬èªžã‚µãƒãƒ¼ãƒˆã‚‚完全完備。 入金特別ボーナスã¨æœŸé–“é™å®šãƒ—ãƒãƒ¢ãƒ¼ã‚·ãƒ§ãƒ³ã§ã•ã‚‰ã«æ¥½ã—ãéŠã¹ã‚‹… Casino4Japan ã¸ãŠå¥½ããªæ™‚é–“ã«ã‚¢ã‚¯ã‚»ã‚¹ã™ã‚‹ã ã‘ã§ã€ã‚ãªãŸã¯ç¾Žã—ã„ç”»åƒã§ã€å¤šç¨®é¡žã®ã‚«ã‚¸ãƒŽã‚²ãƒ¼ãƒ を楽ã—ã‚ã€ãã†ã—ã¦æœ€é«˜ã®ãƒœãƒ¼ãƒŠã‚¹ at online casino.
October 27th, 2006 at 1:53 amIf you are suffering from many physical problems like diabetes, heart disease, and your sexual life is at stake due to ED, it is time to buy levitra, the best treatment for erectile dysfunction.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:45 amhttp://www.123pethealth.com
pet health insurance, pet health care, pet health question, pet health care information, pet health care insurance, dog health insurance pet, pet health information, pet health plan, pet dog health, pet health supply, online pet health, holistic pet health, pet health info, pet animal health, pet health food
December 15th, 2006 at 3:49 amI just came across your site while taking a break from finishing my own site at: http://credit-repair.inet-promo.com. Feel free to check it out for ideas on credit and credit repair or fixing bad credit.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:03 pmLooks like theres some good posts and info here too, I’ll check back in here again and look forward to sharing.
I surfed in here and wanted to say hi You can visit me at
February 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pmPhone Sex
[...] on the Senate floor: (via Think Progress) SEN. SCHUMER: Isn’t it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold [...]
February 26th, 2007 at 3:49 pma really great homepage! i’m a big fan of your stuff although i’m just 16!
March 1st, 2007 at 1:06 pmmotorola ringtones composer
She cingular ringtones shop cell phone ringtones wallpaper
March 14th, 2008 at 4:04 pmboost free mobile music ringtones
Officially free info jamster remember ringtones ringtones for cellular one phone
March 14th, 2008 at 4:41 pm