Discussion for article #247183
And at every ten thousand points… I smoke two joints
5 Likes
TODAY’S REPUBLICANS ARE AMERICA’S ENEMY WITHIN
Republicans ARE practicing seditious DEMAGOGUERY and anti-democracy OBSTRUCTIONISM intended to destabilize our economy for purposes of political/financial exploitation.
Republicans AREN’T making a sincere effort to STOP the bleeding THEIR incompetent leadership and failed policies created. Instead, they’re using inflammatory lies and accusations as a smokescreen to conceal their subversive agenda, which is to cause President Obama and America to fail so they can blame Democrats for the consequences of THEIR calamitous mismanagement.
Republicans ARE preposterously professing that THEIR disgraceful political WHORING had nothing to do with the banking, real estate, stock market and employment catastrophes that resulted.
Republicans ARE trying to hamstring Democrats to prevent them from repairing the damage caused during a Republican presidency that was irresponsibly enabled by Republican Senators and Representatives.
Republicans ARE offering ridiculous arguments meant solely to disrupt and prevent progressive change. They’d rather divide America and create political gridlock than endure the political consequences of effective Democratic governance.
Republicans AREN’T the LOYAL OPPOSITION; they ARE the ENEMY WITHIN whose mercenary priorities have eroded their moral and ethical standards to the point that duplicity and betrayal have become their preferred modus operandi.
It’s one thing to advocate their conservative beliefs; it’s another thing entirely to willfully sabotage America’s government because a successful Democratic presidency would not be vulnerable to the greed, fears and hatreds that have produced and sustained the radical Republican anti-government corporatism and anti-Christian faux theocracies that are poisoning and crippling American society.
Note: First posted late 2008.
24 Likes
Blaming those how opposed what YOU started in the first place? geezus this is what “governing” has become? really
11 Likes
In his opening statement for a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Committee Chair [Charles Grassley] accused Democrats of trying "to score as many political points as possible" by demanding President Obama's Supreme Court nominee be considered by the Senate.
The choots-puh of this guy is unbelievable.
13 Likes
Yes, but it is all political equivalency don’t you see? The media tells me so. The Chuck Todds of the media world: “No violation of the Constitution at all. Especially if you are a GOPer.”
6 Likes
Senator Grassley has repeatedly stated that THEIRS is the partisan political position. He’s cited the 2014 election results, the fact that this is an election year, that the president is in the last year of his term, that he doesn’t like how this administration has operated, and so on. Not one reference to the fact that this President holds office for nearly another year. Did anyone in the hearing room fall on the floor, in laughter, when Sen. Grassley made his statement???
11 Likes
We gave them a gift and they took it!
Bork got a vote.
9 Likes
“How dare the democrats get political advantage from pointing out the stupid politically-motivated thing we’re doing!”
14 Likes
Grassley: We have tremendous respect for Joe Biden and agree with him entirely on all policies. For that reason alone, we will abide by his wishes to not consider any of Obama’s nominees.
2 Likes
Grassley: Dems Protesting SCOTUS Nom Blockade To Score ‘Political Points’
DUH! some brain there, handed it to the opposition and then whine when they pick it up and run with it…
4 Likes
“We’re not going to drop any nominee into that election-year ‘cauldron’,” Grassley said, referring to a term used in Biden’s speech. “And I’m certainly not going to let it happen to an Iowan.”
So, I gather it's implicit in Grassley's framing of the issue a March, 2017 nominee submitted by President Hillary Clinton will not be dropped into any cauldron?
3 Likes
shorter Grassley: “I’m an old coot. Hear me roar.”
1 Like
“We’re not going to drop any nominee into that election-year ‘cauldron’,” Grassley said, referring to a term used in Biden’s speech. “And I’m certainly not going to let it happen to an Iowan.”
And that brings me to another, related point. It’s been suggested that the Democrats who were here in 1987 and 1991, and Chairman Biden in particular, should be applauded for how they handled the Bork and Thomas nominations. I’ll set aside for the moment the obvious fact that neither of those nominations occurred during a heated presidential election campaign
After Bush’s image was affected by his involvement on the Iran-Contra scandal much more than Reagan’s, and after the Democrats won back control of the Senate in the 1986 congressional elections following an economic downturn, the party’s leaders felt more optimistic about having a closer race with the GOP in 1988, although probabilities from winning the presidency were still marginal with the current climate of prosperity.
During the election, the Bush campaign sought to portray Governor Dukakis as a “Massachusetts liberal” who was unreasonably left wing. Dukakis was attacked for such positions as opposing mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, and being a “card-carrying member of the ACLU” (a statement Dukakis made himself early in the primary campaign). Dukakis responded by saying that he was a “proud liberal” and that the phrase should not be a bad word in America. Bush (Yale '48) derided Dukakis (Swarthmore '55) for having "foreign-policy views born in Harvard Yard’s boutique.
A number of false rumors about Dukakis were reported in the media, including the claim by Idaho Republican Senator Steve Symms that Dukakis’s wife Kitty had burned an American flag to protest the Vietnam War
The most memorable moment came when reporter Bernard Shaw asked Dukakis whether he would support the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered. Dukakis’s answer discussed the statistical ineffectiveness of capital punishment. Several commentators thought the question itself was unfair, in that it injected an irrelevant emotional element into the discussion of a policy issue, but many observers felt Dukakis’s answer lacked the normal emotions one would expect of a person asked about a loved one’s rape and death
Funny, Bork got months long hearings and a floor vote.
Biden speech said the White House should work with the Senate to nominate someone they could approve of if an opening occurred right before an election.
Justice Kennedy was nominated and confirmed less than a year before an election.
And Democrats have never refused hearings or not voted on a nominee. Even ones that were rejected.
So everything Grassley said was a lie or made up bullshit and projection of what he and his anti-Constitutional partisan liars are they themselves doing.
Positively disgusting and Orwellian.
15 Likes
“We’re already witnessing how raw politics is infecting the process.”
Raw politics infected the process before Justice Scalia’s body got cold - looking at you, Senator McConnell.
If you’re insistent on using then-Senator Biden’s 1992 speech, you’d better use all of it:
"Others will say that I’m not being contentious enough. They suggest that since the court has moved so far to the right already, that it’s too late for a progressive Senate to accept compromise candidates from a conservative Administration. They would argue that the only people we should accept are liberal candidates, (who) are not going to come, nor is it reasonable to expect them to come, from a conservative Republican President.
“But I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course for both the White House and for the Senate. Therefore, I stand by my position, Mr. President: if the President cooperates and consents with the Senate, or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support, as did Justices Kennedy and Souter; but if he does not, as is the President’s right, then I will oppose his future nominees, as is my right.”
Instead of trying to write some loopholes in the Constitution, do your job, Senator Grassley.
8 Likes
“The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term,” Grassley said at one point in the proceedings.
He also referred to the so-called “Thurmond Rule” — it’s an informal and uncodified rule in the Senate against consideration of judicial nominees late in a president’s term — as “plain bunk.”
Okiedokie
back to Hulk vs Gawk
1 Like
Very dutiful of TPM to not report what any of the Democrats on the Committee said in their statements.
2 Likes
How dare the Democrats bring politics into the matter, after Republicans have made it all politics?
2 Likes