I am sitting here listening to Dick Durbin talk at length about Priscilla Owens on C-Span, reciting a long list of alleged sins, and I can’t help but think the Democrats erred tactially on this. While I am in no way ceding that what Durbin says about Owens is true, it is impressive to hear someone talk for such a length of time about one person and not find any adjectives to describe the person but ‘extreme’ ‘outside the mainstream.’
If the Democrats had really filibustered, and sat and talked at length like Durbin is now, they probably would have been able to stop all of the nominees. They at least may have been able to shift the debate from the current ‘nuclear option’ to the actual nominees, something that has been woefully inadequate.
The public isn’t going to get persuaded by the appearance of a bunch of Democrats who appear to be whining about an arcane Senate rule, but they may be persuaded by tales of the extremity of these judges.
Uh oh. Patty Murray is speaking. Maybe the Democrats knew what they were doing after all…
*** Update ***
As much as I hate to say it, Schumer just pretty much devastated the notion the Senate will deliberate the judicial nominees on the merits. He has a sign up that shows that Republicans have voted 2703 times for Bush nominees, once against. The one against- Trent Lott against Gregory, the African-American Clinton holdover.
2703-1. Like I said, I think the Democrats should have forced an outright filibuster.
Stormy70
Owens was reelected in Texas with 84% of the vote, and Brown was reelected in California with 76% of the vote. They both have high ABA ratings, and deserve a vote.
I like the story about the breaking of the filibusters in the House by a Republican in the 1800s. I am going to try to post the link. I don’t really know how to do it, sorry if I mess it up.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/barnes200503070752.asp
Shawn
Yes, the 2703-1 was striking and disturbing. Lockstep much? Another thing Schumer said that caught my attention was about the passion demonstrated by each side. I didn’t see the whole thing, (I have a little bit of a life :o) but it did seem that the Republican Senators weren’t very enthusiastic.
rilkefan
Hey Stormy, I take it by “high” you mean “I have no idea what Brown’s ABA rating is”. Hint: partial “not qualified”. Also, how do you feel about the Republicans who blocked high-ABA-rated Clinton nominees without a vote? Any comments on H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), or J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit)? While I’m asking, how do you feel about Richard Posner’s ABA rating?
Steven
I think you’re right. As a tactic, an actual filibuster where the Ds spent their time detailing their reasons for opposition to the judges would have been highly effective. The Rs don’t have the better of this argument from a procedural standpoint, so the Ds should have made their stand on substance and made the Rs resort to procedural sleight of hand.
BTW, in the end, I don’t think Frist has the votes to get this done.
Mark
2703-1 simply means none of the moderate Republicans had any problems with the nominees. I would love for someone to tally the democratic votes for Clinton’s judges. I am guessing you’d see pretty much the same thing.
Al Maviva
2703-1 – all that means is a president gets his picks for the court, barring some strange occurrence. It isn’t disturbing. If you make the minutest fine points of the character of all, or most judges subject to a huge Senatorial slapfight (given that there are sometimes 100 nominations per year, between all the courts), with Jim Carville throwing mud on one side and Jim Nicholson throwing it back on the other, then you probably should concede that no person worth a damn will be interested in serving as a judge. The folks Bush has put forward repeatedly have been nominated because of their good character, which they normally possess to a degree that would make most of us feel slightly ashamed. They don’t get nominated (one or two exceptions) without a very thorough WH vetting. That they should spend two years getting debated, and picked apart, and slandered, is disgraceful. As far as I’m concerned, a president gets his picks unless there is some question about whether the nominee will be faithful to the law.
Besides, all this is just show. With the Dems out of power and losing on various referenda around the country (gay marriage, driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, etc) they know they only way they can implement these policies is to capture the courts, and have the judges write the policies into law with capricious opinions. That’s all it’s about. Abortion isn’t even open for discussion, that’s just a ruse.
Thomas Jackson
I hope the Democrats filibuster. Doing so will allow the American public to see what the Democrats define as “extremists”. Maybe then the Anerican public will realize that the Democrats have more in common with the French than the average American.
Filibuster!
synuclein
I have a couple of problems with this whole filibuster debate nonsense and wish both sides (and the President) could come together and resolve this in a mature fashion.
First — some Republicans have attempted to portray this as a simple rules change in the Senate. This is somewhat correct, but also incorrect. Basically, the Senate has the right to change the rules — but they need a 2/3 majority to actually do so. Of course, if they had the 67 votes to do this, the filibuster ruling would be moot (as they would, by inference have the votes for a cloture resolution).
Second — I think that the Dems are somewhat in the right on this issue. Clearly, there are far fewer Bush nominees blocked than was the case for Clinton — and there is no evidence that any of the Clinton nominees were rated as unqualified by the ABA or other “reputable” arbiters of judicial capability. Of course, as my mother says “Nobody ever told you life is fair”. This argument works both ways — it was “unfair” of certain Republican Senators to block Clinton nominees (either by blocking them in committee or by “Blue Slip”), and it’s “unfair” for Dems to attempt to filibuster Bush nominees.
Third — the idea of the Senate rules for a “supermajority” is to create a moderating influence on all decisions passing thru the body.
Fourth — Once this precedent is established for judicial nominees, what is to stop the majority from using this for other legislation? I know that Frist and the Republican leadership claim that this is only about judicial nominees, but next it’ll only be about budgetary measures, then legislation, etc.
Fifth — Due to the nature of the Senate — with 2 Senators/State, the 55 Republican Senators represent significantly fewer people than the 45 Democrats. (see post here)
http://heyjennyslater.blogspot.com/2005/05/on-representin.html
It seems to me that there needs to be some equivalency here.
What should, in an ideal world, happen is that Bush, Frist, Reid, etc. shoud sit down with a short list of candidates and should hash out a list of quality candidates that both sides can reach some agreement on.
Sandi
Some facts:
President Clinton
Sojourner
Let’s go back to the rules in place under Clinton. Why didn’t the Repubs fillibuster? They didn’t need to. They simply used Rule IV and blue slips to take care of candidates they didn’t like. The problem now? Hypocrite Hatch refused to allow the Dems to utilize the rules. There were no formal rule changes – he just decided he didn’t need to follow them. The real hypocrites are the Repubs for not following the rules they used to their own benefit under Clinton.
Yeh, I’d like to see how the American public responds to Brown. She’s against environmental laws, zoning laws, minimum wage, overtime laws. Oh yeh, the American public will eat that up. Mainstream? In your dreams!
Priscilla Owen? She’s the one who delayed ruling on a lawsuit that would have provided an injured man with money to cover his medical costs. She delayed for 18 months, he didn’t have the money, he died. And the torture czar, Gonzales, considered her activist. Yeh, Gonzales is such a liberal. Right. Yeh, that’s a story the American public will warm up to.
Jimmie
I dunno. It takes some real rality-warping to say that two popularly-elected judges are “out of the mainstream” unless they’re willing to call the overwhelming majorities of the voters in California and Texas “extremists”.
Of course, they could just say that the voters didn’t really know that the judges they elected were “extreme”, in which case the Democrats’ sole point is that the voters in these two large states are just stupid or gullible.
That’ll go over just great.
KC
I’m a Californian and I probably voted for Brown, though I can’t say so for certain. However, what I can say is that when/if I voted her, I did so because she’d already been on the court, not because I knew a cent about her. Incumbency means a lot, I guess.
Sojourner
Where I live, it’s extremely difficult to find useful information about the positions of judges. It’s quite likely that’s the case in California and Texas as well. A lot of it has to do with name recognition. I don’t know about Rogers but Owen had a good deal of Rove money to grease her wheels. Rogers had the advantage of being an African American, which probably helped her a good deal. Given how little people appear to know about Bush’s positions (based upon polls and my experiences with a lot of Republican friends), it’s reasonable to assume that people know even less about the judges.
Mr Furious
Here in Michigan, judges are forced to run on a non-partisan ticket. With no party affiliation and no real way to easily find out much about them, it’s no wonder they hold their seats. Unless they are endorsed by a “normal” R or D politician or the newspaper, there’s no real way to know who to choose/vote for in many judicial races (or they often run unopposed).
I had a campaign worker from a judge’s campaign approach me to place a sign in my front lawn based on the other signs I had up. I then verified with the local Dem office that this was a good judge. they gave me an unofficial “thumbs up”.
It was the first time I ever filled in a judge slot on the ballot.
Mr.Ortiz
…never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up or down vote in the Senate by a filibuster.
That is the most hilarious use of qualifiers I’ve ever seen. So, what you’re saying is:
Hey, this may also be the first time a judge has been filibustered by a man wearing a pink, wrinkle-free dress shirt! Alert the press!
RW
Her job would be interpreting the law. A judge’s personal views have nothing to do with cases before the bench unless they insert those views when they’re not warranted. That you guys are so focused on the PFAW talking points (which is always attacking someone in a venue that is NOT face-to-face, because that would actually take guts) and inserting ideology is quite illustrative.
The American public made their mainstream decisions in November of last year.
You lost.
Nash
“President Clinton
synuclein
Alright — I know I’m going to get in trouble for quoting Sen. Kennedy here, but — in this phrase, he actually condenses the problems with the Republican argument against filibuster very neatly.
“They seem to say it
RW
**I guess I should start off by saying that the blue-card stuff by the GOP in the 90s was wrong & I was saying it on political bulletin boards**
synuclein, the “rights of the minority” aren’t in question, since there isn’t a bill before the senate. It’s a confirmation hearing. Thus, Kennedy’s words ring hollow for in actuality you guys are saying that there needs to be a 60 yes-vote edge for judges.
nash, Paez wasn’t filibustered. There was an attempted filibuster but it failed 67-31 and Paez was indeed brought up for a vote in the full senate, where he was approved 59-39.
Interestingly enough, 59 votes aren’t enough for today’s Democrats. So, I don’t think rushing to the Center for American Progess for talking points based on history is really the way to go…..it sorta shows the hypocrisy of BOTH SIDES.
If you want your guys to be sitting on the bench, stop losing elections. ’nuff said.
Sojourner
“Her job would be interpreting the law. A judge’s personal views have nothing to do with cases before the bench unless they insert those views when they’re not warranted.”
Hah hah. That’s what Clarence Thomas promised. Whoops. Guess that was a lie. Considering how many well-qualified judges out there, why take another gamble with a loon like Rogers?
“That you guys are so focused on the PFAW talking points (which is always attacking someone in a venue that is NOT face-to-face, because that would actually take guts) and inserting ideology is quite illustrative.”
I have no idea what this means.
“The American public made their mainstream decisions in November of last year. You lost.”
What? Brown and Owen ran for election last year? Stop the presses!!!
This argument doesn’t hold water. Voting for a person doesn’t mean signing over total permission to that person to do whatever the hell they want. Except for folks like you who appear to give your undying, unreflective loyalty to a politician. {Shudder} Something I won’t do for ANY politician.
Sojourner
“Interestingly enough, 59 votes aren’t enough for today’s Democrats.”
Interestingly enough, the Republicans feel no obligation to follow the rules of the Senate. Frist has even said he has no intention of consulting with the parliamentarian concerning his attempt to overthrow the fillibuster. If the rules get in their way, the Repubs feel no obligation to follow them. Talk about activism! Funny, this wasn’t part of their talking points during the election. Can’t imagine why.
’nuff said.
RW
What are you, nine years old?
Bush ran.
He won.
It even made a few papers, IIRC.
And, he appoints judges.
You lost. Losing means you don’t get your way, which is why the GOP senators helped approve Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who did NOT get 76% of the vote when put up for election. Now, if you’re going to argue that ideology is to be taken into account, then resident left-wing loon Ginsberg has no reason being on the USSC…..except that Clinton won and got to appoint who he wished.
Go to dictionary.com.
Look up “imply”.
Then look up “infer”.
I’ll be kind and simply point out that you infer incorrectly, on top of the obligatory knee-jerk generalizations.
Nash
RW, you need to read my statements for comprehension. The fact that a filibuster fails at cloture does not mean that a filibuster didn’t occur. The existence of a cloture vote means a filibuster occurred. You can keep mouthing the “Paez wasn’t filibustered” crap, but you are wrong are you are going to keep getting called on it.
There is no such thing as an “attempted filibuster.”
If you need an analogy, think of impeachment. Saying that President Clinton wasn’t impeached, because he wasn’t removed from office is nonsense. He was impeached. Similarly, Paez was filibustered, but he wasn’t kept from (eventually) taking his spot on the bench.
I’ve wavered over whether engaging your kind of nonsense in this semantic debate is important, but have come down on the side of not letting those of you pulling this prank to get away with repeated lies.
Once again, a filibuster isn’t the blocking of a vote by refusing to yield, it’s the attempt to block a vote by refusing to yield, whether successful or not. Please get this right and that will allow us to move on to something more important.
Sojourner
Nope, long past nine years old.
You must be incredibly naive if you think that ideology is never considered with these nominations. Why do you think the Repubs used the blue slip and Rule IV provisions with such relish during the Clinton years?
And what you obviously are not aware of, with regard to Ginsberg is she was nominated only AFTER Clinton had met with Hatch (then judiciary committee chair) and gotten Hatch’s support for her nomination. Which means she already had the support of BOTH parties before she was even officially nominated. Something that Bush has never done and has led to this current mess. If Bush would do what Clinton regularly did(get the support of the minority for a nomination), our country would be much better served by this administration.
I find your “we won, you lost” mentality childish and contrary to what the founding fathers wished for this country.
RW
You said it all in one sentence, Nash. The filibuster failed but it still occurred.
Oooooookay.
Whatever makes you sleep better.
I won’t waver a bit. My time’s precious so pay attention closely to my follow-ups to you in the future. Make sure to hit the “refresh” button because the responses may be so quick.
You might want to take that up with Nash, who is saying that the GOP was busy filibustering Clinton’s nominees while you’re here saying that Clinton met first & made sure to have bipartisan support.
–
synuclein
RW —
Are you implying that the minority has no (or fewer) rights because this is not a legislative matter being discussed?
It seems to me that minority rights should be protected MORE in the case of a judicial appointment (which is for the lifetime of the appointee) in contrast to legislation, which can be repealed legislatively or ruled unconstitutional (thereby removing many concerns about it’s impact on the minority).
It seems to me that the Dems have not actively threatened to filibuster the Bolton nomination, despite the general distaste with which many members on both sides view his behavior. With a political appointment such as this, it only lasts as long as the current admin is in power (only another 3 years), at which time the next Pres gets to appoint their selected UN embassador.
Sojourner
RW:
There’s no conflict here. For the more critical nominations such as the ones that are currently under dispute, Clinton met with Hatch to get his agreement. He didn’t do it for each of the hundreds of judicial nominations for the lower courts.
Facts is facts. Sorry they’re inconvenient to your arguments.
RW
synuclein,
If you can show me which rights of which Americans will be infringed if there is an up or down vote on a judicial nominee, I’ll happy to agree with you. I’m not being obtuse, I’m saying that there is no infringement on anyone’s rights and pulling out a crystal ball and forecasting what someone will do in the future is folly that either side could do. If a nut is truly nominated, Olympia Snowe, Linc Chaffee and Mccain will keep them from going onto the court, just as Joe Lieberman will keep from happening should the Democratic president send one up for vote in 5 years (yes, I predict a Dem prez to win in ’08).
Again, I said that Clinton got to pick his nominees when he won (there was no blogosphere, so I can’t point to it) and when he tried to put up some that were too far gone, they were kept from the courts. Now, I didn’t always agree with the process, but there you have it.
Randall Terry is a nutcase loon.
Pat Buchanan is a far-right fanatic.
People who disagree with you (and Democrats in general) on abortion, the minimum wage, global warming, etc., are not loons and are not dangerous. If the law is interpreted in an appropriate manner, then the nominee is qualified.
Besides, you folks have been telling us for years about the wacko judges on the USSC who were going to send women to back alleys for abortions….well, 7 of 9 are appointees by GOPers and last time I checked, abortion was still quite legal. Maybe, just maybe, there’s a whole lotta hot air and overheated rhetoric going on? After all, there is quite the history of that happening and you guys being wrong (Clarence Thomas didn’t bring the apocalypse any faster than Ruth Bader Ginsberg) Or, is it simpler just to demonize the two judges simply because they’re not towing the Democratic line?
RW
I recall Judge White (I think) who was up for a rather important nomination & was blue-carded by Ashcroft. Clinton didn’t get any agreements, he sent up the nomination & then accused the Republicans of racism when they didn’t let White go to the floor.
And, the term “recess appointments” became a regular staple in the 90s, so let’s not kid ourselves. Again, you can’t get more radical than Ruth Bader Ginsberg & she got an up or down vote for the most important seat in the nation.
RW
The founding fathers wished a representative republic. We send our representatives to vote & we sent Bush to sign or veto. If someone goes too far, the voters will send them home (see Daschle, Tom) or punish them (see Gingrich, Newt).
Besides, when did the founding fathers wish for a filibuster over judicial nominees?
Sojourner
So if you agree with the process that kept 60 Clinton nominees off the courts, how can you support attempts to kill the fillibuster? The only reason the Dems are using the fillibuster is because the Repubs are refusing to honor the very rules that allowed them to keep those Clinton nominees from receiving an up or down vote. Where’s the logical consistency in that?
I don’t know what the story is behind the White nomination. But I do know, and it’s on the record, that Hatch pre-approved Ginsberg and other nominees. Call her radical, do whatever you want, but you’re not entitled to changing the historical record.
The founding fathers also wanted minority representation. Whether you like it or not, that’s a fact. Why do you think the Senate is based on two Senators per state rather than by population? Which makes the whole argument over majority rights rather strained in this case. Because if the Repubs have their way, the minority (based on population) actually “wins.” Those who are from states with Democratic senators (5 million more than those in Republican states) are left out in the cold. So which “majority” are you talking about?
The founding fathers left it up to the Congress to make its own rules. Unfortunately, the Repubs don’t feel obliged to follow those rules. Shame on them.
Nash
You said it all in one sentence, Nash. The filibuster failed but it still occurred.
This is your logic, RW: Air RW has a plane flying from Omaha to Des Moines. 30 minutes into the flight the wing falls off, the plane crashes and all aboard are lost. Air RW says that because the plane did not land in Des Moines, it was never flying. Not responsible.
This is your logic, RW: Everything that fails never happened.
Oooooookay. Whatever makes you sleep better.
Taking your logic apart so easily is just one factor in why I do sleep so well.
By the way, there are several other mechanisms to defeat a filibuster, and one in particular that I’d suggest the majority party consider. The majority leader sets the official agenda for the Senate. He has the power to remove all other agenda items but the judicial nomination he wants to address–essentially halting all other Senate business indefinitely. At this point, the only Senate business that may be conducted is debate on the nomination. The end result of that would be eventual exhaustion of the Democratic Party’s ability to carry on that debate. It essentially calls the other party’s bluff. LBJ had the Senate leadership do exactly that over civil rights legislation–they cleared the agenda except for that–and it worked. Painfully, but it worked.
RW
I stated “Now, I didn’t always agree with the process..” I agree with YOU on that!
And, for the record, I hope they don’t kill off the filibuster. I hope that the Dems stop blocking everyone they think is to the right of Barbara Lee & we get on with business.
Oh, please, they’re filibustering because qualified judges are more conservative than they wish and they’re scared shitless that they won’t get their policies implemented from the bench anymore, especially since they see that they can no longer count on winning elections.
I didn’t change the record, I stated what happened. Ashcroft blue-carded & was called a racist. That’s the historical record. Now, imagine what would’ve happened if Hatch decided to play Harry Reid and *not* accept any nominee who didn’t mirror the Zell Miller brand of “Democrat”. That Orrin Hatch bent over backwards and continued the time-honored tradition of allowing nominees for the USSC to be voted on, whether or not they were far-out loons (as Ginsberg is) is not equivalent with today’s Democrats threatening to filibuster anyone that they don’t like. Hatch was a gentleman and did the right thing, even if Ginsberg is a stain on our court. Too bad there are no Hatches in today’s Dem leadership.
A concept I endorse. Right now, it’s being abused.
If the Repubs have their way, there’ll be a vote on the floor for nominees. Not one senator on the right is HOPING that the filibuster rules are changed.
And that’s what’s happening.
The people not adhering to tradition are the Democrats.
Look, sojourner, I’m not some right-wing wacko carrying the water for the GOP…right now, the party disgusts me. But, I have the same position that I had back in ’98, when Clinton was sending up his nominees: vote out the wackos and keep the dangerous loons from getting out of committee. Both sides, Democrat and Republican are playing the role of hypocrite right now. Alls I’m seeking is a vote. What happened to counting every vote, any way? If 58 senators vote “yea”, exactly how is that stifling the rights of the minority?
Nash
One other thing, and I don’t really agree with this, but if, as according to your nonsensical definition, a filibuster must be successful to be a filibuster, then, to the best of my knowledge, the Democratic senators have yet to filibuster a single one of President Bush’s judicial nominees. The Republican leadership in the Senate has yet to hold a single cloture vote on any of these nominations (please point me to the Congressional Record citation if I am incorrect), so how do we know if these so-called filibusters will fail or not?
[In fact, as we both well know, they will “succeed” because there are probably 50, but not 60 votes for Owens or Brown.]
But according to you, the Democrats haven’t filibustered these nominees. What’s the fuss, then?
Kimmitt
RW’s point is that it is morally wrong for the Democrats to attempt to influence the legislative or nomination processes, because they are in the minority.
His other point is that “tradition” is more important than the rules of the Senate as written — and that if one Party uses the rules of the Senate in a way which has historical precedent but was rare before now, the other Party has the option of changing the rules of the Senate on a simple majority vote. Why? Because the Republicans won and the Democrats lost. Institutions are irrelvant. The Constitution is irrelevant. Power is all.
Sojourner
Hatch is a hypocritical hack who has no respect for rules (even the ones he has used to his advantage) and the historical role of the Senate. Your win-at-all-costs mentality doesn
RW
Nash
This is pure politics being practiced by a desperate party.
Of course it’s politics, RW. But as to desperate, that’s what you wish were the case, but what truly galls those of you who parrot that line is that the opposition party has learned how to oppose, and effectively. If this were ineffective, you wouldn’t be putting up such a fuss.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting to hear why Air RW thinks it is not responsible for that plane crash.
Sojourner
We
RW
Nash
Beaten on the facts, RW, you are doing a masterful job of pivoting to take on Sojourner’s complete nonsequitor about health coverage.
Since the thread topic is filibusters, maybe you two could take this elsewhere.
Sojourner
Everything with you always comes back to who won and who lost. It doesn’t seem to occur to you that the value of an idea is not necessarily reflected in how popular the idea is. Popularity is a measure for sheeple, not thinkers.
Perhaps we all could learn something from the students you mock. After all, the anti-war movement began in part through students who were criticized until parents realized that their sons were on the list to be shipped to Viet Nam. Students also played a major role in the civil rights movement. I guess it didn’t occur to you that the filibuster is a symbol of an open government that respects minority rights. But since those things aren’t important to you, it makes sense that you would mock these folks. I respect their passion and idealism, and am sorry that you’re too wrapped up with winning and losing to appreciate them.
Look, you want to hang out with “winners” like Frist and Bush? Do it. You want your boys to take away basic protections for average people? By all means, cheer them on.
You find the idea of sharing the cost of health care offensive, that’s up to you. I find the idea of the working poor and children having no health care offensive. I continue to be amazed that politicians in this great country cannot find a solution to a problem that other countries have resolved. Are their solutions perfect? Nope. But by reasonable measures (lifespan, child deaths, etc.), their systems are working better than ours and at a much lower cost. But you want to continue in the belief that our system is better. Fine. Do it. You want to place the blame on immigrants. That’s up to you. But guess what… These other countries have high immigration rates (legal and illegal) as well. But believe what you want.
So, RW, support the power grab, give your tax dollars to the wealthy to support their tax cuts, mock those who are without health insurance, and rest comfortably in your smug self-satisfaction. That’s your choice and your right.
RW
No, not everything.
Elections do matter, though.
It’s a measure for elections, as well. Elections that don’t turn out as you wish, thus resulting in the voters being stupid, is noted.
That was Tim Noah, as listed in the comment, not me. I just cut n’ pasted.
I’m saying put it up for everyone to vote on.
It’s not just “me”.
False. Nowhere did I blame immigrants for anything. I noted that people are literally dying to get into our country. Let’s be clear.
Let’s see a list of people who are literally dying to get into some of those countries.
Ad hominem, strawmen, false assertions, demonization and talking point drivel (‘give your tax dollars to the wealthy’?) all rolled up in one.
Okay, whatever. I thought we were having a decent discussion.
I guess that’s officially over, now.
Nash
I second Sojourner’s take on your position always coming down to winners and losers. Sojourner uses the phrase “smug self-satisfaction” to describe you and to perfectly capture why there is such a divide between us.
Getting back to this blog, it also points out the source of my respect for Mr. Cole. He is fiery, he has big opinions, but with respect to those opinions, he is a self-revising, self-monitoring individual for whom everything isn’t approached as zero sum.
Sojourner
Voters aren’t stupid. They’re busy. The mainstream media isn’t doing its job and it takes time to look behind the smoke and mirrors of this administration. Not everybody is equally interested.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason why a lot of people come here from Cuba, Mexico, etc. rather than to other countries is because of geography?
At last we agree… this discussion is over. You believe in total majority rule, a lot of us don’t. You believe the U.S. is always right. A lot of us believe that the government, being comprised of humans, makes mistakes, can be overcome by power and ego, and other failings. It is the job of the minority party to keep the majority on the straight and narrow. You want to marginalize the minority, I want them keeping a watchful eye on the powerful and protecting the rights of everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful.
Sojourner
Nash is exactly right. I disagree with John’s politics but what brought me here is his desire to compare what is actually going on with his positions as to what should be happening. It takes a lot of guts and great vision to do that.
Thanks, John.
John Cole
Hey- when we agree, we agree.
I love me too!
Sojourner
Thanks, John, for the much needed laugh! This is certainly a full service blog.
RW
Sojourner, please allow me to dictate what I want and believe, okay? As Austin Powers would say, “please allow myself to speak for…..myself”. You’re not doing a very good job of it and, not suprisingly, the result is a self-serving portrayal of me that is quite demonic. That’s not really nice nor necessary. ‘kay?
So who is literally DYING to get into Mexico and Cuba? Quite the conundrum, huh?
RW
Er, Dan Rather & Michael Isikoff would probably disagree.
Kimmitt
So who is literally DYING to get into Mexico and Cuba?
Well, the Guatemalans, in Mexico’s case.
Sojourner
On which parts did I misquote you?
Er, whether Dan Rather & Michael Isikoff disagree is of no interest to me.
Wow. I’m impressed. People aren’t dying to get into Mexico and Cuba, as compared with the U.S. How low must be the bar be dropped in order for some Americans to flaunt their country’s superiority?
RW
Your last paragraph was a pile of ad hominem sh*t. If anonymously ad homming me is where you’re going, then I have about as much time for you as the people who, for some reason, are still seeking my acknowledgment, it appears. I state what I believe and what I want, NOT YOU.
I was having a good time & thought we were having a decent discusstion until you started the predictable drivel of sitting at your computer and typing things that you’d NEVER say to my face (and I’m not being some tough guy…decent people don’t talk like that to each other). I thought that I’d addressed your comments civilly but strongly and not gone after you personally while arguing against your POSITIONS and not you as a person, but obviously you don’t wish to respond in kind.
Instead, you’ve decided to conveniently use your keyboard to mind-meld and make up what you think I really want. That’s not the sign of an enlightened debate. And not worthy of my time, as others have found out (here’s hoping they get the hint, this time).
Have a nice life, but dealing with ankle bites is not a hobby.
Sojourner
Oh for pete’s sake. Other than calling you smugly self-satisfied (the horror!), I have NO IDEA what you’re talking about.
I’m sorry you got your feelings hurt. Perhaps you should stay out of the political blogs. People can be quite blunt when discussing politics.
Nash
Civilly but strongly, huh? That’s either a good rationalization or self-delusion.
cf:
What are you, nine years old?
…typing things that you’d NEVER say to my face (and I’m not being some tough guy…decent people don’t talk like that to each other).
A hypocritically thin skin you’ve got there, RW. Poor dear.
Sojourner is correct–if your standards are that one-sided and you are that sensitive, there are much safer venues for you to hang around in.
Nash
And fwliw, of course I “get the hint”.
RW: And not worthy of my time, as others have found out (here’s hoping they get the hint, this time).
I got “the hint” those several times before you sent “the hint” yet again. Unfortunately, I do not feel bound to follow *your* implied rule that I not address you here because you haven’t the time or interest. I, like you, don’t accept someone else telling me what I will do, think or say.
Perhaps you wish me to feel terribly friendless and unwanted because you won’t stoop to respond to me. I will see if I can muster that emotion for you, but I have my doubts that I can.
So, to make it clear, no, I am not seeking your acknowledgment–earlier, I did honestly seek a response, but at this point, it’s clear we’d be better off if you went your separate way. Meanwhile, I will continue to assume that once a debate is engaged and arguments are refuted on both sides, arguments that stand unrefuted stand on steady ground.
Call that obnoxious triumphalism. Whatever.
Sojourner
Obnoxious triumphalism? Careful, Nash. We don’t want any hurt feelings.
;-)
Nash
Good point, Sojourner. Sometimes I can be so thoughtless.
And I admire your passion, btw. (But I shouldn’t introduce anything serious at this point, should I?)
RW
Then I apologize for assuming you were intelligent enough to follow along with basic english.
Sorry, if I want banter with dailykos minions, I’ll go straight to the source, not a wannabe.
Have a nice life, though, and I hope you get everything you wish for while you’re holding out your hands waiting for someone else to take care of what you can’t accomplish.
And, no, I’ll never read another word by you, either, so make your send off a good one!
Sojourner
Thanks, Nash. My passion stems from the concern I have for those who are being left behind in this country. Why shouldn’t we set lofty goals for ourselves like making sure everyone can have health care? Why shouldn’t we worry about minority rights?
I believe profoundly in the goals and values of our founding fathers and expect our representatives to feel and act the same way.
Off my soapbox. I do appreciate your thoughtful messages. And I really enjoy this blog. It’s incredibly refreshing to find voices from the center. Too often they get lost in the left versus right dichotomy.
Sojourner
Wow. Talk about ad hominen attacks! I count three in this one alone. Good job!
Yes, please add me to your growing list of those you won
Kimmitt
Don’t worry — RW “doesn’t talk to” a lot of people. It’s both an honor and a relief.
Sojourner
Thanks, Kimmitt. I had a hunch that was the case. I’m pleased to be in your company.
Libertine
Geez…I can’t be on-line for a couple days and see what I miss (drops head and kicks at the ground in disgust).
The debate between Sojourner and RW was very entertaining to read. What a comprehenesive look at the filibuster issue.
I think Sojourner makes a great point at the end. If people want to debate politics and public policy they should have thick skin. Just because I might not like a person’s view on the issues and say so…it doesn’t mean it is personal or I don’t like the person. Reasonable people can disagree.
And Sojourner it was the best and most comprehensive case I have seen in defense of the filibuster.