GW Bush = Emperor Palpatine? Who knew?

[lookout123]

whether or not i agree with the blocking of certain nominees doesn't really matter. what really pisses me off is that support the Cheney endrun on this issue really do not pay attention to the big picture. if they change the rules, then they will be subject to the same rules when the pendulum swings the other direction, which it will.

i said the same thing in the '90's. the R's were enjoying sicking their attack dogs on Clinton (who was an easy target), breaking all the conventions of public respect for the office of the president. did they never stop to think that eventually a republican would be back in the white house? the republicans took the leashes off in the '90's but were surprised when the dogs turned around and bit them in 2001. the nastiness that has surrounded the dem's attacks on bush are only possible because of their own attacks on clinton.

i'm afraid that if they do change the filibuster rules they will taste the same bitter pill in a few years.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by wolf

If the issue is the qualifications of the various nominees, shouldn't those qualifications be the matter under discussion rather than just filibustering to avoid voting on the nominee?

At the moment, the Democrats have no significant way to say "Hello, we have concerns about the qualifications of your nominees, and wish to have them taken seriously" without filibustering. The few moderate Republicans will not break ranks without serious provocation, and with their support, any nominee can be whisked through on a party-line vote.

As noted above, this is why the Dems have given ground on the vast majority of nominees and not raised significant opposition to the qualifications, choosing to filibuster only a small minority of objectionable nominees as their sole means of meaningful dissent. Choosing to renominate blocked judges and hammer them through is strictly a power play, and one that makes the Pubs' "Stop objecting so we can get back to the normal business of the Senate" arguments hypocritical. THEY picked the fight by deliberately renominating judges that they knew would cause this showdown, rather than sending up floods of "compromise" candidates who would be, in reality, probably no better than the likes of Owen or Brown.

[lookout123]

VSP, your view on things may indeed be accurate, but is it possible that maybe just maybe - they renominated these people not jab someone with a stick, but rather they truly believe these are the best people for the job.

whether they really are the best people for the job is impossible to say, because personal beliefs are what lead one to make a judgement like that. but if a nominee fits the profile that the white house believes is the best person for the job - wouldn't they be mistaken in NOT putting them back before the committee?

i'm not saying that is the reality of it, but it is a possibility. it seems like you get to wrapped up in your idea of D= flawed protector of our freedom, R= evil, nefarious schemer. if that is how you filter every piece of info out of washington, you will be missing 50% of the picture every single time. there are a few people on each side of the aisle that truly do have the people and the future of the country as their prime consideration, the vast majority are only there for their personal benefit, a few on each side really do want to reshape the country for less than honorable intentions.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

but if a nominee fits the profile that the white house believes is the best person for the job - wouldn't they be mistaken in NOT putting them back before the committee?

No, because the nominations already lost. There is no reason to expect the results to be different this time unless you use the nuclear option to destroy the rules. As a hypothetical, let's assume that the nuclear option vote fails and the judges are again rejected. Whould Bush be mistaken if he didn't put them up for a vote for a third round? Should Clinton have renominated all of his rejected nominations?

[BigV]

It's a pleasure to watch the two of you discuss (not argue) these important topics. I agree with plenty of what each of you have to say. I want to interject my two cents worth.

I believe this is a naked power play on the part of the Republicans.

l13, your point about giving them the benfit of the doubt in that perhaps these renominations are occuring because of the belief that this is the*best* person for the job is possibly true. But here's how it plays in my small smooth brain.

When I have to make a decision in my family, I try to do the right thing, all the time. I mostly succeed, thank heavens. But not because *I* am the all knowing fount of all wisdom. I consult, I seek "advice and consent". I sometimes disregard that advice (at my peril). Like when the President makes a recess appointment. That's just....weak, slimy. It doesn't have to be that way. It only happens when the executive feels there's no other way to get their way.

In this case, though, not only can they have their way, but they can rub everyone's nose in it. Think of the deterrence factor of having my opponent's best defense whipped, killed, and stuck on a pike. This is showboating, grandstanding, message sending, and hanging on the rim. Throw the penalty flag for excessive celebration in the end zone. Why? Because even if I agree with you that the nominator's motives are pure, (something of a stretch for me...) it can't possibly be true that these nominees are the ONLY ones that can do the job. Do you disagree? Pick another one.

My wife and I run the family. If I pick a solution to a problem that works, is "best" and my wife, as co-equal, strenuously objects, what should happen? Regardless if the pick can work, if there's another less divisive solution, move on to that new track. Duh. Sure, I can just do it my way if I have the means, opportunity and motive. And the problem will be solved. But at what cost? If I have disrespected the input of the other parts of the decision making system, I have only sown the seeds of future trouble. Damn skippy I will see this same thang whack me upside MY head down the road. This is not a recipie for domestic felicity. Nor is it the way to govern the country. Those in power currently are saying very clearly: Fuck you. You're not the boss of me, I can do anything I want, I have a "mandate", etc, etc. I'll spare us all the spin and counterspin. There's enough material there to make a whole other forum of threads.

(shit. I guess I can't resist after all)

To have it misrepresented as "they want minority rule" or "they want to change the constitution"... I'm so tired of the lies, the spin, the character assasination, the ad hominem arguments.... on both sides. Don't they have a f*king job to do? Like, govern?

Great. Now I'm all pissed off.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by lookout123

VSP, your view on things may indeed be accurate, but is it possible that maybe just maybe - they renominated these people not jab someone with a stick, but rather they truly believe these are the best people for the job.

Which is all the more reason for those who _oppose_ what the Bush administration believes is the "best thing for America" to stand up and fight this.

Originally Posted by lookout123

it seems like you get to wrapped up in your idea of D= flawed protector of our freedom, R= evil, nefarious schemer.

Oh, eat me. You have no idea what I think.

if that is how you filter every piece of info out of washington, you will be missing 50% of the picture every single time. there are a few people on each side of the aisle that truly do have the people and the future of the country as their prime consideration, the vast majority are only there for their personal benefit, a few on each side really do want to reshape the country for less than honorable intentions.

Yep. And some of those presumably were among the 95% of Bush's nominees that were cleared without opposition, no? Looking at the track records of Owen and Brown, on the other hand, it's obvious to me why the Democrats and their constituents find them offensive, and if they WEREN'T fighting to keep them off the bench I'd be outraged. I expect Bush to nominate his share of knuckledraggers; that's the constituency to which he frequently plays. I DO NOT expect the Democrats to smile and wave the most troglodytic of them through without a brawl.

If they try to ward them off and fail because they can't sway the likes of Specter, I can live with it; they gave it the old college try. But the Democrats represent a hell of a lot of people in this country, myself included for the most part; they may be in the minority, but they are not irrelevant, as the DeLays and Frists and Santorums and Cornyns and Hatches of the world would like to believe. Are there more moderate Republicans? Sure, but they're not the ones setting or driving the agenda. If they need to take drastic measures to remind Frist and DeLay and Bush that their (and their constituents') opinions matter, so be it.

[lookout123]

I believe this is a naked power play on the part of the Republicans.

l13, your point about giving them the benfit of the doubt in that perhaps these renominations are occuring because of the belief that this is the*best* person for the job is possibly true.

For the record, I agree with you. this is a no class in your face power play. i was only suggesting that there might possibly be other motives at play here. when a politician runs for office and fails, does he go home to never try again? or if his supporters still believe in him, does he give it another shot?

i think it is important to realize that the scenario that most closely fits into our view of things isn't always the only possible scenario.

[lookout123]

Oh, eat me. You have no idea what I think.

hit a little too close there?

you're right, i don't have any idea what you think. i do know the tone of what you have conistantly posted throught bush's first term, through the election cycle, shortly after the election...