Comments on: Getting it Bakcwards on Purpose http://www.sundriesshack.com/2007/02/06/getting-it-bakcwards-on-purpose/ Delivering the Best of the New Media Since 2004. Tue, 22 May 2012 22:10:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Tom1http://www.sundriesshack.com/2007/02/06/getting-it-bakcwards-on-purpose/comment-page-1/#comment-318876 Tom1 Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:30:12 +0000 http://sundriesshack.com/?p=2946#comment-318876 Well, it's true that the republicans didn't use the filibuster. The reason is that they probably couldn't have sustained those filibusters. Instead, they used the "anonymous hold," preventing Clinton's nominees from even leaving the commitee. Somehow, it's a crime for 41 senators to block a nominee while going on the public record, but it's perfectly okay for a single senator to remain anonymous while blocking a nominee. I have no problem with either party using the filibuster, which is why I'm not complaining about what's going on now. If the dems want to speak out against the "surge", they can attach an amendment to the appropriations when it comes up. It will be hard to block that without defunding the war. I do think the anonymous hold is a tactic that needs to be addressed. And the democrats are wrong to allow its use to continue. Well, it's true that the republicans didn't use the filibuster. The reason is that they probably couldn't have sustained those filibusters. Instead, they used the "anonymous hold," preventing Clinton's nominees from even leaving the commitee. Somehow, it's a crime for 41 senators to block a nominee while going on the public record, but it's perfectly okay for a single senator to remain anonymous while blocking a nominee. I have no problem with either party using the filibuster, which is why I'm not complaining about what's going on now. If the dems want to speak out against the "surge", they can attach an amendment to the appropriations when it comes up. It will be hard to block that without defunding the war. I do think the anonymous hold is a tactic that needs to be addressed. And the democrats are wrong to allow its use to continue.

]]> By: Jimmiehttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2007/02/06/getting-it-bakcwards-on-purpose/comment-page-1/#comment-318503 Jimmie Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:08:37 +0000 http://sundriesshack.com/?p=2946#comment-318503 Oh piffle, Tom. You know as well as I that the Democrats were the ones holding onto the filibuster for dear life even though plenty of folks, me included, warned them that it would be used against them. They had a chance to end Robert Byrd's favorite means of stalling a civil rights bill and they chose instead to hose a few judicial nominees. Now the shoe is on the other foot and I can hear Harry Reid's on my front porch, 30 miles from his office. I have no regard at all for him on this. He practically begged for it. As for that 90 percent thing...that's a garbage position as well. Before President Bush, no high court nominee was filibustered solely by the opposition party. Ever. Every Clinton nominee that made it out of committee got floor votes. Shame the Dems were afraid to let these nominees get to the floor where their positions and qualifications could be debated right out in the open. Seems that fear of debate has struck them again. Oh piffle, Tom. You know as well as I that the Democrats were the ones holding onto the filibuster for dear life even though plenty of folks, me included, warned them that it would be used against them. They had a chance to end Robert Byrd's favorite means of stalling a civil rights bill and they chose instead to hose a few judicial nominees.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and I can hear Harry Reid's on my front porch, 30 miles from his office. I have no regard at all for him on this. He practically begged for it.

As for that 90 percent thing…that's a garbage position as well. Before President Bush, no high court nominee was filibustered solely by the opposition party. Ever. Every Clinton nominee that made it out of committee got floor votes. Shame the Dems were afraid to let these nominees get to the floor where their positions and qualifications could be debated right out in the open.

Seems that fear of debate has struck them again.

]]> By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregatorhttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2007/02/06/getting-it-bakcwards-on-purpose/comment-page-1/#comment-318391 Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:58:54 +0000 http://sundriesshack.com/?p=2946#comment-318391 <strong>G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy...</strong>The vote left in doubt the fate of a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush?s troop buildup i... G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy…

The vote left in doubt the fate of a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush?s troop buildup i…

]]> By: Tom1http://www.sundriesshack.com/2007/02/06/getting-it-bakcwards-on-purpose/comment-page-1/#comment-318410 Tom1 Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:04:26 +0000 http://sundriesshack.com/?p=2946#comment-318410 You will hear the democrats talk about how essential the filibuster is when the republicans dust off their claims that the filibuster is undemocratic and should be abolished. Somehow all THAT talk seemed to just fade away. As for the democratic filibustering of "all but a few of the President’s judicial nominations," that's some strange wording. They approved more than 90% of the president's choices and had a higher approval percentage than the Republicans under Clinton. I'm a little unfamiliar with Republican math, but I would think that more than 90% would be more like "the vast majority." But , then again, turning a surplus into a defict is considered "deficit reduction," so obviously all that math I learned in college was wasted time. Well, I guess it's still useful for engineering and science, but not politics apparrently. You will hear the democrats talk about how essential the filibuster is when the republicans dust off their claims that the filibuster is undemocratic and should be abolished. Somehow all THAT talk seemed to just fade away. As for the democratic filibustering of "all but a few of the President’s judicial nominations," that's some strange wording. They approved more than 90% of the president's choices and had a higher approval percentage than the Republicans under Clinton. I'm a little unfamiliar with Republican math, but I would think that more than 90% would be more like "the vast majority." But , then again, turning a surplus into a defict is considered "deficit reduction," so obviously all that math I learned in college was wasted time. Well, I guess it's still useful for engineering and science, but not politics apparrently.

]]>