Pearly Gates is...Quick ReferenceRecent postsLinksRichard's other blog:Hall Of Fame:
The "Real" Media:
Halosphere:
Minor League Affiliates:
Other Baseball Blogs:
Other Random Crap (in a good way):
Soccer:Archive
Blog*Spot ArchivesContactRichard Ceccarelli Josh Mandir |
Monday, June 27, 2005Excitable Andy at it againWe all saw this coming. Andrew Sullivan is "sickened" by Karl Rove's statements about the liberal reaction to 9/11:
It seems to me that Karl Rove's sickening generalization about "liberals" in the war on terror is revealing in ways not obviously apparent. Sure, there were some on the hard left who really did jump to blame America for the evil perpetrated by the monsters of 9/11. I took names at the time. But all "liberals"? The New Republic? Joe Lieberman? Hitch? Paul Berman? The Washington Post editorial page? Tom Friedman? Almost every Democrat in the Congress who endorsed the war in Afghanistan? You expect that kind of moronic extremism from a Michelle Malkin, but from the most influential figure in an administration leading a country in wartime? Ok, ok, I'm not surprised. Rove is a brutal operator.Uggh. You know, if we're going to be treated to one of Sullivan's emotional breakdowns everyday, the least he can do is come up with a new adjective on occasion. Anyway, Ace posts a collection of statements straight from Sullivan dating back to the days before he was an anti-Bush reactionary. You know, before Bush came out against gay marriage. Strikingly similar - if not more inflammatory - language. I'm revolted and disgusted by Sullivan's nausea-inducing hatred! Comments:Oh yes Puddy, because the Democratic leadership made a real effort to "compromise" on Social Security reform and judicial filibusters. What, your mind, should the Bush administration "compromise" on regarding the War On Terror? I don't have a clue, because the Democrats have no policy regarding the war - or any other issue for that matter. Their only policy is "Bush is wrong". And even if they did have a policy, they've shown no inclination to compromise on anything. Sullivan is unreadable. Rove made an honest but partisan political speech at a political gathering. Dem's howled. Durbin slandered our country and our service members on the floor of the Senate and I've only seen one Dem complain (Mayor Daley). Puddy- com·pro·mise n. 1. a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. b. The result of such a settlement. What you're looking for is "give the Democrats everything they wan't, no questions asked". Idiot. Yeah, public opinion is against the Bush adminstration. That's why he won the election. Granted, the Republicans haven's exactly acted like a majority party, but opinion polls don't matter, only elections. As for "a huge majority of Democrats," goes, Rove did not call out the Democratic party. He called out "liberals." Not all Democrats are liberals. This was evident in the last election when many Democrats verbally resented the liberal label. So which is it? Are they liberals or not? You have your definitions a little mixed up. It wouldn't be compromising to let a minority of Senators decide which ones get a vote. That would be called capitulating. By filibustering to avoid voting on presidential nominees the Senate is clearly failing in their Constitutional responsibilities. A super-majority is required for specific matters (Treaties, etc) not including Advise and Consent responsibilities. "The Senates duty is to advise and consent, and the filibuster is part of that process..." No Puddy. You're confusing the Senate's rights with the rights of the minority. The filibuster has nothing to do with the Senate's advise and consent role. The filibuster is simply a tool the minority uses to obstruct. In case you haven't noticed, the Senate gave its consent to all of Bush's nominees - they were just never allowed to put it to a vote due the minority's obstructionism. And while we're at it, don't compare the filibuster - nothing more than a quirk of the Senate's rules - to a process mandated by the highest law of the land – the constitution. The filibuster is not a "right" and is not protected by anything. It has no place in these sort of debates. "And do I really have to point out that Republicans saw no problem with using the filibuster to THEIR advantage?" I'm afraid that, yes, you're going to have to point that out. In what instance did Republicans filibuster a judicial nominee, Puddy? Let's try to have an honest debate here Puddy. You know as well as I do that Fortas was blocked by a bi-partisan filibuster. 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against cloture, and 12 other Dems found it politically expedient to be out of town. The man couldn’t even muster 50 votes in a Democratic controlled Senate. Care to try again? "...obviously Republican led..." 24 Republicans, 31 Democrats. Basic math. The minority rallied a majority of Senators to their cause. Do you see the difference there, Puddy? "...Republicans who killed ten times as many nominations..." Again Puddy, what nominations did Republican's "kill"? I know it’s annoying, but I’m going to have to continue to insist that you back up your assertions. Republicans voted down many of Clinton's nominations, either on the floor or in committee, thus exercising the Senate's right to consent. You see, that's the prerogative you earn when you win elections, Puddy. |
