Journal pudge's Journal: Feinstein Thinks We're All Stupid 9
Senator Dianne Feinstein was asked on Face the Nation this week about Senator Ted Kennedy's legacy in regards to his assault on Judge Bork's nomination in the 80s, and how things have changed in the nomination process as a result. She replied -- I kid you not -- "I do think it's become much more partisan; and there are many of us on that committee that are trying very hard to end that kind of partisanship. I was very surprised, for example, when Justice Sotomayor was not confirmed by more Republicans on the committee than--than voted for her."
This coming from a woman who voted against both Justices Roberts and Alito, both in committee and in the full Senate.
Sotomayor's low numbers (68-31) relative to her Democratic predecessors (Ginsburg 97-3, Breyer 87-9) are the direct result of the Republicans deciding to play the game the way the Democrats had been playing it since Bork (Thomas 52-48, Alito 58-42, Roberts 78-22).
Compare how the Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee treated Sotomayor, versus how the Democrats treated Alito. Honestly, does Feinstein actually believe the nonsense she's peddling?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Yes, she does (Score:2)
I know this is a generalization, and I know a few liberals that don't do this all the time. I don't think they're so into it that they've reached the point I describe below. But in the media and in politics, I think the following is true.
It took me a long time to believe this myself, but here's what I've concluded: liberals lie.
On the surface, this may not seem to be big news. But when you realize that they lie ALL THE TIME, I think it takes on more significance.
They lie ALL THE TIME: to themselves, to t
Re: (Score:2)
To pick another, he was going to get us out of the wars (didn't he just send more people to Afghanistan?)
To be fair, I don't think he ever gave any indication that he wanted to get out of Afghanistan. His supporters on the far-left might have hoped that he would but that was wishing thinking on their part. My recollection of the campaign is that he was planning on doubling down on Afghanistan all along.
I agree with the rest of what you said though.
you better believe she believes it..... (Score:2)
Of course she believes it. If you repeat "2+2 = 5" long enough you'll start to believe that as well. In reference to one of your previous journals I'd bet that Schumer even believes that it's a "level" playing field for a for-profit company to have to compete with the Government. Too many of our politicians spend their careers surrounded by sycophants who only tell them what they want to hear. Spend enough time in the echo chamber and you'll eventually come to believe that everybody else agrees with you
Of course she thinks we're all stupid. (Score:2)
She's a politician.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, to be honest, a 95% reelection rate, despite their 12% "approval" rating, does not exactly indicate an abundance of intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
True. And thinking that they only have two choices isn't so intelligent, either.
Well, ... (Score:1)
...Liberals do have a known, characteristic out-of-whack sense of proportionality. So she might partially believe it. As for the rest, I think all Liberals, to become Liberals (i.e. a fundamental component of what it means to be a Liberal), have had to sell out their intellectual souls so-to-speak, and just force themself to believe certain things, or at least that whether they're true or not is not important relative to (the success of) their cause(s). So the other part of it is prolly that she doesn't eve
Obviously... (Score:2)
we're not all stupid. Only about 53% of us are.
In her district, closer to 83%.
Re: (Score:1)
She's a senator, so her district is the whole state (of California, which despite a 4th worst in the nation unemployment rate of 11.9% [marketwatch.com], still 62% [surveyusa.com] here are clinging to their stupidity (having neither guns nor religion as alternatives I guess)).