Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

FroMan's Journal: Anti Incumbent Results 102

Journal by FroMan

We've been told by the majority of the of the media that there was an anti-incumbent feeling nationwide. Lets look at some numbers.

In the house 43 incumbents lost their seats, 2 of them being Republican and 41 being Democrat. In the senate we also have none of the Republicans in the general election losing their seat compared to 6 of the Democrat seats lost (as of this writing, 2 yet to be determined).

The numbers don't look like an anti-incumbent feeling to me. They look like anti-Democrat.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti Incumbent Results

Comments Filter:
  • A little higher than normal, but no all that remarkable. All the power players are still in place. I'll be more impressed when both factions are thrown out. That might make the Party a bit more nervous.. Eh whatever... enjoy reliving the 90s

    • by Bill Dog (726542)

      All the power players are still in place.

      Legend:
      R - Re-elected
      N - Not up for re-election
      D - Didn't run
      L - Lost re-election

      From: http://democrats.senate.gov/leadership/ [senate.gov]

      R - Harry Reid
      R - Daniel Inouye
      N - Dick Durbin
      R - Charles Schumer
      R*- Patty Murray
      D - Byron Dorgan (state went Republican)
      N - Debbie Stabenow
      N - Jeff Bingaman
      L - Blanche Lincoln
      R - Barbara Boxer
      N - Thomas Carper
      N - Bill Nelson
      L - Russell Feingold

      *Leading in the vote count

      (Note: I would count Chris Dodd as a member of the leadership in the Senat

      • When you look at the map, it does appear a bit lopsided. Means nothing. It's just a coin toss. And it's always the same coin every time. There is only one coin. Pick yer side for what it's worth.. The guy will still come up to you say, "Pay me", no matter which way it goes.

        You're not kidding about that Flash shit... It's as bad as Slashdot's javacrap, or what ever the hell they're running these days. Oh well, if there ever was any question as to where your bandwidth is going, it should have been answered by

    • enjoy reliving the 90s

      No, this ain't the 90s. In the 90s we had a center-left president and a right-wing legislature. Now we have a right-wing president and a right-wing legislature. This is the (worst of) the 80s coming back again.

      • Oh c'mon... There was nothing "left" about Clinton.. He was bailing out Wall Street and signing death warrants also. The asshole expanded the death penalty, signed the defense of marriage act, DMCA, etc. He also tried to dramatically increase his spy powers with clipper chips and export restrictions. He did manage to keep his wars in the background, but there he was, bombing Iraq and Europe, and afghanistan, too, no?. Not too many people were complaining then. Why not? Because it wasn't Bush? And then the e

  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

    I see people actually trying to make the case that Obama and Clinton are right-wing, and I have to laugh and go about my merry way.

    Well, I have one thing to add: Bill Dog makes a point, though I don't agree fully with his conclusion: this was not a fully anti-Dem year, but it was a vote against full Dem control, and also in part a correction of the shift from 2006/2008.

    But, I think it would have been a much bigger shift had the GOP not screwed up so big on fiscal matters in the last decade, AND if the GOP h

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Obama and Clinton are right-wing

      Indeed, Obama is a right-wing president. He kept many of the economic and war advisers that his right-wing predecessor hired on.

      In order for you to make a case against that statement, you can't just brush it off. You need to actually point to legislation that Obama has signed that Bush would not have signed. And you will have a very hard time doing that.

      OK, I lied

      You could do yourself a favor by doing that less often.

      • He's saying Bush is a lefty also. And Nixon, hoo boy, he was downright radical!

        Pudge is a McKinley type. You know. Let business run wild, start war on false pretenses, ignore civil rights law, etc, etc. And they had an early version of FOX news back then. Hearst made Murdoch look like a poser. The comparisons to today(well, nine years ago) are uncanny. Remember the Maine! (never forget) Ah, those were the days. When people knew their place and kept their heads down, eyes forward, and their mouths shut.

        • Pudge is a McKinley type

          I rather doubt it. After all, McKinley did fight for the union in the US Civil war. Now that is downright treasonous by modern conservative standards; a good federalist would always fight for more independence from the centralized government!

          And of course on top of that, as governor of Ohio McKinley sent food and supplies to underpaid miners - that is circumventing the always benevolent intentions of the invisible hand of the free market!

          • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

            Now that is downright treasonous by modern conservative standards; a good federalist would always fight for more independence from the centralized government!

            Wow, you're stupid. How can you not realize that the LEADER of the federalists was also the strongest voice for the importance of a strong -- by their standards, though not ours today -- central government?

            Try reading a book, or something.

            • How can you not realize that the LEADER of the federalists was also the strongest voice for the importance of a strong -- by their standards, though not ours today -- central government?

              Where exactly do you think you're going with that? I was only alluding to the fact that conservatives of your type often like to quote the federalist papers.

              Try reading a book, or something.

              Your hatred has gotten the better of you, yet again.

          • It's pretty easy to find some good in anybody. Hell, Pablo Escobar built schools and hospitals with some of his drug money. Hardly changes my opinion of him.

            • It's pretty easy to find some good in anybody. Hell, Pablo Escobar built schools and hospitals with some of his drug money. Hardly changes my opinion of him

              I'm really not looking for "good" versus "evil", rather I was looking at some of the historical acts from McKinley that are distinctly non-conservative. For that matter, one of his last requests was that the crowd not murder the man who shot him. Would you really expect that of any current conservative? Hell, the conservatives in Texas recently sped up the process for execution for crimes committed with credible witnesses...

              • Well, I can't say Mckinley would pass pudge's "True Scotsman" test. But he seems at least as "conservative" an any republican from the 60s onward.. I will grant those facts you mention, but to me, they're a bit anecdotal, not really part of the big picture of what he represented in general.

              • by gmhowell (26755)

                Hell, the conservatives in Texas recently sped up the process for execution for crimes committed with white witnesses...

                FTFY

        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          Pudge is a McKinley type. You know. Let business run wild

          Except, of course, no. I want business to be free to act as it pleases, yes, but not to violate anyone's rights, to cause them harm.

          start war on false pretenses

          Yeah, um, you have zero evidence supporting this assertion. Why must you lie? In fact, I stated publicly I didn't believe that Iraq had an active WMD program, before the invasion. Nothing in my reasons for invading Iraq was false.

          ignore civil rights law

          Yeah, now you're just flat-out making things up. You have no evidence, ever, of me supporting any such thing.

          • I want business to be free to act as it pleases, yes, but not to violate anyone's rights, to cause them harm.

            Sounds awfully "progressive" to me. Better watch out. You "conservative" purity is becoming suspect.

            Why must you lie?

            Me? lie? Perish the thought! All "reasoning" and "evidence" presented for invading Iraq was false. And you forgot Afghanistan... same applies there also. If you support any aspect of these wars, except the resistance to it and invaders, my statement holds up very well.

            ...You have no e

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              Sounds awfully "progressive" to me.

              No, it doesn't. Quote the opposite: progressives want to force corporations to do what THEY think is in the best interests of everyone else, not merely restrain them from causing harm. The libertarian, free-market, view is to merely restrain them from causing harm.

              Of course, some of this is in the definition of "harm." Progressives think that hurting someone's feelings, or doing so well that competitive businesses fail, is causing "harm." They are silly.

              All "reasoning" and "evidence" presented for invading Iraq was false.

              Incorrect. FACT: Iraq was in violation of the cea

              • BAH! Redundant argument. And you're just as full of it now as you were then. Go back and relive it if you want. Come up with something truthful if you want to get anywhere, I don't want truthy.

                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  BAH! Redundant argument. And you're just as full of it now as you were then.

                  Shrug. You can't demonstrate a single part of it to be false, despite your claim. Especially since all of it but the prediction is demonstrated fact, and the prediction cannot be demonstrated as false or fact.

                  Come up with something truthful if you want to get anywhere

                  You know, when I lay out unassailable facts, and then you complain that I didn't, it only exposes you as a moron.

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        Indeed, Obama is a right-wing president.

        Stop, you're making me giggle!

        In order for you to make a case against that statement, you can't just brush it off.

        Correct. However, I assert that I have no need to make a case against that statement. To people who have half a brain, it's self-evidently false; to everyone else, proving the case wouldn't convince them.

        You need to actually point to legislation that Obama has signed that Bush would not have signed. And you will have a very hard time doing that.

        The health insurance act. Yeah, that was soooooooo hard.

        Also, Bush wasn't very right-wing. Medicare expansion, bailouts, NCLB, stimulus, etc.

        • In order for you to make a case against that statement, you can't just brush it off.

          Correct. However, I assert that I have no need to make a case against that statement. To people who have half a brain, it's self-evidently false; to everyone else, proving the case wouldn't convince them.

          You're still just brushing it off; you're just being more arrogant about it now.

          You need to actually point to legislation that Obama has signed that Bush would not have signed. And you will have a very hard time doing that.

          The health insurance act. Yeah, that was soooooooo hard.

          Except that the health insurance act was a conservative bill. Everything that resembled liberalism was removed from the bill to try to gain some support from the conservatives, who then opposed it just because they didn't directly write and propose it. Long before it went to a vote the public option was dropped and it became another massive corporate hand-out. In the end, the bill was just another one that greatly empowered

        • To people who have half a brain, it's self-evidently false; to everyone else, proving the case wouldn't convince them.

          Precisely the nature of your "unassailable facts" about Afghanistan and Iraq, and your general demeanor. This is why I need make no effort to demonstrate anything to you. My descriptions of you are entirely self evident, needing no embellishment, or further explanation.

          • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

            Precisely the nature of your "unassailable facts" about Afghanistan and Iraq, and your general demeanor.

            Dude. He said Obama is right-wing. The guy who is engaging in the most massive expansion of government power, control, and spending **in history**, and he says the guy is "right-wing." It's just stupid.

            As to the stuff on Afghanistan and Iraq, shrug. If you could bring up any facts against my primary documents, you would. But it's hard to argue against primary documents, isn't it?

            • He's protecting business interests over the interests of the country and its society. He is a right wing authoritarian. A submissive, passive one in front of the camera, yes. But still right wing. If Obama is left wing only because wants a big government, then all you bible thumpers who want to use our tax money to impose your version of Shia law on the rest of us, continue to subsidize big business, engage in military aggression to protect overseas "investments" while leaving the country itself to rot, are

              • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                He is a right wing authoritarian.

                Simply categorizing Bush does not go ANY distance toward backing up your case that he would vote for a a first-ever mandate on all people in the nation to purchase a certain product.

                If Obama is left wing only because wants a big government ...

                That is the simplest accurate definition of left wing, yes.

                ... then all you bible thumpers who want to use our tax money to impose your version of Shia law on the rest of us ...

                You're a liar. I want no such thing. On the contrary, I oppose all imposition of purely religious restrictions on anyone. I am against anti-gay laws, for example (though I also oppose gay marriage, because I oppose government involving itself in marriage, which is a

                • Simply categorizing Bush...

                  I was talking about Obama, but thanks for the props :-)

                  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                    That just shows insane you are. NO ONE except complete nutjobs would consider Obama to be right-wing ANYTHING.

                    But yes, Obama is an authoritarian. That is what makes him a socialist, instead of just a liberal.

                    • Didn't know that the world was so full of nutjobs. Guess that explains the election results...

                      That just shows insane you are.

                      Yeah, I know... comes from the realization that a moron's vote counts the same as mine.

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      comes from the realization that a moron's vote counts the same as mine.

                      Are you saying you voted twice?

                    • That's a good idea. I never thought of that. Is that how you people win elections these days? Looks like more came out of Chicago than just economic theory. Glad to see you all picking up on it. I mean, lest you come up with something more original.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by gmhowell (26755)

          To people who have half a brain, it's self-evidently false; to everyone else, proving the case wouldn't convince them.

          If you agree with me, you are awesome; if not, you are a doody-head. That's the kind of reasoned intelligent analysis I've come to expect from you, pudge. Keep up the good work!

          • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

            by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

            If you agree with me, you are awesome; if not, you are a doody-head. That's the kind of reasoned intelligent analysis I've come to expect from you, pudge.

            You're a liar: I neither stated nor implied any such thing. I did not define the quality of someone based on whether they agree with me: I stated that only someone without a properly functioning brain COULD POSSIBLY believe that Obama is "right-wing." It's like saying the dogs fly. It's nonsense.

            • by gmhowell (26755)

              If you agree with me, you are awesome; if not, you are a doody-head. That's the kind of reasoned intelligent analysis I've come to expect from you, pudge.

              You're a liar: I neither stated nor implied any such thing.

              Reading between your lines it's easy to draw these conclusions. Given your inability to read the lines themselves, it's no wonder you cannot read between them.

              • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

                by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                If you agree with me, you are awesome; if not, you are a doody-head. That's the kind of reasoned intelligent analysis I've come to expect from you, pudge.

                You're a liar: I neither stated nor implied any such thing.

                Reading between your lines it's easy to draw these conclusions.

                So obviously you don't understand enough to justify your reading between the lines. Shrug. Indeed, I have always, consistently, rejected precisely the thing you falsely accused me of. But thank you for admitting your ignorance led you to the incorrect conclusion.

                • by gmhowell (26755)

                  Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I'm not listening." Awesome. Your formal and informal debate prowess are amazing. They rank up their with your ability at logic and inductive reasoning. Your ad hominems need a little work, as they lack a certain artistic panache.

                  • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

                    by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                    Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I'm not listening."

                    Yes, you do that quite well. You falsely accuse me of something, admit you didn't have the understanding to make the claim in the first place, and when challenged, you (predictably) resort to personal attacks, as though I'm the one who screwed up. Nothing new here.

                    • by gmhowell (26755)

                      I had heard that Republicans accuse others of what they themselves actually do, but I've never seen it demonstrated so succinctly as your actions here.

                    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

                      by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      I had heard that Republicans accuse others of what they themselves actually do, but I've never seen it demonstrated so succinctly as your actions here.

                      "... signifying nothing."

                    • by gmhowell (26755)

                      I had heard that Republicans accuse others of what they themselves actually do, but I've never seen it demonstrated so succinctly as your actions here.

                      "... signifying nothing."

                      New sig? I like it. Very apropos way to end your posts.

    • But if they fail to act conservatively now, they won't get that chance. And if they do win in 2012, and THEN blow it, they won't get another chance, and people like me will look to start a new conservative party.

      I have met many different people who view "Conservative" in very different ways. I'm curious what you want your converservatives to do?
      • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        But if they fail to act conservatively now, they won't get that chance. And if they do win in 2012, and THEN blow it, they won't get another chance, and people like me will look to start a new conservative party.

        I have met many different people who view "Conservative" in very different ways. I'm curious what you want your converservatives to do?

        I thought the context was clear, but perhaps not: I mean "small government" and "fiscal" conservative. I would like to include civil-rights conservative, but frankly, that is much less important right now, and it will happen naturally if government is shrunk, much moreso than if they focused on it directly.

        While social conservatism is also important, our electoral choices are almost always much closer to our social views than anything else. So in my view, we cannot really push social change on the people

        • and it will happen naturally if government is shrunk, much moreso than if they focused on it directly.

          Fuck me, that was one of the excuses they used in the 60s! Also, show your work. "A will happen because we do B" is far below even your pitiful standards.
        • by Com2Kid (142006)

          For fucks sake. You have never SEEN a fucking social liberal before have you.

          You want to know what the fuck we are like?

          Every single fucking evangelical butt fucker would be round up and shot in the head. Every idiot who proposes teaching anything from their holy book as "science" in schools would be shot as a traitor to the nation.

          Then we'd properly regulate drugs and legalize gay marriage.

          I'd have a hard time supporting a pro-choice candidate

          I'd have a hard time seeing why anyone who is anti-choice has

          • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

            Every single fucking evangelical butt fucker would be round up and shot in the head. Every idiot who proposes teaching anything from their holy book as "science" in schools would be shot as a traitor to the nation.

            OK, so you hate liberty and the rule of law. And?

            I'd have a hard time seeing why anyone who is anti-choice has a right to live. You want to dictate what others can do with their bodies?

            I have a hard time seeing how your brain works well enough to allow you the ability to type. You don't see the dissonance between a mother killing her own unborn child's body, and accusing me of dictating to others about their body, let alone the dissonance of you wanting to dictate to people what they can think and say and teach.

            This is very simple. If you believe in the rights to life and liberty, AND you believe that the government has an obligation to

            • by Com2Kid (142006)

              This is very simple. If you believe in the rights to life and liberty, AND you believe that the government has an obligation to secure those rights, AND you believe the life in the womb has those rights

              Don't agree with that last part, but more on that latter.

              My primary problem is that the entire social conservative movement is all about removing my liberties.

              With state GOPs trying to tell people what they can and cannot do in their bedrooms [nydailynews.com] to the GOP forcing religious based "abstinence only education" down

              • Instead of reacting violently, it might be better to point out the utter failure of majority rule when people like him are allowed to vote our rights away. The MJ initiatives that failed and the bigoted and racist laws that passed are a perfect case in point. Let them draw first blood before you pull the trigger. After that, go nuts until you have unconditional surrender. Accept nothing less. No more compromise. Show no mercy. Beat them at their own game.

              • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                This is very simple. If you believe in the rights to life and liberty, AND you believe that the government has an obligation to secure those rights, AND you believe the life in the womb has those rights

                Don't agree with that last part, but more on that latter.

                That's often the rub, yes. But it is exceedingly difficult for you to make a reasonable case why anyone should agree with you that they don't deserve rights. My case that they do is far easier to make, though -- like yours -- is not provable.

                But at least you are not, like many do, asserting that there is not a unique, distinct, human life in the womb. This is undeniably proven by science.

                My primary problem is that the entire social conservative movement is all about removing my liberties.

                Not all about that, no. That said, yes, significant parts of it are about removing liberty, almost as much as the lef

                • by Com2Kid (142006)

                  This is why the left scares us conservatives so much: because even when they are not grabbing immediate government control, they really are still laying the groundwork for total government control.

                  And now you are grouping all of the "left" together into one cohesive whole. As if those of us fighting for freedom of speech by day are trying to outlaw it by night.

                  A "liberal" ideology is about ensuring every one's liberties are protected. Just saying "Minimal government intervention, have fun!" does not ensure

                  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                    And now you are grouping all of the "left" together into one cohesive whole.

                    False. I am generalizing, not grouping. That said:

                    As if those of us fighting for freedom of speech by day are trying to outlaw it by night.

                    Yes, though you may not understand you're doing it. That is precisely what the left (generalizing, again) is doing by being outraged at the Citizens United ruling, which did one, simple, thing: it said the government is restricting the speech of citizens by enacting speech-based restrictions on how those citizens spend their money ... and that this is obviously unconstitutional.

                    You can say all day and night how much you love free speech, but when you defe

                    • by Com2Kid (142006)

                      Yes, though you may not understand you're doing it. That is precisely what the left (generalizing, again) is doing by being outraged at the Citizens United ruling, which did one, simple, thing: it said the government is restricting the speech of citizens by enacting speech-based restrictions on how those citizens spend their money ... and that this is obviously unconstitutional.

                      I think the outrage here was due to the media doing a piss poor job on reporting the case more than anything else. Then again, 99%

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      "Everyone is part of a some special interest group. What is an evil special interest group to one person, is someone's livelihood."

                      Exactly right. Unions, The Sierra Club, The Reason Foundation, and Chevron are all special interests, and in terms of the First Amendment, none is greater than any other. They are an embodiment of our "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," whether you like them or not.

                      Issues come up though that multinational corporations do not necessarily have the best interest of America at heart, and as such may support candidates that will enact policies which are good for them but bad for America as a whole. That situation is more problematic and is one where there might be reason to limit corporate free speech.

                      Nonsense. The Sierra Club pushes policies all the time that, in my opinion, are bad for America as a whole. Yet I fully defend their right to push their views, no more o

                    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                      Bottled water places no significant burden on the people who don't buy it.

                      Again you lie. Tell that to the people who live downstream or downwind, or drink or irrigate from a shared aquifer. It's the regulations that make it tolerable.

                • FYI: It doesn't matter when life "begins". The mother's rights as an adult*, living, breathing human being take full precedence over all else. The fetus, alive or not, is part of the mother until it is born. The government has no right to interfere with the mother's and her family's choice. It is a private matter. Very simple indeed. However, I shall let you all fight over how and which any elective procedures are funded.

                  *if she is a minor, then the family decides, never the government, unless she is a ward

                  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                    FYI: It doesn't matter when life "begins". The mother's rights as an adult*, living, breathing human being take full precedence over all else.

                    False.

                    The fetus, alive or not, is part of the mother until it is born.

                    Why do you hate science? Simply put, that is factually incorrect. The child is a distinct, living, unique, biological organism of genus "homo" and species "sapiens." It is a human life, and not a "part" of someone else, like an arm, leg, or liver.

                    You are ignoring science to justify your own depravity.

                    You are making the slaveowner argument, except instead of saying the slave is the property of the slaveowner, you're saying the child is part of the mother. But we've already established since aboliti

                    • Pudge, you couldn't be more full of shit. Well, maybe you could, but I don't know where you'd put it. You might need to put another addition onto the house..

                      The government doesn't mess with the internal affairs of another country. It has even less right to meddle with the private affairs of a mother and her family. Regardless of your religious pontifications, not much else can be said that matters at all. Here you are merely attempting to impose your values on other people. That's it, nothing else. It's you

            • The good thing is that Com2Kid appears to be as smart as you wish you were. You didn't understand a single thing he wrote, and it's painfully obvious to everyone but you and your hive-minded friends.

          • OMFG I think I just jizzed myself.

    • by FroMan (111520)

      Clinton had many Left tendencies, but he also had some practicality to his term. After '94 midterms he compromised with the Republicans.

      Obama certainly is Left and will likely continue to push his agenda rather than compromise with the Republicans. And he will likely get support from the majority of the media (which was the real point I was making in this journal) if (hopefully when) the Republican House start using similar tactics that Newt used.

      I hope the House doesn't waver when the new reports that th

      • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        Clinton had many Left tendencies, but he also had some practicality to his term. After '94 midterms he compromised with the Republicans.

        I'd say he was on the left, firmly, but was willing to compromise on almost anything.

        Obama certainly is Left and will likely continue to push his agenda rather than compromise with the Republicans.

        We'll see.

        I hope the House doesn't waver when the new reports that the Republicans are trying to shut down the government start coming in. That is exactly what I am hoping for and will help the country most. The new blood probably already knows why they were elected. The old guard establishment of the Republican party however likely will bow to media pressure. We already saw that happen during the gang of 14 with Bush appointments.

        I agree with all of that EXCEPT for your criticism of the Gang of 14. I think McCain and Graham etc. did exactly the right thing. I think the case for the legitimacy of the "nuclear option" is very weak, and that not only would the use of it caused damage to the Senate itself, but it also would have caused significant harm to the public perception of the Republicans, who pride themselves on following the rules,

        • by Bill Dog (726542)

          And I well-understand the argument that the Constitution requires an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees, but I also understand that's complete bullshit: the Constitution is clear that the Senate gets to decide how to go about its own business

          Where's the bullshit? The Senate can make any rule it wants, as long as it's Constitutional. Avoidance of a Constitutional requirement is not Constitutional. McCain and Lindsey are enemies of the Constitution (i.e. Progressives) for validating, with their choice of re

          • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

            Where's the bullshit? The Senate can make any rule it wants, as long as it's Constitutional.

            That's not the issue. The issue is whether the rule that judicial nominees can be filibustered is unconstitutional. My argument is that the rule is not unconstitutional. Frist's and the GOP's was that it is unconstitutional. That was their only basis for the "nuclear option": that the rule was unconstitutional (as applied to judicial nominees) and therefore out of order.

            Avoidance of a Constitutional requirement is not Constitutional.

            Quote for me from the Constitution to prove your case. Go ahead. I defy you.

            There's nothing in the Constitution that requires a mere

            • by Bill Dog (726542)

              >> Avoidance of a Constitutional requirement is not Constitutional.
              > Quote for me from the Constitution to prove your case.

              It's definitionally so, so it's self-proving. But you can be totally bonkers on this if you want, I suppose.

              Yours is like saying show me where in the Ten Commandments it says you must uphold the commandments. If a document says you must do something, then if you don't, it's by definition in violation of that document.

              > There's nothing in the Constitution that requires a mere

              • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                If a document says you must do something, then if you don't, it's by definition in violation of that document.

                Right. So quote for me where the Constitution says they must do something, that is violated by the filibuster. It's not there.

                There's nothing in the Constitution that requires a mere majority to do move a nominee.

                Not only is it according to the letter of the Constitution that they're required to give an up or down vote on judicial nominees

                If the letter of the Constitution mentioned, or even implied, such a requirement, you'd quote it. It's not there.

                Voting is Constitutionally required in this case.

                Quote the Constitution saying so. I defy you to do it. It's not there.

                I know this is an article of faith among many on the right, but it's not based in facts of any sort.

                If you think I am being "totally bonkers," all you have to do prove it is to quote the Constitutio

                • by Bill Dog (726542)

                  If you think I am being "totally bonkers," all you have to do prove it is to quote the Constitution saying that a vote on judicial nominees is required. Very simple.

                  I think you're trying to weasel out of the truth on some technicality, but to hopefully give you what you're asking for [wikipedia.org]:

                  Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:

                  [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concu

                  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                    I think you're trying to weasel out of the truth on some technicality

                    And I think you either can't read, or that you're being intentionally obtuse. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say, or imply, a damned thing about the Senate being required to vote.

                    So, Constitutionally, it's the President's job to nominate judges, and it's the Senate's job to give advice on such nominations and to decide whether to consent to them or not.

                    Their job, yes. But are they required to take action? Absolutely and obviously not. As chair of the local GOP, any press release from our committee must go through me. But if I send out no press releases, I am not violating any rules.

                    Read the Constitution again: it does not say "the Senate must say whether or not they con

        • by FroMan (111520)

          I agree with you on the nuclear option. On the gang of fourteen issue, I would have liked to see the filibuster actually forced. Instead of a threat, I want to see a real filibuster happen. I want to see sleeping bags and hear the phone book read. Instead, because of concern of what it would look like in the media, the gang of fourteen effectively ceded ground.

      • by Bill Dog (726542)

        Well let's estimate what would happen for either case then.

        Your second paragraph is a safe set of givens. BHO is an idealogue who doesn't care about his job approval ratings with the public, and doesn't really care about getting re-elected. His purpose was to fool people into believing he was someone totally different than what he really was, to get elected for, necessarily, only a single term, to try to install as many socialist big agenda items as he could. He doesn't care about the economy, jobs, the war

        • by Bill Dog (726542)

          (I should slightly qualify my characterization of BHO. He does very infrequently take time out from his normal single-minded focus mindset, such as to save (only) union jobs, or go on lavish trips with his family so they can see the world on the taxpayers' dimes. But then he goes back to devoting all his attention on installing one big socialist item at a time, caring little about anything else, including even the environment (like the oil spill in the Gulf).)

    • But if they fail to act conservatively now, they won't get that chance. And if they do win in 2012, and THEN blow it, they won't get another chance, and people like me will look to start a new conservative party.

      Spoken like a true addict.

      PROGNOSTICATION: Not only will the Repubs not come anywhere close to even trying any kind of fiscal restraint, you and all the other so-called dissident conservatives will still be chugging their cock in 2013.

      Going to be making lots of moneeeeeeeeee....
      • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        Spoken like a true addict.

        Not at all. As usual, you just make things up.

        I used to be a registered Libertarian. In 1996 I voted for Harry Browne. I am a Republican for two basic reasons: first, I disagreed with the Libertarians on some important issues (like abortion); and second, Libertarians get nothing done, and Republicans can, and do, and have. So around the turn of the last decade, I switched to GOP and got involved in my Republican Town Committee in Massachusetts, where we worked to get Mitt Romney elected.

        But while the GO

      • Spoken like a true addict.

        God really. "Just one more roll of quarters. I know I can get my money back. Then we can go over to the Silver Slipper for a nice buffet"

      • by FroMan (111520)

        I've been registered Republican since I started voting. Nor am I likely to change that unless another conservative party comes forward. Strategically it allows me to vote in the Republican primaries and help support the more conservative candidate.

        However, in the last election cycle I voted for 1 Republican. The rest were Libertarian and US Tax Payers (Michigan Constitution Party) since they represent my views more closely.

    • OK, I lied...

      Well, of course! You're pudge.. Like in that story about the frog and the scorpion, it's what you do.

      Hey! I thought you were "retiring" from Slashdot. Well, I, for one, am glad you stayed. Just wouldn't be the same without ya...

      • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        OK, I lied...

        Well, of course! You're pudge.. Like in that story about the frog and the scorpion, it's what you do.

        One example?

        Oh right, you have none.

        But ACTUAL lying is what YOU do.

        Hey! I thought you were "retiring" from Slashdot.

        Yes, because you are foolish.

        • One example?

          More than one [slashdot.org], many more [slashdot.org]...

          Next question.

          But ACTUAL lying is what YOU do.

          See? There's another example right there... It's just too easy with you.

          As for your "retirement", I'll have to check later to see if I locally saved your journal on the subject, because I noticed you deleted it. Did you delete it from from your blog, too?

          • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

            One example?

            More than one [slashdot.org], many more [slashdot.org]...

            You appear to be confused. I asked for examples of me LYING, not examples of me TYPING. You're not very good at this, are you?

            As for your "retirement", I'll have to check later to see if I locally saved your journal on the subject, because I noticed you deleted it.

            You are -- as usual, as expected -- lying. I deleted no such thing. No such thing ever existed.

            • I asked for examples of me LYING, not examples of me TYPING.

              Ah, very good. I shall reword it then. You TYPE LIES on Slashdot, and most probably elsewhere. When you type lies, it is safe to conclude that you are lying... As in the (yet another) example below.

              You are -- as usual, as expected -- lying.

              Oh no no no, I was merely TYPING... But unlike you, I type the truth.

              I deleted no such thing. No such thing ever existed.

              :-) (Most excellent) Consider yourself very lucky I didn't save the journal itself.. All I

              • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                You TYPE LIES on Slashdot

                And yet, you failed to provide a single example. Shrug.

                In that journal you mentioned leaving Slashdot on the 30th of September.

                I did leave Slashdot, yes (although it was September 10th). I am no longer employed by Geeknet to work on Slashdot, and am now gainfully employed at Marchex [marchex.com]. However, you wrote: 'Hey! I thought you were "retiring" from Slashdot. Well, I, for one, am glad you stayed."' That necessarily implies I wrote I would no longer be posting on Slashdot, which I did not do.

                Feel free to admit your error at any time.

                All you have left are lies.

                Such as?

                • Your ability to misinterpret the written word is incredible. So this is how you convince yourself you're not lying (oops, I mean typing lies), and your opponent is.... You see words that aren't there, and completely ignore the ones that are*, and from there you put your million monkeys on the keyboard... You truly do live a fantasy... Thus you never have to admit you're wrong, or expressing misrepresentations (lies). Now, if you are, as I suspect, an irrational person, then, of course you can be forgiven, a

                  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                    Your ability to misinterpret the written word is incredible.

                    There can be no doubt that you expressed the false notion that I said I would no longer be posting on Slashdot. You can't even provide a single example of a lie I've ever said, yet you keep repeating that I've lied.

                    1) I said you deleted the relevant journal

                    Yes, you said that. But no, I did not.

                    2) You said no such thing existed

                    I did say that, and it is true.

                    3) I proved that it did

                    You're a liar. In fact, I proved that your evidence that such a thing DID exist was false.

                    4) Conclusion, you misstated.

                    You're a liar. In fact, I proved that you are the one who "misstated."

                    Your "logic" goes something like this: I said President Obama sa

                    • ...you provide evidence I said something else...

                      Very little ambiguity in the word "leaving". My somewhat more facetious term "retiring" is close enough for everyone but you, and your powers of inference certainly are defective, as you well illustrated. Keep on trying to wriggle loose from that crucifix I put you on so firmly. You are now a proven liar. If anybody has any doubt, this will serve as future, undeniable reference. It was like hearing Colonel Jessup's reply to whether he ordered the code red. "Yo

            • OH! OH! OH! Pudge, you are beautiful [pudge.net]!!! This time I saved it, in case you try to pull any funny business... Anyway this was in that journal you deleted. I could kiss you! You don't have any cold sores, or anything, do you? Don't tell me. I wouldn't believe you anyway ;)

C for yourself.

Working...