Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Left vs. Right 23

Journal by pudge

One thing I hate is hypocrisy.

Like when the Democrats violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the filibuster rules to block judicial nominees, but then scream when Bush violates the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of recess appointments in response. Same thing happening again, where they continue to threaten to violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the filibuster rules, and attack the Republicans for threatening to violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the rules in response (the widely misunderstood "nuclear option").

Another example of hypocrisy is the latest cries from Democrats about some ad campaign that says the fight over judicial nominees is an attack by Democrats on "people of faith." Senator Chuck Schumer said yesterday it was "over the line" and "deeply un-American," inferring that the organizers are saying that Democrats are not people of faith.

Now, I think this interpretation is over the line, as what was actually said is that the filbuster is being used against people of faith, which seems to me to be accurate, and at least arguable. But even if true, how is this private citizen saying that any worse than the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, saying that Republicans are evil? Isn't what Dean said far worse, not only in what he said, but in that he is the party leader and this other guy isn't a party official at all? And there is no reasonable room for creative interpretation in what Dean said, either.

Another recent Dean example came up recently. We all have heard about the mid-level GOP staffer who was fired because he wrote a memo that said the GOP could use the Terri Schiavo situation to their political advantage. Now Howard Dean says basically the same thing, that the Democrats will use Terri Schiavo to their political advantage, and where's the outrage? The calls for his resignation?

And then there's DeLay. What is there to say? Because the House can investigate anyone based on a party line vote in the ethics committee, the Democrats investigate DeLay. When DeLay is found to be innocent of any ethics rules violations, they say he was "admonished," which has no actual meaning. And when the Republicans try to prevent this purely politically motivated attack from happening again by requiring at least one member of the opposing party to concur in order to investigate -- thereby preventing the Democrats from using these dirty tricks in the future -- they attack that as unreasonable and un-American and all the rest.

Not that I expect either party to be as critical of their own as of the other -- the Republicans have done the same or similar in the past to most of this -- nor do I expect the press to care as much about hypocrisy of Democrats versus potential wrongdoing of Republicans. But I like to note it for those on the left who think their side is pristine. Lately, they've been quite a lot worse than the Republicans in these matters.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Left vs. Right More

Left vs. Right

Comments Filter:
  • The Democrats are going to regret putting Howard Dean in that job. The guy 1) just _loves_ to toss out wildly inflammatory comments and 2) unlike most DNC/RNC heads, has tremendous name recognition, so it matters what he says. (I can't even remember who the RNC head is now -- Racicot is gone, right?) He's a disaster waiting to happen.
    • Marc Racicot was the RNC chair until recently. Now it is Bush's 2004 campaign manager, Ken Mehlman.
    • When your party holds the Presidency, the President is the head of your party, so the chair of the pary takes a back seat.
    • ... has tremendous name recognition ... He's a disaster waiting to happen.

      Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr rr rrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

      More than name recognition, I'd say. (Sorry, someone had to.)

      I hear Dean speak at the University of Oregon supporting Kerry. The guy is a thorough nutjob. A perfect figurehead for the Democrats.

  • I saw Bill Clinton on the Today Show the other morning. He said that the Democrats of this Congress are passing more judicial nominees than he put up when he was president. What really irked me about that statement is that the Republicans were the majority party during most of the Clinton administration. It's different when the minority party is using a filibuster to hold up judicial nominees and when the majority party is using its power to do so. It's deceitful to try to blur the distinction.

  • what I cannot stand is that we are not compromising with them. I hate to say this, but we brought a list forward from the executive branch, and I think something like 93% of the Federal judge nominations were cleared, except a few. So this is normal, nothing special, but the weird thing is sending the list back down in what is seemingly counter productive to the normal political chest beating on the hill. To get specific about the issue of an attack on religion, well that is wishy-washy foo. The judge in qu
    • So this is normal

      Rejecting them with a filibuster is not normal. Rejecting them because of their viewpoints -- which are shared by a large number of Americans -- is not normal (was not normal until Bork, anyway).

      The judge in question is a devoted catholic, and therefor not capable of deciding the issues of abortion without fundamental bias, or so the democratic argument goes.

      It's an entirely ridiculous argument. First and foremost because William Pryor specifically has proven he is capable of uphold
      • Well a filibuster is the only alternative when the other side will not compromise, and from were I stand I can see we are not, or rather the folks on the hill. Resubmitting the same list just proves this. Many times the filibuster can backfire, and I hope it does, yet at the same time I think resubmitting the same list is redundant, and downright unsportsmanlike. I've heard rhetoric about the Democrats being on a crusade against religion, it might have possibly been my girlfriend's Bill Oreilly radio show s
        • Well a filibuster is the only alternative when the other side will not compromise

          This doesn't make any sense to me. You act like minorities have a right to not lose fights in Congress. There's no filibuster at all in the House; does this mean the House is deficient in some way?

          Resubmitting the same list just proves this.

          Not in any rational sense, no, it does not. The Democrats unreasonably violated the spirit of the filibuster to unfairly Bork perfectly good candidates whom they simply disliked for
          • This doesn't make any sense to me.
            Well in terms of them being backed into a corner, sure it does. that is when the filibuster makes sense, otherwise it is an abuse. In this situation what test can we give to confirm it is an abuse?

            If it is an abuse, why should we change the rules to go nuclear?

            The Democrats unreasonably violated the spirit of the filibuster to unfairly Bork perfectly good candidates whom they simply disliked for their views.

            Here is one republican who is secular, and I happen to not ha
            • Well in terms of them being backed into a corner, sure it does. that is when the filibuster makes sense, otherwise it is an abuse. In this situation what test can we give to confirm it is an abuse?

              Are they "backed into a corner", or just in danger of not getting their own way? If there were some threat hanging over them, it would be the former - but I don't think that's the case here. They are just being stubborn, demanding that all judges must toe the Democrat party line.

              If it is an abuse, why should w

    • To me the problem (and this gets back to the subject at hand, hypocrisy) is that the Democrats are clearly using abortion as a litmus test for judges. And from what I understand, Bush is not, having nominated people from both sides of the issue (could be wrong on that; need a source).

    • I think something like 93% of the Federal judge nominations were cleared, except a few.

      The district court judges are mostly being approved. Something like half the appeals court judges are being fillibustered. There is no reason even being given for some of the judges being fillibustered.
      • Yeah, and it's the appeals courts that are what matter in determining public policy, which is why they are being targetted for filibuster.
  • If you question a Democrat/liberal you must be a racist/bigot/intolerant, etc. This is the way the world works. Are you new?

    Of course, the Democrats in Washington state just voted to nuke the supermajority requirement imposed by the voters of that state. Nuclear option what? Democracy huh?
  • Lately, they've been quite a lot worse than the Republicans in these matters.

    By lately, do you mean "since the Republicans have gained the majority." While I applaud you for noting that both parties abuse the system, I think you are avoiding the obvious. They abuse the system when the other side has more power in hopes of leveling the playing field. I am not saying that I agree with it, just that I think that's what the mindset is.

    Republicans tried blocking at least on Clinton appointee with the fil

    • By lately, do you mean "since the Republicans have gained the majority."

      Broadly, yes.

      I think you are avoiding the obvious

      No, I just don't think it is integral to my point. I realize these are necessarily tactics minorities will use more than majorities. That's a given, since the majorities rarely need to bend the rules to get what they want. :-)

      That seems a bit hypocrotical in itself

      Of course, that was in response to the treatment of Thomas and Bork ...

      but they are going further in trying to h
      • No... it was just that their nominations were centrist enough to get the votes needed to unblock the candidate. Note to Bush... don't like your hard line conservative judges being blocked... try picking more moderate choices.
        • Not really. Take Paez, for example. They had the 60 votes to end the filibuster, but Paez got less than 60 votes needed for confirmation. That means some Senators opposed the filibuster AND opposed the nominee.

          Of course, some Republicans did support the filibuster obviously, but the point is that it was not a unified party thing, like it is now, so it's no wonder that the other party (the Republicans this time) have a more significant reaction than the last time.

          • The question that you need to ask is why it is a unified party thing.

            If Bush was pushing more moderates, he would have more success. Instead he keeps sending the same people up for positions again and again.

            • The question that you need to ask is why it is a unified party thing.

              The simple answer is the clear one: because in the 90s, some Republicans simply refused to use the filibuster to block a vote on nominees, as a matter of principle.

              A longer answer would be less inflammatory of the Democrats, as far fewer of them seem to share this principle: it's a matter of escalation. Every time since Bork that a party tries to block a nominee, their tactics have become more significant. Thomas was treated worse tha

  • Like when the Democrats violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the filibuster rules to block judicial nominees, but then scream when Bush violates the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of recess appointments in response. Same thing happening again, where they continue to threaten to violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the filibuster rules, and attack the Republicans for threatening to violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the rules in response (the widely misunderstood "nuclear option").

    That doesn't reall

    • I did say it goes both ways, but right now it is a Democrat problem. Many of the Republicans even say they don't like to have to do things like the nuclear option and recess appointments, but it is fighting fire with fire. It's not hypocrisy, because they don't say their actions are perfectly fine and good, like the Democrats say about their filibustering.

Slashdot Top Deals

GREAT MOMENTS IN HISTORY (#7): April 2, 1751 Issac Newton becomes discouraged when he falls up a flight of stairs.

Close