pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts

Senator Patrick Leahy was on Fox News Sunday yesterday, and he sounded worse worse than anyone on a Sunday show I've seen since Howard Dean on Meet The Press the summer before the primaries.

He evaded all the questions, and Wallace cut him very little slack. It was a massacre. What's scary -- for the Democrats -- is that Nancy Pelosi was on This Week and she got smacked around similarly by George Stephanopolous. While fair in his role on ABC, he certainly leans pretty far left, and if he is not buying what she's selling, how does she expect anyone else will?

Here's a basic translation of Leahy's ordeal.

Q: How would you fix Social Security?
A: Bush won't talk to us.
Q: But what would you do?
A: Bush won't talk to us.
Q: Sorry, but you're lying. He has said the exact opposite. He said everything is up for negotiation, except for raising taxes. It's the Democrats who said they won't bargain on privatization.
A: Nuh-uh!
Q: Actually, yes.
A: Um, well, Bush told me something different last night. You weren't there.
Q: Uh, riiiiiight. So what was your plan again? I mean, you're in Congress, he's not. This is your job.
A: Please stop. I got nothing.
Q: Moving right along ... you said 8 years ago you would fight against any judicial filibuster. Now you are participating in one. Why the switch?
A: That was a different kind of filibuster. You're completely misrepresenting what I said! Besides, Frist filibustered too! I guess he only favors filibusters if there's a Democratic President.
Q: Like you favor them only for Republican Presidents? And Frist would also do away with the kind of "filibuster" you say you were objecting to, which is not actually a filibuster, and you said you objected to all judicial filibusters anyway. You said you wanted an up-or-down vote, which is what Frist's plan would do. What's the problem?
A: I didn't really mean any filibuster. You should know that because I am telling you now, 8 years after the fact, in a convoluted explanation that is patently ridiculous. You see, what I objected to was one person holding up a nomination in committee, even if they didn't have enough votes to be confirmed. What I am in favor of is many people holding up a nomination on the floor, even if they do have enough votes to be confirmed. You see the difference? And I used the term "filibuster" to refer to the former and not the latter, even though to most people it refers to the latter and not the former, just to confuse you. It worked, hahahaha! And besides, we have approved 208 out of 218 of Bush's nominees, that's pretty good!
Q: But it comes out to only 2/3 of his appellate nominees. That's pretty bad.
A: Well ... if it were just up to me and Specter, this wouldn't be a problem.
Q: How would you fix it?
A: Frist won't talk to us.
Q: Come on.
A: Again, I got nothing.
Q: You already used that up with Bush. Try again.
A: Sigh, OK. Well, you see, if the majority can just change the rules, then why not have only 5 Senators needed to approve judges? Or why not require 85? If we allow them to do whatever they want, they could make all gay people spontaneously combust tomorrow, and maybe that's what you want, but it is not what the American people want!
Q: Huh. When you said you got nothing, you weren't kidding.
A: I tried to warn you.

Obviously he hasn't read his history book...

[Dark Coder]

The art of compromise is essential to any politician's lifeblood.

The use of P.R. to underscore the opposition's refusal to budge will only go to backfire on the person complaining the most. History repeats.

Instead, other many simpleton politcal tactics are far more effective in the neutralization of such bone-headed 1st grade political moves, such as Senator Patrick Leahy's.

I hope the his constituency takes note there.

I thought

[nocomment]

...you were exaggerating, until I clicked on the link and read it myself. You should go re-read it, but this time replace the sound of their voices with Monty Python characters. It's much better that way.

Re:I thought

[pudge]

I tried to be fair. I added in a few things Leahy didn't say, like "I got nothing." Those were more my intepretations of what he looked like he was thinking. And I added some arguments Leahy didn't use, like the part about the Democrats actually being the ones refusing to negotiate, since I thought it was important to note and it worked better to add it as coming from Wallace than to add it as a parenthetical or footnote from me. Aside from those minor changes, I think it is frighteningly faithful. :-)

Re:I thought

[nocomment]

Did you try the Monty Python thing yet? ;)

Re:I thought

[cascadefx]

BS, Pudge, and you know it!

He stated exactly that Bush said that he won't accept any plan that doesn't include private accounts! It doesn't matter what Democrats have at that point, if they don't believe in private accounts (they don't), then whatever solution they put forward will be vetoed.

Why show their hand at this point? With enough Republicans unhappy about private accounts and a number unhappy with progressive indexing, even a Republican majority in Congress might not be enough to get this thing

Re:I thought

[pudge]

He stated exactly that Bush said that he won't accept any plan that doesn't include private accounts!

Yes. The problem is, he was lying. Bush never said that.

Why show their hand at this point?

They for months attacked Bush for not putting forth a specific plan, and it is *not his job*. Yet it IS *their* job.

is anyone surprised?

[RailGunner]

For the last 40 years, the liberal solution to any problem has been to throw money at it.

If the Congressional Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security, it involves raising taxes - throwing more money at it - which Bush, to his credit, has spiked, cutting the Dems off at the knees.

Re:is anyone surprised?

[pudge]

It goes a lot deeper than that. The Dems are in force against means testing, even though they were FOR means testing 20 years ago. And the reason is simple: because if everyone is significantly personally invested in Social Security, then it makes the federal government, through its control over S.S., more powerful.

For example, it is easier for a rich person to say "yes, let's cut S.S. benefits" if they stand to lose little by saying so. So it politically strengthens the future of S.S. by keeping everyo

Thanks.

[kikta]

I just shot water out my nose & onto my keyboard. Thank God it wasn't coffee. :-D

I wonder how much it is to replace a keyboard with a smart card reader built into it...