pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts

Howard Dean was on Meet the Press. He was, as usual and as expected, a train wreck.

Here's one great example: he actually says that the GOP is trying to get rid of the filibuster for all cases, not just judicial nominees, and when Russert calls him on it, he says, "well, I have no reason to think they WON'T do that!"

I was going to go through and explain all the things he said which were lies and dissembling, but it would take too long. And then I thought, I'll just mention the things he said that were true, but that would be hard, since most of it was lies.

I think I'll just invite all you to defend the few things he said which were true, if you wish. Whether it was how the Senate works, or what Bolton did, or what DeLay has done and any legal actions against him, it was almost all lies. Terrible stuff.

On This Week, Joe Liberman was on. Kudos to George Stephanopolous for getting Joe to defend the filibuster ("the 60-vote requirement ... is the last best institutional rule that pressures the Senate to be bipartisan and more moderate") and then showing tape of Joe from 1994, introducing a bill to abolish the filibuster ("the Senate has added to that [list of supermajority exceptions] this filibuster, and it's wrong, and it oughtta be changed"). Joe's response? "Times have changed, and the most critical problem facing the Senate now is not what I worried about then."

Times have changed, so this justifies not only not wanting to abolish what you think is wrong, but actually to engage in what you think is wrong?

And then the whopper: "is it asking too much that the President's nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal courts at least get the support of 60 of 100 Senators?"

According to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the history of the United States Senate which has never once before required this until George W. Bush became President: yes, that is asking too much, clearly.

Well, so long as Dean and Lieberman don't think they're fooling anyone ... the sad thing is that they probably do. And the sadder thing is that they probably are.

Showing a reversal

[cascadefx]

So Lieberman reversed. Big whup, Republicans have been shown flip-flopping on this issue as well. Repubs saying that the filibuster is wrong now also started filibusters in the past....

and on and on...

I'm still against removing the filibuster. Honestly even when Democrats were blocked with similar tactics it was wrong of the Dems to suggest removing the tool. It keeps far lefties and far righties out of the courts. I have no problem with moderates getting in.

Besides. If Bush really wanted these spe

Re:Showing a reversal

[pudge]

Repubs saying that the filibuster is wrong now also started filibusters in the past....

Yes, as I have several times mentioned. But the Democrat position is far more hypocritical, in two notable ways:

• Not all of the Republicans filibustered before: most Republicans opposed its use and voted for cloture [senate.gov]; every Democrat is filibustering now
• The Republicans are not now trying to abolish all filibusters (despite Howard Dean's absolute lie to the contrary), while many of the Democrats were so trying in '95

Unconstitutional?

[jamie]

And then the whopper: "is it asking too much that the President's nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal courts at least get the support of 60 of 100 Senators?"

According to the Constitution of the United States of America... yes, that is asking too much, clearly.

It sounds like you're claiming Senate Rule 22 [senate.gov] violates the Constitution.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[pudge]

It sounds like you're claiming Senate Rule 22 violates the Constitution.

As it does not say that, no, I am not.