Buh-bye, Bolton.

Kerad

New Member
Toxick said:
The Democrats have the majority. It is their ball-game, and this is their behavior. Except for filabustering, Republican action in Congress has become tantamount to simple speechmaking and/or jerking off.

Maybe they've just given up. Maybe their opposition stems from a "scratch your back now-scratch my back later" mindset. Who knows. It's a moot point.

Now, having said that, I feel the need to expound more on my 'partisan pettiness' answer...


This whole Bolton thing is oozing with the creepy feeling of "We're doing this because we can". In other words this feels like a vulgar display of power. You've said yourself more than once that Bolton was doing fine. So the only reason I can think why they would do this is because they're trying to flex their political might for the sake of flexing.

And that's pretty rotten if you ask me.

This may help explain the situation now...since the election. But remember...Bolton didn't get an endorsement from the Foreign Relations committee last year, either. Again...this is with the Republican majority, and the committee chairmanship.

Unless I'm mistaken on something....I'm not looking it up all over again.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Oh...

Kerad said:
: What makes this particular one more newsworthy? The visibility of the post, and the visibility of the opposition, I'm guessing.


...I get it! You brought it up for no particular reason.
 

Kerad

New Member
ylexot said:
Actually, the only opposition that I've seen was the last time around. The current opposition is...where? Why? Who's opposing him now? I could actually understand previous opposition. I don't understand why there is opposition now. He's been in the job, look at his performance. Tell us why he should not even be considered for the job...not even worthy of debate in the Senate.

The comittee Chairman (Richard Lugar) never scheduled it for committee consideration. Maybe after Chaffee came out after the election saying he wasn't going to change his position...it was figured it would be a waste of time. Certainly there hasn't been a chorus of Republican support for Bolton, either...outside of the White House. A battle not worth fighting, perhaps?
 

Kerad

New Member
Larry Gude said:
...I get it! You brought it up for no particular reason.

I brought it up because it was news this morning, and I have been involved in previous conversations about Bolton.

If I would have been gloating I would have added a bunch of :yahoo:, :cheers:, :party:, and :getdown: 's in the post.

Again...I think this is a sign that Bush is starting to understand the reality of certain things. I'm giving him the (very shaky) benefit of the doubt.
 

Severa

Common sense ain't common
Ok then Kerad,

Got two questions for you...

First off:
Kerad said:
Again...I think this is a sign that Bush is starting to understand the reality of certain things.
What do you mean by 'certain things'?

And...

Why would you choose Bill Clinton for this job?
 
Last edited:

ylexot

Super Genius
Severa said:
Ok then Kerad,

What makes you think Bill Clinton would be better at the job than Bolton?

I'm curious...
Well, he did create peace between Israel and Palestine! :killingme
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Nope...

Kerad said:
A battle not worth fighting, perhaps?


...there is a much larger dynamic at work here. Bush has LOST rank and file support. Right now, for the near term, there are NO battles worth fighting because he has no support.


Schiavo, the port fiasco, nothing done on ss, Myers, the wasy he's treated the House, Afghanistan and Iraq. It's just caught up with him and now it's just arrogance.

It's confidence only when you can back it up.
 
He is being opposed by Sen. Chaffee. who is pushing for George Mitchell.

Chaffee has been the hold-up on Bolton since the start, The RINO Republican just couldnt see his way clear to do one thin right before leaving office.

George Mitchell would be the last man on earth I would nominate just because Chaffee wants him.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Larry Gude said:
...there is a much larger dynamic at work here. Bush has LOST rank and file support. Right now, for the near term, there are NO battles worth fighting because he has no support.


Schiavo, the port fiasco, nothing done on ss, Myers, the wasy he's treated the House, Afghanistan and Iraq. It's just caught up with him and now it's just arrogance.

It's confidence only when you can back it up.
You forgot illegal immigration.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Kerad said:
:rolleyes:

Please.


If fact...please tell me, with a straight face, that the Republicans didn't block/attempt to block any of President Clinton's nominations.
:really: <---Straight face There was one failed attempt to block a Clinton nominee (Richard Paez). Frist’s attempt the block this failed because the rest of the GOP controlled Congress said “no he will have an up or down vote” and he was approved. There was a rule that if a single Senator dissented from a nomination the nomination was considered dead. That rule has since been repealed. The dems hold the record for filibusters. And here are the Judicial nominations (during the Bush admin): Henry Saad, Richard Griffin, David McKeaque, Charles Pickering, Bill Pryor, Pricilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, William Myers, Caroline Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown. They also filibustered the Warrantless Surveillance Act and the Death Tax Compromise Bill.

The democrat filibuster rampage is unprecedented and stand without merit when traditionally justices deserve an up or down vote not a stonewall process that is reserved for bills.
 

Kerad

New Member
PsyOps said:
:really: <---Straight face There was one failed attempt to block a Clinton nominee (Richard Paez). Frist’s attempt the block this failed because the rest of the GOP controlled Congress said “no he will have an up or down vote” and he was approved. There was a rule that if a single Senator dissented from a nomination the nomination was considered dead. That rule has since been repealed. The dems hold the record for filibusters. And here are the Judicial nominations (during the Bush admin): Henry Saad, Richard Griffin, David McKeaque, Charles Pickering, Bill Pryor, Pricilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, William Myers, Caroline Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown. They also filibustered the Warrantless Surveillance Act and the Death Tax Compromise Bill.

The democrat filibuster rampage is unprecedented and stand without merit when traditionally justices deserve an up or down vote not a stonewall process that is reserved for bills.

Riiight.

"Rather than openly challenge President Clinton's nominees on the floor, Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton's appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up. Three appeals-court nominees who did manage to obtain a hearing in Clinton's second term were denied a committee vote, including Allen R. Snyder, a distinguished Washington lawyer, Clinton White House aide, and former Rehnquist law clerk, who drew lavish praise at his hearing -- but never got a committee vote. Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote.

Even votes that did occur were often delayed for months and even years. In late 1999, New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. When Majority Leader Trent Lott could no longer preserve the hold, Smith and 13 other Republicans tried to mount a filibuster against the vote, but cloture was voted and Paez easily confirmed. It had been over four years since his nomination."
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Kerad… did you not even read what I wrote? I did write “There was a rule that if a single Senator dissented from a nomination the nomination was considered dead. That rule has since been repealed.” This rule was repealed by none other than the GOP controlling Congress. This rule was specifically designed for this purpose and it was within any Senator’s right to invoke it. These nominations were held up under this rule. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily. And try to keep in mind the GOP was the majority party under these circumstances. This, by RULE OF LAW THROUGH THEIR ELECTED AUTHORITY AS THE MAJORITY PARTY gives them the right to deny Clinton’s nominations. This was not the case with Bush’s nominations. The GOP was still the ruling party and was shut down by the minority through unethical filibusters. This is not how the process is supposed to work and you know it. Or do you?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Oh, and let me just add that when the dems take control they will be able to outright deny every Bush appointee. Let's see if we see any filibuster from the minority GOP. Because the dems are the majority they have this Constitutional right BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GAVE IT TO THEM. And I doubt you will have a problem with that.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
And...

ylexot said:
You forgot illegal immigration.


...illegal immigration.

And the thing that makes it the worst is that the Democratics aren't gonna do a damn thing about it either.

The problem is that, at the end of the day, GOP'ers get pizzed and feel used and won't vote to support representation this far from what we want while Democrats will vote for dead people before they hold the party responsible and will make excuses for Bubba until the next millennium.
 

Kerad

New Member
Larry Gude said:
...illegal immigration.

And the thing that makes it the worst is that the Democratics aren't gonna do a damn thing about it either.

The problem is that, at the end of the day, GOP'ers get pizzed and feel used and won't vote to support representation this far from what we want while Democrats will vote for dead people before they hold the party responsible and will make excuses for Bubba until the next millennium.

There is no reason for "us" to make excuses for Bill. I am very fine with his presidency...no matter how that flips you.

I expect many things from the Democratic majority. Keeping in mind Dip#### is still President. It's not like what you've had the past six years...full control of EVERYTHING...yet got next to nothing done. Well...besides letting bad situations get much...much worse.

Hopefully...for the U.S.A., we'll see something which resembles bi-partisanship.

You are invited to hold your breath first...on that.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Doesn't flip me at all...

Kerad said:
There is no reason for "us" to make excuses for Bill. I am very fine with his presidency...no matter how that flips you.

I expect many things from the Democratic majority. Keeping in mind Dip#### is still President. It's not like what you've had the past six years...full control of EVERYTHING...yet got next to nothing done. Well...besides letting bad situations get much...much worse.

Hopefully...for the U.S.A., we'll see something which resembles bi-partisanship.

You are invited to hold your breath first...on that.

That's the big thing about Bush; He is not the brightest bulb on the tree BUT has managed a pretty good economy without everyone lying about their books and did a noble, dangerous thing in Iraq, no matter the outcome and got us, all of us, two solid Supremes.

Bill is this noted 'genius' and all he did was chase skirt for 8 years. This towering intellect did NOTHING of note and much of endless, petty scandal.

As far as bi-partisanship, if that's your default definition of good government, we'll agree to disagree. Yes, sometimes good comes from it, but, compromise is not, in and of itself, inherently good or bad. 1/2 a fence or 1/2 a dam or 1/2 a roof may be a compromise, but they are still useless.
 
Top