They could have filibustered
By Thoreau
It was 53-40 for Mukasey. 6 Democrats jumped ship. I won’t blame each and every member of the party (and I invite you to re-read that as many times as you deem necessary), but as far as I can tell a filibuster was possible. 40 Democrats voted against Mukasey, and one of the 7 not voting was The Dodd. (Respect The Dodd.) If it had gone to a filibuster, the Dodd could have been brought in to make it 41 votes. (The Dodd abides.) So a filibuster was possible.
The lack of a filibuster suggests that there are some serious institutional/leadership issues here. I haven’t had a chance to review the proposed primary challengers in the thread on that topic, but given the institutional nature of the problem my inclination is to give money to whoever is opposing Pelosi in the primary. For that matter, I don’t get Leahy. Yes, I know, he voted against Mukasey, but I recall that in the 1990’s the Republican committee chairs and majority leader discovered all sorts of arcane procedures and rules to pretty much block anything that they wanted. But under Democrats the leadership is unable to block, well, anything. Yes, I know, there are some good Democrats in there, and the Republicans are even worse. That’s not the issue. The issue is that the leadership is inadequate to maintain opposition. Republican Senators were good at sending nominees into limbos, and using every procedure available to prevent things from even getting to the point where filibuster was an issue.
To me, there are varying degrees of culpability. The worst offenders are of course those Democratic politicians who actually vote for Mukasey, torture, war, warrantless wiretaps, etc. If there weren’t Democrat willing to cross the aisle to support fascism we wouldn’t be in this spot. I want to be very clear on this point, on reserving the worst blame for the ones who actually voted for Mukasey, lest somebody think I’m painting with too broad a brush. On this issue, the Roll of Shame is: Schumer, Feinstein, Bayh, Carper, Landrieu, and Nelson.
The next worst offenders are leaders and committee chairs who might vote on the right side as individuals but decline to use their blocking powers. The Senate, as an institution, is supposed to be a place where a great many things can be blocked in a great many ways. Republicans were good about that sort of thing in the 1990’s. Democratic leaders who decline to exercise those vital opposition powers are derelict in their duty.
But we can’t forget about the Democrats who voted for these these majority leaders, and who have failed to deliver a procedural coup to install new majority leaders. Didn’t Gingrich have a close brush with such an attempt in the 1990’s? Yeah, Gingrich survived, but Gingrich was tough and mean. You mean to tell me that Reid and Pelosi, who kneel before Bush on a daily basis, are juggernauts who bestride their party like collosuses? (collosi? Whatever.)
No, I don’t think the back-benchers deserve the same blame as Reid and Pelosi and Feinstein and Schumer and the rest, but they can’t be ignored. They have to ask themselves some hard questions about their loyalties and the reasons for those loyalties. I won’t blame an individual Senator who votes the right way but is unable to muster his fellow Democrats to resist the leadership, but his inability to rally his fellow Democrats says something about them and their priorities.
EDIT: To be clear, I do indeed respect the Dodd. I won’t question why the Dodd wasn’t there. (I respect the Dodd’s privacy.) I figure that if a filibuster had been feasible the Dodd would have found a way to be there. So I’m not dissing the Dodd. Rather, I’m dissing the Dodd’s colleagues, who presumably sent signals that a filibuster would not be allowed. If the Dodd got those signals, then I don’t blame him for staying away and doing something else.
Comment by dirge —
November 9, 2007 @ 1:09 am
Hate to hit and run, but I think this is worth pointing out: the only way the dems can change senate leadership would be to adopt a new organizing resolution. Also, the only way the senate can change to republican hands would be if a new organizing resolution comes up for debate, and Lieberman crosses the aisle.
So trying to oust the senate leadership would be a pretty risky maneuver. Granted, there’s not much point having it if you’re not going to use it, but still, that’s probably enough to keep the troops in line.
I can actually see the point of view that it wouldn’t make much difference in the long run and at least it’d be clear what was going on if the republicans were de jure as well as de facto in charge, but I tend to back away from “heightening the contradictions” arguments.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
November 9, 2007 @ 1:38 am
With some caveats for the issues Dirge raises about what can actually be done for leadership challenges, I don’t see a thing to disagree with there, Thoreau. That strikes me as a thoughtful and careful assessment.
It is worth some mentions from time to time about the block voting among Republicans, just to remind ourselves that they do ahve human agency and do bear responsibility for this too. But not at the expense of attention to those who claim to want better, just in addition.
Comment by Ray —
November 9, 2007 @ 4:21 am
I have seen it argued (by Matthew Iglesias?) that, bad as Mukasey is, there was simply no possibility of replacing him with someone better. If Mukasey’s nomination had been filibustered, the current stand-in would continue in his role, and the current stand-in is as bad if not worse. If Bush nominated someone else, that someone else would be just as bad on the key issues. So a filibuster would not have actually helped the situation. All that the Dems could do was dissociate themselves from the appointment which, by voting against, they did.
Comment by MFB —
November 9, 2007 @ 6:31 am
Well, these are such jolly reasonable responses that, who can complain, except it be that, hm, didn’t an awful lot of Democrats vote FOR this particular person or else just not show up? Curious, that.
The actual post reminds me of the Ted Rall cartoon about the Republicans discovering a technicality enabling them to force the Congress canteens to serve nothing but shit for every meal, after which the Democrats, feeling their resolve threatened, call for ever-stinkier shit in larger quanties.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 9, 2007 @ 6:34 am
dirge-
That’s a fair point about the Senate and reorganization. Perhaps Senate reorganization is not feasible. But I believe that House reorganization is, given the “coup” that was attempted against Gingrich in the 1990’s.
If this were the only capitulation to Bush then I wouldn’t be harping on House reorganization; I’d be harping on Joe Lieberman and the Republican Senators. But there is a repeated pattern of failure by the opposition party. The party holding the White House is not immune to criticism (notice that I haven’t had a good thing to say about the GOP in a long time) but opposition party bears a special responsibility in a system of checks and balances. When the Democrats fail to act as an effective opposition, they are party to the destruction of our system of checks and balances.
Finally, it may be that Mukasey was the least bad option on the table. But it is worth noting that such an awful option was put before the Senate because Bush knows that the obstensibly opposition-led Congress cannot be counted upon to oppose. A President less secure in his power would have a different relationship with the Senate. Sure, Presidents have locked horns with the Senate since 1789, and the Senate hasn’t always prevailed. So be it. The Senate isn’t guaranteed to prevail in every contest (nor should they prevail every single time in a system of checks and balances) but they should at least have enough credibility to make a President afraid to send a nominee who will (indirectly, carefully, and nontransparently) endorse gross violations of basic legal and human rights standards.
A filibuster, or a defeat on just about any other matter concerning war, civil liberties, and the rule of law, would have been a first step toward repairing the relationship between the President and the Senate. It may be that this was not the ideal issue for that defeat to occur on, but there is no “perfect” time for opposition. A standard of only opposing under ideal circumstances means no meaningful opposition. It has to start somewhere, however nonideal the circumstances.
Comment by Ray —
November 9, 2007 @ 6:57 am
Why should Bush be afraid of sending in nominees? He’s not winning any votes on the basis of personal popularity, he’s winning because Republicans have a majority, and he only has a year left as president. In those circumstances, are the Democrats in the Senate actually capable of making him afraid? They don’t like his appointment? He has the votes to win anyway. They filibuster an appointment? He makes a recess appointment.
If Bush was a different person, or at a different stage of his presidency, then maybe there’d be a point in token opposition. But he obviously doesn’t care what the senate thinks, and isn’t about to start now.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 9, 2007 @ 7:00 am
Ray-
The fact that Bush doesn’t care about opposition is all the more reason why we NEED an opposition party.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 9, 2007 @ 7:06 am
If the Republicans used procedure-fu to force the Senate canteen to serve shit, the Democrats would elect that guy from “Fear Factor” as their majority leader.
See, it is possible to get the Democrats to reorganize the Senate!
Comment by Greg —
November 9, 2007 @ 7:30 am
My theory is Leiberman has quietly told the Senate leadership that his support is contingent on their not using their procedural powers to block any of the war on terror stuff. If they start filibustering nominees or blocking bills, he declares himself a Republican and they lose all their corner offices and committee chairmanships.
Comment by John Emerson —
November 9, 2007 @ 7:58 am
The Democratic leadership had massive problems. The dynamics of the winner-take-all two-party system is what makes me a Democrat.
It’s a two party system formally, the way elections are organized, I mean. In other respects it’s a 1 1/2 party system.
I’m not sure that Lieberman has that power. By the time there’s another vote on Speaker, the Democrats will have a majority without him. Furthermore, he could lose his own committee assignments if he plays hard ball.
The real problem is that too many Democrats have agendas of their own. Center-right in Nayh and Feinstein’s cases, NY patronage politics in Schumer’s. In some cases (Nelson, Landrieu) they’re voting their districts.
Comment by abb1 —
November 9, 2007 @ 8:49 am
The impression I get from this episode is that it’s all a farce. Nobody ‘jumped ship’, nobody is ‘unable to block’; they decided to confirm the guy and they did, that’s all. The rest is pure showmanship.
Clearly you’re under the impression that someone there is supposed to represent you, but it’s not obvious to me at all. They and their sponsors spend almost $100 million every six years to get them elected, so obviously they have other priorities. It’s not easy to recoup $100 million, not to mention to make a profit, even modest profit, you know.
Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for your understanding.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 9, 2007 @ 8:56 am
I tend toward your view, abb1, but there are some here who would argue that we’re being too cynical, too unfair, etc.
Comment by mds —
November 9, 2007 @ 9:07 am
Geez, dude, the notion of “organizing resolution” was even mentioned upthread. Lieberman officially caucusing with the Republicans would not flip control of the Senate. And it doesn’t seem necessary, anyway.
Two tepid points in defense of Senator Dodd:
(1) I strongly suspect that at least one Dem would have flipped if a filibuster had been attempted, under the classic “vote for cloture, then take credit for voting No when it no longer matters” (though that merely means that Obama and Clinton should have also had their asses on the floor to support a filibuster).
(2) The majority leader was apparently vague about the vote schedule, even suggesting that it might be held up until after Thanksgiving, then called it for late at night. So Senator Dodd might simply have been too slow on his feet, foolishly banking on a minimum of professional courtesy from the leadership in vote-scheduling. This doesn’t really excuse him, though, because he should have been ready once Mukasey was voted out of committee.
Gingrich didn’t just survive because he’s tough and mean, he survived because his opponents didn’t have the votes. Tom DeLay was a major force behind the attempt, and he’s not a sweetie-pie either. Having realized that Pelosi is their hostage, the “Bush Dogs” would not support removing her, except to replace her with Steny “I regret nothing” Hoyer. Hell, they’d probably join the Republicans in electing John Boehner Speaker rather than have someone who could curtail their ability to shit in the faces of Democratic voters.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 9, 2007 @ 9:27 am
mds-
See my edit to the post regarding the Dodd.
Comment by Ray —
November 9, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Thoreau, problem is, you seem to be arguing that the Dems are only a nominal opposition because they didn’t put up a stronger but still nominal opposition.
All I’m saying is, hang around for a while and you’ll get a better example to hang your argument on. I’m sure it won’t be long before they vote for something bad, or don’t filibuster when a filibuster could make a real difference.
Comment by Barry —
November 9, 2007 @ 9:59 am
The core argument comes down to – when are they going to stop sh*t? After months of failure, excuses sound thin. And after months of failure and thin-sounding excuses, failing when success was doable[1] is not excusable.
- Barry
[1] Doable as far as we know, but that’s what we have to go on, and accepting secret knowledge as a basis for action has not worked out well so far.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 9, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Ray-
Like Barry said, this was one place where they allegedly had the votes and they STILL did nothing. Sure, it would have been only token opposition in terms of effects, but if they won’t even do that, when they actually have the votes, when WILL they do something?
It has to start somewhere.
It has to start somehow.
What better place than here?
What better time than now?
Comment by KCinDC —
November 9, 2007 @ 10:54 am
If enough of those “no” votes were also willing to vote no on cloture, then it wouldn’t have been necessary for The Dodd or Obama or Clinton or Biden to come in. To overcome a filibuster requires 60 votes, so 41 senators need to be not voting yes. For a cloture vote, being absent is the same as voting no.
The only other correction I have is to remind you that “the worst offenders” include all of the Republicans.
Comment by mds —
November 9, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Hmm, that’s a good point by KCinDC. If this had been a cloture vote, it would have failed. We get hung up on the formulation of needing forty-one votes to sustain, since that’s usually the same thing. But not with seven votes missing. Crud, now I’m even more disgusted at how poorly this was handled. Either any nascent filibuster was completely botched, or far too many No votes would have cynically voted for cloture.
Comment by Frank —
November 9, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Ok this is quite a bit better Thoreau. Sometimes I wonder about you. You understand that your vote and the money you can contribute are miniscule. You understand that no one in Washinton is there to represent you and they have to earn enough money for their masters to win re-election. Where do you get off whining when the Dems dont do what you want?
.
Try being grateful on the occasion when one of them does the right thing.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 9, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Frank-
We seem to agree that a significant number of the Congressional Dems aren’t there to do the right thing. I see that4 as something to be upset about, and maybe even factor into my voting decisions.
What’s your response to that fact?
Comment by Azael —
November 9, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Thoreau, thanks for a very constructive post. This is why I read you.
Comment by Tony P. —
November 9, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Can we please remember, occasionally, that Mukasey was only nominated because the Dems forced Gonzo out in the first place?
I am seriously displeased with Schumer and Feinstein, myself, but they did lead the charge on the US Attorney firings. Maybe they were foolish to do that if they were not prepared to go all the way, eh?
– TP
Comment by Thoreau —
November 9, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Tony-
I’m glad that they started this. But if they don’t stand firm and finish it, then we get only cosmetic change. Forcing the emperor to replace a blatantly evil and incompetent crony with a guy who’s a bit smoother in covering up torture is hardly progress.
Comment by Bilby —
November 9, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
It might be a good idea to take a look at this post.
Comment by Frank —
November 9, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Thoreau-
Do give money and vote for primary challengers.
.
Do donate to democrats like Dodd who take a stand you like.
.
Do join and contribute to groups like the ACLU and Human Rights Watch
.
Don’t whine about how Democrats are worthless because some vote didn’t go your way. (Its especially obnoxious when only a minority of Dems voted the ‘wrong way’)
.
Don’t act like your vote will change the balance of power in Washington. (i.e. not wanting to give Dems “the One ring”
.
Don’t set up straw men. I don’t believe anyone ever told you that if you vote Democrat all your problems will be solved.
.
Don’t play into classic Republican frames like: The Democrats are spineless/weak/girly men/who don’t stand for anything. That one is probably more important than your vote. Most people in this country don’t vote because they think it makes no difference. When you say Dems are worthless you encourage that meme. And to make it worse usually most of the Dems are voting the right way.
.
If you can manage that much it’d be a good start.
Comment by KCinDC —
November 9, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Bilby, that might be relevant if this were a judicial nomination (and even some members of the Gang of 14 reserved the right to filibuster judicial nominations in extraordinary circumstances, whatever those might be).
Comment by Bilby —
November 9, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Was there a cloture vote? The 60 votes thing is to end debate (during which filibusters occur). No cloture vote = no filibuster, so it’s safe to assume they were operating under that assumption.
Comment by KCinDC —
November 9, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
True, Bilby, there was no cloture vote. That’s the point of the post. What does that have to do with the Gang of 14 or judicial nominations? Did anyone mention that agreement? Did anyone ever suggest that it applied to anything other than judicial nominations? I’d (honestly) be interested in any quotes you can produce to support that idea, but without any evidence it seems a bit much to say your assumption is safe.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 9, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
OK, Frank, I’ll be sure to never complain when an organization fails in its duties.
Comment by Bilby —
November 9, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
From the link I provided originally:
Under Rule 22 a cloture vote is required normally to break off debate. Unless there are 60 votes filibusters can occur. That there was no vote on cloture indicates that everybody involved was operating under the assumption that the gang of 14 rule applies. Now, you can argue that someone could have requested the cloture vote, implying that the rule shouldn’t apply for an AG nomination, but nobody did.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 9, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Oh, and Frank, I didn’t complain about an entire party because a few members voted the wrong way. I complained that most members of the party, IN PARTICULAR THE LEADERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS, declined to use a tool that could have made their votes more meaningful.
But that isn’t nuanced enough for you, so maybe I should just refrain from ever complaining about your team.
Most of our liberal commenters are cool, but you’re acting like a partisan fanboy. Even specific critiques of specific actions hurt you just as much as broad-brush critiques. If you don’t like my critiques, maybe it would be better for your blood pressure and your feelings if you commented elsewhere.
Comment by KCinDC —
November 9, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Bilby, yes, of course, no one called for a cloture vote. That’s the whole point of this discussion. Someone should have. Why didn’t they? You can’t just say that they didn’t and therefore your explanation of why they didn’t must be true.
You haven’t presented any evidence that some agreement drawn up in the previous Senate to apply to judicial nominees, under circumstances that no longer apply, and with a leadership willing to invoke the “nuclear option” to pass the president’s nominees somehow controlled the actions of senators who never agreed to it in the first place. Hell, two of the Gang of 14 aren’t even in the Senate anymore, and Reid certainly wasn’t going to invoke the nuclear option to pass Mukasey.
When I said “quotes” I meant quotes from senators, not quotes from McQ, who seems at best confused about this.
Comment by Bilby —
November 9, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
KCinDC
Actually, I think you’re the one who’s confused about this. The fact nobody asked for a cloture vote is in itself evidence that they were operating under the gang of 14 rule. Otherwise there would have been a vote on cloture as there is on legislative issues. In any other kind of Senate action the cloture vote is routine.
Comment by KCinDC —
November 9, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Bilby, I must be misunderstanding you. By that logic, every vote that has ever taken place in the Senate that wasn’t preceded by a cloture vote was operating under the Gang of 14 rule, even those that took place before the Gang of 14 existed.
Comment by Bilby —
November 9, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
KCinDC
Do you know of any others that weren’t preceded by a cloture vote? If you do fill me in. I’d like for this posts (and Glenn Greenwald’s) argument to be right so I wouldn’t have to correct mine.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
November 9, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
“The issue is that the leadership is inadequate to maintain opposition.”
The real issue is that there is no opposition. The two major parties are both intent on continually ramping up state power, and will never do anything to seriously imperil that project. Within those confines, they stage a shadow boxing match for the people’s amusement and bewilderment.
Can you believe some people get worked up about who’s going to win the match?
Comment by Frank —
November 9, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Thoreau#30 The Democrats aren’t really an organization. Even if they were I’m not sure how you think you know their “duty” better than they do.
.
Thoreau#32 I’ve never been cool, its true. But I’m not upset, nor are you causeing any fluxuation in my blood pressure. You’ve made several strong charges against Dems in recent days. All I did was let you know where I agreed and where I disagreed. Mostly in language no more inflamitory than you used, though obviously the waking up with a sore ass comment was pretty strong. You seem very sensitive to critisism though. Maybe you should reconsider if you are cut out for posting about politics on the internet if a little disagreement can upset you so much.
.
Gene- Strangly some people get worked up over meaningless sporting events like football, basketball, and soccer. Irrational as it seems some people are almost as concerned with the outcome of political contests even when you are unable to percieve the difference between the contestants.
Comment by KCinDC —
November 9, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Bilby, there are hundreds of votes every session that aren’t preceded by cloture votes. Cloture votes are relatively rare — or at least they were until this session, when Republicans started using them almost routinely. There are innumerable reasons one could imagine why a senator might not call for a cloture vote, so I see no reason to assume that the Gang of 14 has anything to do with it, especially since the Gang of 14 no longer exists in any meaningful way.
Comment by Mona —
November 9, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Just wanto to say I love my co-blogger, Throeau. My time has been quite limited recently, and he said what I wanted to, better than I would have.
Comment by Bilby —
November 9, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
KCinDC
I see. so you’re saying Rule 22 doesn’t exist.
Comment by mds —
November 9, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
*Blush*
And no, cloture is not an automatic process. Unanimous consent is the default assumption for ending debate and proceeding to an up-or-down vote. This also used to be the way that “holds” worked, until Harry Reid decided that he would only honor holds placed by Republican senators, while scrapping those from Wyden and (putatively) Dodd.
Comment by KCinDC —
November 9, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Can’t a hold be overcome by 60 senators? I thought a hold was essentially a filibuster threat. If so, Dodd’s hold wouldn’t be meaningful if there were 60 senators against him.
Comment by Bilby —
November 9, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Okay, so according to Rule 22, 16 Senators have to come forward with a motion for a cloture vote, and in the absence of that, it’s assumed to be unanimous consent. Do I have this right?
I’m just trying to get it straight because I’m getting conflicting information.
Comment by KCinDC —
November 9, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Bilby, it exists, but it’s not invoked for every vote. Look at the list of votes for this session and see how many are cloture votes — far less than half. And cloture votes have been occurring at record levels this session, thanks to Republican obstructionism, so they were less frequent in the past.
The fact that no cloture vote was taken does not mean that the Gang of 14 rules are being used. All it means is that no one called for a cloture vote. The question is why, but that’s not resolved by assuming that McQ’s answer is the only possibility (or even a possibility at all).
Comment by Bilby —
November 9, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
With the Mukasey vote it would have been those in favor of his confirmation who’d want a cloture vote, because they’d want to head off a filibuster. Given that there were only 53 votes in favor, there wouldn’t have been enough to cut off debate (filibuster).
The question then becomes why didn’t those opposed to his confirmation decide to filibuster since there weren’t enough votes to prevent it. The argument made here and elsewhere is that none of the anti-Mukasey people really wanted to prevent his confirmation. Is that more likely than the proposition that they were operating under the new rules for judiciary committee nominations?
Comment by KCinDC —
November 9, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Only 12 of the people who agreed to these “new rules” are still in the Congress, and a fair number of those were not present or were voting for Mukasey. And the Gang of 14 rules were about judicial nominations (and allowed for extraordinary circumstances).
I think part of the explanation is that a lot of Democrats still maintain a distinction between being willing to vote against something (which is normal) and being willing to filibuster something (which is unusual). That makes some sense, but Republicans seem to have given up on it and will filibuster anything they’re opposed to now (and the media has bought into it with the “60 votes required for passage” language).
Probably some are less willing to filibuster Cabinet nominations than legislation, even if they are strongly opposed. But that doesn’t mean the Gang of 14 (which doesn’t even make sense outside the context of the threat of the nuclear option) has anything to do with it.
But surely not all fit into those categories. Maybe there was some pressure applied by the leadership to prevent a call for a cloture vote.
Comment by Bilby —
November 9, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Maybe there was some pressure applied by the leadership to prevent a call for a cloture vote.
That doesn’t make sense, because as I said, it would have been to the advantage of those in favor of confirmation to call for a cloture vote.
Comment by Bilby —
November 9, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Oh, well. My post is already loaded down with updates so I guess it will eventually even out.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 9, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Frank-
Here’s what I don’t get: You tell me that I should support the Democrats, but I shouldn’t get upset if they fail to act on the most pressing civil liberties issues of the day.
Comment by KCinDC —
November 10, 2007 @ 1:14 am
Bilby, calling for a cloture vote that fails is what a filibuster is nowadays. Those in favor of confirming would want a cloture vote only if they knew the cloture vote would pass. Otherwise the failed cloture vote would normally kill the nomination.
Trackback by A Stitch in Haste —
November 10, 2007 @ 8:34 am
Why Was Mukasey Not Filibustered?…
Unqualified Offerings wants to know:It was …
Comment by Frank —
November 10, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
God you obsessed with straw! Slow down and pay attention. I never said that you couldn’t get upset with Democrats. I never said that you couldn’t get upset with Democrats. I never said you couldn’t get upset with Democrats.
.
I’d try to make some of the points in an earlier post in a new way now, but I don’t have the patience and you don’t have the reading skills. I wish you’d stop lying about the Democrats in congress, but since you don’t have any qualms about lying about me to my (virtual) face that is obviously to much to expect.
Comment by Frank —
November 10, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Ok maybe that was too bad tempered. Call them collectively stupid all you want. Accuse individual Dems of being corrupt every day. Call them toffee nosed malodorous perverts if you like.
.
But I reserve the right to call you a Republican enabling piece of shit if you are so lacking in imagination as to only be able to come up with Republican frames to put them down with.
.
Hell you are mad because they are enabling Republicans and then you get mad at me for pointing out that you are enabling Republicans with the way you express your anger.
.
Get over yourself this isn’t about you.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 10, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Frank-
So, I’m a Republican enabler if I criticize the Dems for lacking the resolve to stand up to Republicans?
Comment by Frank —
November 10, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Are you trying to convince me you are retarded? Are you just unable to read?
.
You aren’t communicating in good faith and I think most readers can see it by this point.
.
I’m a card carrying Democrat. I don’t lack resolve. I quit smoking 2 years ago and I haven’t had a cigarette since.
.
Do you think Senator Ben Nelson (D) Ne votes with the Republicans most of the time because he lacks resolve? Do have the least turd of a clue that indicates this? How about Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Any evidence at all? You are just pulling that bullshit out of your ass.
.
And I know exactly where it came from too. You swallowed it whole, as it came out of the Republican noise machine.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 10, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Is the Republican noise machine suggesting that the Democrats are cowards for not filibustering a pro-torture AG nominee?
Comment by dhex —
November 10, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
i’m convinced thoreau is some kinda bodhisattva, destined to deliver the children of team blue from their shackles.
I’m a card carrying Democrat. I don’t lack resolve. I quit smoking 2 years ago and I haven’t had a cigarette since.
on the other hand, perhaps i died in a plane crash after all.
Comment by Frank —
November 10, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
yes
Comment by Thoreau —
November 10, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
So, just so I understand, the Republican noise machine says that the failure to filibuster Mukasey is a bad thing?
Linkee?
dhex-
I am actually destined to deliver Team Blue to the Promised Land of Team Blue Man Stan.
(If you don’t know what “Blue Man Stan” means, Frank, and you don’t want to find out, then misinterpret it in whatever way offends you most. Oh, wait, you’ll do that anyway.)
Comment by Frank —
November 10, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
Your efforts to move the goalposts are noted.
.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 11, 2007 @ 12:52 am
I’m such a subtle cog in the Republican noise machine that only Frank realizes what’s going on.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 11, 2007 @ 1:03 am
Gee, I wonder where people would get an idea like that.
Thoreau, just remember that the oldest active political party in this country doesn’t know how to do this “politics thing”.
Comment by Frank —
November 11, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Actually Thoreau, most people would just assume that any self described libertarian is just a right wing shill.
.
I took the time to engage your arguements.
.
My mistake.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 12, 2007 @ 3:40 am
And it’s such a valid assumption. Just count the number of times I’ve said “I’m a libertarian but…” and then went on to endorse torture, wars of aggression, warrantless wiretaps, detention without trial, etc.
Obviously I’m a Republican shill.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 12, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Actually, I vaguely wonder whether Frank could be a right-wing shill (or volunteer) trying to discourage any non-partisans from supporting the Blues.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 12, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Eric-
Interesting point, but that sort of analysis quickly leads you to the question “Which glass of wine contains the poison?” and then you chase yourself around in logical circles until you realize that both glasses are poisoned. And then Frank shows up to say that your “Pox on both glasses!” talk is just right wing shilling.
One of the classic blunders….
Comment by mds —
November 12, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Instead of merely saying “Pox on both glasses,” wouldn’t it have been more useful to have spent the last few years building up an immunity to Kool-Aid(R) powder?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 12, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Never go against a physicist when shilling is on the line!