home

Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:12:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via People for American Way:

West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd took to the Senate floor this afternoon to deliver a compelling speech (pdf) outlining the role of the filibuster in maintaining the checks and balances of a robust democracy, and protecting the rights of the minority.

....If the filibuster is eliminated, Bush, Cheney and 50 senators could steamroll up to four new justices onto the Court – enough to create a right-wing majority. Frist needs the votes of half the Senate plus Vice President Cheney’s tie-breaker to succeed in this bare-knuckles move to eliminate the filibuster. That means we must win the votes of all 44 Democratic senators, the one Independent, and at least six courageous Republicans to stop him.

Don't let Frist get away with this. Sign the petition here.

< ACLU Sues Rumsfeld Over Torture Policies | Kobe Bryant and Accuser Settle Lawsuit >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option | 84 comments (84 topical)
    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#1)
    by ras on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:54:08 PM EST
    Some of those on the Left sure don't like to see people vote, such as ... Iraqis (postpone the vote forever!) ... Other ME nations (why, who knows who might win!) ... Your own senators All of the above are fairly recent examples, touted by more of the Leftie commenters on this site than I can count. And yet, all of the above have every right to vote, whether they vote the way you want them to or not. At some point, in a democracy, you have to accept that it's ... well, democratic. You can't just count the votes you agree with.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#2)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:01:30 PM EST
    “....If the filibuster is eliminated, Bush, Cheney and 50 senators could steamroll up to four new justices onto the Court – enough to create a right-wing majority.” Reminds me of a liberal President back in the day, using his majority in the congress to try and steamroll 4 new justices into the Supreme Court. Where was Senator Byrd in 1937 when FDR proposed to do just this? He was a meat cutter making $29 a week. It would only be 5 years until this apple cheeked youth would join ranks with the likes of Robert E. Chambliss, Bobby Frank Cherry, Herman Frank Cash, and Thomas E. Blanton, Jr. . I know, water under the bridge.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:20:25 PM EST
    Hey Ras, Why don't you ask Orrin Hatch about the way he bottled Clinton's nominees up in committee? No vote; just sit. IOKIYAR. Or is everything different after 9/11?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:23:16 PM EST
    pigwiggle - What, did PPJ have a day off;-) FDR has nothing to do with this post, it's about Byrd and his comments. I'm currently listening to Byrd give his speech on CSPAN2. I urge you to listen or read his remarks in toto. I am so amazed this man has evolved so far from racism to truly understanding 'All Men Are Created Equal'. Majority, like it or not, does not rule in this country. Electoral College, life time appointments, fillibusters, they all serve us well, if at times inconviently. But think for a moment, when was the last time a new law HAD to be passed, or a new judge HAD to be confirmed. If you gave congress (in the accurate sense) a year off, the country would be just fine ... maybe better.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:40:32 PM EST
    God bless Mr. Byrd. He has certainly found his voice in his old age. And I agree that he has changed with the times. Tyranny of the majority was a concern of the founding fathers and it's a concern to me today. God help us all if we have to depend on the compassionat conservatism and good judgment of pigwiggle, ras and the like. Heck, they can't even find a right wing website to inhabit.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#6)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:47:00 PM EST
    Sailor- “Majority, like it or not, does not rule in this country. Electoral College, life time appointments, fillibusters, they all serve us well, if at times inconviently. … FDR has nothing to do with this post, it's about Byrd and his comments.” I’m grateful that the majority does not rule. Look at it from my perspective; unfortunately politics often seems like a football game, sides arbitrarily chosen, only complaining of bad calls and rule violations when they are against their favor. The point of mentioning FDR is to remind progressives that their side has used exactly the same kind of back door wrangling in an attempt to tip the balance of the supreme court, just as Byrd accused Bush et al. of trying; of course then it was a progressive agenda. Funny, I’ve already reposted this once today but … I wonder if the ‘progressives’ have learned a lesson from the current state and will move to decentralize power when next given the opportunity; dismantle the leviathan they built over the past 70 years, most recently with the help of the Republicans. My guess, no. I imagine when next the Democrats are in power they will have forgotten the past rally of states rights and enumerated powers and promptly start using those powers they most opposed while in the minority. “If you gave congress (in the accurate sense) a year off, the country would be just fine ... maybe better.” Amen. I vote my conscious every year, and every year I vote libertarian.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#7)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    Shorter ras: There has never been a Republican filibuster or any attempt to proceed in a way other than pure democracy. Ras lies. A lot.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#8)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:51:40 PM EST
    conscious angel- "Heck, they can't even find a right wing website to inhabit" I’ve been booted from every conservative blog I’ve posted to, usually labeled a liberal ‘moonbat’ before the IP is blocked. You all (left & right) have a lot more in common than you think. Anyway, go team!

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:53:05 PM EST
    CA - to me ras is a troll, pigwiggle is debate-able;-) He usually brings something to the table; Sometimes I feed it to the dog, frequently it is edible, tho sometimes stringy and hard to swallow;-) I generally agree w/ your posts, which is nice because you saved me the trouble;-)

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:58:04 PM EST
    Well said, Ras. The Senate is supposed to approve or disapprove judicial nominees -- not stop them from consideration. The intent was to have a check on executive power, not to give them authority to prevent majority rule. Mind you, Republicans didn't pull this garbage with Clinton's nominees. What's not being said here is that the Democrats are looking at lady justice and saying "If we can't have her, nobody can!" So much for faith in democracy. Ras said it right -- rather than take the chance of losing a vote, the Demorats will stop the voting process. We're not talking about a highway bill here -- it's the core of our justice system. The fact that our country has been going further to the right over the years should be expected to show in the justice system. Funny how nobody complained when the Court had a leftward orientation.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:10:43 PM EST
    pigwiggle - I was writing my response when the other posts came thru, at that time I was just responding to CA. (Damn this low speed connection [/jon stewart]). I see your point about 'progressives', libs, left wingers, democrats and I would include libertarians, once they get elected ( read 'in power') they tend to promote themselves, at any cost to their beliefs or souls. With all my heart I wish it were different. I applauded the Gingrich platform point of term limits, but most of the new congress critters who signed it reneged on it. To level that playing field all members of congress should have to back home and earn a living after serving x amount of terms.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:14:42 PM EST
    trueblew - thanks for the satire.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:19:40 PM EST
    Sailor - Hey, I be here! Just took some time off to work on my taxes. Thank goodness for the cut. You sure are big on evolving. This afternoon it was the eighth amendment to the constitution, now it is Byrd. Given that he was throwing the N word around only a few years ago his evolution seems very similar to jailhouse religion. Found only when needed. Now you, and Byrd, and anyone who likes, can protest, cry, demand, scream, act out in any way desired. But the right to fillibuster is not in the constitution. So I guess the old way of allowing fillibusters has just evoloved into the new way of saying, debate, and then vote. I'm LOL.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:22:36 PM EST
    Sailor -- if you have a dispute with what I've said, bring it out and we'll discuss. I've stated my belief that it's appropriate to use a filibuster to derail a judicial nomination process that's been in place for over 200 years. If you have something to add besides sarcasm and name calling, by all means feel free to add to the debate.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:23:54 PM EST
    Before you jump on that -- I meant INappropriate. Never claimed to be perfect or a good typer.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:29:21 PM EST
    scuse me mr. pigwiggle. Didn't realize you were carrying liberal credentials when you started objecting to the filibuster. Don't take it too personally if you get lumped in with ras, Dr Ace, Jim and Cliffie occasionally. If it bothers you a bunch if you get lumped in with them, review your posts and ruminate about how that could happen.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 08:14:08 PM EST
    Wait, wait, what party is Senator Byrd a member of? Oh, never mind, minor detail. -C

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 08:18:37 PM EST
    ok ?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    Way to go, Cliff. We all know what the headlines would read if Byrd was a Republican: FORMER KLANSMAN VOWS TO BLOCK JUDICIAL NOMINEES. They'd have more sympathy with me if this didn't smell so badly of sour grapes and double standards. Point being that we need to be careful what precedent is set, because once the precedent is established it could be used just as fairly to keep liberal judges off the bench as well.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 08:51:46 PM EST
    I used sarcasm because I thought you would ignore the truth: The republican senate blocked 60 of Clinton's nominees from even coming to the judiciary committee by what's known as the "blue slip" rule. Under Bush the repubs did away with that rule. Still, the dems only blocked 10 of Bush's nominees, not 60 like the repubs did. The filibuster itself has been in place since the 1850's. It wasn't until 1917 that it was even limited by cloture. The filibuster per se may have not been forseen by the founding fathers, but the right of a senator to speak, even to delay or tank legislation, was in the original rules. We have evolved [sorry, PPJ, word o' the day] in our procedures to the point where one man can not halt senate business, but 1/3 of all the senators can. This prevents the tyranny of the majority. BTW, While I can be amused by freudian slips, I don't hold typos against anybody. Not with my skills and vision;)

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:25:50 PM EST
    Agree with Sailor's post at 9:51.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:38:43 PM EST
    Sailor: I'll have to read up on the blue slip rule. I wasn't aware that that many had been denied. I think the whole process has been politicized in such a way that would make the Founding Fathers ill. While the image of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" sounds rosy, the thought of someone like David Duke going to Washington and derailing the process is pretty scary. I'll admit that procedural rules have been exploited by both sides, and not always to the benefit of the country. But I think we ought to have enough integrity to set aside partisanship for the sake of the courts. There's far too many people legislating from the bench. Don't get me wrong, and don't assume I'm closed-minded because I'm conservative. Even though I am, I don't want a conservative SOCUS. Due to its inertia effect on our nation's laws, I want the court to reflect the spectrum of political thought to preserve ideological checks and balances in the judicial process. IMO we'd be screwing the pooch just as badly if we went hard right on the court as if we went hard left.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#24)
    by ras on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 10:01:18 PM EST
    Scar, You make up a false quote, then call me a liar? Is that the best you've got? The Left has been losing credibility a lot lately; so much so that it cost them the last Presidential election, as well as various other setbacks. Does it make sense that calling dissenters liars - and fabricating the quotes on which you base such claims - is the kind of strategy that costs your side credibility? And that the repetition of such tactics - even if accompanied by numerous hosannahs from the choir on the left - is counterproductive with the general electorate? Just think it over.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 10:12:26 PM EST
    Ras lies. Believe it. You like to veer off topic, Ras, so how about answering Scar's claim directly; has there ever been a Republican filibuster? Has there ever been a Conservative filibuster?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 10:23:33 PM EST
    Hold on, Tampa -- you want to hold Ras accountable for a quote Scar made up? Now who's deflecting? The question Ras raised is valid (I didn't see a lie in his post, either). Is it right to use a fillibuster to prevent a vote on a judiciary nominee? Is it democratic for a minority to deny votes because they're afraid they'll lose?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#27)
    by Kitt on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 10:29:43 PM EST
    And just a reminder - ras is Canadian - while yu'll are going round & round about filibusters and the 'blue slip' rule.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 10:56:05 PM EST
    Pigwiggle makes a good point. The righties & lefties are like a couple of cousins who can't stand each other because they are so much alike. Both are vicious namecallers, and only a tiny percentage of either understands either the government plays fast & loose with budget figures. The righties think we need more conservative justices; the lefties think we need fewer. Big deal. Yawn. This is like asking low income people who pay zero income taxes if they think incomee taxes should be cut. Of course they don't. Now ask the middle & upper income folks (the ones who DO pay income taxes) Nearly all of them desire income tax cuts. Gee, go figure. Someone say something that is new & interesting. Please.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 11:00:12 PM EST
    So what if Ras is Canadian? What's your point? Does that affect whether his arguments are valid? If there are invalid arguments being made, show where they're invalid. There's no need to drag someone's nationality into it -- that kind of attack just degrades your own credibility.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 11:55:49 PM EST
    Kurds Invoke Senate Rule By Al Kamen Wednesday, February 16, 2005; Page A17 link What's good for the Kurds? Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has been talking about "going nuclear" and outlawing the Democrats' use of the filibuster to block President Bush's judicial nominees. So yesterday we find freshman Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) offering this on the floor in favor of more funds for Iraq: Isakson, noting he had just been in Iraq, said he asked a Kurdish leader if he worried that the majority Shiites would "overrun" the minority Kurds. And "he says, 'Oh, no, we have a secret weapon.' . . . And when asked what it was, he said one word, 'filibuster,' and then proceeded to describe their study of American democracy and our republic." "If there were ever a reason for optimism about" giving more aid to Iraq, Isakson said, "it is one of their minority leaders proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority."

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#30)
    by ras on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 11:59:59 PM EST
    Trueblue, Thx, but I can answer tampa on my own, no prob. Tampa, Where did I ever raise the issue (non-issue?) of Republican filibusters? Please ... do provide a link! FWIW, I oppose all filibusters; always have. I'm just curious where you got the idea otherwise? Convenience? Stereotype? Seriously. Where did I ever say that I support the idea that I support either Republican or Democratic filibustering? And just so you know, the same issues arise from time to time in our Canadian parliamentary system, too. My opinion is the same in such instances, and in accord with 99% of all Canadians, too. We frigid Northerners (hah! le double entendre Canadienne!) like to see our govt do something to earn their beer money. [At this point, I could say even more on the matter, but have to finish this comment before midnite; ideological quotas are tallied by the day, you know. Ta.]

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 12:27:33 AM EST
    Nicely done, Ras. Sorry to jump in, but for all of its political idiosyncracies the Great White North makes the best beer in the Western Hemisphere. That comment touched a nerve, and I apologize for encroaching.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#32)
    by ras on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 12:34:23 AM EST
    Trueblue, No apology - or whatever - needed. Not in the least. I just felt like Tampa was my fish, my barrel. Sorry to be so territorial!

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#33)
    by bad Jim on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 01:05:39 AM EST
    Actually, the U.S. was the primary impediment to an Iraqi vote. We delayed it, pending a census. Eventually we acceded to Sistani's insistence. We've since been replacing locally elected officials with our hand-picked favorites. Why does anyone buy this pre-processed manure?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 01:20:50 AM EST
    Jim: Who else in Iraq besides the US was making the vote happen? Who did we get in the way of? Replacing locally elected officials with hand-picked favorites? Which Islamist web site did you pick that up from? You're flying against a lot of reporting, and that includes Al Jazeera. If you have specifics with references I'd love to see them.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#35)
    by ras on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 01:25:05 AM EST
    bad Jim, Thanks! You have no idea - perhaps literally? - how much we on the so-called right appreciate having quotes like yours, i.e. "Actually, the U.S. was the primary impediment to an Iraqi vote." Great stuff, man. And reality-based, no doubt. To the rest of you: you prepared to defend that quote as part of your next election campaign? Cuz you'll have to, y'know. So if you agree or disagree, say so now, and we can draw the lines.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 02:05:35 AM EST
    By the way, how did we get on the subject of Iraqi elections? Isn't this a thread about using filibusters to block Supreme Court nominees?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:32:52 AM EST
    I can't help but think that Mr. Byrd is just pi$$ed that someone is threatening to take his favorite toy away. He might actually have to start acting "senatorial" again, whatever that means.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:39:19 AM EST
    I am no fan of legislative sleight-of-hand, no matter who practices it, but Senator Byrd has a point. Tyrannies are generally the most efficient governments; if some political monkeywrenching is needed to slow down Juggernaut's advance, then so be it. In an aside, I keep thinking that if there is anything to reincarnation, then Byrd might be Cicero reborn. Sadly, the times in which Cicero lived may be mirrored in our own...and Byrd as well as the rest of us is reliving the same sad circumstances...

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kitt on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:40:43 AM EST
    "So what if Ras is Canadian? What's your point? Does that affect whether his arguments are valid? If there are invalid arguments being made, show where they're invalid. There's no need to drag someone's nationality into it -- that kind of attack just degrades your own credibility." Actually, it's usually a good-natured jab at ras, who has shown his support for the Bush regime and his pretend war. However as a Canadian citizen, ras doesn’t have the privilege of ‘joining up’ although I’m sure there are probably ways to get around that. And for the record, ras is a troll.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:58:50 AM EST
    Sailor - Now you are pleased that the SC evolved, but don't want the Senate to evolve. Makes perfect sense to me. Just quit trying to make a moral position out of a political one.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:14:36 AM EST
    My favorite Byrd comment came from the nice lady at BoJangles who saw my "Condi/08" button during her confirmation hearings. First she gave me extra fries. Then she said that "no ex-Klansman is allowed to talk trash to a black woman." Then she threatened his, er, boys, if you know what I mean. -C

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 07:18:52 AM EST
    The ultimate democracy is a lynch mob--everyone votes "hang him high" except the victim.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:08 AM EST
    While I think this effort certainly can't hurt, does anyone here honestly believe that someone like Frist would pay any attention to a petition? Come on, People (as in PFAW). What we should be doing is going after Frist politically -- especially in Tennessee. We should be running ads which accuse him of attempting to destroy the republic, or some such thing. We need to take a page from the Rove playbook, and get mean -- really mean. I know there are some who post here that say we Democrats are above that, that we play fair, and that the Rethugs a guerrilla fighters who don't play by the rules. We'll guerrilla insurgencies almost always succeed. Let's take the fight to Frist right in his own kitchen. If I had the money, I'd run the ads, myself.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 10:39:27 AM EST
    Cliff - Anytime Byrd is mentioned, its the Klan - if its Kennedy,its Chappaquidick - I think we get it by now. No wonder you admire that hysterical termagant Coulter - bottom-feeders in solidarity.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    Btw, Speaking of bottom-feeding, playing the race card in defense of Condi,Thomas,Powell,Gonzales etc is saying what - blacks are too stupid to know who's really been looking out for them all this time?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#46)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 11:01:03 AM EST
    et al McCain and Specter are both against banning the filibuster.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    braincramp - Play fair? Hmmmmm. I guess it must have been those EVIL Republicanss who came up with those fake TANG memos that the well known REPUBLICAN Dan Rather ran on the well known REPUBLICAN network, CBS. sarcasm intended.... You know, your plan to be "running ads which accuse him of attempting to destroy the republic, or some such thing.," fits in perfectly. jondee - Did you ever hear`the story of Pierre the Bridge Builder?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 11:05:33 AM EST
    The filbuster is being abused and overused- Give the guys an up or down vote and stop whining. This option has been bantered about for over a year now, and the Dems in the Senate STILL will not allow nominees to get voted on. This isn't about "rights of the minority", it is about abuse of rules. The filibuster was supposed to make sure everyone got to have their say and the debate was thorough- not to give crybabies an effective veto over the will of the majority. BTW Jondee, I accept that Byrd may well have changed his Grandmaster of the Klan ways (his use of the "N" word on National TV a scant three years ago notwithstanding), It is just irritating to watch the left remain silent about Byrd while trying to run Lott up the proverbial flagpole. As for Kennedy, he left a girl to die. I do have a problem with that. If you don't, please start a petition drive to let Janklow back into the House.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    jondee - Someone is using your name to post things like:
    Btw, Speaking of bottom-feeding, playing the race card in defense of Condi,Thomas,Powell,Gonzales etc is saying what - blacks are too stupid to know who's really been looking out for them all this time?
    Or perhaps you did really post that? -C

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 11:44:20 AM EST
    The point of mentioning FDR is to remind progressives that their side has used exactly the same kind of back door wrangling in an attempt to tip the balance of the supreme court, just as Byrd accused Bush et al. of trying; of course then it was a progressive agenda.
    Of course they used the filibuster, as they are entitled to. We have a joke in Boston about Martha's Vinyard. Everybody wants to buy a house there (there are building limitations, etc.) But as soon as they get one, they're the first to join the efforts to "pull up the drawbridge" and stop everyone after them from buying. I think this is a very relevant point to this discussion. The filibuster is an equalizer of the majority and minority senetorial voting process whereby one party cannot "outvote" another to implement an extreme agenda. The logic is that if enough Senators think there is a problem with the vote, even if they're not in the majority, they can take action to prevent this. Bush's statement "you're either with us or against us" was not just meant for the leaders of foreign nations. It was meant for those of us who oppose his agenda and the further implementation of the Reagan/Gingrich "contract with America". Therefore, we democrats (and I use that term loosly) must use Senetorial veto as a tool to keep the country from swinging too far to the right. If Bush sends up judges who have clear agendas of constitutional re-interpretation to support their American Fundamentalist Religious beliefs, then the Lefties have every right to oppose him until the Pres. sends up someone more moderate. Likewise for the Democrats. As much as I'd like to see some Constitutional Amendments (ahem, the ERA) enacted, they are also obligated by prudence and necessity to nominate moderate candidates who will fall well within the mainstream political thought process. However, as long as presidents can generate political capital by showing how the Senate treats them so badly when they're trying so hard (boohoo), this ridiculous exercise of sending up unconfirmable nominees and blaming the other side for their demise will continue. But, as Bush said, we're not FOR his nominees, so we must be AGAINST him. BTW: Byrd has made some great speeches despite his Jeffersonian hypocrisy re: the Af-Am thing. However, real kudos go to Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, vilified until now by supporters of Anita Hill, who has stated his unequivocal commitment to resist Exec. Branch pressure and vote his conscience. Thank you Senator Hatch.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 11:55:10 AM EST
    I still think the simple solution is TO JUST DO THEIR JOB AND VOTE ON THE FREAKIN' NOMINEES!!!!! Is that to much to ask?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    I still sthink the simple solution is TO JUST DO THEIR JOB AND VOTE ON THE FREAKIN' NOMINEES!!!!! Is that to much to ask?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 02:13:34 PM EST
    BTW Jondee, I accept that Byrd may well have changed his Grandmaster of the Klan ways (his use of the "N" word on National TV a scant three years ago notwithstanding), For the record, Robert Byrd was not a Grandmaster of the Klan, which is a post given to the usual numb-nutses who make pretty speeches. Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the clan, meaning he was a true believer.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#55)
    by DonS on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 02:47:00 PM EST
    "TO JUST DO THEIR JOB AND VOTE ON THE FREAKIN' NOMINEES!!!!! " Gerry hollers. your D-I-S-I-N-G-E-N-U-I-T-Y is almost convincing. Maybe if you shouted a little louder I would agree with you.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 03:23:27 PM EST
    Yeah Cliff I really did post that, now maybe you'll get lucky and somebody else will start using your name.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 03:35:03 PM EST
    Seems like the left is about to get "borked". Oh well, you know what they say about what GOES around...

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 03:50:35 PM EST
    mfox - Hatch is about 90 degrees to the right of Limbaugh. So his conscience doesn't do you much good. And the fillibuster is not an equalizer. It is a method to stop the majority from bringing a vote to the floor when the minority knows they will lose. The last time they did that was during the fight over civil rights. Funny, it is Demos in both cases.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:03:12 PM EST
    jondee - Wow, didn't know you'd admit to calling all non-Democrat blacks stupid. But I am constantly amazed at the left. mfox - the version of your Vinyard story I always heard was: Everyone is a developer until they own a house, then they become a conservationist. -C

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:06:00 PM EST
    If they do get rid of the filibuster it will cause problems in the short term but it'll help us in the long run. When Democrats are back in the majority the Republicans won't be able to block our appointments.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:35:57 PM EST
    It really amazes me to see some of the stuff I see on here. Why is it that whenever an African-American is conservative, the Left villifies them in racial terms? Someone like Condoleeza Rice rises from poverty in Birmingham to where she is, and nobody gives her credit for it -- there's an underlying assumption that she got where she did because people were taking care of her. Same with Colin Powell, et al. Without saying the words, the Left is saying that they don't believe African Americans can get ahead in this country unless they sell out and a white person takes care of them. This is like Howard Dean saying Republicans couldn't get a group of African Americans in a room unless they brought in the hotel staff. How can Democrats say this kind of garbage and still claim to be the party for African Americans? It's insulting. Condi Rice is brilliant --read her bio. It disgusts me to hear persons of color being derided by a party which has apparently taken their voting block for granted. As far as Byrd and the KKK goes, it's relevant because it'd certainly be relevant if he were a Republican. I'm only applying Democrat standards to a Democrat.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:21:32 PM EST
    Trueblue, like the clerics of old who refused to accept the facts revealed in Gallileo's telescope because such facts flew in the face of their dogma, so the leftist "clerisy" of today's political correctness cleave to their orthodoxy; facts which threaten it are simply disavowed. The people in power at leftist institutions know it's nonsense, but like the clerics of old, they need the masses to follow blindly along; it's how they maintain their power. So they find it in their best interests to jive to this orthodoxy to keep the people in line. A telling analogy is the fundie preachers, capable of understanding evolution, who find it in their best interests to deny it when they are before their flock, thus maintaining their power over them.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:44:49 PM EST
    I was really following that until it veered into the claim that clergy uses creation to maintain power over their flocks. Man, is that cynical. But shame on the Left for castigating persons of color who have risen to prominence in the past few years. There's a strong sentiment that if you're not Democrat, you're not black. Shame. Race has nothing to do with political beliefs, and it's an atrocity to deny a person's success because of a political view. Rice, Powell, and even Clarence Thomas have risen to become some of the most politically powerful African Americans in history -- putting them in a league with Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall. Leaders of the African American community should embrace them, but instead are denying them for political expediency. If the Left doesn't watch it, they're going to lose a constituency.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:50:08 PM EST
    But back on topic. Braincramp, the question at hand is whether to allow filibusters to block nominations. I'll admit that procedural rules have been used by both sides to thwart judges. But filibusters? That's new territory. We're not talking legislation, here. We're talking judicial appointments. Can you show me any historical examples where this weapon has been used to this end?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:59:25 PM EST
    Well I see everyone here has been spinning in circles all day. Ras, I never said that you specifically stated that there had never been a Republican or Conservative filibuster. But since you oppose all filibuster, I must assume that you believe that both sides have thwarted democracy, as insinuated in your first post. You're quite excellent at dishonest nuance and insinuation: "At some point, in a democracy, you have to accept that it's ... well, democratic. You can't just count the votes you agree with." Please, by all means, spew that crap to Strom Thurmond for me. No one here will ever witness me trying to convince you of anything. I will, however, use every opportunity to point out your bull spit. For the rest of the apologists here (and the snarky Libertarian): if it were the Democratic Party eliminating the filibuster, I'm quite sure we'd hear something to the tune of, "The Liberal elitists are afraid of holding honest debate in our congress and are playing partisan politics by thwarting the great tradition of our congress to push forth their....blah blah blah." Save it. Sailor said everything else that needed to be said at 9:51 yesterday.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 07:06:54 PM EST
    Tampa does a great job berating people while providing no arguement for her position of supporting the fillibuster. This thread reeks of her invective... My how the mighty have fallen.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 07:52:56 PM EST
    If they want to debate.. THEN DEBATE! But freakin' talk, or vote.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 08:50:10 PM EST
    Here's a little history lesson for all you charming revisionists out there: During the1996 session, when President Clinton was seeking a second term, Republicans allowed only 17 of his judicial nominees to be confirmed all year and blocked all of his circuit court nominees from being confirmed. This year, the Senate has confirmed 29 of President Bush's judicial nominees, including five circuit court nominees. Democrats have acted with bipartisanship toward the judicial nomination process and supported the confirmation of this historic number of judicial nominees of this Republican president. During the 17 months of Democratic control of the Senate, 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed. Republicans had blocked the confirmation of more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees, including nearly two dozen to the circuit courts. What was that you were saying about the obstructionist Democrats? Oh, and keep on revising away. Double-plus-good on the latest spin, guys.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimcee on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 08:50:57 PM EST
    Kleagle of the KKK meet Adolph Hitler. Man o' man is Byrd an embarrassment to the dems. He certainly lacks perspective now, doesn't he?

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimcee on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 08:51:55 PM EST
    I have no problem with a fillibuster at all, if you're going to do it the old fashioned way i.e. stand up in front the Senate and talk and talk and talk, in other words errr, fillibuster. Not this nonsense where you say it's a fillibuster and then everyone goes home to bed, a REAL fillibuster. What is going on now is just posturing for the peeps on the part of the Dems. It would be better if they just allowed a vote up or down in the full Senate but that would result confirmations and the Dems are the party of "NO" these days. I want to see if anyone can break Sen. Strom Thurmond's 16 hour marathon in the past. I wonder what he was fillibustering about? Take a guess. Man what a bladder that old dude had.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 10:49:29 PM EST
    Braincramp: Who can possibly come up with an argument to compete with a string of expletives like that? I'm picturing the signing of the Declaration of Independence starring Joe Pesci, Joe Pantoliano, Robert Deniro, and James Gandolfini. Or how about Patrick Henry: "I don't know what all you a**holes are gonna do, but as for me, give me liberty or F**K YOU!! Such eloquence isn't easily countered in the political process, but I'll try. "I don't care about historical precedent." Yes you do: Roe V. Wade, the First Amendment, etc. Our legal system and system of governance live and breath historical precedent. I've said it on another post -- do we want to set a new negative precedent that could be used when the tables are turned one day? Don't worry -- they'll turn; these things go in cycles. "F**k civility. F**k statesmanship. F**k camaraderie." This from someone on the left who accuses the right of being "thugs." Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. "F**k historical precedent; I want to win." The victory at any cost idea is counterproductive. Are you willing to "win" if that meant derailing the democratic process, paralyzing the Congress, and perhaps incurring political damage to a Democratic party that's already on the ropes? Any victory has its price, but the price has to be worthwhile.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#73)
    by ras on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:56:33 AM EST
    Tampa, I read that last post of yours several times but can find no argument in it. Is there one? Was there supposed to be? The current Dem filibuster arg - a strange one, when read in context, that Republicans did it and so it's OK for Dems to be like Republicans (excepting that all Republicans are evil) ... is like ... huh? I appreciate that, as a Canadian, I put you at a disadvantage: you can't use the "you did it too!" args on me. Obviously, I didn't, eh? Luckily, that brings us back to first principles, always a good place to start, I think. And though it's often awkward for many people, it can also be instructuve. I have never liked filibusters, regardless of whether they're in in Canada or in the US. I have always opposed them. I have always advocated "let the peoples' chosen representatives vote." So now I ask: What is your principled rebuttal to that? Please answer w/out using words or ideas such as "spew," "bile," and "ilk" and such. I.E., From first principles, what is your counter-arg? Ends justify means? Or something else? With no irony or sarcasm whatsoever, I ask you to tell me why filibusters should supercede representative democracy. Please be succint. Thx.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 01:29:23 AM EST
    It's the Rethugs who are derailing the democratic process, trueblue. But okay, we'll try it your way: Anyone for some more pathetic hang-wringing about how the Republicans shouldn't be such meanies? I thought so. We are fighting for the very survival of the republic. Our enemy is a dangerous, fascist fifth-column which openly calls for the murder of anyone who doesn't think exactly like they do. Telling these people that they should play nice is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is playing nice when your opponent is knee-capping you with a tire iron. trueblue, you're obviously another one of these centrist, establishment Democrats who believe that we should be fair to the opposition, kind of like the British soldiers who got their asses kicked by our American guerilla fighters. Or do you think the revolutionaries should have politely petitioned the crown for their independence? Oh, I'm sure that would have worked -- it might have taken a couple of centuries, but who's counting? Well, sometimes you have to break a few eggs, as the saying goes. I am going to do everything in my power to push the party back to the left -- and a majority -- where it belongs, while you sit and contemplate whether or not I play fair, okay? Give me a freakin' break.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 01:54:44 AM EST
    Braincramp: You got the centrist, establishment Democrat part wrong. As I've said before, labels and namecalling aren't productive because all they do is reflect poorly on the person issuing them. I might point out that we're talking about political discourse and processes here, not armed warfare. It is possible to exchange ideas and come to win-win solutions instead of looking at all things as win-lose. Frist is talking about taking one tool off the table -- one that's never been used to my knowledge -- but one that Democratic leadership has said they'll use. And they're threatening that before the first nominee has even been discussed. So much for open-mindedness. Nobody's taken away any of the other tools used (by both sides) to stop judicial nominees for more than two centuries. I just realized I misread your post. I thought you were talking about OBL et al, but I now I think you're trying to refer to the Republicans. But I'm a little confused, because to my knowledge they've never called for the murder of someone who didn't think like them. Turn down the venom a bit. Push the party to the left? How much farther left can it go? It just fielded one of the most liberal members of the Senate as its presidential candidate and lost. And please, no conspiracy theories or crocodile tears about the election process. The far left already has control of the party -- MoveOn.org even said so. If you'd take the ideological blinders off, you'd see that the country has taken a hard right turn on several key issues. That's why Republicans are getting voted into office. If the Democrats hope to regain power, they need to listen to what the country is saying and start talking solutions instead of blindly clinging to the same dogma.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 07:23:30 AM EST
    You really can't blame Byrd: Without the filibuster option, he would never have been able to lead his heroic opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 07:35:53 AM EST
    "Oh, and the filibuster was created so that there would be some check and/or balance against a belligerent majority running roughshod over the minority." And now it is being used by a belligerent minority to keep the popularly elected president's nominees from being confirmed. The freaks on the Left whine continuously about the war, why didn't they filibuster that? Instead it is Let's be crybaby losers and not let the President fill a judgeship in Backwater USA because WE DIDN'T GET TO PICK HIM!!??! WAAH!! Please. The fact that Frist and the Majority didn't try to change the rules two years ago when this ridiculous mess started flies in the face of them "Running Roughshod". Down in Texas, the NASCAR crowd had a t-shirt floating around that sai "Shut up and Drive". I wonder if there is a market for "Shut up and Vote"......

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 09:10:59 AM EST
    Cliff - Not ALL non-dems,just the republicans.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 09:25:02 AM EST
    Anne Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and, this week, Congressman Jim Gibbons (R-NV) have all openly called for the murder of liberals. Is any of this getting though to you, trueblue (a tag I'm beginning to find more and more dubious)? If you give unchecked police power to a bunch of crypto-fasicsts (although the "crypto" part is slowly but surely becoming superfluous), they will use it to murder those with whom they disagree. Always happens. One-hundred percent of the time. History, you know? Keep on trying to build bridges; we need to have a respectible visage. I, however, am willing to be totally ruthless in going after these people politically. Yes, I'm advocating open political warfare with ANYONE who disagrees with good democratic-socialist principles. The milquetoast left needs people like me. Others who don't like it should join the GOP. They already have you people in their hip pocket and your too clueless to realize it. Wake up, already!

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:22:00 PM EST
    My hat goes off to those senators that are representing the 49% of Americans that did not want Bush and his policies and appointments running america.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:39:05 PM EST
    Heck, they can't even find a right wing website to inhabit.
    touché!
    Posted by Doctor Ace at March 2, 2005 07:21 PM
    look in the mirror and read that to yourself!
    ...the African American community should embrace them, but instead are denying them for political expediency. If the Left doesn't watch it, they're going to lose a constituency.
    i guess there beliefs and associations should be irrelevant, there black they should get the support of the black community. sheeeezzzz.
    braincramp at March 2, 2005 10:29 PM
    all those f'ing expletives, fire w/fire.
    Democratic party that's already on the ropes?
    renewing old strategy, the rope-a-dope, let'em punch(tire) themselves out then pounce.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:49:03 PM EST
    Ras, Whenever you spew here, I'm quite sure that those of my ilk often taste bile in the backs of their throats. Ras is an opportunist who focuses more on tactic than ideology. It's simply too easy for him to "come out against" anything that is highly unlikely to happen (a Conservative and/or Republican filibuster any time soon). The current Dem filibuster arg - a strange one, when read in context, that Republicans did it and so it's OK for Dems to be like Republicans (excepting that all Republicans are evil) ... is like ... huh? I've never said that all "Republicans" are evil. I do believe that the Republican Party maintains a majority constituency by appealing to intolerant mobs. The ones that are evil are those American Conservative ideologues that exercise real power without regard to ethics or morality. For example, those who support War Corporatism out of ignorance or purposeful denial of sociological/cultural inequities (either at home or abroad). In case you have trouble spotting them, they're the ones who will speak of human beings "on the margin". Many are simply misled by minority (not meaning racial minority) societal forces. For the sake of any Liberal reading here, the filibuster is a Congressional tool used to prevent, as Sailor said, "The tyranny of the majority". Until such time as our government is in real, proximate danger of becoming a totalitarian state, I am in favor of its use regardless of which party holds a majority. The filibuster has been in place since the 19th Century because it has been generally accepted (at least until it got in the way of short term goals) that it helps maintain a healthy two party system representative of the bulk of our collective ideologies (which I'm not quite ready to support the abolishment of, but probably will once Conservatives truly seize the Court System) Parties change ideologies. My loyalty is to ideology, not party. Thus I believe both parties in a two party system need protection from "tyranny of the majority" party.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 04:22:05 PM EST
    American Conservative ideologues that exercise real power without regard to ethics or morality. No Tampa, you are confusing us with your own Liberal Activist Judges again.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 04:27:32 PM EST
    They probably wouldn't feel the need to use their discretion so often if it were not for the gross abuses of Neocon Legislators.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 04:40:46 PM EST
    On last riposte, trueblue, if you're still out there. You wrote: It (the Democratic Party) just fielded one of the most liberal members of the Senate as its presidential candidate and lost. You just made my point for me. If -- and this is a big if -- Kerry is one of the most liberal voices in the Senate, then we are right and truly f*cked (here I go again with the expletives). Kerry is a waffling establishment toady who wouldn't know true progressivism if you clobbered him over the head with it. Liberal! For crying out loud! Kerry is slightly to the left of Bush, just as Al Gore was slightly to the left of Bush. If you'd like to see a real progressive politician (even Wellstone went mealy-mouthed on single-payer when I cornered him on it back in the summer of 1991), look to Bernie Sanders (I-VT). He's really about the only true progressive in both the House and the Senate, though Waxman, Markey, Kennedy, Feingold and others in the progressive caucus are okay -- not great, but okay. I really think you must've forgotten what liberalism is all about if you honestly think Kerry is a liberal. Wrapping up liberalism in a nice corporate package doesn't make it real liberalism; on the contrary, it's an insult to one's intelligence.

    Re: Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:16:24 PM EST
    Byrd has not left the klan yet.

    Sen. Byrd Speaks to Nuclear Option | 84 comments (84 topical)