YOUR FLY IS OPEN!
I'm voting for assclownism after following the link and reading the post.
The post isn't about Democrats but about media, who are frame the story in a biased way, a way not seen when the tables were turned the other direction.
Okay Mick, Whatevah...
To quote a Senate staffer,
"Here's why the articles are wrong — how can one say that a vote to continue to debate the wisdom of a measure is a vote to refuse to debate? You say it's because we haven't voted to proceed, but that doesn't mean there is any limitation on debate. To the contrary, the Senate had very heated debate all day today about Iraq, incl McCain, Kerry, Kennedy, Warner, and others. That's debate. The vote yesterday had virtually no effect on it. All that has been limited is the ability to eventually vote on Levin-Warner.
The Hill press know this. They watched the debate all day today. Let's see if they acknowledge tomorrow that debate has not been limited."
Congrats, you get to keep both awards yourself, Pesky.
I assume you can't hold them being so tied up in knots. Sorry bubba, but the tide just turned hard against you.
Both sides are tied up in knots of hypocrisy. When the Repubs threatened to kill the filibuster on John Roberts for SC, their meme was "it deserves an up or down vote." The Dems were all about the historic validity of the filibuster. Now, tables have turned. The Dems say Republicans are blocking debate (I can't believe they aren't saying Iraq deserves an up or down vote) and Republicans are cloaking themselves in the historic righteousness of filibuster. The only thing constant is politics and self-interest. And self-serving blog comments.
Syl, true dat, but these are very different circumstances and I seriously doubt you're going to hear Harry Ried discussing "The Nuclear option." The right to filibuster isn't in question, only the merits of this particular filibuster.
The Supreme court issue hinged on a constitutional balance of power issue: The Senate's role in consulting with the President on the lifetime nomination of a Supreme Court Justice vs. The open debate of a non-binding resolution over the war in Iraq.
In my view, both sides were trying to prevent debate/passage on a Senate action. A vote on Iraq and a vote on a Supreme Court justice are both important, potentially nation-changing decisions. And in both cases, the filibusterererers knew they held a losing hand. One side's "checks and balances" is the other side's "preventing debate."
Commenting by HaloScan
