Saturday, May 7, 2005

Today, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) used the Democratic Party's weekly radio address as a vehicle to blame President Bush for the impasse in the senate over his judicial nominees, and urged Bush to condemn Republicans who have criticised the Democrats for their baseless obstructionism. (Link)

Ironically, this fight was sparked by Schumer himself, who advocated that the new Democratic Majority in the Senate in 2001 apply purely ideological "litmus tests" upon Bush's nominees, something that had never before been done. It's true that ideology has always played a part in the nomination and approval process, but what Schumer was pushing was far beyond the Bork case, in 1986; he was advocating rejecting nominees for their views regardless of their qualifications; ideology was the only issue that mattered, and a highly qualified nominee with the wrong political views was to be jettisoned by the majority without a second thought.

Without naming any, Schumer criticized "small groups ... trying to undermine the age-old checks and balances that the Founding Fathers placed at the center of the Constitution."

He must be talking about the 45 men and women in the senate who consistently refuse to end debate on Bush's nominees. He might want to talk to Harry Reid about that, since Reid is the ringleader of those shenanigans.

After all, he can't possibly be referring to anything else, since the constitution does not provide for the concept of a filibuster, in which a small group of people can undermine the checks and balances. The senate is supposed to vote for the nominees, not submit to the will of the minority.

"I am making a heartfelt plea to you, Mr. President. When you came to Washington, you said you wanted to change the climate in D.C.," Schumer said. "Those stating these abhorrent views count themselves as your political allies. One word from you will bring a halt to these un-American statements. That would be a way to strengthen democracy here at home."

Schumer has never bothered to condemn any of the barking moonbats who support his party, and the rhetoric coming from them has been far more vicious and hateful than what Bush's supporters have voiced. When the senate Minority Leader refers to the president as a "loser" in a public appearance (to a group of high school students, no less), it becomes apparent that the change in tone needs to come from the left side of the aisle, not the right side.

The senator referred generally to some activists comparing judges to the Ku Klux Klan and terrorists.


Republicans have also complained about some of the Democratic language in the judges debate. The GOP and some Jewish groups criticized Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), a West Virginia Democrat, for alluding to the rise of Adolf Hitler in a speech about Republican efforts to end judicial filibusters.

How about it, Chuckles? Where's the outrage? When are you going to denounce the extremist? Of course, he's a senator, rather than some screaming wingnut from a pressure group; I assume that you only want criticism of groups that don't actually have any real power.

One would think that the Senate Democrats should realize that by pushing the GOP into the position of killing filibusters on Circuit Court nominees, they are also killing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, and it's highly likely that Rehnquist and O'Conner are planning to retire soon. Additionally, Stevens is in his mid-eighties; he might very well die in office, and without a filibuster, the Dems will NOT be able to prevent Bush from appointing someone whose judicial views are quite different from those of Stevens, which will alter the court in a fashion they will not like.

posted at 04:03 PM | permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 6, 2005

...and Reid is a scum sucking asshole

Harry Reid called President Bush "a loser" (in no uncertain terms) to a group of High School students in Las Vegas. Shortly after, he called the White House to apologize, asking Karl Rove to relay the message to the president, who is in Europe meeting with foreign leaders. The Las Vegas Review-Journal has a report.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about President Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser."

There was no immediate response from the White House, but the Republican National Committee had a rather pointed response:

Republican National Communications Director Brian Jones issued a statement calling the senator's comments "a sad development but not surprising from the leader of a party devoid of optimism, ideas or solutions to the issues people care about most."


It appears that Reid didn't issue an apology to the the president until his remarks appeared on the Las Vegas Review-Journal's website. Not only is he an asshole, but he's a weasel as well. He was one of the outraged parties when Dick Cheney told Patrick Leahy to "go "f*** [himself]", but then stoops to an exceptionally low level with a remark like this. Apparently, profanity is more offensive than personal attacks in the newly puritanical Democratic Party.

posted at 08:32 PM | permalink | Comments (2)

Is it really a personal attack if its true?

posted by Gringo on May 7, 2005 02:00 PM



(Is it a personal attack if its true?)

posted by timekeeper on May 7, 2005 04:04 PM


Just turned on the TV and saw a rather revolting display of sensationalism from the local news, pushing their 11 PM broadcast. Someone has figured out that container ships are a source of pollution here.

In just 12 hours, they can belch out the pollution of 12,000 cars into the air you and your family breathe, and we welcome them with open arms....cruising our waters, slowly choking us....what's being done to stop it?

Well, why don't we shut the port down? After all, we don't want to have to deal with all that icky pollution. We'd also put Senator Patty Murray's tiny little mind at ease, since she won't have to worry about security measures at the port. (We'd save almost $8 million dollars on security costs for the port, money for which Murray fought tooth and nail.) We could even turn the port facility into a waterfront park, or perhaps set up homeless shelters, clearing out the homeless hordes that have overrun Pioneer Square and the rest of the downtown area.

Of course, there are the 34,000+ jobs, the $2.46 Billion in yearly income, and the $210 million in taxes generated by the port. But it's our lives at stake </heavy sarcasm> It's for the children™. (source; PDF)

posted at 07:53 PM | permalink | Comments (2)

... or they could just pay a few thousand extra bucks for exhaust scrubbers or less polluting engines, and create more jobs and cleaner air in the process.

posted by Gringo on May 7, 2005 02:03 PM

How will scrubbers create more jobs?

Remember, we're supposedly the country that is running roughshod over the environment, but none of these ships is flying the US flag, and few (if any) of them were built in the US, and all of them are bringing in products from other countries.

Additionally, what is the cost/benefit ratio for scrubbers? It is my understanding that marine fuel scrubbers are not particularly effective, and are spectacularly expensive. There is a tradeoff between cleaner air and less expensive goods; in most cases, people cannot have both.

posted by timekeeper on May 7, 2005 04:21 PM

Back to Horologium