Funny Thing About Republicans and Democrats
Out of all the noise you hear from Washington, have you heard any Democrats whining about the refusal of the Republicans to allow an "up or down vote" on Abu Gonzales?
Whining seems to be a Republican trait.
Labels: republicans
posted by Dan at 6/12/2007 10:06:00 PM
21 Comments:
If President Bush withdraws every appointment he makes that has a questionable view, he's going to be subjecting himself to an impossible and unprecedented standard.
I don't want Bush to ask for his resignation - that would be a horrible precedent. If, on the other hand, we can get her to do the right thing, I'm all in favor.
What do you suggest? Should we start an internet petition?
Oh, please, grow up. Not everyone in government has to pass your personal test of purity. That's why Bush can't get into this game. Because if he bags Gonzales, he'll be called upon to bag Cheney, and pretty soon there won't be a single person in the country worthy of the appointment, except for the gutless and those powerful enough to intimidate opposition.
Are you possibly that stupid, Anonymous, as to draw some crazy kind of connection between poor performance of a job and belonging to a group that has nothing to do with your job?
I guess immigrants never go to the park.
Good luck with that hangover tomorrow morning, Anonymous. Get some fluids in your system tonight, and get some sugar in the morning.
You've been owned, baby! If you don''t see it, you must be working hard on your next beer review.
Different anonymous
I wish all of you could see how rediculous and self absorbed you are.
Have you seen any honey bees lately? Do you know what that might mean?
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Dan - this is why other bloggers disallow anonymous comments.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-bees10jun10,0,1027860.story
I agree with Keith. Anonymous has no credibility and debating him is a waste of time.
As for Gonzales and the Republicans, what good was a no confidence vote going to do? Would it have forced Bush to dismiss him? Would it have influenced Bush to dismiss him? In both cases, no. Bush would only dig in his heels and keep him. Bush won't even listen to his own party, much less the Democratic party.
The favor the Republicans did all of us was end a losing battle.
I think the original anonymous was simply pointing out the different standard Dan applies to those he likes and those he dislikes.
Sure, it's human nature. It's also hypocrisy.
I doubt the original anonymous would claim that his or her original three comments were brilliant, logical analysis of the Gonzalez situation. I assume the writer was making a point about Dan's analysis.
If I'm wrong, then Keith Sader's point is a good one. The fact that the poster parroted Dan's language is a big clue to his or her intent.
Different anonymous
BTW Dan -
What do you think about the new Accord that Funk is apparently taking as a gift.
Bad judgment in my opinion - not illegal, but not smart.
Well, Dan, Let me point out some differences here.
1) The Democrats have repeatedly said they don't believe in "up-or-down" votes on anything. The GOP is just playing by the Democrat Rules, so the Democrats have nothing to complain about.
2) The whole "up-or-down vote" controversy has been over judicial nominations, about which the Constitution (you do still believe in that document, don't you) mandates the Senate give advice and consent. Failure to vote is therefore a failure to perform a constitutionally mandated duty of the Senate -- which is not the situation here.
3) Such a no-confidence measure is non-binding and (to the best of my knowledge) unprecedented in US history. If the Democrats want to get rid of Gonzales there is a constitutional means -- it is called impeachment. Use it, if you dare.
I agree with all that Travelingal has to say regarding the ultimate lack of meaning of the no-confidence vote.
My point is solely the point I made - the Democrats aren't whining the way the Republicans did when a minority employed means to prevent a result it didn't want. That's why the anonymi and Greg are off-base, too.
Greg - you are correct that there are similarities and differences between what the Dems did and what the Republicans did. The difference I'm pointing out here is that the Dems aren't whining the way the Republicans constantly do. That's all.
Personally, I don't care if Abu Gonzales stays or goes. Who among us believes that the Republican pool of corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, unethical, perjuring attorneys is so shallow that he wouldn't be replaced by his immoral twin? At least this pro-torture twit has already been identified and is subject to well-earned scrutiny.
Except, Dan, that the differences make all the difference. Otherwise, you are looking at an apple and a bowling ball and insisting that they are identical.
If it were an apple, the Republicans would whine about it not being a bowling ball. If it were a bowling ball, the Republicans would whine about it not being an apple. That's just the way they are.
Point is, when the Dems did anything that the Repugs thought was "obstructionist", they would whine and complain and stamp their feet. The Repugs just did the same thing the Dems used to do, and the Dems aren't reacting the way the Repugs did.
Don't get all worked up about the specific proposals. The fact is that the Repugs whined whenever the Dems did anything they didn't like, but I doubt you'll hear any Dems complaining about those mean minority Repugs. There's just something in the Repug mindset that compels them to complain that everything is somebody else's fault.
Or, perhaps the Dems are too embarassed to whine after they did the same thing just a short while ago. Perhaps their hypocrisy meters are on high alert.
I suppose that's a possibility. If that's it, I hope their meters stay there.
There might not be enough hopps to make the beer !
"Or, perhaps the Dems are too embarassed to whine after they did the same thing just a short while ago. Perhaps their hypocrisy meters are on high alert."
Or, perhaps, dems understand how the system works, and don't complain when the minority exercises the power it has; whereas any "obstruction" of the divine right of the repub "mandate" required whining, wailing and accusations of treason. Among the things I like about the dems fractious, disputive caucus over the monolithic, lockstep previous majority is that they have to be able to deal with minority views without freaking out and the unlikelihood of a crazed, divorced from reality White House of either party being able to simply cram down whatever it wants.
Post a Comment
<< Home