Sen. Byrd compares Republicans to Hitler!

[SpencerH]

The only good thing I can say about Byrd is that he's an excellent sleep-aid. I turn on CSpan and if Byrd is bumbling along on another of his pathetic 'speeches' I'm almost guaranteed an afternoon snooze. I know he wont say anything of any worth so I dont have to pay attention and his voice is just so monotonous and dull. Wonderful stuff! It should be bottled and sold.

Am I the only one who views the constant partisan wrangling over the judicial appointments as a real problem. Instead of the best scholars who may (or may not) have particular political leanings we will only end up with mediocre middle-of-the-road types. Occasional use is one thing, but the constant use of filibusters by either party is wrong. It's use has become an epidemic that, if it continues to be viewed as a legitimate congressional tactic by whomever is the minority, will result in ***-for-tat power plays and will lead to governmental chaos.

[Dinner]

I'm so tired of listening to Republican hypocrites whine about the filibuster. Republicans loved to filibuster when they were the minority but heaven forbid if the Democrats should use their own tactic on them. Then it becomes unfair and unconstitutional.

[Sikander]

That's not true, there was a lot more business done when the Republicans were in the minority and a lot less acrimony. They never to my recollection used the filibuster or the threat of it to torpedo nominations. The Dems are seeking revenge for something else, which is the fact that when the Repubs were in the majority they effectively killed a lot of Clinton nominees by never letting them out of committee. That is simply the majority imposing its will on the minority, albeit in a cowardly non-CSPAN friendly way. If they had let the votes happen those nominees would not have been confirmed.

What the Dems are doing is the minority imposing its will on the majority using the senate's rules alone. If a vote happens these nominees will be confirmed in every case. This isn't advice and consent, it's a rear guard action by a bitter minority in a dysfunctional institution. Byrd's a hypocrit for signing up for this latest escalation of the war and then whining when the enemy in turn threatens to escalate. If he really cared for the institution he would pull a Bob Dole and try to lead an effort to compromise. But the Dems don't want to compromise yet aren't willing to take defeat gracefully either.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm so tired of listening to Republican hypocrites whine about the filibuster. Republicans loved to filibuster when they were the minority but heaven forbid if the Democrats should use their own tactic on them. Then it becomes unfair and unconstitutional.

Which republicans would that be?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I wasn't commenting on the accuracy with which they described themselves, just that the Fasci were Italians and the Nazis were national socialists.

National Socialist is a proper noun, not an indeology. Saying the Nazis were National Socialists is like saying GOPers are Republicans. It's a phrase without meaning, using one proper name to describe another proper name. The Nazis were/are fascists. Fascism isn't merely the name of the Italian political party, it is the name of a particularly kind of political movement, of which, the Nazis were the most extreme representitives.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sikander
That's not true, there was a lot more business done when the Republicans were in the minority and a lot less acrimony. They never to my recollection used the filibuster or the threat of it to torpedo nominations.

They didn't need to while they were in the majorioty. They could kill things in committee. In the two years there was a Democratic majority in the COngress when Clinton was Prez, the Dems were too afraid to push anything that didn't have bipartisan support, so the GOP never needed to threaten a filibuster.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


They didn't need to while they were in the majorioty. They could kill things in committee. In the two years there was a Democratic majority in the COngress when Clinton was Prez, the Dems were too afraid to push anything that didn't have bipartisan support, so the GOP never needed to threaten a filibuster.

Gee wow, they had an inkling inthe first two years that the upcoming midterms were contentious and they didn't want to rock the boat. Fat lot of good it did them as the repubs took the senate in the mid terms anyway. What you are essentially saying is the Dems didn't have the cahoneys as they were more worried about creating an issue that would come back to bite them in the midterms. We'll see if the repubs have any...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
What you are essentially saying is the Dems didn't have the cahoneys as they were more worried about creating an issue that would come back to bite them in the midterms.

While that is exactly what I am saying, your commentary doesn't disprove that the GOP didn't need to filibuster or threaten it.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Sikander
They never to my recollection used the filibuster or the threat of it to torpedo nominations.

I know of 3 times they used it to delay nomination votes for tatcial reasons (one was actually a republican nominnee, that they were trying to delay to get more support for, 2 were clinton nominees, that they wanted more time to dig up dirt on), but all 3 votes were allowed to proceed later.

[GePap]

What about all the nominations held in in committee? Where in the constitution does it say that committee chairs in the senate have the power to stop presidential nominees from coming up to a vote? Oh, NOWHERE. But the consitution does say the senate gets to make its own rules, and hence, the dems. using senate rules to end debate on a subject without the full senate voting is utterly constitutional, just as Jesse Helms killing dozens of nominations was also constitutional, since the Senate gets to make it's own laws.,

So the question to Frist and Repugs in the Senate is why should they change the rules of the Senate just to appease Bushboy?

[Drake Tungsten]

Reasonable and mainstream blog Daily Kos has decided to declare jihad on Alan Greenspan...

As you've probably noticed, there have been several Alan Greenspan-related posts on the main page in just the past day or so. In one of those threads, blogswarmer Bob Brigham suggested that we "unleash the blogosphere" on Greenspan. It's a brilliant idea - no one is more worthy of having a halo-ectomy than St. Alan - so let's have at it.

If you're interested in joining this research project, here's my thinking on how it should proceed. (And feel free to chime in with suggestions on the process as well.) We should hunt down anything Greenspan has ever written, said or done that reflects poorly on him. This would include erroneous predictions, older statements which contradict things he's said recently, and anything that's just plain wrong, venal or stupid. The only rules are that it has to be true (of course) and sourced (preferably with a link, but if you're using Lexis, that's cool too - just tell us where it's from).

And for those of you who want to really get down & dirty in the trenches, we can turn this into a one-degree-of-separation venture. That is, if you can find similar material for anyone who is closely linked to Greenspan, that's fair game, too. Good examples would be Greenie's idol, the nutbag "objectivist" Ayn Rand, and Andrea Mitchell, his NBC reporter wife. (An aside: We can debate the merits of this approach all you like, but suffice it to say, there is no question that Republicans do the same crap to us all the time. If you still want to play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules, fine - but I've moved on to brass knuckles.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/4/132335/4297

Boris! Ramo! You got any good dirt on Greenspan?

[Dis]

There's only one person that should be compared to Hitler.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Dissident
There's only one person that should be compared to Hitler.

I couldn't agree more

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
(An aside: We can debate the merits of this approach all you like, but suffice it to say, there is no question that Republicans do the same crap to us all the time. If you still want to play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules, fine - but I've moved on to brass knuckles.)[/q]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/4/132335/4297

Boris! Ramo! You got any good dirt on Greenspan?

He has a point. And:

And, to make it amply clear, this is emphatically not a call for a "smear" campaign. This is a call to reveal the truth about Alan Greenspan (and his associates). As Adlai Stevenson once said, "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." The Repubs need to make stuff up to go after us - all we need to do is tell the truth about them.

This is true. Republicans tell lies. What they're looking for here are facts. What's more extreme?

[Drake Tungsten]