Congrats to John Bolton, new U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.!

[The Mad Monk]

The fact is, both sides are playing the same game, and have been for over two hundred years.

[The Mad Monk]

President Theodore Roosevelt made several recess apppointments during a one-day recess of the Senate.

I wonder what the reaction here would have been...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So you're mad at Bush for engaging in politics?

Who said I was mad at Bush? I think he's a moron who's engaged in bringing down worldwide American hegemony more quickly than I could ever have imagined.

And the "attitude" I'm talking about is the one where you, and if we are to believe your reading, Bush think that the post of ambassador to the UN is a joke.

Duh.

[Mr. Harley]

Ogie, you're playing good conservative again. Confusors, ignorance, etc. Let's play.

So by threatenting filibuster (as they did not actually filibuster) they have abdicated their responsibility. Sounds like they lived up to their consitutional responsibility allright.

Learn the current rules of the Senate. They have agreed to have filibusters essentially takes place with a simply test vote - so the business of the Senate can continue. Very often the leadership (you know, Republicans) often forego the vote if they know they do not have the numbers. The Republicans run the Senate, they can force a vote of closure any time they want. They can also lose aforesaid votes, but they do control the agenda. Can you say "majority".

If you had bothered to pay attention, you would have noted that the Democrats promised, in response to the nuclear option, to start doing exactly that - making the filibusters real, thus bogging the Senate down totally. So yes, that is procedure, used by both parties. It was counted as a filibuster, and the vote was blocked.

Information already available to them ad-nauseum via 9/11 report and others.

Bush league (pardon the pun) charge along the lines of who gives a fig.

Umm, excuse me. Those reports make clear that there were mistakes in intelligence, they do not necessarily make clear who screwed up. Plus, you don't find senior adminstartion officials targeted intel analysts and trying to get them fired when they refuse to create cooked intel troublesome? You live in a very different world than I do, where I look at things that goes to the very heart of a person's competency to head an organization. You know, like Ambassador to the UN? Funny that.

You refute my argument that it is a legitmate request by simply saying

Not really no.

But did you complain when the Republicans wanted info from the Clinton White House? I am consistant on that one, the government is the people's government, and though I wasn't at Apolyton at the time I was happy when Hillary got nailed for her attempt to create Universal Health Care. Not because it was necessarily a bad idea, but I thoroughly believe that the PEOPLE own the government, and that only items critically necessary for National Security should be classified.

I have not read the Gold Gupta report, you may have linked to that when I was in hospital. Could you please relink. By the way, do you know why the 1972 change was made? Due to the blocking of various civil rights laws by a small minority. That change has always seriously bothered me, I understand why it was done, but the precedent was bad. Good God, man, you are comparing a change so Bush can push through his judicial nominees to one made because we couldn't even pass antilynching statutes. Read about the history of lynching in the United States, and how it worked in the South. Even with that good cause, I still find that change disturbing. The Road to Hell....

I am also consistant on that. I have commented on two Great Presidents, both Lincoln and FDR, who did great things while stomping all over the constitution. I have posted that I still find what was done disturbing. You are justifying the Republican actions by quoting what the Democrats did wrong. That means that what the Reblicans are doing is wrong.

Unless you feel these paliamentary games are not wrong, or dangerous? If you don't, then we can agree to disagree (see my quote by Mandela). However, do you believe that votes should now be retroactively granted to the Clinton nominees that were blocked?

Dozens of District Court nominees from 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 with unanimous "well-qualified" or "qualified" ratings also were blocked by Republican refusal to give them hearings or votes. In all, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through Republican blocking of hearings and votes, despite their ABA ratings. ... While only two of President Bush's judicial nominees have been defeated in open votes, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through secret, anonymous holds and other secretive, non-transparent Republican tactics.

That's just four years, with the Democrats blocking I believe it was 11 until the filibuster showdown, now it's what - less than five. Plus their were similiar Republican threats to Clinton cabinet appointees, remember Lani Guineer? Oh, but that's different. When you make that statement, you know you are pwned. However, I'll make you a deal. How about push the Republicans, the next time they are about to become the minority again, to sign off on your

Hmm..... On the one hand you've gotten a whole lot of people giving a YEA or NAY vote on the other you've gotten a single individual assigning the posts. Which do you think makes for the better decision?

.

They won't? I wonder why. Maybe it's because they realize that the purpose of the Senate, from the start, has been to be a deliberative body, albeit flawed, to slow down the workings of federal government. It is that process that has saved us from abuses like those by FDR at the start of his presidency. Dismantle those, and you guarantee that the stability the US has seen over the last two centuries will eventually disappear, and the country that celebrates in 2076 will be a very different place.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And the "attitude" I'm talking about is the one where you, and if we are to believe your reading, Bush think that the post of ambassador to the UN is a joke.

Not a joke, but merely an unimportant post that is ideal for getting Bolton out of Rice's hair over at State.

[Mr. Harley]

Now there is a good appointee. Much as I dislike Rice's, and in fact almost all traditionally trained diplomats/state department types over the issue of minority rights and succession, at least the woman is good at her job. I preferred Powell because I fear Rice will be too suspect to Groupthink, which is a MAJOR problem in this adminstration. But at least she is broadly competent.

The substantive disagreement seems to be if the UN post, and the choice made, is important. You are dismissive, I and many others are not. Let's see how it plays in the foreign press, will that be a decent indicator as to who was right? Or are you going to pull a Rove on me, and claim what occurs in the foreign media is unimportant, all that really counts is domestic opinion? (based on his actions, he hasn't really posted anything directly on that but his attitudes are transparently telegraphed). Then we can argue over recruiting Jihadists, and the lack of strong foreign allies in Iraq again.

[Drake Tungsten]

Then we can argue over ... the lack of strong foreign allies in Iraq again.

Again? I don't remember arguing with you over this in the first place. I doubt I'd waste my time arguing with someone who thinks the UK isn't a "strong foreign ally"...

[Winston]

That's not the way to use "sic", you naughty Bush-apologizing person.

[Drake Tungsten]

Such things happen at 1:20 AM...

[Mr. Harley]

I said "lack" not "abscence". If I had said "no" you would have a valid point. I am comparing Bush Sr.'s coalition to Bush Jr.'s. Do you really believe the current one is superior - and also look how staunch they are.

FYI, that was not you personally, but the split here at Apolyton over that issue. I believe we are on opposite sides of that. Do you want me to post a side-by-side anaylsis of both coalitions, or will you grant that Bush Sr. did a substantially better job on his, which is the comparison (i.e. strong and lack) that I am using. Remember my sig - The dictator reference was specifically about Sadam, and sanctions. It's not that I liked Saddam, but the entire handling of this was just the height of incompetence - don't even get me started on Rumsfeld, there is a case of, like Nixon, Bush Jr. turns a merit into a flaw - as in sticking with your people.

Also, after searching the web, I discovered something interesting. There have been no polls of the military serving in Iraq since the Stars & Stipes one (at least that I can find), which is why you probably had such a b**tch finding any. Now, given how thing have changed, and the fact this is two years later - I wonder if there is a reason that kind of access has not been granted.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Not a joke, but merely an unimportant post that is ideal for getting Bolton out of Rice's hair over at State.

Thank you for making my point.

If you're not going to take the UN seriously then they have no reason to place much stock in any suggestions you have for their reform.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ogie, you're playing good conservative again. Confusors, ignorance, etc. Let's play.

So by threatenting filibuster (as they did not actually filibuster) they have abdicated their responsibility. Sounds like they lived up to their consitutional responsibility allright.

Learn the current rules of the Senate. They have agreed to have filibusters essentially takes place with a simply test vote - so the business of the Senate can continue. Very often the leadership (you know, Republicans) often forego the vote if they know they do not have the numbers. The Republicans run the Senate, they can force a vote of closure any time they want. They can also lose aforesaid votes, but they do control the agenda. Can you say "majority".

Ok lets play. Filibuster is NOT a nay vote it simply is a delaying tactic. Always was always will be. Filibuster by its nature is a tabling of the arguement/discussion and hence it is perfectly appropriate to call it an abdication of responsibility.

As such since delay and abdication of responsibility is the aim of said tactics the responsibility unfortunately gets taken up by the executive and has been done so on any number of historical occasions.

To cry foul when as a deliberative body the claim simply underscores their inability to do their job is mind boggling to me.

If you had bothered to pay attention, you would have noted that the Democrats promised, in response to the nuclear option, to start doing exactly that - making the filibusters real, thus bogging the Senate down totally. So yes, that is procedure, used by both parties. It was counted as a filibuster, and the vote was blocked.

It was a threat and merely a threat. Were it to become a reality then one could actually say a filibuster was actually used.

Regardless it does say volumes about the Democrats. Were they to actually do so, the sore loser mentality take my ball and go home meme and their perfect willingness to completely be irresponsible and nonaccountable to the constitution and their constituency is appalling.

Information already available to them ad-nauseum via 9/11 report and others.

Bush league (pardon the pun) charge along the lines of who gives a fig.

Umm, excuse me. Those reports make clear that there were mistakes in intelligence, they do not necessarily make clear who screwed up. Plus, you don't find senior adminstartion officials targeted intel analysts and trying to get them fired when they refuse to create cooked intel troublesome? You live in a very different world than I do, where I look at things that goes to the very heart of a person's competency to head an organization. You know, like Ambassador to the UN? Funny that.

A fishing expedition without any supporting info.

I suspect it merely another delaying tactic and as such another abdication of responsibility.

You refute my argument that it is a legitmate request by simply saying

Not really no.

But did you complain when the Republicans wanted info from the Clinton White House? I am consistant on that one, the government is the people's government, and though I wasn't at Apolyton at the time I was happy when Hillary got nailed for her attempt to create Universal Health Care. Not because it was necessarily a bad idea, but I thoroughly believe that the PEOPLE own the government, and that only items critically necessary for National Security should be classified.

I had no opinion on the matter. I merely wished the bill to be voted down post haste as the idea was inherently flawed and IMO a very bad idea.

I have not read the Gold Gupta report, you may have linked to that when I was in hospital. Could you please relink.

Give me a bit to refind it via Google. It was btw linked to by KOS IIRC.

edit - Found it [/QUOTE]Gold Gupta Harvard Law Journal Article.

By the way, do you know why the 1972 change was made? Due to the blocking of various civil rights laws by a small minority. That change has always seriously bothered me, I understand why it was done, but the precedent was bad. Good God, man, you are comparing a change so Bush can push through his judicial nominees to one made because we couldn't even pass antilynching statutes. Read about the history of lynching in the United States, and how it worked in the South. Even with that good cause, I still find that change disturbing. The Road to Hell....

So what you are saying is that necessity creates the impetus for extraordinary measures. So by that logic a UN body not served by an ambassador for over 5 monthes seems right down that train of thought.

In any event the 75 (not 72 my memory fails) procedural change was not anything about antilynching.

Completely different time frames including 30's 40's and 50's.

But by all means drag up every sundry REAL cause because at the end of the day the '75 change was about politics and not causes.

I am also consistant on that. I have commented on two Great Presidents, both Lincoln and FDR, who did great things while stomping all over the constitution. I have posted that I still find what was done disturbing. You are justifying the Republican actions by quoting what the Democrats did wrong. That means that what the Reblicans are doing is wrong.

No you are anything but consistant because you invoke the constituion not some silly Senate rules issue.

While I agree the excesses of Lincoln and FDR are disturbing and beyond what they should have been allowed to do via consitutionality the comparison to BUsh and or Senate Leadership is not a volid one.

Unless you feel these paliamentary games are not wrong, or dangerous? If you don't, then we can agree to disagree (see my quote by Mandela). However, do you believe that votes should now be retroactively granted to the Clinton nominees that were blocked?

Dozens of District Court nominees from 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 with unanimous "well-qualified" or "qualified" ratings also were blocked by Republican refusal to give them hearings or votes. In all, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through Republican blocking of hearings and votes, despite their ABA ratings. ... While only two of President Bush's judicial nominees have been defeated in open votes, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through secret, anonymous holds and other secretive, non-transparent Republican tactics.

We will agree to disagree as the parlimnetary procedural issues in my opinion are far trumped by Consitutional obligations.

Btw in the vast majority of Clinton appointees had they been allowed to go to cloture the republican majority would have voted nay. Can you say majority. So in hind sight yes they all should have gotten their up or down vote. Appointees from 92 -94 would have been the only ones wherein the Senate was not Republican majority.

That's just four years, with the Democrats blocking I believe it was 11 until the filibuster showdown, now it's what - less than five. Plus their were similiar Republican threats to Clinton cabinet appointees, remember Lani Guineer? Oh, but that's different. When you make that statement, you know you are pwned. However, I'll make you a deal. How about push the Republicans, the next time they are about to become the minority again, to sign off on your

Hmm..... On the one hand you've gotten a whole lot of people giving a YEA or NAY vote on the other you've gotten a single individual assigning the posts. Which do you think makes for the better decision?

.

4 years of republican control of the Seante. And yes they should have gotten the up down vote which would have resulted in Nays. Net effect the same other than obscure factoid that the EVIL VISCIOUS GAME PLAYING REPUBLICAN blocked Clintonian nominees.

Sure I could care less I am no Republican and in point of fact determinedly became an independant in the Clinton years in part for some of the Republican obstructionist practices as well as the complete witch hunt against Clinton.

They won't? I wonder why. Maybe it's because they realize that the purpose of the Senate, from the start, has been to be a deliberative body, albeit flawed, to slow down the workings of federal government. It is that process that has saved us from abuses like those by FDR at the start of his presidency. Dismantle those, and you guarantee that the stability the US has seen over the last two centuries will eventually disappear, and the country that celebrates in 2076 will be a very different place.

Actually the original intent of the Senate was to act as ambassadors from each state being chosen by the state legislature and not the general public. A clear indication in those days the power of each state was sovereign unto itself.

[Mr. Harley]

No - a filibuster is NOT a delaying tactic. A filibuster is a tactic used by a strong minority to exercise an de facto veto power over actions they consider not in the best interest of the American people - you and I may disagree with their interpretation, but that is the reason for it.

Secondly, the Constitution tasks the legislative chambers to come up with their own rules. Thus to claim that only when they vote are they exercising their constitutional responsibility is bogus. The parliamentary rules are critical, as the framers of the constitution understood, and you evidently do not.

Thirdly, the Senators were never ambassadors and that was never the intent. They were part of a legislative body. Say it again three time slowly. Legislative. The purpose of the Senate was to protect the minority, in this case seen as smaller states, from the unfettered will of the majority. That and the Bill of Rights were both critical parts of the system. At the time fear of the mob mentality - after the example in France - caused the framers of the Constitution to add in layers between the will of the people and direct election. It worked at the time, and made some sense after that horrendous example of mob rule had occured.

Even if it was the 1975 versus 1972 - I would have to research it, you misrepresent what I said. I said even for such a good cause as the Civil Rights laws (passed so murderers in the South could be brought to justice, in part) and anti-lynching laws, I found the precedent disturbing. D-I-S-T-U-R-B-I-N-G. We agree on that. Now, do you find the Republican attempt equally disturbing? And for substantially less cause.

So if a simple up or down vote would have caused all of Clinton's nominees to be defeated, why didn't the Republicans give them the vote? Obviously because at least some of the nominees, perhaps most, could have passed on the floor. That they did not want because they were hoping to win the next Presidential election against Al Gore, who they rightly realized was a flawed candidate.

You don't respond to my point about the only way these rule changes can be stopped. For one party, upon taking the majority control, to get together with the minority to guarantee that, via Senate rulemaking, that these end-runs around parliamentary procedures do not continue to happen. Of course each party loves to play majority partisan games, so it won't happen. If you wish, no Missouri compromise in the near future.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How in the world is blocking nominees an abdication of the Advice and Consent responsibilities?! Which rhetoric has come up with that whopper? It's a good part of those responsibilities, I'd think. Probably one of the reasons it was put with the Senate was because the Senate was created as the place for compromise. I would think that a deeply divisive canidate, that has even pissed off a few Republican Senators, would be suitable for blockage.

Furthermore, the entire "Blue Slip" policy done by Republican leadership would be considered far more obstructionist and should be considered by you to be a far greater 'abdication of responsibility'.

[Mr. Harley]

But Imran, THAT'S DIFFERENT!