In the context of discussing the resolution against President Bush’s escalation, Sen. Mitch McConnell – the Minority Leader in the Senate says this:
And you know, in the Senate, I don’t know why anyone would be whining about a 60 vote requirement in the Senate. That’s the way it’s been for many decades, and certainly a matter of this importance will be dealt with in a 60 vote context, like virtually every other important matter in the United States Senate.
Which leads me to ask: has Mitch McConnell ever heard of a guy called Bill Frist? Just months ago Frist was McConnell’s leader in the senate when he embarked on a certain crusade to eliminate the requirement of 60 votes for the senate to conduct business because the GOP wasn’t getting its own way.
To be frank, I support the need to get 60 votes to move forward in the senate. I believe it promotes compromise and negotiation as a counter to the 51% rules that govern the House. But the remedy to this for Democrats is not to rewrite the rules like Frist wanted to and McConnell has so conveniently forgotten, but for us to have at least 60 Democratic senators (and I mean Democratic senators, not 59 Democrats plus Independent Joe Lieberman).
” I believe it promotes compromise and negotiation ‘
That sounds so reasonable, so, bipartisan, of you….
But then you go on to say
But the remedy to this for Democrats…to have at least 60 Democratic senators.
Which is to say, like most of what the leftists do, you don’t REALLY want compromise, you want hegemony
I’ll take a 60-40 majority to the mandate bank well before mere “political capital” begat by a 51-49 majority.
You call it hegemony, i call it a can of shut the fuck up pedro.
yea baby…let the world see what leftist dominion looks like. Complete quashing of any different opinion.
Should be fun!
I don’t know about you but I absolutely believe that Pedro really does give a shit for “bipartisanship”.
What Pedro is really upset about is that a 60 member majority would reflect the fact that the majority of voters disagree with him.
But then again conservatives have always hated democracy and freedom.
“…you want hegemony.”
I believe the word your looking for is democracy.
Oh well, far be it for conversatives to recognize it when they see it or embrace it when it happens. Per RBG, conservatives are not fans of democracy. Hegemony, indeed. You moron.
“…you want hegemony.”
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
he·gem·o·ny (hĭ-jěm’ə-nē, hěj’ə-mō’nē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. he·gem·o·nies
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.
yup,thats what i thought it meant
Yeah, his problem’s not that he doesn’t understand the word, he’s just using it in stupid fashion.
Even if the Dems have a 60 vote majority, there will still be negotiation between conservative Dems, moderate Dems and liberal Dems. Of course I want to exclude Republicans. They aren’t rational. I don’t believe in bipartisanship if it means you have to talk to crazy people like they actually have something intelligent to say.
there you go ollie, now don’t you feel better for telling the truth?
But remember, it is all out there on a google cache now. When you decide who you are going to whore campaign for, better hope it isn’t someone who recognizes that 50% of america thinks a bit differently.
Oh by the way, how IS it that the not-rational republicans managed to keep an economy going with a record low unemployment rate, and a nice solid 3.5% growth?
I don’t think he meant everyone who votes Republican, just the actual members of the current party.
The so-called “nuclear option” was posited as a way to end purely partisan filibusters.
1) Have Republicans threatened to filibuster the Senate over this resolution?
2) Is anyone here ignorant enough to believe that if Republicans ever threatened a filibuster, the “nuclear option” won’t be the immediate response of Senate Democrat leadership?
Phew! Thats a relief nimrod!
I was getting my stuff ready to head out for the cattle car…..Thank goodness our putative leftist overlords only want to sent the elite republicans to the camps…
LOL
Pedro, how do you dress yourself in the morning? Do you really not see the difference between the nuclear option and having a 60-seat majority? In one case, the ruling party is using their position to alter a rule as to exploit a VERY-slight majority and make bipartisanship unnecessary. In the other case, the American people have elected a party as an overwhelming majority, and essentially declared that this party’s ideals are important to them.
Now, can you figure out which one is which? If you can, I’ll give you a cookie!
Idiot.
funny, the republicans had majority for what, the last ten years….and ol’e mambo wasn’t quite ready to agree that the Republican ideals were important.
See, that is the real problem with leftists…they are hypocrites.
First, Pedro, you’re right, I wasn’t ready to agree that the Republican ideals were important. Evidently, I disagreed with most people (on some issues, I’m still in the tiniest of minorities). But I could readily admit that the Republican ideals seemed important TO THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS. This is clearly different, and certainly not demonstrative of me being hypocritical.
You might want to be more careful throwing around that “hypocrite” label.
Fuck you, Pedro, you’re an idiot. The only thing I dislike more than an idiot is a smug, condescending, arrogant prick. Lucky you, having the two-for-one special.
Don’t listen to him! It’s a trap! Don’t look him in the eyes or your brain will wither and die!
Pedro, your Jedi mind tricks no longer work on me.
Alot of American politics are based on marketing. A majority doesn’t necessarily mean the American people like you better, it often means you had better marketing.
Remember when Clinton was in office, Republitards often whined that Clinton used polls to drive his policy. What that meant was Clinton looked at the polls to find what Americans wanted and pushed those policies.
Bush uses polls just as much, but instead of looking for policies America wants, he’s looking for ways to sell his unpopular ideas to the American public. Hence ‘personal accounts’ instead of privatization. Etc.
Good point, midder. There has certainly been a preponderance of Orwellian language used by this administration. “Clear Skies Act,” “Healthy Forests Initiative,” etc.
Darn, Duros found me out!
{waves hand} “You don’t NEED to see my voter registration card…….”
And Mambo?
You know how I can tell I am hitting close to home?
The rhetoric gets shriller, and the invective more personal…
True to form, here comes Pedro, who never shrunk from repeating any squalid smear against liberals and democrats, lecturing us on civility and bipartisanship.
Here comes Pedro, who never shrinks from personal invective, including against the host of this site, whining about being on the receiving end.
Oliver, you’re a better man than I am. If it were my site, Pedro would have been banned – permanently – years ago.
I didn’t think Pedo was a registered voter. I wonder if it’s because he’s not a citizen or if it’s because he’s a felon.
yea we know wilbur, just a taste of what the leftists in this country want to do with the first amendendment eh?
check up and down this string and show me where I refer to anyone as an “idiot” or tell them to fuck themselves, prick , etc etc. That comes from people who have a hard time actually working up a coherent rebutall.
Ollie, you want me off, just say the word. No need to ban me (nor does it really matter, as you can always sign up under a new screenname…)
But check what happens to your sitemeter in the month that I was banned too…!
Pedro, I view your erroneously characterizing me (as well as any liberal) as a hypocrite to be much worse than me calling you a prick.
You have selective reading ability, you see the words that you want to see, and ignore the rest.
I resort to personal invective not because you hit close to home with your “arguments”, but because I loathe people like you. People who ignore any and all evidence that suggests their views are wrong in some way, just to preserve their preconceived self-identity. This, rather than adapt this sort of information into their worldview.
This makes you an ignorant person. And no, as a liberal, I don’t want to take away your first amendment rights. I only plaintively wish that there were fewer idiots like you in the country.
just a taste of what the leftists in this country want to do with the first amendendment eh?
I think part and parcel of the right of free speech is the right to run one’s own personal blog however one wants too, which includes banning psychopukalicous fuckwombats like yourself, if one is so inclined.
Not that I want Oliver to ban you, I just kind of admire the fact that he hasn’t, permanently.
For you to complain about it, or, really, anything, just says to the world “I’m a creepy loser with too much time on my hands.”
To say nothing about anally checking Oliver’s site meter to see what effect your August Presence has on it.
Have you already picked out your new screen name for the next time you’re banned?
Loser!
He checks the Site Meter with his arse?
No, with his ass.
It’s just amazing to me how uncivil and hateful the one’s who always complain about how uncivil and hateful the Republicans are can be. It is so rare that you guys get through a comment thread without name calling and personal shots from those prone to agree with everything Oliver says- often right after you complain about those of us who don’t agree with you as being “haters.”
By the way mambo- how often to you consider what you’re saying yet “ignore any and all evidence that suggests [your] views are wrong in some way, just to preserve [your] preconceived self-identity.”
Are your views ever suspect? Do you ever examine yourself? Do you ever consider that you may be wrong on some things? Do you ever consider that your evidence may not hold up against someone elses?
Do you, Marty? Because you never come off like that.
By the way, Oliver- I think you clearly misunderstood the so-called “crusade” on the advise and consent issue on judges and the issue of filibusters as it pertains to presidential nominations and the Senate’s constitutional requirements to confirm or reject them. them.
Or perhaps, as you often do, you are purposefully pretending to misunderstand the issue because it works better for you rhetorically.
Unless you can find where there were Senators who were trying to eliminate filibusters altogether, you may want to rethink this post.
Otherwise, I truly think that you don’t understand the Senate rules- there is no “requirement of 60 votes for the senate to conduct business.” While it may seem like semantics, instead it is a very important distinction.
In any case, the so called “constitutional option” that never came about (which personally, I’m glad it didn’t) was not in reference to general Senate rules for voting on legislation, but to the very narrow area of “advise and consent” concerning constitutionally required presidential appointments.
(And yes- McConnell is also wrong.)
Doesn’t cut it Marty. Filibusters are about ending debate. Nominations require debate thus are eligible for filibuster. To change the filibuster rules to exempt nominees would require a super majority as laid down by senate rules. Otherwise you have to declare past senate rules do not bind future senates (probably bringing the courts in). Then you go back to simple majority for all senate rules forevermore, including filibusters. The filibuster may still be on the book, but no one would need 60 votes for cloture when 51 will simply eliminate the filibuster.
Some members of that senate including, I believe, Frist had been involved in previously filibustering nominees. So they must have believed in the precedent of filibustering nominees.
Yes, because I’m dumb enough to believe Republicans wouldn’t just kill filibusters for judicial nominees and not other pesky issues (midderpidge has tackled the cloture issue).
And “constitutional option” is conservative re-branding of their original phrase, “the nuclear option” after it didn’t poll well.
It’s just amazing to me how uncivil and hateful the one’s who always complain about how uncivil and hateful the Republicans are can be.
Marty, It’s amazing to me how you’re only distressed about uncivility when it’s directed toward right-wingers.
Think I’m describing you unfairly? Prove it!
The person who is receiving all the abuse in this instance deserves it. He has been the author of much vituperation and bad-faith arguing here over the past couple of years.
Hey, Marty. Love your use of rhetorical questions. But here’s your answers.
I always strive to critically examine my views, and correct them where they clearly seem wrong. For example, I was an agnostic for the longest time. After many conversations with a coworker of mine in my lab, he presented a clear, coherent argument for atheism, as well as incontrovertibly dispelling agnosticism. I’m an atheist now.
I’d like to think that my views have been shaped by my critical thinking skills, Marty. Some of us are actually thoughtful about their views. Then there’s people like Pedro and Frank…
Bad-faith arguing?
WTF?
I argue with fact which shape opinion. The problem that you lefties have is that you argue with emotion that shapes opinion. For you, things like socialism and global warming are EMOTIONAL issues, not factual ones. Anyone who tears into your “beliefs” is actually personally attacking your EMOTIONS.
When you can’t bring any sort of rationality to the table to argue against me, BAM, out comes the invective. People with a good factually based argument simply lay the facts out, and don’t need to resort to childish personal attacks.
This stuff if psych 101….go back in the strings and see how many times I give an opinion, often backed by a fact, and the response is simply a statement followed by a personal attack, with no attempt to even deal with the issue on the table.
Remember peed’s gasping, disbelieving silence following the midterm elections?
Hmmmm…. I don’t recall Pedo ever backing any argument up with facts. Usually he starts with a wild accusation or premise, stretches some nearly unrelated circumstance to support it and then accuses everyone of being too stupid to see it. If pressed for citation he usually links to some nutjob website with the journalistic honesty of a chocolate smeared five year old denying he ate the cake.
No S, not really. Seeing as before the election I said
“c. believe me, the republican congress has done enough to piss off republicans to deserve to lose on their own merits”
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/10/oh_cheney.html
You know piddgy, as you just had your rhetorical ass handed to you in my previous post, from now on, why not back up your accusation with some fact…how about a link or two showing the world the “nutjob” websites I linked to?
While you’re at it, want to apologize for the “hiding behind kids” comment?
If you mean by handing me my rhetorical ass, you mean faulty premises, nutjob conspiracy theories, and failing to address actual points, then yes you did.
And yes, I am truly sorry we have a president who hid behind some kids rather than face his responsibilities when the country was under attack.
I combine harsh invective with factual information when my target annoys the shit out of me. It’s a personal fault of mine, I have a short fuse when it comes to obnoxious people.
Hahaha, global warming is an emotional issue for liberals. Holy shit, buddy… wow…
And I’m an experimental psychologist… my guess is that you don’t know shit about psychology, so don’t be a smug dick. “This is psych 101…”
It is always annoying to people when they can’t build a cogent, fact-based argument to refute something they disagree with….I would figure someone like you would be used to that sort of cognitive dissonance by now…
yea, I was a biopsych major in college.
You do know that most psychologists go into the field to figure out what is wrong with THEM right mambo?
Now back to torturing rodents for you!
People with a good factually based argument simply lay the facts out, and don’t need to resort to childish personal attacks
I guess that explains why Pedro engages in personal attacks so often. Most recently:
You do know that most psychologists go into the field to figure out what is wrong with THEM right mambo?
Physician, heal thyself. Then go play in traffic.
Pedro, you’re a dope.
did you see that I said EXPERIMENTAL psychologist? Again, with you not seeing all the information. you see, I think that you’re referring to clinical psychologists. I would have figured you’d know that, Doctor. You jackass.
Anyway, show me your facts re: global warming that refute the multitude of evidence that’s against you. Or maybe you can rehash my original statements in this thread and tell me exactly where I was hypocritical, or maybe explain to all of us how the nuclear option is EXACTLY the same thing as having a 60-seat majority in the Senate.
On second thought? Forget it. You’re hardly worth the time and energy I’m expending on you. You’re an idiot, Pedro.
Pedo is the Ignatius J Reilly of this blog.
I don’t think Ignatius J. Reilly managed to alienate people quite so fast.
You are right. I forgot we characterized Pedo as Frank Burns. Maybe Dugger can be Ignatius J. Reilly.