John “I Think It’s Understandable Why People Shoot Judges” Cornyn’s lame gambit has failed.
The Senate has confirmed Hillary Rodham Clinton to become secretary of state.
The Senate vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the former first lady despite lingering concerns by some Republicans that her husband’s charitable fundraising overseas could pose a conflict of interest.
Republicans and Democrat alike say her swift confirmation was necessary so that President Barack Obama could begin tackling the major foreign policy issues at hand, including two wars, increased violence in the Middle East and the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
John “I Think It’s Understandable Why People Shoot Judges” Cornyn?
So then it must be Secretary of State Hillary “Barack Obama Is Not Ready To Be President” Clinton to you, sir.
[...] Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton [...]
steno: John “I Think It’s Understandable Why People Shoot Judges” Cornyn?
So then it must be Secretary of State Hillary “Barack Obama Is Not Ready To Be President” Clinton to you, sir.
Yes, by all means. Let’s equate supporting the assassination of judges with campaign rhetoric.
Seriously. Essentially one is saying if you don’t agree with someone don’t vote for them, the other is saying if you don’t agree with them kill them.
Do you really see these at the same thing?
I think she’ll do a good job, but I also think this might be a mistake for her long-term political career (unless she’s angling for the Supreme Court, which is entirely possible).
Under Bush II, incompetence was rewarded. The very people who allowed 9/11 to happen were promoted, not fired. Traditionally Sec. of State folks don’t last very long. It’s a hard job if you take it seriously (unlike Condoleeza Rice, who basically twiddled her thumbs for four years and accomplished nothing).
So it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Oh, and by the way Republicans: Bill Clinton is no longer your president. It’s Barack Hussein Obama.
but I also think this might be a mistake for her long-term political career
Oh, I don’t know. Mr. Obama has made it clear on his very first full day in office that he intends to make the middle east a top priority. Ms. Clinton has a chance to make history and join Mr. Gore as a Nobel laureate.
She’ll be a lot better than Rice (then again, so would a sack of bricks) but I dunno, color me skeptical regarding any long-term peace involving Israel and Palestine.
Hilary should wear the opposition of people like Cornyn as a badge of honor.
daniel rotter: “Hilary should wear the opposition of people like Cornyn as a badge of honor.”
I can’t believe someone that stupid, with that much power, isn’t completely corrupt. Someone should investigate him and see if he can’t be shoved in a small jail cell somewhere.
color me skeptical
Hey, I didn’t say it was going to be easy!
Decaf, C.S. Decaf. Your postings are usually a little more measured and restrained than this.
CSS: I can’t believe someone that stupid, with that much power, isn’t completely corrupt. Someone should investigate him and see if he can’t be shoved in a small jail cell somewhere.
Investigated? For what? Being powerful and unintelligent?
Over on the “Mom of Adolf Hitler” thread you say parents should be investigated if they don’t name their kid something acceptable. Here you want some investigated just because you see them as stupid and powerful.
What next? Investigate anyone who voted for McCain or was a member of the Young Democrats?
You’re getting kinda right wing, C.
Longer Oliver: “I don’t care whether or not Hillary will be a good Secretary of State, I just care that I can use her nomination to remind everyone what Cornyn said a while ago.”
J.
Good point, Mr. Tea.
Now what was it you were saying about Sen. Byrd?
CSS: “I can’t believe someone that stupid, with that much power, isn’t completely corrupt. Someone should investigate him and see if he can’t be shoved in a small jail cell somewhere.”
Sean D. Martin: “Investigated? For what? Being powerful and unintelligent?”
He’s a politician. I’m pretty sure he’s corrupt. Call it the law of averages.
You have someone this arrogant in his abuse of power, and I can almost guarantee he’s corrupt.
“Over on the “Mom of Adolf Hitler” thread you say parents should be investigated if they don’t name their kid something acceptable.”
That’s damn close to lying, Sean. When you talk about what I said, make sure you represent what I said accurately.
‘Unacceptable’ is not the same as ‘Potentially abusive.’
daniel rotter says: “Decaf, C.S. Decaf. Your postings are usually a little more measured and restrained than this.”
Two points…
1.) I never drink coffee.
2.) Are you on crack? Restrained?
CSS: You have someone this arrogant in his abuse of power, and I can almost guarantee he’s corrupt.
Power corrupts and all that. Wouldn’t really disagree. But I’d still want, y’know, something more that “He’s a politician. I’m pretty sure he’s corrupt” before starting an investigation.
McCarthy is so 1950’s.
SDM: “Over on the “Mom of Adolf Hitler” thread you say parents should be investigated if they don’t name their kid something acceptable.”
CSS: That’s damn close to lying, Sean. When you talk about what I said, make sure you represent what I said accurately.
‘Unacceptable’ is not the same as ‘Potentially abusive.’
First, thanks for not jumping to your usual “You’re a fucking liar” absolute. MUCH easier to have a decent debate when you realize I’m not out to misrepresent you.
Which is why I didn’t use quotes. Clearly I was paraphrasing and summarizing what you said. Which, to quote exactly, was “I think if the name is sufficiently heinous should be grounds for charges of emotional abuse. What if you named your kid Unwanted? … Calling your kid Adolf Hitler is reason for investigation.” Note, you didn’t use the term “potentially abusive” so while ‘unacceptable’ isn’t the same as ‘potentially abusive’, neither is ‘heinous’.
But do you really have to redirect the conversation off to essentially immaterial differences in word choice? I was far more interested (over on that thread, let’s not start it here) of hearing your reply to the question that was asked by a couple of people (using various phrasings) that it took you a while to get to answering: Just what would constitute a henious/unacceptable name and who gets to decide?