Oliver Willis: Like Kryptonite To Stupid

Home »

GOP Nomination Obstruction, Illustrated

10:41 pm EST February 9th, 2010 | Democrats, Republicans | 24 Comments

No, the two parties aren’t “the same”.

According to Harry Reid’s office three of George W. Bush’s nominations were held up by Democrats in his first year for more than three months compared to more than 46 of president Obama’s nominees having waited at least three months and nine for at least twice that long.

That’s where the real difference lies between the two parties, the Democrats held up nominations on genuine good faith concern for a minority without another avenue to be heard. While the Republicans are obstructing for nefarious reasons on behalf of an over powered corporate “minority” something they dare not say out loud. Republicans not sighting particular concerns over the qualifications of the nominee and instead using issues that amount to blackmail such as Richard Shelby putting a blanket hold on more than seventy of the Presidents nominations for a ransom of some big ticket concessions from the administration, make their true intent pretty clear.

Topic: George W. Bush, President Obama, Presidential Nominations, U.S. Senate

« Honda Joins Recall Parade With Airbags
Daily Caller, Instapundit Team Up To Smear Jon Stewart »

24 Responses to “GOP Nomination Obstruction, Illustrated”

merl says:

February 9, 2010 at 10:45 pm

Maybe someone should clue our President in to what are called recess appointments. Or is that not playing fair?
jr says:

February 9, 2010 at 11:10 pm

Every nominee is an “ist” or
michael says:

February 9, 2010 at 11:47 pm

If Obama would only put forth qualified and outstanding candidates like that Arabian horse expert who went in and did such a fantastic job in New Orleans, the Republicans would be happy to approve them.
Tiberius says:

February 10, 2010 at 4:35 am

Not to pat the GOP on the back for being complete dicks, but at least they know how to do the party unity thing. Imagine Bush without the rubber stamp Dems and we might never have gone into Iraq, gotten Roberts or Alito, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and any of a host of other horrors. And Bush didn’t have the majority Obama currently has.
Dave in SoCal says:

February 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm

Ah yes, the ever popular (if tiresome) “if Democrats do it it’s noble and altruistic, if Republicans do it, it’s for evil and nefarious purposes” argument.
We all know that Democrats would never ever do anything for purely partisan purposes, don’t we?

“August 2006: Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose G.O.P. bills. By denying the G.O.P votes from across the aisle, Democrats have forced moderate Republicans to back bills like those cutting Medicaid and other social programs that fiscally conservative Republicans have insisted on, votes for which Democrats have then attacked moderate Republicans in television ads. Pelosi has also ordered Democrats not to work on bills or even hold press conferences with Republicans whom the party is trying to defeat in November.”

Oh, and that first paragraph in the story you linked to is priceless liberal delusion:

There is no way to misinterpret the peoples mandate for progressive change. When we elected President Obama we elected to take a course away from supply side economics to a wider more progressive wealth distribution that tips the scales in favor of America’s workers.

Actually, there is a way to misinterpret it and he clearly did. I wonder if he ever allowed himself to consider that the more likely reason for Obama’s election is that people were fed up with Republicans and wanted to try them some of that “hope and change” that the carnival barker was pitching? “GuaranTEED to cure all yer ills, both Domestic and International!!”

If electing President Hopenchange really was a mandate for a “progressive change”, then why is it that EVERY example of “progressive” legislation (i.e. Card Check, Cap and Trade, Health Care Reform) is dead in the water? Even with an entire year of a filibuster-proof super majority, Obama, Pelosi and Reid were unable to close the deal on ANYTHING.
Dave in SoCal says:

February 10, 2010 at 12:09 pm

And Richard Shelby is a douche for putting a blanket hold on nominations simply to protect the pork for his district. He needs to be voted out.

There are already several excellent reasons to give Craig “Mandatory Union Representation for All” Becker the thumbs down.
anotherbozo says:

February 10, 2010 at 1:32 pm

Great post, Oliver. I am so sick of the MSM’s passion for symmetry–”they both do it,” “there are excesses on both sides,” ad nauseum. No, it’s NOT symmetrical, dickheads. Nor is Keith Olbermann the left-wing equivalent of Glenn Beck. Nor are Tea Party psychotics the equivalent of Democrats.com or any other progressive organization. Part of the problem is the Dem’s tendency to be apologetic and genteel, a byproduct of reason and education, I assume.
Dave in SoCal says:

February 10, 2010 at 1:35 pm

Part of the problem is the Dem’s tendency to be apologetic and genteel, a byproduct of reason and education, I assume.

Thanks for that statement. I really needed a good hearty laugh and that did the trick.
Wilbur says:

February 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm

If electing President Hopenchange really was a mandate for a “progressive change”, then why is it that EVERY example of “progressive” legislation (i.e. Card Check, Cap and Trade, Health Care Reform) is dead in the water? Even with an entire year of a filibuster-proof super majority, Obama, Pelosi and Reid were unable to close the deal on ANYTHING.

That’s easy:

-complete and zombie-like obstructionism from the party of No (see above graph)

-the fact that the ‘filibuster-proof super majority’ was a myth from the beginning. No majority that included Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, etc. was ever going to be a super-majority for anything progressive.

-persistent and well orchestrated campaigns of deliberate misinformation from the party of No, it’s media lapdogs, and their health and energy industry bankrollers.

Even so, health care at least is not dead in the water. I assume you’ve seen those polls that say solid majorities of the public want some health care reform passed? If they don’t like some of the aspects of the current bill it sure isn’t because the Republicans have proposed any serious alternatives, is it?
mambochicken23 says:

February 10, 2010 at 3:25 pm

It sucks for you that it’s true, doesn’t it?
Dave in SoCal says:

February 10, 2010 at 3:25 pm

persistent and well orchestrated campaigns of deliberate misinformation from the party of No, it’s media lapdogs, and their health and energy industry bankrollers.

You need to get your facts straight. The health industry bankrollers are making backroom deals with the White House to keep drug prices high. In return, they are promising to pony up $150 million dollars for pro-ObamaCare advertising.
Dave in SoCal says:

February 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm

I’m sure that the party of Keith Olbermann wishes it were true.
Dave in SoCal says:

February 10, 2010 at 3:33 pm

I assume you’ve seen those polls that say solid majorities of the public want some health care reform passed?

You mean like this poll, which clearly indicates that a majority (69%) either doesn’t want the current legislation passed (48%) or doesn’t want ANY legislation to change the current system (21%)?

if they don’t like some of the aspects of the current bill

Actually, it’s the entire bill they seem to hate. Which people on the left (starting with Obama and moving on down) seem to have difficulty grasping.
Dave in SoCal says:

February 10, 2010 at 3:37 pm

-the fact that the ‘filibuster-proof super majority’ was a myth from the beginning. No majority that included Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, etc. was ever going to be a super-majority for anything progressive.

Here’s a clue for you at absolutely no charge:

If you can’t pass a piece of “progressive” legislation with a simple majority, then maybe Obama’s election really didn’t give you a mandate to shift the country leftward as liberals like to fantasize.
Wilbur says:

February 10, 2010 at 4:27 pm

Got it, Dave. No president ever has a mandate from the people unless he can convince 60% of the corrupt self-centered hacks in the senate to vote his way.

Should the republicans succeed in their single-minded goal to tear Obama down, their own total lack of any positive ideas for the country will become clear in short order.

Unfortunately for you, Dave, we don’t have to wait that long for your utter cluelessness to manifest itself.
Zython says:

February 10, 2010 at 7:54 pm

You mean like this poll, which clearly indicates that a majority (69%) either doesn’t want the current legislation passed (48%) or doesn’t want ANY legislation to change the current system (21%)?

Or this poll that shows that 57% (you know, an actual majority), would like an even more liberal bill.
Dennis says:

February 10, 2010 at 8:11 pm

Nice, Zython. That poll is from October 20, 2009.

A little more current than the WHO survey from 2000 that you guys used to throw out regularly here, but still so far past its expiration date it’s starting to reek something fierce.

I think there’ve been about three big elections since then that might make that poll look even more stale now other than simply because it’s really, really, really, really old.

Weak.

Very weak.
Thad says:

February 10, 2010 at 11:49 pm

No, they’re not equal. One of them has a spine.

I wouldn’t be nearly so pissed at the Dems for failing to get anything done right now if they’d done half as good a job at blocking Bush’s agenda as the Republicans have done at blocking Obama’s.
Thad says:

February 10, 2010 at 11:49 pm

…so wait. One “really old” translates to one month? I’m trying to work out the conversion factor here.
Thad says:

February 10, 2010 at 11:50 pm

What the fuck is Obamacare?
Thad says:

February 10, 2010 at 11:55 pm

– I assume you’ve seen those polls that say solid majorities of the public want some health care reform passed?

– You mean like this poll, which clearly indicates that a majority (69%) either doesn’t want the current legislation passed (48%) or doesn’t want ANY legislation to change the current system (21%)?

Waitwaitwait.

He said “solid majorities of the public want SOME health care reform passed” (emphasis mine) and to refute that, you…cite a figure that says 21% of the public DOESN’T want any healthcare reform passed?
Thad says:

February 10, 2010 at 11:59 pm

I’m sure that, when the Republicans tried to declare the filibuster unconstitutional back in ’05, Dave was against it, because if the Republicans couldn’t break a filibuster, they clearly didn’t have a mandate.
The Dark Avenger says:

February 11, 2010 at 11:11 am

That Democrats speak up for what they believe in honestly and passionately?

Yes, this Keith Olbermann viewer certainly wishes for that one.
SaveFarris says:

February 11, 2010 at 11:29 am

Oh, so you’re the one…

Keith’s really more the Michael Savage of the Left: a show powered by nothing more than invective hate to a rapidly shrinking audience.