You mean the fact that this administration lied to the American People and the World in order to get us into a war under the guise of 'security-post-911' even though it had been the goal of members of its cabinet since, at least, '97 (spelled out in clear ink in the Pax Americana' doctrine article) . . . you mean that those lies, the burned foriegn policy bridges, and the increasing ensuing quagmire are not enough to spawn a GOP Watergate?!?!?!
Our lack of sustained outrage!!!! Its as if we the American people are under the spell of some narcotic and lulled into a fatalistic 'whatever' . . . .
You mean the fact that this administration lied to the American People and the World in order to get us into a war under the guise of 'security-post-911' even though it had been the goal of members of its cabinet since, at least, '97 (spelled out in clear ink in the Pax Americana' doctrine article) . . . you mean that those lies, the burned foriegn policy bridges, and the increasing ensuing quagmire are not enough to spawn a GOP Watergate?!?!?!
Our lack of sustained outrage!!!! Its as if we the American people are under the spell of some narcotic and lulled into a fatalistic 'whatever' . . . .
As for this "race" idea. It isn't my idea that someone could be denied their heritage based off their political views. That is only suggested by liberals who claim things like Estrada isn't hispanic or Clarence Thomas isnt black. It is those types of supposed leaders who make up racial criteria and then declare someone "authentic" if they meet the criteria. In most cases the criteria involves being politically liberal.
I think you're definitely overstating things. It only means that Estrada's views are not representative of the Hispanic community, not that he's not Hispanic! I believe Republicans falsely tried to make that case (in an effort to make his views *appear* more moderate)- hence the criticism...
I think you're definitely overstating things. It only means that Estrada's views are not representative of the Hispanic community, not that he's not Hispanic! I believe Republicans falsely tried to make that case (in an effort to make his views *appear* more moderate)- hence the criticism...
Yes I can see how these quotes from Democrats are really just Republican overstatements.
Quote:
"Being Hispanic for us means much more than having a surname," said New Jersey Rep. Bob Menendez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "It means having some relationship with the reality of what it is to live in this country as a Hispanic American." Even though Estrada is of Hispanic origin, and even though he lives in this country, Menendez argued, he falls short of being a true Hispanic. "Mr. Estrada told us that him being Hispanic he sees having absolutely nothing to do with his experience or his role as a federal court judge. That's what he said to us." Menendez found that deeply troubling.
But Menendez was relatively kind to Estrada compared to the representatives of Hispanic interest groups. Angelo Falcon, an official of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, railed about the "Latino Horatio Alger story that's been concocted" about Estrada's success and, more generally, about the "concocted, invented Latino imagery" of Estrada's life.
"As the Latino community becomes larger and larger in the country, as we gain more political influence, as we become more diverse, the issue of what is a Hispanic becomes more problematic," Falcon explained. "It's not good enough to simply say that because of someone's genetics or surname that they should be considered Hispanic."
If you call a threatened filibuster not blocking, that is your perogative. Likewise if you want to call screaming that they can't get information while not actually submitting any questions honest, that is again your perogative.
I never said Democrats didn't block. I said they didn't block a hearing, which is true. They didn't have that power. They blocked his confirmation vote. He had a full hearing, but didn't answer the questions they asked. Dems felt they didn't have enough info on him, they suspected that he was extremely right wing and wouldn't put aside his personal political views when on the court, and so stopped his nomination. The "submitting questions" issue was irrelevant because he had already had his hearing and made it clear he wasn't going to answer the Dems' questions.
Quote:
As for the spot for Estrada, I read that there were four openings. So the two late term Clinton appointees have nothing to do with whether Estrada would have had a spot.
That might be right, I'm not sure. I read that if Clinton's nominees had been appointed, we probably wouldn't be having this fight right now. But in any case the point is that Repubs blocked Clinton's nominees for the same spot, and then complained when their nominee was blocked by Dems.
Quote:
Likewise Democrats always place the race card, amazingly even against people of other races. They decided Estrada wasn't "Hispanic enough."
Doesn't it make more sense for a group to oppose or support a nominee based on his views, rather than his ethnicity? If they simply supported every nominee who was Hispanic, regardless of his views, that would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?
Doesn't it make more sense for a group to oppose or support a nominee based on his views, rather than his ethnicity? If they simply supported every nominee who was Hispanic, regardless of his views, that would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?
Doesn't it make more sense for a group to oppose or support a nominee based on his views, rather than his ethnicity? If they simply supported every nominee who was Hispanic, regardless of his views, that would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?
sure, but they should have left it at "we don't like his views, so he's not in"
rather than "we don't like his views, and because he's Hispanic he's especially dangerous, and we really don't want him in"
Since the democrats talk so much about the republicans dividing people and stuff to use a persons ethicity kind of goes against their argument? Shouldn´t they be colourblind and choose whoever have the best ideas?
Since the democrats talk so much about the republicans dividing people and stuff to use a persons ethicity kind of goes against their argument? Shouldn´t they be colourblind and choose whoever have the best ideas?
"No-no-no. The Democrats didn't oppose Estrada because of his ethnicity. Rather, they opposed him strictly because of his ideology. His ethnicity made him dangerous because it contributed to his moderate image and because Republicans would call Democrats racist for even opposing him. It's quite clear that that is what indeed happened with the later. With the former, remember that Estrada was largely a trojan-horse nominee with very little published literature to use against him. But, we all knew what he was from other accounts"
Other revelations from the memos include Democrats' race-based characterization of Estrada as "especially dangerous, because . . . he is Latino," which they feared would make him difficult to block from a later promotion to the Supreme Court.
Remember that this was a private, internal memo stolen by political opponents and released to the press to make the Dems look bad. In other words, that's clearly as bad as it gets. Who knows if it's even true, given that it wasn't a publicly released document? But even if we accept its truth, and if we assume it wasn't taken out of context in any way - and those are big ifs when we're talking about a stolen memo released to the press for a political smear - how should even that line be interpreted?
It could have one of two meanings:
1. we have to really make sure we block him because he's Hispanic and we don't like Hispanics, or
2. he's Hispanic, which will make it politically dangerous for us to oppose him because they're our natural constituency.
I think it's clearly the latter rather than the former. But we report, you decide.
Yes, that's exactly right. And of course, that's exactly what the Republicans did. Just like they called democrats "anti-Catholic bigots" for opposing a Catholic nominee. It's their playbook strategery. And the irony, of course, is that by identifying the Republican strategery to do so, they triggered the very Republican response they were talking about.
4) The Democrats will recognize all of this in a tersely-worded internal memo, which the Republicans will illegally access and distribute to the press!
That's always the issue with security. My bet on how this turns out. It goes no where and both parties unanimously pass a spending bill that gives them both their own servers with even better security.
"Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William H. Pickle has been conducting an investigation into the matter. And a few weeks ago it emerged that the infiltration had been far more extensive than earlier believed. For at least a year, and probably more like eighteen months, GOP staffers accessed the Democrats confidential files. And they snatched approximately 5,000 of them, give or take.
But the big change came last Thursday at an open hearing of the Judiciary Committee. Faced with the new evidence, pretty much every Republican on the committee gave up on offering any justifications or excuses for what had happened. And even those who had been most aggressive in fighting off Democratic attacks conceded that what had happened was quite possibly criminal and should be pursued by law enforcement authorities."
Comments
GOP Watergate
You mean the fact that this administration lied to the American People and the World in order to get us into a war under the guise of 'security-post-911' even though it had been the goal of members of its cabinet since, at least, '97 (spelled out in clear ink in the Pax Americana' doctrine article) . . . you mean that those lies, the burned foriegn policy bridges, and the increasing ensuing quagmire are not enough to spawn a GOP Watergate?!?!?!
Our lack of sustained outrage!!!! Its as if we the American people are under the spell of some narcotic and lulled into a fatalistic 'whatever' . . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
You mean the fact that this administration lied to the American People and the World in order to get us into a war under the guise of 'security-post-911' even though it had been the goal of members of its cabinet since, at least, '97 (spelled out in clear ink in the Pax Americana' doctrine article) . . . you mean that those lies, the burned foriegn policy bridges, and the increasing ensuing quagmire are not enough to spawn a GOP Watergate?!?!?!
Our lack of sustained outrage!!!! Its as if we the American people are under the spell of some narcotic and lulled into a fatalistic 'whatever' . . . .
You're so cute when you are ranting.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't see an edit but whatever...
As for this "race" idea. It isn't my idea that someone could be denied their heritage based off their political views. That is only suggested by liberals who claim things like Estrada isn't hispanic or Clarence Thomas isnt black. It is those types of supposed leaders who make up racial criteria and then declare someone "authentic" if they meet the criteria. In most cases the criteria involves being politically liberal.
Nick
USA Today
National Review
MSN
I think you're definitely overstating things. It only means that Estrada's views are not representative of the Hispanic community, not that he's not Hispanic! I believe Republicans falsely tried to make that case (in an effort to make his views *appear* more moderate)- hence the criticism...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I think you're definitely overstating things. It only means that Estrada's views are not representative of the Hispanic community, not that he's not Hispanic! I believe Republicans falsely tried to make that case (in an effort to make his views *appear* more moderate)- hence the criticism...
Yes I can see how these quotes from Democrats are really just Republican overstatements.
"Being Hispanic for us means much more than having a surname," said New Jersey Rep. Bob Menendez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "It means having some relationship with the reality of what it is to live in this country as a Hispanic American." Even though Estrada is of Hispanic origin, and even though he lives in this country, Menendez argued, he falls short of being a true Hispanic. "Mr. Estrada told us that him being Hispanic he sees having absolutely nothing to do with his experience or his role as a federal court judge. That's what he said to us." Menendez found that deeply troubling.
But Menendez was relatively kind to Estrada compared to the representatives of Hispanic interest groups. Angelo Falcon, an official of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, railed about the "Latino Horatio Alger story that's been concocted" about Estrada's success and, more generally, about the "concocted, invented Latino imagery" of Estrada's life.
"As the Latino community becomes larger and larger in the country, as we gain more political influence, as we become more diverse, the issue of what is a Hispanic becomes more problematic," Falcon explained. "It's not good enough to simply say that because of someone's genetics or surname that they should be considered Hispanic."
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
If you call a threatened filibuster not blocking, that is your perogative. Likewise if you want to call screaming that they can't get information while not actually submitting any questions honest, that is again your perogative.
I never said Democrats didn't block. I said they didn't block a hearing, which is true. They didn't have that power. They blocked his confirmation vote. He had a full hearing, but didn't answer the questions they asked. Dems felt they didn't have enough info on him, they suspected that he was extremely right wing and wouldn't put aside his personal political views when on the court, and so stopped his nomination. The "submitting questions" issue was irrelevant because he had already had his hearing and made it clear he wasn't going to answer the Dems' questions.
As for the spot for Estrada, I read that there were four openings. So the two late term Clinton appointees have nothing to do with whether Estrada would have had a spot.
That might be right, I'm not sure. I read that if Clinton's nominees had been appointed, we probably wouldn't be having this fight right now. But in any case the point is that Repubs blocked Clinton's nominees for the same spot, and then complained when their nominee was blocked by Dems.
Likewise Democrats always place the race card, amazingly even against people of other races. They decided Estrada wasn't "Hispanic enough."
Doesn't it make more sense for a group to oppose or support a nominee based on his views, rather than his ethnicity? If they simply supported every nominee who was Hispanic, regardless of his views, that would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by BRussell
Doesn't it make more sense for a group to oppose or support a nominee based on his views, rather than his ethnicity? If they simply supported every nominee who was Hispanic, regardless of his views, that would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?
That's it.
Doesn't it make more sense for a group to oppose or support a nominee based on his views, rather than his ethnicity? If they simply supported every nominee who was Hispanic, regardless of his views, that would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?
sure, but they should have left it at "we don't like his views, so he's not in"
rather than "we don't like his views, and because he's Hispanic he's especially dangerous, and we really don't want him in"
Originally posted by alcimedes
sure, but they should have left it at "we don't like his views, so he's not in"
rather than "we don't like his views, and because he's Hispanic he's especially dangerous, and we really don't want him in"
Hmm. Why?
Originally posted by Anders
Since the democrats talk so much about the republicans dividing people and stuff to use a persons ethicity kind of goes against their argument? Shouldn´t they be colourblind and choose whoever have the best ideas?
"No-no-no. The Democrats didn't oppose Estrada because of his ethnicity. Rather, they opposed him strictly because of his ideology. His ethnicity made him dangerous because it contributed to his moderate image and because Republicans would call Democrats racist for even opposing him. It's quite clear that that is what indeed happened with the later. With the former, remember that Estrada was largely a trojan-horse nominee with very little published literature to use against him. But, we all knew what he was from other accounts"
Other revelations from the memos include Democrats' race-based characterization of Estrada as "especially dangerous, because . . . he is Latino," which they feared would make him difficult to block from a later promotion to the Supreme Court.
Remember that this was a private, internal memo stolen by political opponents and released to the press to make the Dems look bad. In other words, that's clearly as bad as it gets. Who knows if it's even true, given that it wasn't a publicly released document? But even if we accept its truth, and if we assume it wasn't taken out of context in any way - and those are big ifs when we're talking about a stolen memo released to the press for a political smear - how should even that line be interpreted?
It could have one of two meanings:
1. we have to really make sure we block him because he's Hispanic and we don't like Hispanics, or
2. he's Hispanic, which will make it politically dangerous for us to oppose him because they're our natural constituency.
I think it's clearly the latter rather than the former. But we report, you decide.
- It superficially conveys a more moderate image (trojan-horse).
- "He's Hispanic, which will make it politically dangerous for us to oppose him because they're our natural constituency"
- Republicans will call us racist for opposing him
FIGHT THIS DEMS.Originally posted by ShawnJ
Republicans will call us racist for opposing him
Yes, that's exactly right. And of course, that's exactly what the Republicans did. Just like they called democrats "anti-Catholic bigots" for opposing a Catholic nominee. It's their playbook strategery. And the irony, of course, is that by identifying the Republican strategery to do so, they triggered the very Republican response they were talking about.
Originally posted by trumptman
That's always the issue with security. My bet on how this turns out. It goes no where and both parties unanimously pass a spending bill that gives them both their own servers with even better security.
Nick
Well so far I'm half right.
Frist aide on leave, and new servers
Republicans and Democrats on the committee got separate servers during the just-completed year-end recess, officials said.
We will see on the other half soon enough.
Nick
nyah nyah
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Miranda has resigned.
nyah nyah
So would you call that going somewhere or no?
I just want to know so I can keep tally on my prediction.
So we have gone from Watergate level scandal to an aide resigning.
I don't know. Looks like one in the column for me.
Nick
it's looking like it was 18 months of snooping...
and 5,000 documents in the possession of the republicans.
AND Bush appointed Pryor today.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
"Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William H. Pickle has been conducting an investigation into the matter. And a few weeks ago it emerged that the infiltration had been far more extensive than earlier believed. For at least a year, and probably more like eighteen months, GOP staffers accessed the Democrats confidential files. And they snatched approximately 5,000 of them, give or take.
But the big change came last Thursday at an open hearing of the Judiciary Committee. Faced with the new evidence, pretty much every Republican on the committee gave up on offering any justifications or excuses for what had happened. And even those who had been most aggressive in fighting off Democratic attacks conceded that what had happened was quite possibly criminal and should be pursued by law enforcement authorities."