Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Friday, May 26, 2006


More "Bipartisanship"

In two Senate votes so far today, Sen. Lieberman has:

1) Voted for the confirmation of Michael Hayden as Director of Central Intelligence.

Ned Lamont opposed the nomination, joining such senators as Dodd, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Feingold, Bayh, and even Specter, who all voted "nay."

2) Voted against the nomination of Brian Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge (on his second try), but only after being one of 12 Democrats to vote for cloture on his nomination yesterday. He voted for Kavanaugh before he voted against him, just like with Alito and the bankruptcy bill.

Ned Lamont has stated he would have "led the fight" against Alito and right-wing judicial nominations.

Heckuva job so far today, Joe.
Should the 25 other Dems that voted to confirm Hayden also be elected out of office? Just Curious?
Do Connecticut Democrats deserve a senator who will stand up to George Bush? Just curious.
And by the way, he is not just the Democrats senator. He may be a Democrat be he represents Republicans and us Indepedents as well as Democrats.
So anonymous,
As an indedendent, which you claim to be, do you have any issue with government spying on it's citizens?
Hayden is a the architect of Bush Domestic spying program.
An attempt to portray a vote on cloture as a vote on the question is a pretty thin reed to hang your hat on.

As much as we may not like George Bush's nominees, it does not mean Democrats should try to halt all Senate business once there has been sufficient debate on the subject. Some people may like to use the filibuster as an obstructionist tactic, but that demonstrates the view of someone who almost prefers to be in the minority.

I couldn't stand it when the Republicans kept delaying Clinton's judicial nominees, and I wont stand it if the Republicans try to do the same for the next Democratic president.
Ya, I'm sure you won't, anonymous. It's sad that you call the fillibuster "obstructionist" when it is the only tool the minority party has in order to prevent tyranny of the majority. There used to be other tools that could be used to stop judges from getting voted on, like pocket vetos, but the Republicans made sure to get rid of those once they controlled everything.

You sure seem to use a lot of Republican talking points and lingo for an "independent".
The President appointing a judge that he likes is not "tyranny." It is his constitutionally authorized power.

And where did I say I was an independent? I am actually a registered democrat and have been all my life. I've always supported the Democratic party, except for a brief (and rued) flirtation with the Green Party. And in the upcoming primary I plan to vote in, I intend to vote for the insurgent democrat rather than the county endorsed machine candidate who seems to think he is entitled to be successor to the outgoing congressman (and who used to be a Republican on top of that!).

There are plenty of us who are Democrats, liberal democrats even, who find the jihad against Joe to be quixotic and counterproductive.
The fact that a president has the constitutional right to APPOINT a judge, doesn't mean that the Senate must CONFIRM that judge. And the minority party in the Senate has the right to reject that appointment through the use of a fillibuster. To deny that by claiming it to be obstructionist, you are, by implication, claiming that a Republican president and a Republican majority Senate have the right to march in lockstep and push 100% of the appointments through, and the Democrats should just shut the hell up. Many of us would label that tyrrany of the majority.

It's funny how you claim to be a democrat yet you argue like you are a Bushbot. Who sent you here? Rendon Group? Benador? Or are you our pentagon minder?

By the way, I suggest you look at post number 4: "He may be a Democrat be he represents Republicans and us Indepedents as well as Democrats." According to that post, you're an independent. If that was some other anonymous, then perhaps you ought to consider coming up with an ID that would differentiate your posts from all the clones using the same "anonymous" ID.

Lastly, anyone who feels that it's a bad idea to replace Joe Lieberman must really love Bush's policies and appointments, because almost nobody in the Democratic party has done more to support and enable them.
Post a Comment

<< Home