Well… U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Pasco) didn’t actually say his constituents are stupid, but he might as well have, what with the bullshit, non-denial denial he just gave the Yakima Herald:
“Anyone suggesting that I have publicly defended Rep. Tom DeLay, expressed any personal opinion on the substance of charges pending against him in Texas, or indicated the slightest reluctance to investigate fully
Was Patty stupid for supporting Clinton when he was under the gun? Unlike DeLay, Clinton was actually proven/admitted to doing something…
OK, where do we start?
‘“the majority leader has said this is a political vendetta”… that wasn’t intended as a public defense of Rep. Tom DeLay?’
Not on this planet. Quoting what a defendent says is not speaking in his defense.
‘And when he accused the Travis County District Attorney of having a history of partisan prosecutions, saying “if you look at Ronnie Earle’s background, he’s done these things”… that’s not expressing a personal opinion on the substance of the charges?’
Now Goldy sees it different from what he wrote on 10/4/2005:
‘Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Pasco) responded to questions about DeLay’s indictment on conspiracy charges, by actually quoting the disgraced, former House Majority Leader:
“The majority leader has said this is a political vendetta […] if you look at Ronnie Earle’s background, he’s done these things.”’
Again, he is, per Goldy, quoting the defendent again. Goldy’s standard puts every media outlet in the world in the same category, as “defending” the quotee. (Is quotee a word?)
‘And when he bluntly tells the Herald that the House Ethics Committee will not pursue an inquiry on the Texas charges, claiming “we don’t have the resources”… that’s not an indication of even the slightest reluctance to investigate fully?’
Now Goldy does another dance with words by using “will not pursue an inquiry on the Texas charges” in place of his previous “will not pursue the same line of inquiry as the Texas district attorney, emphasis on the word “same’. The previous post clarified further as follows:
‘“We don’t have the resources,” he said, adding that historically, panels have not tried to duplicate outside investigations.’
Would the House ethics rules be the same at the laws in Texas? Why would the “same” line of inquiry be appropriate, especially if it is redundent?
Word parsing is a nifty technique, yet it is only really effective when preaching to the choir.
As for Goldy –
Um… does he think we’re f***ing stupid? Or just liberal.
Once again, you miss the point. If Hastings supports DeLay, say it. Do not have it both ways.
K-3 ‘…Do not have it both ways.’
Let’s get this straight. There should be no repubs or dems on the Ethics Committee, as they may support others of the same party?
Sounds like Hastings is simply stating the facts. DeLay believes there is a vendetta. Earle is a partisan. I wonder when/if Goldy will address the issue of Earle’s campaign receipts from unions and corporations.
BTW… and totally OT… Goldy, the reason Rossi isn’t responding to you is that he’s busy promoting his new book.
Yearight, RightOn, Mark, et neo-con al:
Don’t you get tired of making excuses for spineless partisan water boys like “Doc” Hastings?
In his more than 10 years in Congress, can you name one goddamn thing he’s ever done for this state? Yes, he’s managed to stick his head so far up Tom DeLay’s ass that he gets put in charge of Ethics, but all that’s accomplished is to put him in the public eye for the first time, and expose him as an idiot.
Regardless of how you feel about DeLay’s guilt or innocence, there can be no question that ol’ Doc stepped on his dick with his comments, and wishes he could take them back. Three thousand miles from his handlers, he’s probably not used to fielding an actual question of substance back in Yakima. Here’s hoping he gets a few more.
Fer chrissakes, set aside your blinding hatred for all things Left and stop defending people who don’t deserve it. Save all that right-wing bile for some Democrat who is as useless as Doc Hastings. (We all know there are plenty.) Like Dick Cheney trying to recast his “last throes” comment, you come across as a Clintonesque weasel.
P.S. Where’s Rossi?
Re: #5: What issue with Earle’s receipts from unions and corporations? The union gave $250 and the “corporations” were law firms, which are not illegal. And union contributions are legal so long as they are spent on overhead. $250 seems pretty reasonable in that regard.
yearling @2,
What a feeble defense of Hastings. Hastings was asked specifically about DeLay’s indictment, and he responded by repeating the party line defending him. In context, that is understood as a defense of DeLay. He could have said “no comment”, but he didn’t… he tried to spin the indictment into little more than a partisan vendetta. That is taking a position.
skinny @ 7
Corporations are corporations — be they a single guy with a home office or a multi-national mega-corp.
Jeez, these conservatives get more and more unbelievable.. What the hell does any of this have to do with Clinton getting a blowjob? These guys are costing the citizens millions (if not billions) of dollars by their crooked shenanigans and all you can think of is parroting some line fed to you by Rush. You must think the people of this country are really stupid. Considering the last election I could see how you reached that conclusion. However, as Bush once said, “fool me once……….” (you can fill in the rest).
Mark @9
See this Josh Marshall post for a refutation of the bogus Washington Times story alleging corporate and union shenanigans by Earle.
Goldy, you big liar
Americans are split on many issues, but when it comes to political corruption we speak with one voice
When dems were guilty as heck, ya’ll blocked and obstructed like there was no tomorrow…
mark @ 9
Are you serious? Here, you can read this and this to get an idea of some of the differences in this context. You also might want to look up “non-profit corporation” for a more general example. Or, tour Microsoft’s campus and then visit a “single guy with a home office.” Make it a game and see how many differences you can spot! Learning is fun!
righton @ 11
Ah yes, the famous “he hit me first” defense, also known as “two wrongs… make a right?” Growing up with two brothers, I used that quite often as a young child. Sad to say it works now about as well as it worked then….
@4
Stop the spin and read the words.
Has Hastings been consistent in his statements and positions?
BOnus questions:
Has Hastings been diligent in his duties as Chair of the Ethics Committee?
Does he have a conflict investigating Delay?
Any response about what someone else did some other time is non-responsive.
Um, WHY would Hastings be repeating what Delay said, if he wasn’t defending him. If he didn’t want to defend him, he should have said “No comment” or “It’s not my place to speculate” or even “Delay is and honorable man” (tho’, the last, of course, might cause evena veteran politicians tounge to rise up in revolt). By repeating what Delay said, he was, implicitly, defending him, to my way of thinking. Even if you don’t agree with that, it’s hard to make the case that it’s a neutral position.
Also, re: the Ethics committee not taking up the case, that dog won’t hunt. If this was a democratic congressman, what would hastings be doing? hmmmm? Saying “we don’t have the resources”? Pfft!
Speaking of outrageous statments, Delay’s use of the word vendetta is ironic isn’t it? He knows a little about vendettas if the stories are true about him trying to prevent unseated political opponents from getting jobs as lobbyists. I can’t believe thatthe press corp didn’t just start laughing and saying “good one!” when he said that.
One more strike for Hastings on my ongoing list. Thanks for getting this Goldy. I missed it for morning golf.
This is exactly why I think Hastings needs to go. He continually does not get the point. We here in the 4th demand good ethical leadership beyond reproach. Doc needs to get that or get out.
Nathan; ok discard my 2 wrongs make a right…
Its foolish and intentional by Goldy to try to say this IS about corruption, and of course all americans hate corruption.
What’s delay’s crime, and then once we know it, lets survey the dems and gop and toss out any that qualify. Suspect with that proviso you all would back off.
In a few months — i.e. the time permitted under Texas speedy trial rules — this whole DeLay indictment thing is going to blow in the Democrats’ faces.
The charges are legally weak, since Texas law does not specifically prohibit trading soft money for hard money. If a judge agrees with this interpretation, the charges will be thrown out before trial, since DeLay & company will not have committed any crime even if all the factual allegations were true.
If the matter goes to trial, DeLay & company will almost certainly be acquitted. The conspiracy and money laundering charges require, among other things, that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) trading soft money for hard money was illegal, (2) DeLay and company knew this trade was illegal, and (3) DeLay and company intended to violate this law.
Goldy–
You have always prided yourself as a “wordsmith”…
Talk about a stretch that doesn’t reach.
Since when is quoting someone else defending them????
It’s like Goldy saying “OJ says he’s innocent” and the next day’s headlines read:
GOLDSTEIN DEFENDS OJ!!!!!!!
I think it’s time to remove your Webster’s Dictionary from your outhouse Goldy….you have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands trying to make something outta nuthin’!
Pope, you may be right about the aquittal. But not about it blowing up in the Democrats face. If he did not wrong then so be it. But this guy has a black sticky cloud hanging over his head and it is not because of some witch hunt that the righties are claiming. It is because he is blatantly breaking or bending the rules to continue his drunken power stupor.
Hastings finds himself smack dab in the middle of it defending him. If a goddam local police car gets in a wreck in this state, an independant investigation is brought forth to ensure there was no department wrong doing. We just want the facts.
skinny-7 ‘And union contributions are legal so long as they are spent on overhead.’
As are the corporate dollars Delay is accused of laundering. If money, regardless of source in politics is what Earle says is “evil”, taking any from anyone is hypocritical. According to many HA posts this opens Earle up as fair game.
Labor Goon-6 ‘Don’t you get tired of making excuses…’
If you can’t see how Goldy twisted HIS OWN quotes from 10/4/2005 to try to squeeze another post out of Hastings then I say again:
“Um… does he think we’re f***ing stupid? Or just liberal. ”
Goldy-8 ‘What a feeble defense of Hastings.’
I did not set out to defend Hastings, and really do not care much about the whole topic. This post, however, showed an even more “feeble” attack, in that you did not simply parse quotes to bias the reporting. You parsed your own previous post to make it sound even more devious.
K-14 ‘Has Hastings been consistent in his statements and positions?’
and
‘Has Hastings been diligent in his duties as Chair of the Ethics Committee?
As far as I can tell. I hope you have more than Goldy to prove otherwise.
‘Does he have a conflict investigating Delay? ‘
That is why I brought up the Ethics Committee being made of repubs and dem. What repub would not have a confilct?
Richard, given that Delay is so powerful and given that we are talking about Texas, you may be right that the criminal charges will fail. Still if you take Delays name off and say ‘a politician took donations from a corporation, gave them to a national committee, got that same amount donated back to his campaign and to the company that his wife works at’ doesn’t that bother you? Yeah, it may be legal but is it ethical? Do you really not have a problem with that behavior? Then when charges are raised simply dismisses them as partisan politics. Do you really want polititians to be that far above the law?
It doesnt really matter if this is the left or the right anyone acting this way should be stopped.
Pope…you have no more information than on the web. To predict the future based on the limited stuff you have access to is just plain silly. But jumping to conclusions, without evidence, is something too many of us do.
Sad and scary at the same time.
Ethics?
ETHICIS?1
WE DON’T NEED NO STEEENKIN’ ETHICS!!
BWA HA HA HA HA HA
Nathan @ 13
Stop and think for a minute… Would you even begin to take seriously a citation from RushLimbaugh.com? Even if those two sites said the sky was blue, I wouldn’t take their word for it.
As for corporate differences, you clearly have never run or “owned” a “C” corporation — big or small.
Nathan @ 14
The prosecutorial misconduct allegations aside, it sounds like DeLay is arguing something akin to “unclean hands” on the part of Earle.
Wow — the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee has finally admitted that what Tom DeLay is accused of doing is NOT A CRIME!
http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/003676.html
Not in so many words, of course. But their functionary, Ronnie Earle, received an illegal $250.00 contribution from the AFL-CIO on August 29, 2000. Absolutely no way to sugarcoat this — it was a third degree felony under Section 253.104 of the Texas Election Code for the AFL-CIO to make this contribution to Ronnie Earle.
But wait, it isn’t against Texas law to ACCEPT illegal campaign contributions from corporations or unions. To quote the DCCC:
You see, it is not illegal to accept corporate or union funds, and it is a good thing for DeLay because he would already be in jail. It is highly hilarious that he would have the nerve to say, “That’s against the law.”
So even if it was illegal for corporations to contribute money to DeLay’s group (TRMPAC) for the purpose of being exchanged for hard money to be given to individual candidates, neither DeLay nor anyone else associated with TRMPAC would be guilty of a crime. Only the corporations giving the money committed a crime, and not TRMPAC or its personnel for accepting these contributions.
If Ronnie Earle is somehow able to make it a crime, not only for the hard money-soft money trade (a novel proposition), but also to accept illegal contributions, then this will certainly end up backfiring on him. Unlike the TRMPAC money, there is no question that the AFL-CIO contribution to Earle was illegal. If DeLay can be prosecuted, so can Earle.
It may be that the 3 year criminal statute of limitations has expired on Earle, if he hasn’t gotten any more of this money since October 2002. But he is an attorney, and he can still be disciplined for committing a felony — even if criminal prosecution is barred by the passage of time. It would be nice to see the all-GOP Texas Supreme Court disbar Earle for this :)
As to whether he thinks we’re stupid: He was elected, wasn’t he. That’s absolute evidence of stupidity.
Hmmmm…Dem Earle gets a legal for $250
Repub Delay via TRMPAC launders Hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Yeah…same diff…
…moron.
I keep tellin’ ya…ethics are overrated!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Deputy Attorney General Choice Withdraws Nomination
Ties to Indicted GOP Lobbyist Delayed Candidate’s Consideration
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; 3:39 PM
The Bush administration’s choice to be deputy attorney general has withdrawn his nomination, which had been delayed amid questions over his dealings with indicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, officials said today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01354.html
27-
Nice link, Pope.
Prob’ly didn’t get around to reading it though.
Might be why you can’t get elected dogcatcher.
Rujax206 @ 31
Some of the things in the DCCC link were INCORRECT. The DCCC tries to justify the $250.00 AFL-CIO contribution, saying that it was somehow soft money used for the “overhead” of Ronnie Earle’s campaign.
That is just plain WRONG. Corporations and union can’t give “soft money” to candidates in Texas, even if you try to call it the candidates’ overhead. They can only give this “soft money” to political parties and organizations for “overhead”.
It is clearly a FELONY in Texas for a corporation or union to give a political contribution to a state or local candidate, regardless of what expenses the candidate might say the money is going to be used for.
re 32: DeLay is still going down.
Shiftless, child-hating Loose-y @ 33
That remains to be seen.
it would seem calling ones constituents stupid actually gets them to vote for the man or perhaps voters like voting for a rep who “knows” them. i have no idea what “Doc” does but i do know he has done NOTHING to get the situation with the vit plant at Hanford under control. they are reinventing wheel at a terrible cost to taxpayers. if “Doc” had any spine at all he’d confront Bechtel and the DOE, get the thing built and the waste cleaned up. Bechtel is as bad as Haliburton and what they do get done gets done poorly. evidence the “Big Dig” in Boston.
madison
Amen madison.
If you want to pressure Doc directly please see http://mccranium.org
sorry to plug myself Goldy but Madison sounds like a local of mine.
I find myself almost howling in pain as I type this, but I agree with righton @ 18
“What’s delay’s crime, and then once we know it, lets survey the dems and gop and toss out any that qualify.”
AMEN! But I am certain the repug neo-cons wouldn’t be very cooperative.
re 34: Who’s NOT speaker of the house now? Who’s under indictment? Who is suspected of insider trading? How many “high Rep. officials” are going to be indicted for trason? I wonder who will be an unindicted co-conspirator?
But you know what: All they ever really wanted to do was rob the country blind, and like the child in the Shake-and-Bake commercials we have righties like you piping up with the ever odious truth: “And I helped!!!”
Shiftless, child-hating Loose-y @ 39: “Who’s NOT speaker of the [H]ouse* now?”
Alex, the answer to that is… “a Democrat.”
* Yet again, America-hating Shiftless Loose-y shows her utter lack of respect for the institutions of this country.
Me @ 40
Sorry for the lack of an un-ital. code. Hope this fixes it.
And, to be precise, Shiftless Loose-y’s post should be corrected to “Speaker of the House.” But, hey, “she” is just a union-protected alleged teacher. Let’s all just pray she’s a PE teacher and not one for Civics.
here is the entire extreme righty arsenal:1-Hillary 2- tax and spend liberals 3- YOU HATE AMERICA 4- liberal media 5-Bill Clinton lied about a blow job 6-big government 7-personal responsibility 8-socialistic program 9- from my cold dead hands 10-gays are destroying the country 11- you hate Jesus…
We are all just laughing our asses offat you here in the reality-based world.
righton @ 18
DeLay’s crime is that he helped launder contributions to make it possible for coporations to contribute to Texas elections in the last 60 days before the state election, which was prohibited by law.
By that standard, no others need step aside.
Richard Pope @ 19
“What is illegal” are corporate contributions to Texas candidates within 60 days of a state election. Money was clearly laundered for this purpose. Accordng to the facts as they are known, Delay met with the perps as it was going down and was involved in several transactions. As far as proving conspiracy, it depends upon who talks.
I would not be too confident if I were you.
yearight @ 22
“union contributions are legal so long as they are spent on overhead….As are the corporate dollars Delay is accused of laundering.”
yeah, right. Earle’s $250.00 is the SAME as the $190,000.00 Delay laundered. uh-huh. Just “overhead.”
Curtis Love @ 43
Texas law flat out prohibits corporations and unions from contributing to candidates whatsoever. Corporations and unions can generally only give to political parties (soft money only), and also to political committees that are solely involved with ballot measures. There is an additional prohibition regarding corporations and unions giving to a political party within 60 days before an election. Presumably, these limitations apply only to state and local candidates in Texas, and political parties and political committees in Texas.
Moron Mark “@ 39: “Who�s NOT speaker of the [H]ouse* now?â€
Alex, the answer to that is… “a Democrat.—
Nope, the correct answer is future federal prisoner Tom “Bugman” DeLay.
Donna @ 46
Nope?? The Speaker of the House is NOT a Democrat.
Then again, you’re probably stuck on the latest MorOn.org mental download and are unable to articulate much else.
And PLEASE do everyone a favor and learn to properly copy-n-paste.
Pope- Why are you right, and everybody else in the country is wrong?
Rujax206 @ 49
Gee, that is a good question. I could be like Donna, and think that Speaker of the House Tom DeLay will be going to federal prison on account of Ronnie Earle’s indictment. When in reality, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay will NOT be going to Texas state prison on Ronnie Earle’s B.S. indictment.
jaxoff @ 49: “Why are you right, and everybody else in the country is wrong?”
You’ve put it very well. One can either be Right or be wrong.
Mark Moron @ 48 “Donna @ 46
Nope?? The Speaker of the House is NOT a Democrat.”
Uh.. I never said the Speaker was. Do everyone qa favor and actually READ the posys, or have someone read them to you.
“And PLEASE do everyone a favor and learn to properly copy-n-paste.”
Hmmmm. uh… Fuck You?
Mark Moron @ 51 “You’ve put it very well. One can either be Right or be wrong.”
Actually you can either be Right or correct.
Donna, Donna, Idiot Donna… Follow the logic (and read slowly for comprehension):
Lucy (34): “Who’s NOT speaker of the house now?” [sic]
Mark (39): “a Democrat”
DumbDonna (47): “Nope”
I was right and you were wrong. Again.
Donna @ 53: “Hmmmm. uh… Fuck You?”
No thanks. But if you’re lonely, child-hating Lucy has an well-worn orifice or two for you.
And, BTW, learn to copy-n-paste properly!
Moron Mark, Follow the lack of logic from you
Lucy (34): “Who�s NOT speaker of the house now?†[sic]
Mark (39): “a Democratâ€
DumbDonna (47): “Nopeâ€
MarkMoron: DumbDonna, The Speaker is not a Democrat!
DumbDonna: Uh,…. I just said that, MarkMoron!
The hysterical righty namecalling is a tippoff of their desperate , flopsweat fear of losing.
Doc can’t help himself. The ethics committee job is no place for a loyal partisan soldier like Doc, unless the goal is to pre-judge all of the committee’s work. Doc is blinded by his strident ideology.
Um… does he think we’re fucking stupid?
No, he thinks you have severe ADD.
You righties are still goin’ down. You can talk about it all you want, but we’ve taken action and now you can sit and analyze while we barbeque your hides.
@58: No, they’ll barbecue their own hides on the fire of their hypocrisy. The real question is how many real americans these right-wing traitors take down with them before they are thoroughly spitted & roasted.
re 59: ….”jerked neo-con-pork” might be a good metaphor— with x-tra-hot habanero barbeque sauce. And the best part is that they jerked themselves off!
Hey Donna-
I am still waiting for those names of nominees who were filibustered by Republicans. Donna thinks that if a nominee doesn’t get out of committee for a vote they were filibustered. According to Donna… This is his own words (comment 96 on Breaking: calls for own impeachment) :
They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton’s judicial nominees by other means.
Comment by Donnageddon— 10/7/05 @ 11:05 pm
So Donna- name the 60 judges who were filibustered by the republicans. I am chasing you down. You cant hide.
RUFUS, you have been spanked but like any neo-con, you have no shame, and continue to proclaim that up is down and blue is green.
Fuck You, Rufus, Fuck you.
http://rawstory.com/exclusives.....er_509.htm
Do you ever get tired of being a public fool, RUFUS?
Fuck facts.
Facts are for LOSERS.
RUFUS, not that I really expect intelligence out of you, but I entered the phrase ‘republican filibuster’ into yahoo, and the second link was this. You can parse it yourself, since you are the one who keeps asking for the information.
Lazy ass!!
RUFUS the DOOFUS the Republican fool and tool.
Labor Goon: What has Patty Murray done for our state except embarrass us with her Bin Laden blessing?
From a website: “Murray has authored and passed legislation requiring surplus government computers be made available to schools across the country. She has also introduced legislation to connect schools to the Internet and accelerate teacher training.” – But I thought Al Gore did that long time ago? Reinventing that which was already delivered. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
David T. GBS says everyone should get a hummer now and then. Maybe you all should enlist headless lucite for the job. He’s headless and you all would never know the difference.
Damn Goldy you stop blowjobs now.
He does stop bl0wj0bs in his filter. Must be sumtin personal or if it’s from us righties.
So I’ll rewrite it for the animal hind parts lefties. GBS says everyone should receive a good hummer every now and then. I nominate headless lucite for the bl0wj0b. He’s headless and you lefties will never know the difference.
Bill@23: I suggest you perform a Congressional review and see how many congresspeople have nepotism running rampant in their offices. Google it Bill.
Stuckonstupiddon: That silly link on yours was debunked by me two weeks ago. If you would stop scratching your balls and start scratching your head (yeah figure out which head), none of those candidates were filibustered, they were not VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE stuckonstupiddon. Review this link STUCKONSTUPIDDON! http://www.horsesass.org/index.php?p=1047
I went to the congressional records and delivered agreed to links of fact. Not one DONK judge has ever been filibustered by Republicans alone. It is an OUTRIGHT LIE LIKE MOST LIES from your fingers. Abe Fortas was filibustered by both sides, and he was withdrawn by Johnson. Racist Democratic Georgia Senator Richard Russell (led Democrats against the VRA and CRA) removed his support for Abe Fortas and the Senate BLOCKED IT!!! You lefties either have a very short memory, choose to ignore facts that destroy your arguments or are STUCKONSTUPID!
Another TJ, maybe you need to help stuckonstupiddon refresh his small pea-brain sized memory.
PuddyBud “none of those candidates were filibustered, they were not VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE stuckonstupiddon.”
Up is no down, PuddyBud, and the Republican’s like the Democrat’s have used the fillibuster for several times for appointments to the courts. It is a part of the public record, and the memory of those who do not drink wingmut Kool Aid.
Give it up PB, no matter how many times you LIE about it, the facts do not change.
Puddybud! I’m a big fan! Love your lawyerese!
60+ Clinton judicial nominees weren’t filibustered by GOP, you say — uhhhhh… sure… but even worse, they were kept from even having a hearing by single GOP senators from their home states. You keep whining “give the presidents’ nominees an up or down vote” — yet you won’t admit that many of Clinton’s nominees were undemocratically denied one.
Kinda like Karl Rove’s second or third story to the independent prosecutor, “I never told any reporter that Valerie Plame is a CIA agent.” Nope — he just told them that “Ambassador Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent.”
Hey Deficit: I am glad you are a fan. I just search the Internet and I find the truth shedding light on these blog sites when I go to Congress.
Ambassador Wilson outed his own wife. But then again you don’t read National Review. It’s all there. Just Google it.
When have I whined about an up or down vote? IF they GET OUT OF COMMITTEE the constitution says up or down vote. If they are not voted out of committee where is the filibuster? Stuckonstupiddon posts his shitty link on multiple threads. Still doesn’t make it right. I think my numbers were 41 stopped in committee and Clinton withdrew 18. If Clinton didn’t try and ram that tax increase in 1993, who know what would have happened. I know Ms. Medvinsky would still be in Congress for more than one term. You know she was the final yes vote. And the voters said yes, you lose your job in congress in 1994. But people don’t like large tax increases especially when it increases largesse.
Show me in the constitution where the filibuster is allowed on judges. I’m waiting.
Stuckonstupiddon, I gave you links saying there was no filibuster, ever by Republicans alone. Please deliver URL links or shut up with this inane argument.
Deficits: Another answer held up in the filter.
Pudlover, “not voted out of commitee”, id est: not given one of those “up or down” votes that the Republican’ts now claim to be so enamored of. You continue to be hoisted by your own petard, you utter jackass.
Greesyparrott: And you continue to parrot the mooron.org mantra baka. Can you read? Read the congressional record.