Skip to main content

View Diary: The 'Up or Down Vote' talking point is dead (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A bold non sequitur (4.00)
    The nomination was withdrawn, not filibustered.  Two very different things.  There's no hypocrisy or double-speak involved.  If we use this argument we're going to look like fools.

    Hell, scratch that.  We'll BE fools if we use this argument.  

    You can laugh/A spineless laugh/We hope your rules and wisdom choke you - Radiohead

    by strannix on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:18:21 PM PDT

    •  not at all (none)
      If the nomination had gone forward adn the Dems had supported (which would have been a sly move) the american taliban would have been forced to filibuster.

      Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

      by Benito on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:23:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep... (none)
      I mean, were Clinton's nominations of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood as AG entitled to up or down votes after their withdrawal?  Of course not.  It would be silly to require a vote once someone has effectively said "I will not serve even if confirmed."

      There are stellar examples of Republican hypocrisy on the "up or down!" point (namely, their ridiculous antics with many of Clinton's judicial nominees), but this doesn't seem to be one of them to me.

    •  Huh ? she didn't even get a hearing, unlike Bork (none)
      She was forced to fall on her sword.
      •  Maybe (none)
        But so what?  The fact of the matter is that she asked to be withdrawn from consideration.  People who ask to be withdrawn from consideration aren't entitled to an up-or-down vote.

        Let's keep our eyes on the ball, here.  Going with an argument that is obviously not credible does us no good at all.

        You can laugh/A spineless laugh/We hope your rules and wisdom choke you - Radiohead

        by strannix on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:26:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  utter nonsense (none)
      The Repugs declared Miers both unqualified and insufficiently fascist before she even got a hearing.  A failure to slaughter them over their hypocritical rhetoric would be both cowardly and incompetent.
      •  I wish you luck (none)
        You'll need it with an argument as irrelevant and illogical as this one.

        But I'll say it once more, in the hopes that you'll listen - Miers is no longer a candidate because she withdrew her nomination.  Not because of what the any Senators did or did not do.

        If you have statements by Senators calling for a filibuster that have previously decried filibusters, you have a point against those individual Senators.  

        But otherwise, you can say what you want, but please realize the utter stupidity of what you're saying.  If you lambast the GOP for criticizing Miers, you cede any ground to criticize the next nominee.  You can't rail against someone for doing something that you'll damn well want to do next time.  Don't box yourself in so easily.

        You can laugh/A spineless laugh/We hope your rules and wisdom choke you - Radiohead

        by strannix on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:57:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site