billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 14:01:26 GMT -5
How did you find your use of it in #65? Shouldn't have used parallel structure from your posting.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:03:13 GMT -5
So let's have you running around the Internet for once. Show us a senior cabinet member or two you wouldn't expect the Republicans to hate to the bone. Show us evidence that there's at least an attempt by the White House to field palatable nominees. if "palatable" means that it will get at least 20 Republican votes, i already gave you Holder. oh no, that's right- you did. Virgil, my entire argument rests on the idea that Obama's appointments are generally uncontroversial. the two examples YOU gave me prove the point. are you mad because i failed to thank you? here you go: thank you.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 14:04:42 GMT -5
Where is a simple majority required anywhere in the Constitution? ... Where ever it doesn't specifically call for something else.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 14:08:13 GMT -5
On that basis, bill, the Constitution requires a diet of custard and live seabirds for all citizens.
Show me where it specifically doesn't.
Sheesh.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 14:09:38 GMT -5
... So let's have you running around the Internet for once. Show us a senior cabinet member or two you wouldn't expect the Republicans to hate to the bone. Show us evidence that there's at least an attempt by the White House to field palatable nominees. Hagel
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 14:10:38 GMT -5
On that basis, bill, the Constitution requires a diet of custard and live seabirds for all citizens.
Show me where it specifically doesn't.
Sheesh. You are way smarter than this bs.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 18, 2014 14:16:19 GMT -5
So let's have you running around the Internet for once. Show us a senior cabinet member or two you wouldn't expect the Republicans to hate to the bone. Show us evidence that there's at least an attempt by the White House to field palatable nominees. if "palatable" means that it will get at least 20 Republican votes, i already gave you Holder. oh no, that's right- you did. Virgil, my entire argument rests on the idea that Obama's appointments are generally uncontroversial. the two examples YOU gave me prove the point. are you mad because i failed to thank you? here you go: thank you. John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, and Eric Holder are "generally uncontroversial". Proof: The Republicans didn't vote 100% against their appointment. That's the argument you're going to hang your hat on? Beam me up, Scotty. Good luck to you, Jim. "John Holdren = uncontroversial moderate" is beyond the pale of reason for me. I shall bid adieu to this thread.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 14:18:46 GMT -5
Chuck Hagel's an interesting example. Obviously, he's a Republican. So were Charlie Crist and Arlen Spector, once.
Hagel endorsed the Democrat, Joe Sestak, in the 2010 Senate race for Pennsylvania. In 2012, he endorsed Bob Kerrey's Senate bid in Nebraska. Neither are the actions of a party loyalist, are they?
Hagel is known to be less than enthusiastic about Israel, which is a significant departure from Republican orthodoxy. Even more importantly, he's an advocate of downsizing the Pentagon, and a fierce critic of George W Bush's "reckless" (his word) policy on Iraq.
Then there were the rumors that he was being considered as a running mate for Obama in 2008.
Why, exactly, would the Senate Republicans approve of Chuck Hagel?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 14:19:51 GMT -5
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I save the higher stuff for more deserving targets.
I'll reciprocate your compliment. I don't think you're too obtuse to even comprehend the argument I'm making.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:21:56 GMT -5
if "palatable" means that it will get at least 20 Republican votes, i already gave you Holder. oh no, that's right- you did. Virgil, my entire argument rests on the idea that Obama's appointments are generally uncontroversial. the two examples YOU gave me prove the point. are you mad because i failed to thank you? here you go: thank you. John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, and Eric Holder are "generally uncontroversial". Proof: The Republicans didn't vote 100% against their appointment. no, dude. you are reshaping the argument to suit your purposes. here is the basis for the argument i am making: if the final vote is over 60, then filibustering the appointment was, at best, a delaying tactic. agree or disagree? edit: PS- the word i used was PALATABLE- not "100% uncontroversial", Captain Hyperbole.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:23:58 GMT -5
Chuck Hagel's an interesting example. Obviously, he's a Republican. So were Charlie Crist and Arlen Spector, once.
Hagel endorsed the Democrat, Joe Sestak, in the 2010 Senate race for Pennsylvania. In 2012, he endorsed Bob Kerrey's Senate bid in Nebraska. Neither are the actions of a party loyalist, are they?
Hagel is known to be less than enthusiastic about Israel, which is a significant departure from Republican orthodoxy. Even more importantly, he's an advocate of downsizing the Pentagon, and a fierce critic of George W Bush's "reckless" (his word) policy on Iraq.
Then there were the rumors that he was being considered as a running mate for Obama in 2008.
Why, exactly, would the Senate Republicans approve of Chuck Hagel?
to show how little sense this argument makes: what was the vote on John Kerry, again?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 14:27:32 GMT -5
If the Senate Majority Leader votes against a bill, then he didn't support it.
Agree or disagree?
... Look, I think all of us who make any sort of study of the machinations of the Senate understand that final vote counts reflect a certain calculus as to the predicted outcome of the vote. There are in any contentious vote persons voting 'Aye' or 'Nay' who do so because they are certain that their vote won't be pivotal, and who would, were it pivotal, have voted otherwise.
The filibuster is a delaying tactic. That's the point of the filibuster. It's supposed to give the body as a whole the opportunity to reflect on what they're doing. The authentic filibuster, in which a Senator speaks without interruption for its duration, represents an opportunity for that one member of the Senate to sway the rest by force of oratory; it secondarily allows time for pressure to be brought to bear on other members whose support may be susceptible to change.
Good government is not necessarily swift government. I'll go further: in the face of intractable divisions and significant problems demanding long-term coordinated solutions, swift government is necessarily not good government.
As a particular case: if the President cannot secure a legislative majority for his agenda, he has no mandate to enforce it by fiat.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 18, 2014 14:28:45 GMT -5
Darn Proboards ate my post. Summary: Chuck Hagel is despised by the Republicans. Not quite so much that a few didn't ultimately break and confirm the appointment, but still. I'm not saying he's a bad appointment, but if you're trying to tell us with a straight face that Chuck Hagel is an olive branch to the Republicans... Agree. But it's also symbolic. It shows the extent to which the Republicans resent the appointment. And theoretically circumstances could change during the filibuster leading to the nominee getting the axe.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:33:44 GMT -5
If the Senate Majority Leader votes against a bill, then he didn't support it. disagree.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:34:46 GMT -5
Darn Proboards ate my post. Summary: Chuck Hagel is despised by the Republicans. Not quite so much that a few didn't ultimately break and confirm the appointment, but still. I'm not saying he's a bad appointment, but if you're trying to tell us with a straight face that Chuck Hagel is an olive branch to the Republicans... Agree. But it's also symbolic. It shows the extent to which the Republicans resent the appointment. And theoretically circumstances could change during the filibuster leading to the nominee getting the axe. what about an appointee that is filibustered for two years, and then gets a unanimous confirmation? what "symbolism" does that have for you?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 14:34:51 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry is an example of a compromise nomination from Obama? I suppose, relative to Susan E. Rice, his first choice, he was. It's worth repeating: Obama's first choice was Susan Rice, the point person on the Benghazi disinformation campaign during the 2012 election. The reason Kerry was nominated was that Republicans vehemently opposed the appointment of Obama's preferred candidate, Rice.
Back in 2009, Hillary Clinton sailed through 94-2. Was she a compromise candidate?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:35:50 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry is an example of a compromise nomination from Obama?
i am suggesting that he got more than a few GOP votes, even though he is a lifelong Democrat. nothing more or less. if i missed your point, i apologize in advance.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 18, 2014 14:36:58 GMT -5
Darn Proboards ate my post. Summary: Chuck Hagel is despised by the Republicans. Not quite so much that a few didn't ultimately break and confirm the appointment, but still. I'm not saying he's a bad appointment, but if you're trying to tell us with a straight face that Chuck Hagel is an olive branch to the Republicans... Agree. But it's also symbolic. It shows the extent to which the Republicans resent the appointment. And theoretically circumstances could change during the filibuster leading to the nominee getting the axe. what about an appointee that is filibustered for two years, and then gets a unanimous confirmation? what "symbolism" does that have for you? That either breakdown or compromise occurred after two years.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 14:37:00 GMT -5
Then that's a non sequitur.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 14:40:25 GMT -5
If the Senate Majority Leader votes against a bill, then he didn't support it. disagree. So you understand that's a bit of gamesmanship. Senate rules prevent the party losing a cloture vote from bringing the same vote back to the floor; Reid's vote-switching habit - voting against his own position - allows him to pretend he won the vote he actually lost, so he can keep calling votes until he wins.
Democracy in action
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:40:42 GMT -5
Then that's a non sequitur. please see my edit. tyia.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 18, 2014 14:41:47 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry is an example of a compromise nomination from Obama?
i am suggesting that he got more than a few GOP votes, even though he is a lifelong Democrat. nothing more or less. Hence if the GOP votes the party line to block an appointment, they're obstructionist. If more than a few can by any means be persuaded to vote for one, the candidate is a compromise. Huzzah! I finally get it!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:41:51 GMT -5
So you understand that's a bit of gamesmanship.
i understand nothing in the absence of information. however, i know that one thing does not necessarily follow the other. some things are procedural. some things are strategic. sometimes people just cast votes WRONG (yeah, it really does happen!!!).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:43:06 GMT -5
i am suggesting that he got more than a few GOP votes, even though he is a lifelong Democrat. nothing more or less. Hence if the GOP votes the party line to block an appointment, they're obstructionist. If more than a few can by any means be persuaded to vote for one, the candidate is a compromise. Huzzah! I finally get it! um....no. you really don't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:44:46 GMT -5
what about an appointee that is filibustered for two years, and then gets a unanimous confirmation? what "symbolism" does that have for you? That either breakdown or compromise occurred after two years. neither. the rules were changed which allowed a vote, and VIOLA!, it turns out that there was no controversy whatsoever. so, next question: why did the filibuster happen? this will be a really good test for how well you understand the state of US politics.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 18, 2014 14:48:04 GMT -5
That either breakdown or compromise occurred after two years. neither. the rules were changed which allowed a vote, and VIOLA!, it turns out that there was no controversy whatsoever. so, next question: why did that happen? this will be a really good test for how well you understand the state of US politics. Give me a name. I need to know specifically what appointment you're talking about.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:52:18 GMT -5
neither. the rules were changed which allowed a vote, and VIOLA!, it turns out that there was no controversy whatsoever. so, next question: why did that happen? this will be a really good test for how well you understand the state of US politics. Give me a name. I need to know specifically what appointment you're talking about. no, you really don't. you just need to trust me. it has nothing to do with the person involved. that level of detail is a distraction. but if you want to know, look it up. it was one of the first appointments made after the nuclear option was exercised. but since you are (probably) going to insist that it is personal, i will just cut to the chase and tell you why: the GOP wants to make these appointments. it is really that simple. and why wouldn't they? there is, of course, an ancillary question, but it is really not that important.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 14:56:35 GMT -5
Okay, I saw it.
For the short of memory participating in this discussion: the request has been made for a candidate that was nominated by President Obama with a view to securing Republican support. A candidate who actually garnered Republican support does not necessarily meet that description.
A (hyperbolic) illustration of why this is the case: suppose I propose to saw off your right hand. You're probably not a huge fan of that proposal. Suppose I now propose a choice: either I saw off your right hand, or I saw off both your hands. Absent any power to move for an alternative, you probably choose the lesser of two evils. I can even make you sign a statement confirming your consent to the procedure (particularly mean of me if you're right-handed). It would still be absurd to claim that I had made my proposal with your interests at heart: I've simply manipulated the parameters of your available choices to fit my preferred option.
In this context, the fact that Hillary Clinton and John Kerry both sailed through Senate confirmation doesn't tell us much about either Obama or Republicans in the broader context of the confirmation fights. Arguably, neither represented the President's first choice - in Kerry's case, this was explicitly the result of the Senate's aggressive "advice" and lack of "consent" for his preferred candidate. It's worth pointing out that Kerry had arguably the most relevant foreign policy experience in the Senate, and had been a member of that body long enough to develop personal relationships across the aisle, both of which mitigated in his favor.
The Senate's power to advise and consent is exercised in an overarching frame of diminishing influence. We are governed primarily by the executive branch, not by legislators and not by judges. Presidents come and go, but bureaucracies endure, and ideologies persist. It's in nobody's interest for an incoming Republican President to be both empowered and obliged to perform a root-and-branch clearout of experienced incumbent managers in all executive agencies, and then butt heads with the Senate for a few years to replace them all; but that's the path we're on.
And the path didn't start with Obama. The furore over the replacement of seven US Attorneys under Bush in 2006 springs to mind as an example of an unprecedented and nakedly political abuse of executive power.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 14:59:46 GMT -5
Okay, I saw it.
For the short of memory participating in this discussion: the request has been made for a candidate that was nominated by President Obama with a view to securing Republican support. A candidate who actually garnered Republican support does not necessarily meet that description.
A (hyperbolic) illustration of why this is the case: suppose I propose to saw off your right hand. You're probably not a huge fan of that proposal. Suppose I now propose a choice: either I saw off your right hand, or I saw off both your hands. Absent any power to move for an alternative, you probably choose the lesser of two evils. I can even make you sign a statement confirming your consent to the procedure (particularly mean of me if you're right-handed). It would still be absurd to claim that I had made my proposal with your interests at heart: I've simply manipulated the parameters of your available choices to fit my preferred option.
In this context, the fact that Hillary Clinton and John Kerry both sailed through Senate confirmation doesn't tell us much about either Obama or Republicans in the broader context of the confirmation fights. Arguably, neither represented the President's first choice - in Kerry's case, this was explicitly the result of the Senate's aggressive "advice" and lack of "consent" for his preferred candidate. It's worth pointing out that Kerry had arguably the most relevant foreign policy experience in the Senate, and had been a member of that body long enough to develop personal relationships across the aisle, both of which mitigated in his favor.
is it your opinion that Rice was unqualified? personally, i never could fathom the outrage over her nomination.
The Senate's power to advise and consent is exercised in an overarching frame of diminishing influence. We are governed primarily by the executive branch, not by legislators and not by judges. Presidents come and go, but bureaucracies endure, and ideologies persist. It's in nobody's interest for an incoming Republican President to be both empowered and obliged to perform a root-and-branch clearout of experienced incumbent managers in all executive agencies, and then butt heads with the Senate for a few years to replace them all; but that's the path we're on.
And the path didn't start with Obama. The furore over the replacement of seven US Attorneys under Bush in 2006 springs to mind as an example of an unprecedented and nakedly political abuse of executive power. yeah, that was a bad one. i am going to refrain on commenting on the rest of this for now.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 15:04:55 GMT -5
It is my opinion that Rice knowingly lied about an incident in which an Ambassador was murdered, and that she did so to spare the President political embarrassment.
A more obvious disqualifying circumstance for a potential Secretary of State were hard to imagine.
|
|