They tried to censure her. Sadly for the far-left members of the Democratic Party, they failed.
The reason for the attempt to censure her? She voted to approve Judge Michael Mukasey as U.S. Attorney General and Judge Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Amazing. They eat their own. What’s more, they go after someone not because that person has truly made bad judgments, but because that person votes to confirm someone, who - objectively spoken - is indeed the right person for the job (Mukasey).
Senator Feinstein’s staffer Bob Mulholland, meanwhile, criticized the liberal blogosphere and far-left activists by calling them “worse than Bush” and “pre-nursing home.” This seemingly hurt the feelings of the radical progressives, and they complained: “they said mean things.” Yes, that’s what happens when you go after people like you do and try to hijack a party.
It’s the same everywhere, in the Netherlands, in Germany, in France and in the US. Go after your own, try to destroy careers of people, and they’ll fight back. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
As a matter of fact, I bet that many moderate Americans and moderate Democrats wished they would get out of the kitchen anyway, even if they can stand the heat.
O, and yes, Mulholland is quite right to call this people far-left radicals, activists, etc.:
The “Courage Campaign” is chaired by a HuffPo radical and counts among its partners, “MoveOn.org, Democracy For America, New Progressive Coalition, Powerpac.org, CalPIRG, California Nurses Association, Common Cause, Brave New Films and Progressive Majority.” It’s a 527 with a Beverly Hills mailing address, purporting to represent the grass-roots, and it’s promising to be the California Democrats’ worst nightmare.
Michelle Malkin, meanwhile, isn’t going to complain: “Let’s hope they keep at each other’s throats. If they’re preoccupied tearing themselves apart, that’s less time and energy they’ll have to hike your taxes, expand government, and undermine our security. Every bit helps.”
And she’s right. It seems to me that this is something like a dream coming true for Republicans. When - it seldom happens but still - members of the enemy of my party (VVD), the PvdA, go at each other’s throat, I’m having a great time. Lord knows voters don’t like chaos in a party. If they’re busy fighting each other, it means they can’t fight us, and so on.
Gaius - who seems to be a bit less partisan than Michelle - does some math and concludes that, despite all the big and tough words, the plan to get rid of Feinstein is actually only supported by 0.45% of Democratic voters in California.
That’s a radical movement alright.
Let the revolution begin!
Skippy, meanwhile, supports the radical progressives who go after their own Senator and instructs his readers how to let Mulholland know that he hurt their feelings.
There are times when I regret that I’m not American, this is one of them. If I were, I would’ve published a post celebrating the infighting.
Ahwell.
Michael - Censure isn’t a recall or impeachment and this didn’t even get out of committee. I would have SUPPORTED a Clenis censure, it had more chance than the divisive impeachment. Censure is just a glorified reprimand.
“Far Left” is more appropriate, the John Birch, SDS and Weatherman were/are radical.
It’s still an inappropriate use of censure and shouldn’t have even been considered. It’s not meant to be a tool to enforce party loyalty and party-line votes.
CS - Clenis DID LIE in a civil case. The lie shouldn’t have warranted removal. His(Clenis) little Rosegarden presser was a joke
On Feinstien, so what.
I agree on Clinton (I lived near Bob Barr at the time and kept wanting to run into him to try to argue with him that they should censure, not impeach!)
But I’m just saying that the Feinstein thing is a whole different issue and censure’s not appropriate in that case.
And it’s not that the move to censure Feinstein is that big of a deal- but just that it does say something about the mentality of some “progressives” who feel they should enforce their will that way.
“They tried to censure her. Sadly for the far-left members of the Democratic Party, they failed.”
If the rationale was to harm her for voting for Mukasey, that is not far-diddly-anything.
“What’s more, they go after someone not because that person has truly made bad judgments, but because that person votes to confirm someone, who - objectively spoken - is indeed the right person for the job (Mukasey).”
Yeah, NO!
“Senator Feinstein’s staffer Bob Mulholland, meanwhile, criticized the liberal blogosphere and far-left activists by calling them “worse than Bush” and “pre-nursing home.””
Oh… Snap…
“Skippy, meanwhile, supports the radical progressives who go after their own Senator and instructs his readers how to let Mulholland know that he hurt their feelings.”
Good, she should suffer much more for jettisoning important standards. That is not infighting but taking out the trash so you can condemn your neighbour for throwing his trash around like it was going out of style.
CS - Bob Barr has left the building with Elvis and joined the Libertarians. Both he and Bruce Fein suffer BDS worse than I ever did.
http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/
I wonder why this group isn’t accused of BDS?
Yep, I’m aware of Barr’s conversion. I think he’s a principled guy- don’t agree with him on a lot of things but I can’t fault him for putting his principles above partisanship.
And although you obviously see more cynical motives, I think that’s the point, Rudi- some people engage in BDS BECAUSE it suits there partisan purposes; others oppose Bush, sometimes stridently, EVEN THOUGH it goes against their party loyalty. Which is the more principled stance?
hmm, it’s the normal bit - the group moved from being helpful in their anti-Bush, anti-GOP bit, to now attacking them.
Good.
Truth be told, regular everyday Dems are tired of their elected officials acting like Republicans. This censure attempt was a warning shot, it was more about painting a target on DiFi than anything else. It was more about focusing the ire of party regulars than anything else. The Good Senator’s honor has been attacked by the peasantry. She knows it. They know it. The question is whether she will modify her actions accordingly, because there is no longer any question about what they will do…
Good - get on with it, there is an election coming up - get anything close to moderate out and find even deeper lefts to put in.
the GOP desperately hopes you do and would probably help fund it.
JEA - Spot on, if they were really afterDiFi isn’t a recall drive more effective.
CS - Fein has called for impeachment, I just wish others saw W as the Republican version of Carter and moved on. Election mean something, if you don’t like the results another will happen soon. Now a few real hearings start I will be happy. I’m not the cynic…
California Democratic Party Put The Nutroots In Th
I believe there was another reason: Dianne Feinstein did the unthinkable in the nutroots eyes, she actually said something nice about President Bush.
The country has suddenly lurched to the left. The electorate is alive and livid. The politicians, as usual, haven’t yet figured out the extent of the shift. There will more opportunities in coming days to convince them to get on board or get off the bus…
Yes! - call very loudly for more hearings.
Fantastic - start your own little committee thingie like California nutcases did. You’ll move the electorate back to the right.
Heck, I’d even donate.
Great article Michael!
What a mess in the US politics right now whew!
Far left… radical left… radical progressives… who replaced Michael with Bill O’Reilly?
Anyways, Feinstein *is* enabling excesses of the Bush administration. She supports radical amendments to the FISA laws, telecom amnesty and AGs that think the President can withhold someone forever without trial.
Her personal ties to large defense contractors also calls into question her motives. By voting with the President she is ignoring the wishes of 70% of her state. She needs to go, and if this censure brings more attention to her enabling votes, then maybe the California voters will take notice.
Really? These guys would appreciate a few bucks…
http://www.stopgordonsmith.com/
Interested - If your boy Roberts didn’t stonewall hearing when he ran things then hearings wouldn’t be required. Weldon lost because of incompetence and being a fool. Weldon -
1) 007/Maxwell Smart - suit case nukes
2) Rusty 35 year old WMD’s
3) Cowboy diplomacy to NORK, worse than Pelosi
Please explain why Roberts and Weldon aren’t crazier than Kucinich?
There may be an election coming up, but something like this will have no impact on Feinstein’s chances. There is no realistic chance of anyone mounting a significant challenge to her in the Democratic primary. And anyone who thinks that the Republicans could defeat her hasn’t been living here in California.
Now if a group like this went after Senator Boxer (totally unlikely, as she is much closer to their positions than Feinstein), they might have an (unintended) impact. But only because someone more moderate might then challenge her in the primary. And even then, unless the Republicans abandon their habit of the last couple of decades and nominate someone at least halfway moderate, Boxer isn’t likely to be in electoral trouble either.
The Democrats’ worst nightmare? Not that I can see. How, exactly, are they doing any damage? Unless, of course, Democratic candidates decide to conform slavishly to their positions, while the Republicans simultaneously have an attack of electoral sanity and start nominating moderates. The former is (barely) possible. The latter is certainly not something I would bet the ranch on.
lmao - god it’s funny when they just pile on more so called examples - when you talk about something else entirely.
Nope,
What I said was - if you read what I put. I think you should very loudly demand yet more hearings.
Why would I care about Oregon?
Don’t think so small, make a national one and be very Vocal.
Quite right.
Mark my words: the Democrats will become increasingly liberal and… the result will be that they’ll lose in 08.
Unless they nominate Clinton, that is.
From what I’m seeing, and looking at America’s history and culture - this kind of my expertise you know - that statement is simply not true.
Some moderates have turned left, sure, but that doesn’t mean that the entire country has turned left. In fact, I’m 100% sure that the Democrats can make one major mistake: turn to the far left. They’ll lose everything when they do that.
How can they win? By being Centrist.
Maybe not in 08, but 10 yes and 12 definately - if they keep up with the path they are headed.
While it certainly is not only isolated to the Democrats - they’re in power now, and far too many want to believe that the Repub party will remain dead.
IMO Clinton had bad policies in most regards, but he knew how to get and stay elected - by appealing to the Center-Right.
Haha… I love these doom and gloom scenarios you are both painting. Exactly what are the Democrats proposing that the American people don’t support?
You don’t have to agree (ignored history), in fact I’ll repeat it - be very vocal about any moderate Democrats.
Why should anyone agree with an argument you refuse to make?
Then don’t - I don’t care.
It’s certainly not my party.
Of course that’s a pretty foolish attempt at an argument, where all I said - was to be very vocal about dissatisfaction with the moderate elements in the Democrat party.
You’re confusing moderate with right-wing, but that’s okay.
Thanks - I needed humor today.
Edit by MvdG: and there you go.
Seriously though, I think the Democrats will lose power once the inevitable corruption becomes too apparent to ignore. I don’t think any of the “radical left’s” policy ideas are out of the mainstream, they are just not acceptable to the current D.C. establishment and MSM. Know what I mean?
if “know what I mean?” equates to agreeing with you, than no, of course I would not.
All I’m saying is I think it is absolutely wonderful for the GOP if the left holds more and more hearings and gets more and more vocal and shoves out it’s Moderate members.
I’m encouraging them to keep it up - no wait make that ratchet it up in volume. To just be yourself.
Save for on this blog of course.
Interested, don’t encourage it!
You’re confusing moderate with right-wing, but that’s okay.
I find it terribly amusing how those who are far off to the left or the right automatically assume that only someone who agrees with them can possibly be a moderate.
Yes Tully. I’m also starting to believe that they have convinced themselves that they’re actually moderate.
new acronym? MDS
I never said that… only that she is right-wing
It’s already part and parcel of True Believerism and the venerable GroupThink.
We’ve seen it in the newsrooms of the MSM for decades. When surveyed on their political affiliations, they would come in consistently not just Democratic (by 9 to 1 or better) but also would invariably describe themselves as “moderate” regardless of their specific views on issues.
They were all sure they were moderates because they all pretty much agreed with each other. And since reasonable people agree with each other, and reasonable people are moderates, they must be moderates.
Akin to Pauline Kael Syndrome (PKS). Kael was a film critic for the New Yorker, who was famously reported to have said that she didn’t know how Nixon was elected, because no one she knew voted for him. She may or may not have ever actually said it, but it’s still a lovely metaphor of GroupThink insularity.
I know I’m a lefty in most respects.
Yet you describe left-of-center moderates within the Democratic party as “right-wing.” QED.
I’m with Interested. The GOP should encourage the hell out of ideological left-wingers to be as noisy and vindictive and exclusionary as possible, to go out and punish those Democrats who do not lockstep with the far left. After all, it worked so well against Joe Leiberman.
Not going to admit that your own right-wing goggles might prevent you from making that claim? Labels are usually a matter of perspective anyways.
And once again, we see the principle in action. I’m assumed to be a right-winger not because of any positions I have offered, but because I have pointed out a truth that someone on the left doesn’t like.
LMAO: this has been a useful exercise. Thanks Tully (and Chris of course).
Tully,
I’m basing that opinion on my overall impression of your comments here on this blog. I’ll keep an eye out for any illustrative quotes from you
Yes it has - predictible, but useful.
It does not matter how Liberal they are in their general everyday actions over the course of their Political career (90% by ADA, 76.5 liberalism rating. by National Journal) - it only matters when it comes to BDS categories.
Interested,
Telecom immunity, torture and indefinite detention are BDS categories? If those aren’t serious areas in which to disagree with our President, then what is? Seriously.
Who said anything about agreeing with Bush?
I realize that the discussion did not prove that the far left is correct in it’s methods of late. But why now stoop to switching the topic off of the one this post was written about?
Can you not stay focused long enough on the topic at hand?
Calm down. You said: “it only matters when it comes to BDS categories.”
You brought up Bush, not me.
Correction, BDS is not the same as Bush (you telling me you are not aware of that?) - I brought up leftist derangement tendencies, and what seemingly really only matters to them and their ilk.
Which strangely then resulted in them talking about…
It’s ironic though, isn’t it Interested?
He brings up Bush Derangement Syndrome > I respond specifically about Bush Derangement Syndrome (you know, the implication that these criticisms of the President are unwarranted) > I get accused of taking us off topic
Here, Chris, I’ll give you a head start. I wished Nancy Pelosi the best of luck when she made speaker, I’m pro-choice and pro gay rights and spent years trying to keep a DOMA initiative out of my state, I work for more Dems than Republicans in real-life campaign work, I’ve helped set up homeless housing and shelter programs, low-income medical care programs, etc. I could go on and on, because I actually put my time and effort where my beliefs are in the real world.
But don’t let that interfere with your perception that I’m some sort of stereotypical far-right-winger because I disagree with far-left ideologues on their perception of what a “moderate” is.
I applaud your efforts Tully, and thanks for setting me straight.
Wrong again (obviously did not read what I put), here is a link to BDS Definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome
Exercising a Google search shows up several examples.
Interested,
From your Wikipedia page:
And my quote:
“[...]the implication that these criticisms of the President are unwarranted”
What am I missing here? It seems to me that I’m right on the money.
other than zooming off of target -then attempting to apply a weak argument onto generalities (note you did not include your own full text) using a definition that had no context to the relation of the post?
Other than that - nothing at all, it was highly predictable.
Now if you can - back to the actual post (and conversation) at hand - it did not work when the Far Right engaged in attempting to push out it’s moderate members, why would you think that it would work for the Left?
They certainly have not displayed any greater political abilities to me.
It’s not moderate to vote for Mukasey. That is not the definition of moderate. Calling her out for failing her duties and ideology is nit fringe, and a move to censorship isn’t a radical move that will turn away the electorate, no matter how much a certain lightbulb drones that it will be so.
Interested,
I don’t agree that they should get rid of “moderate” members of the Democratic party. By labeling the strategy in that way you’re trying to change the rules of the argument here. Moderate is such a happy fuzzy word that there is no way anyone in their right mind would oppose removing someone under that banner.
So let’s be specific. Feinstein should be opposed, not because she’s a moderate or whatever you want to call her, but because of what I said in comment #19.
We’ll see Xel.
I’m with the “lightbulb.”
This will hurt the Democrats.
Why I invented the term PDS–Political Derangement Syndrome. Since it’s been around forever, and can be recycled to the specific with every new admin or issue. Multi-tasking!
The attempts by the left to either drive moderate officeholders out of the Democratic party or punish them for not adhering to some leftist ideology or single-issue position will have the same effect as it does when done on the other side–minority status for the party. The party with the bigger tent wins, by subsuming the middle. At best, such insistence on ideological purity creates internal party divisions that make winning elections MUCH more difficult in swing districts. And while partisans in “safe” districts may not believe it, it’s the swing districts that decide majority status.
EX: The 2006 Congressional elections were heralded as a landslide repudiation of the GOP. Yet control of the House was decided by less than 50,000 votes total out of about 100 MILLION cast, through perhaps a dozen districts in close races where a few votes truly counted. Likewise, control of the Senate hinged on less than 4,000 votes AND the willingness of Leiberman to not punish the Democratic Party for turning on him.
Good Lord. “PDS”
Tully. I mean. You know I respect you. But. P.D.S.?
And you’re bragging that you invented it?
Exactly: the result of a two party system.
Phrase from an otherwise unrelated article this week that is worth considering:
My definition of BDS is that it causes the victim to lose important faculties because that fundamentalist loser is the subject matter. Anything else isn’t derangement so the label would then be unfair.
Tully: awesome quote.
Xel: stop talking about Bush.
Just kidding, just kidding.
“This will hurt the Democrats.”
On what reasoning - are you attuned with voters in general to the degree that you have discerned that they want to give Bush and his anti-human rights history the slip just like they allowed Nixon of the hook to promote “national reconciliation” or whatever bullshit they offered as a reason for failing to uphold the notions and standards they usually tout whenever it’s time for much less complex stuff than impeachment, like war?
No, I am non-committed. Giggling on about how the fringe will tear the DNC apart or how faaaaascinating it is to watch them “eat their own” is not very sagacious at this point, nor is saying it will *not* be bad for these crazy dems who will not throw out these kuh-rayzeeee “fringe leftists”.
If the voters shy from democrats because some of them go after someone who didn’t have the character to spit on the very notion that someone like Mukasey deserves a position like that, it’s the voters who are wrong, not the democrats.
When truth, justice, human rights, moral bottom lines and the Geneva conventions aren’t “pragmatic”, “wise” or “politically salient” (take whatever word is closest to your “moderate” opinion on the oh-so non-strategic attempt to smack Feinstein for failing her party and those that suffer apparently ambiguous water-boarding) then I am only further convinced I can’t give so much as a nail clipping.
For those who think that Feinstein is right-wing probably would agree with a close friend of mine. She opines that “Senator Boxer is a moderate. Or was, until she sold out to the establishment.” And she was serious when she said it! Amazing. But I think that it is fair to say that anyone who considers Senator Boxer anything other than very, very liberal (agree with her on various issues or not) is not anywhere close to recognizing the central tendency in political philosophy among Americans.
Well said Xel.
Well put Tully.
LMAO - now that is so very - unsurprising of you Xel.
It shows a complete, total, and full example of what keeps a political party going, not only money - but it relies on
hint - it rhymes with boaters.
Not to mention it is rather lacking analysis of an entire political process in and of itself.
Make that
It shows a complete, total, and full lacking
“LMAO - now that is so very - unsurprising of you Xel.
It shows a complete, total, and full example of what keeps a political party going, not only money - but it relies on
hint - it rhymes with boaters.
Not to mention it is rather lacking analysis of an entire political process in and of itself.”
Finally some actual point-making. And the same haiku-style tabbing. You’re setting a great example of unpredictability already.
“hint - it rhymes with boaters.”
Considering the mentality behind the current GOP party line I’d say “floaters”.
Anyway, your gist is that I am locomoting the “establishment” democrats by my sheep-like klaxoning, I assume? Explain to me why thinking it is wrong to not attempt to voice anger over Feinstein’s refusal to dismiss a man who can’t unequivocally say that waterboarding is torture is akin to “Four legs good!”, maybe? Actual explaining?
“Not to mention it is rather lacking analysis of an entire political process in and of itself.”
That is very unprecise statement.
I said the political process is what it always is, but that consensus has no objective value and definitely not if the consensus is that going after those who vote for Mukasey is extremist and “scary fringe” politics.
It is funny to see the same individuals who cite public opinion polls as trump cards on issues where they agree (i.e. the Iraq war) condemn them as meaningless and wrong when public opinion cuts the other way.
In regards to Mukasey specifically, I would say that part of the reason that the voters don’t accept the far left purism on the issue is because of a serious “cry wolf” problem — the far left has so grossly exaggerated and distorted the truth about political appointees so many times that may people sincerely doubt the truth of their claims about Mukasey being pro-torture, etc, etc, etc. Just like skepticism towards the Bush administration’s claims regarding Iran is the natural consequence of their dishonesty regarding Iraq, skepticism towards the far left’s interpretations of judges and appointees is the natural consequence of their dishonesty about appointees going back more than 20 years to the Bork fiasco.
The political process is broken. When it becomes necessary to argue for keeping habeas corpus, for preventing warrantless eavesdropping on citizens and for not torturing people, then you know we live in dark times.
Interested,
You might be happy to learn that polls show rather dramatically that the current Congress is so despised because Democrats think they aren’t doing anything to change our present course. Feinstein stands in the way of changing that course, so getting her to straighten up and fly right is essential to pleasing the vast majority of Democratic voters.
What opinion polls are you referring to Jason?
Bottom line, Xel, is that the political movement with which you associate yourself has damaged its own credibility in the same way that the people you hate have damaged theirs — by continual lying, misrepresentation, distortion, spin, and exaggeration. Why should we believe the representatives of the purist left that have lied, distorted, and exaggerated so many times already? You would never ask that we believe the Bushies under the same conditions, why should your ideological allies be held to a lower standard for trustworthiness?
“Make that
It shows a complete, total, and full lacking”
Oh
you
mean
I
am not a realist? That a political party needs to cater to “moderates” (by your definition) in order to survive?
I am open to compromise
if I see it necessary. I see that standing as a proud loser will hurt your policies and faithful voters more than being a bent winner.
But I refuse to take the realist road just because of obtuse voices repeating how unpopular
I will become or whatever.
Chris, I seem to recall you throwing public opinion polls regarding Iraq troop withdrawals as trump cards pretty continually, up to and including yesterday.
Xel, I doubt that you seriously want to set a precedent by which commenters’ writing style, grammar, or punctuation is the basis upon which to mock them. I suspect you would find yourself hoist on that petard rather quickly.
No, it is not.
There is the beauty - you do *not* have to vote for them. - that is even if you could.
If you feel the political process is broken - than either A) Vote, B) Convince others to Vote C) Move somewhere else.
You have the power to make change, if you feel you do not, or are simply too lazy to attempt - I would advise option C.
Democrat voters are not the ones you need to attempt to please.
Jason,
I mean: Which opinion polls are we ignoring now?
I would also add that even in regards to Democrat voters alone, Xel’s claim is just flatly wrong. Democrat voters had in 2004, 2006, and have now in the 2008 primaries the opportunity to choose from a purist far-left wing (represented by Kucinich, Gravel, and Moveon.org) and a more pragmatic and moderate wing (represented by Heath Schuler in 2006 and Hillary Clinton in 2008). They have consistently and by VERY large margins preferred pragmatism and moderates over purists and extremists.
So I strongly suspect that punishing Feinstein is not a demand made by a majority of Democrats. And if Xel believes that is the way to go, well, I hear Cindy Sheehan is running against Nancy Pelosi in the primary and Sheehan would probably be much closer to Xel’s tastes and (at least recently) Xel’s rather abusive style too.
“It is funny to see the same individuals who cite public opinion polls as trump cards on issues where they agree (i.e. the Iraq war) condemn them as meaningless and wrong when public opinion cuts the other way.”
Nice try! I said it has no “objective value”. You cannot have sardonic jab regarding my alleged hypocrisy. Not yours.
“In regards to Mukasey specifically, I would say that part of the reason that the voters don’t accept the far left purism on the issue is because of a serious “cry wolf” problem — the far left has so grossly exaggerated and distorted the truth about political appointees so many times that may people sincerely doubt the truth of their claims about Mukasey being pro-torture, etc, etc, etc.”
A good point, but my issue is that Mukasey’s refusal to say that waterboarding is what it is causes that very same kind of scepticism towards *his* appropriateness.
“Why should we believe the representatives of the purist left that have lied, distorted, and exaggerated so many times already? You would never ask that we believe the Bushies under the same conditions, why should your ideological allies be held to a lower standard for trustworthiness?”
Because while I wouldn’t trust a discredited sommelier to select a good wine for me, I don’t need anything more than a layman to point out that urine tastes bad? Waterboarding must stop, Bush’s powers must be revoked post haste and Mukasey isn’t a good factor in such proceedings. Feinstein buckled precisely because there isn’t a bottom-line. I concur with you on the lack of historic credibility in those calling for Mukasey and his enablers to be pursued, but I think Mukasey is below the bottom-line*anyway*, especially in these times.
“There is the beauty - you do *not* have to vote for them. - that is even if you could.”
We are talking about the now - nobody knowed exactly what position Feinstein’s position on the Mukasey question would be. The correct response to her *right now* is to make it politically unattractive to do what she did, seeing as it didn’t bother her ethically.
“So I strongly suspect that punishing Feinstein is not a demand made by a majority of Democrats.”
Okay, so the fringe is not that popular. Could be on many issues apart from the one of not voting for guys who can’t call waterboarding for what it is. Your point is weel-suggested, but still debatable.
Anyway, the voters would be wrong on this if going after Feinstein a little is unattractive to them. A censure is a glorified slap on the wrist that sends a message. It is not some insane move like trying to impeach war criminals or something.
The thing I don’t think you are getting, Xel, is that some of us don’t believe your interpretations of Mukasey at all. I don’t think he is pro-waterboarding and I don’t trust the interpretations of those who are claiming that he is because they have lied and exaggerated these kinds of issues SO many times in the past.
If it were up to the anti-Bush purists that demand things like “Bush’s powers must be revoked” or overheated proclamations about “war criminals” inserted in gratuitously at every opportunity, NO appointee would ever be acceptable. Some excuse will always be found from such people for opposition. Why bother to give credence to any particular concoction when it is clear that the people concocting will say anything to justify their pre-decided rejection? A barking dog may be reasonably taken as a warning, but not when that dog is clearly rabid.
You and yours simply have no credibility on anything regarding the Bush administration, Xel. This is the natural consequence of your long-term PATTERN of extremism and unreasonabilty in regards to those issues.
“And if Xel believes that is the way to go, well, I hear Cindy Sheehan is running against Nancy Pelosi in the primary and Sheehan would probably be much closer to Xel’s tastes and (at least recently) Xel’s rather abusive style too.”
I don’t know about her policies apart from her insubstantial posturing re: presence in Iraq. Anyway, I guess I have to feel all worried over being abusive now. Yeah.
I’m sure he’s not jumping with joy at the idea, but it shows a serious lack of spine if he can’t say that it’s torture.
The same goes for his judicial decision supporting indefinite detention. He probably isn’t a cheerleader for doing these sorts of things, but if he isn’t willing to stand up against an unfettered abuse of power like that, then he shouldn’t be the top law man. He is supposed to be the people’s AG not the President’s defense attorney.
Labeling Xel or me extremist for taking a position against these clear abuses of power says more about your extremism, not ours.
“The thing I don’t think you are getting, Xel, is that some of us don’t believe your interpretations of Mukasey at all. I don’t think he is pro-waterboarding and I don’t trust the interpretations of those who are claiming that he is because they have lied and exaggerated these kinds of issues SO many times in the past.”
So the issue is semantical? He just thinks water-boarding isn’t torture because it would be bothersome to merge it in all the encyclopediae? Come on, the question has weight and he wussed out something fierce. It doesn’t mean he is pro-torture but it only has one direction in inclination.
“If it were up to the anti-Bush purists that demand things like “Bush’s powers must be revoked”, NO appointee would ever be acceptable.”
Not a reason to lock down until you are sure you have the closest thing you get to an *acceptable* candidate.
“Some excuse will always be found from such people for opposition.”
Well, my disagreement with Mukasey does not come from ideological irrationality (insert “hur hur I think it really really does” response) and I would not support him no matter what given his answers.
“Why bother to give credence to any particular concoction when it is clear that the people concocting will say anything to justify their pre-decided rejection?”
I want to censure Feinstein because she failed *my* standards when she voted for a man who failed *my* bottom line, not because I accept the “He’s pro-torture” offering of those wanting to censure her.
“You and yours simply have no credibility on anything regarding the Bush administration, Xel. This is the natural consequence of your long-term PATTERN of extremism and unreasonabilty in regards to those issues.”
And I still say Mukasey has breached the bottom-line and that *the speculation of OTHERS* have flip-all to do with *my* position.
Umm, Xel. US Elections happen 2 years for Representatives, 4 Years for President/Vice-President and 6 years for Senate. If like Chris and etc feel that the Dem’s have to worry - or they will be voted out - that does mean and indicate for the next Election for their seat.
Unless of course, your memory and deciding factors only reside in the short-term.
That is entirely up to the voters to decide, not you. The Voters are the ultimate determiner of who gets or retains their status as Senator. The Voters will be the one to tell you if they agree with your take or not.
“Umm, Xel. US Elections happen 2 years for Representatives, 4 Years for President/Vice-President and 6 years for Senate. If like Chris and etc feel that the Dem’s have to worry - or they will be voted out - that does mean and indicate for the next Election for their seat.”
I can’t react to that sentence. No really, I found it too taxing to discern what the heck you were saying!
“That is entirely up to the voters to decide, not you. The Voters are the ultimate determiner of who gets or retains their status as Senator. The Voters will be the one to tell you if they agree with your take or not.”
Oh for my rational, reality-based lack of belief in a divine entity’s sake!
Redundant; I just said consensus has no objective value. The decision on who gets to be senator is a subjective one.
Also, Jason isn’t an extremist. He can be too quick to say what is non-moderate in my opinion but he has gotten points on me and he will in the future.
“The same goes for his judicial decision supporting indefinite detention. He probably isn’t a cheerleader for doing these sorts of things, but if he isn’t willing to stand up against an unfettered abuse of power like that, then he shouldn’t be the top law man. He is supposed to be the people’s AG not the President’s defense attorney.”
So voting for a guy who allows the president to do what he will with random citizens for as long as he wants… Yeah, I am a true pattern-minded nutsack for criticizing Feinstein. Thank’s for taking me off the path of “extremism and unreasonabilty”.
“Labeling Xel or me extremist for taking a position against these clear abuses of power says more about your extremism, not ours.”
For fairness sake he did say *unreasonable* extremist, but this could be because of how unreasonablextremisty I have been in previous comments re: Bush.
The funny part in all of this is that we are taking the conversative position.
George Washington giving an order covering prisoners of the Battle of Princeton: “Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road.”
*conservative* - forgot the damn spell check.
I thought discussion threads were for exercising conversative positions?
Yeah, I am a true pattern-minded nutsack for criticizing Feinstein.
Thanks! Noted for quoting.
Care to split anymore hairs Xel?
Consensus has a very large and very real Objective value. Especially when a majority vote still rules. if the objective is to vote in or out someone - you do need a majority vote.
Maybe in Sweden, Here casting a vote is quite real.
That’s a pretty blatant misrepresentation and a slanderous personal attack, Chris, since you yourself commented approvingly on the thread where I specifically said that I agreed waterboarding was torture. I have more of an intense personal view on that issue that you can possibly fathom and it’s taking every bit of control I have to not just instantly ban you for this. If you were any less of a valued long-time commenter, you would be banned already after your stunts yesterday and now this. But this is absolutely the last bit of abuse I’m going to tolerate from you.
From what I could tell, it was nothing more than an attempt to avoid making a premature legal determination in the absence of the full range of facts and information that he would only have access to after entering the office. If Mukasey really does refuse to apply the law at the appropriate time, he can and should be impeached and removed from office. But demanding that he make preemptive commitments to undertake particular actions once in office is not something that has EVER been applied to ANY political appointee, especially one whose name was put forward by Senate Democrats themselves.
It is unreasonable to demand that a potential appointee commit to undertaking a jihad against the administration that is appointing him as a precondition for Senate approval. That is what some Senate Democrats were trying to extract and Mukasey refused to give it to them. I don’t think that refusal indicates pro-torture orientation at all.
I wonder what the loon-brigade leftists in New York are going to do about Chuck Schumer? Way back in ‘68 I worked with the California Democratic Councils led by Alan Cranston who were the pre-insane far-left equivalent of the “Courage Crew” packed with hallucinating nursing-home applicants suffering from acid flashes from their misspent youth.
The CDCs were the Stevensonian Dems who had moved to LA & environs from NYC & environs—mostly Jewish fans of Norman Thomas and the Hollyweird 10. Well-meaning & bright, but a bit over-idealistic. They were ALWAYS feuding with other Democrats more than they ever faced off with Republicans—often causing circular firing squads to decimate Dems’ chances for statewide or national office.
Today, the new crew appears more ideological and anti-Republican, but still tilting with every windmill on the plains of La Mancha. Barbara Boxer would be their nutjob beau ideal. Clearly the Republicans will have an opportunity to get a shot at Feinstein’s Senate seat, but predictably won’t find a candidate willing to take the contumely and opprobrium that running for office in La-la-land brings with it.
“Consensus has a very large and very real Objective value. Especially when a majority vote still rules. if the objective is to vote in or out someone - you do need a majority vote.”
The consensus could still be wrong.
“From what I could tell, it was nothing more than an attempt to avoid making a premature legal determination in the absence of the full range of facts and information that he would only have access to after entering the office. ”
So he needs to see waterboarding in action first, or see who has done it so that he doesn’t have to imprison the wrong guys or something? The concept of waterboarding falls categorically under torture. He doesn’t need to “look into it” more.
“But demanding that he make preemptive commitments to undertake particular actions once in office is not something that has EVER been applied to ANY political appointee, especially one whose name was put forward by Senate Democrats themselves.”
So he will not call waterboarding torture because he shouldn’t have to commit himself to not condoning it in the future?
“It is unreasonable to demand that a potential appointee commit to undertaking a jihad against the administration that is appointing him as a precondition for Senate approval.”
That is not *my* demands. You seem to be suffering from something close to BDSDS right here.
“That is what some Senate Democrats were trying to extract and Mukasey refused to give it to them.”
Not completely relevant. If telling the truth can be used for an irrational vendetta then it should still be out there.
“That is not *my* demands.”
“Those are not my demands”. Criminy.
Jason said:
In response Xel said:
Xel is absolutely right. Waterboarding by definition is torture. If Mukasey wants to say he is not sure whether or not U.S. agents are engaging in waterboarding, then that’s fine, but waffling on waterboarding is just him covering administration asses.
====
Jason said:
I think you’re reading too much into what I said. I dont think that you’re cheering on waterboarding. However, I do think it’s extreme to even have these types of arguments at all. Of course waterboarding is torture, of course torture is wrong. Why are we regressing so much?
====
Elliot Richardson was appointed Attorney General during Watergate only after he agreed to agreed to appoint a special prosecutor. So it may be unreasonable in your opinion, but not without precedent.