Judiciary Committee vote on Roberts Shows (Once Again) why Republicans are Better than Democrats
With the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to approve the nomination of John Roberts as the next Chief Justice, we once again have proof that Republicans show more respect for their ideological adversaries than do Democrats. Only three of the Committee’s eight Democrats (Vermont’s Patrick Leahy and the two Senators from Wisconsin, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold) joined all ten Republicans in voting to confirm this good man. Five voted against. This contrasts with the same committee’s unanimous vote twelve years ago to confirm a one-time American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) activist to the Supreme Court.
Yep, all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993 voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg even though her appointment would shift the court to the left. President Clinton tapped her to replace Byron White who, while appointed by President Kennedy, usually voted with the court’s conservative bloc; he wrote the dissenting opinion in Roe. v. Wade.
Even though conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer thinks a Chief Justice Roberts would “move the court only mildly, but most assuredly, to the left,” a majority of Judiciary Committee Democrats voted against this good man. My state’s normally sensible senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, said “her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.” Twelve years ago, she didn’t express similar qualms about Ms. Ginsburg’s failure to fully answer questions from Democrats — or Republicans.
Let’s face it, while Democrats and others on the left repeatedly accuse conservatives of intolerance and narrow-mindedness, they, by and large, are far more ideologically hardheaded than are most Republicans and conservatives. Bill Clinton won only 43% of the popular vote in 1992, yet Republican Senators respected his constitutional role in appointing judges — even if his first Supreme Court appointment shifted the court to the left. Today’s Senate Democrats are a much different sort, more concerned with answering to left-wing interest groups than in respecting constitutional principles.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Powerline‘s Paul writes, “The Democratic “no” vote on the 18 member Committee exceeds the number of Republican votes, Senate-wide, against Justice Ginsburg.”
UPDATE FROM GP: I noted with interest the point that Rush Limbaugh made today. DiFi was voting no on Roberts partially because she wasn’t sure how Roberts was as a husband and a father. Really. So feminism is now decided on whether you are a GOOD husband and father? I thought it was irrelevant to them. Plus, imagine the screams from the LibDems had someone asked Ginsberg if she were a good mother or wife!!! Double-standards never end among our friends from the Anti-Religious Left.
51 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Another example is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Some of her beliefs are quite radical. (I would say, ‘nutjob.’) She has in the past expressed the belief that:
- Prostitution and polygamy are Constitutionally protected rights.
- Mother’s Day and Father’s Day should be eliminated, ditto the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, because they promote the offensive notion that there are differences between the sexes.
- The age of consent should be reduced to 12.
- Prisons should be co-ed.
- Companies should be required to meet racial quotas. (Even though she ran a legal office with fifty employees for 10 years in a predominantly African-American without hiring a single African-American employee.)
And yet, the supposedly rabidly right-wing, Clinton-hating, power-mad Republicans of the Senate… approved her nomination 96-3.
Comment by V the K — September 22, 2005 @ 2:46 pm - September 22, 2005
This is going to blow up in their face. The Democratic Party really has no idea what it’s doing. David Brooks’ article in the NYT today is a decent read on how the hatred of Bush is pushing the Democrats to suicide.
Comment by Robbie — September 22, 2005 @ 3:39 pm - September 22, 2005
Last night on Brit Hume, Krauthammer said the Democrats–well, Leahy and the other two who voted yes, were setting themselves up to seem reasonable so they have a better chance of nixing the next appointee. I suspect that again, Charles is correct.
Comment by rightwingprof — September 22, 2005 @ 4:08 pm - September 22, 2005
#2 – Brooks’ part of the NYT is Subscription now, right? What was the gist?
Comment by joe — September 22, 2005 @ 4:30 pm - September 22, 2005
Yep. They’ve made their strategy pretty clear.
Comment by Robbie — September 22, 2005 @ 4:35 pm - September 22, 2005
#4 – I have a uber-liberal friend who subscribes, and she posts the op-eds on a message board. If’n ya want, I can e-mail it to you.
He basically outlined the difference between John Kerry’s and John Edward’s recent speeches. Whereas Edwards was discussing policies to relieve poverty, Kerry’s speech was nothing more than a 1,000 word rendition of how much he hates Bush.
Brooks said Bush is changing the Democratic party more than the Republican one by creating hate-filled politicians who appeal to a donor base without thought for policy.
Comment by Robbie — September 22, 2005 @ 4:38 pm - September 22, 2005
I would think that the WH refusal to provide documents on a judge with so short a judicial resume would automatically result in a rejection. Considering that he is so young and will preside for so long one would ten to err on the conservative side and reject his nomination. Yes, I said conservative side.
This is a young father with a prepubescent son and daughter living in DC. Life will teach him many lessons in forgiveness and acceptance in the years to come.
He may turn out to quite q surprise all around.
We shall see.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 22, 2005 @ 4:40 pm - September 22, 2005
DiFi? “Normally sensible”?? Surely you jest…
Comment by Maggie Leber — September 22, 2005 @ 4:48 pm - September 22, 2005
Chandler, please provide me one example of when Democrats requested similar documents from a Democratic nominee.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — September 22, 2005 @ 4:49 pm - September 22, 2005
Maggie, compared to her junior colleague, she’s sensible, but then again, compared to Barbara Boxer, a child’s temper tantrum is sensible.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 22, 2005 @ 5:04 pm - September 22, 2005
(#10)… Is someone even spoofing our hosts, now?
The partisanship has indeed reached a fever pitch.
This vote had nothing to do with how liberal or conservative the Democrats on the Committee were (Senators Feingold and Leahy are routinely among the most liberal members of the Senate, on policy questions) but on how responsible and adult they are. It’s not a question of ideology, but of class. What was that we were discussing the other day about the relative maturity of liberals and conservatives?
Comment by Clint — September 22, 2005 @ 5:32 pm - September 22, 2005
Much is made of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s support from Repubs. But she was not even under consideration for the SCOTUS nomination until Orrin Hatch recommended her! Now if you have evidence that Roberts was suggested to Bush by a Dem on the judiciary committee, then I’ll agree that he should get full support from Dems. Otherwise, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Furthermore, Ginsburg had been a federal judge for 13 years and a law professor before that so her record was lengthy and very public. In stark contrast, Roberts has only been a judge for two years, never a law professor and there is very little record to consider apart from his work in government and private practice and much is being witheld by the Administration. I don’t think Roberts should be confirmed but I also think the Dems should not filibuster. That will be saved for the next go-around unless Bush nominates a moderate.
Comment by Ian S — September 22, 2005 @ 5:37 pm - September 22, 2005
Chandler, please provide me one example of when Democrats requested similar documents from a Democratic nominee.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest
===============
Dan,
When did Democrats nominate someone with so little record?
Each instance of confirmation is unique.
When was the last time a Chief Justice candidate did NOT provide requested information? The Chief Justice appointment has slightly higher criteria than the regular Assistant position he was originally nominated to.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 22, 2005 @ 6:34 pm - September 22, 2005
When did Democrats nominate someone with so little record? [sic]
Well, you’ve got a point there. It was a Republican President who nominated David Souter, about which we still know almost nothing.
By the way, Roberts was first nominated to become an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, not to an “Assistant position.”
Many of the documents the Democrats requested were products of his role as Deputy Solicitor General, and were thus protected by attorney-client privilege. All the Democrats on the Senate Judicary Committee are lawyers, and so they are all fully aware of that basic fact. As usual, they were acting like the grandstanding smart-asses they are.
Comment by Butch — September 22, 2005 @ 7:48 pm - September 22, 2005
advisor. So, your comment on Democrats nominating someone with so little record is just plain silly. He has a fine record.
And until you provide examples of the Democrats requesting similar documents from a Democratic nominee, your question doesn’t merit a reply. Recall, they were requesting such documents when the president had nominated Roberts for Associate Justice. You — and your allies in the Democratic Party & the media — are just look for a means to take issue with this good man.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 22, 2005 @ 8:33 pm - September 22, 2005
No. 7, good point — who knows what to expect of soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts? Through the hearings, I thought he gave some hope to both Liberals and Conservatives. Strategically, things shift now, with President Bush needing to nominate an open Conservative to satisfy his base but also operating from a far weaker position than 2 months ago (now heading to the mid-30s in the polls and perceived as being a poor leader in all respects — war, economy, hurricanes, you name it). Which way will he go? Conservative or Middle? (Liberal being out of the question for him). If he goes Conservative, particularly hard right, the Democrats are going to pounce and chew like we’ve never seen.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 22, 2005 @ 8:40 pm - September 22, 2005
You ask, “Who knows what to expect of soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts?” Well, who knows what to expect of any justice? They are frequently unpredictable.
Chief Justice Earl Warren was an Eisenhower nominee, and he presided over a very liberal court. Byron White was a Kennedy nominee who was a conservative stalwart. John Paul Stevens has been part of this court’s liberal block for over thirty years, and he was a Ford nominee. David Souter is another liberal who was nominated by a Republican president.
Justices frequently exercise their independence from the presidents who nominated them once they are seated on the bench.
Comment by Butch — September 22, 2005 @ 9:08 pm - September 22, 2005
It was a rhetorical question Butch. And it’s clear we all agree that you never know how they’ll turn out.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 22, 2005 @ 9:16 pm - September 22, 2005
Well, OK, QP. My comment was rhetorical as well, written for the purpose of recounting several examples of rather bizarre ideological shifts after justices are seated. Some people, such as most of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, pretend to believe that he is a closet radical Conservative, a veritable wolf in sheeps’ clothing.
Comment by Butch — September 22, 2005 @ 9:59 pm - September 22, 2005
Actually, even the democrats voting against him … with the exception of certifiable dingbats like Babs Boxer, and hard-line ideologues like Ted Kennedy… know that there is no sound reason to vote against John Roberts. Even though he’s a brilliant jurist, they don’t dare cross the kook leftist fringe … the Move-On Morons, the Kostards, the Sheehanistas… who for all intents and purposes run the Democrat party now.
Comment by V the K — September 22, 2005 @ 11:38 pm - September 22, 2005
You nailed it. Democrats suck, Republicans rule. We may be dicks but they’re pussies. And dicks always fuck pussies. (Hat tip: Team America)
Comment by Stinger! — September 23, 2005 @ 1:11 am - September 23, 2005
Furthermore, the “John Roberts didn’t answer questions” “John Roberts didn’t provide documentation” excuses are phony anyway. No way in Hell were Kennedy, Schumer, or the others going to vote for Roberts no matter what he did, nor would they vote for any judge that wasn’t approved by the kook fringe groups like PFAW and NARAL; and to those groups, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (see comment #1) is mainstream.
Comment by V the K — September 23, 2005 @ 7:16 am - September 23, 2005
And let me say one more thing. Remember right after John Roberts was nominated, and the left-wing groups tried to turn the right-wing against him by pointing out that he had done pro-bono work on a gay rights case? Didn’t work, did it? The right just shrugged it off. But the left-wing hardliners went to total war, and Harry Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, Feinstein and Hillary snapped right in line. Kind of makes you wonder 1.) which end of the political spectrum is really the more dangerously fanatical and 2.) which party is more beholden to their extreme fringe.
Comment by V the K — September 23, 2005 @ 7:38 am - September 23, 2005
DiFi was voting no on Roberts partially because she wasn’t sure how Roberts was as a husband and a father.
Maybe this is DiFi’s underhanded way of signalling that she thinks John Roberts really is gay like the lefty blogs said.
Comment by V the K — September 23, 2005 @ 8:40 am - September 23, 2005
#1 V the K, it seems to me that the argument should be that if the Republican senators at the time did their job, they would have found out that Ginsberg had these radical and “nutjob” views. So, because Democrats are doing their job now and Republicans didn’t do their job then, that makes Republicans better I suppose.
By the way, I think Roberts should be confirmed, and despite some Democratic opposition, will be easily confirmed.
Comment by Pat — September 23, 2005 @ 8:58 am - September 23, 2005
Rush Limbaugh is concerned about being a good husband and father? How ironic is THAT?!?! Sort of like Courtney Love being concerned about being a good mother and an upstanding citizen, isn’t it?
BTW, now that it appears that GW is drinking again, Limbaugh will have to clarify who he is talking about when he talks about “the swimmer”.
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 23, 2005 @ 10:52 am - September 23, 2005
Oh, I also like the statement “our friends from the Anti-Religious Left”. I’m sure your “friends” appreciate your affection.
I value my friends from the Anti-Science, Anti-Gay, Racist, Radical Religious Zealot Right, as well.
BTW, did you see Robertson’s last statement about the hurricane?
http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2005/09/05/robertson-blames-hurricane-on-choice-of-ellen-deneres-to-host-emmys/
Quote:
Pat Robertson on Sunday said that Hurricane Katrina was God’s way of expressing its anger at the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for its selection of Ellen Degeneres to host this year’s Emmy Awards. “By choosing an avowed lesbian for this national event, these Hollywood elites have clearly invited God’s wrath,” Robertson said on “The 700 Club” on Sunday. “Is it any surprise that the Almighty chose to strike at Miss Degeneres’ hometown?”
Robertson also noted that the last time Degeneres hosted the Emmys, in 2001, the September 11 terrorism attacks took place shortly before the ceremony.
So, both 9/11 and the hurricane were the fault of Ellen Degeneres hosting the Emmys?!?!?!? Care to defend Robertson and his ilk again this time? Maybe God actually wanted to punish Trent Lott?
With “religious” friends like Robertson and Falwell, is it any wonder we liberals don’t want the zealots in charge of public policy? This makes us anti-religious?
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 23, 2005 @ 11:02 am - September 23, 2005
Given that the liberals you want in charge of public policy call for a “million Mogadishus” for American troops, say that the only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the American military, and call those who died in the 9/11 attacks “little Eichmanns”, what should we think?
Now you can scream all you want about how Nicholas De Genova, Eric Fonor, and Ward Churchill are moonbats who don’t represent all liberals. It just makes it more ironic how you use Pat Robertson to represent all conservatives.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 23, 2005 @ 12:12 pm - September 23, 2005
Pat Robertson has a smaller audience than Al Franken, and considerably less influence on Republican policy. The only people who obssess over Pat Robertson are left-wing whackjobs.
Comment by V the K — September 23, 2005 @ 12:43 pm - September 23, 2005
Given that the liberals you want in charge of public policy call for a “million Mogadishus” for American troops, say that the only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the American military, and call those who died in the 9/11 attacks “little Eichmanns”, what should we think?
Now you can scream all you want about how Nicholas De Genova, Eric Fonor, and Ward Churchill are moonbats who don’t represent all liberals. It just makes it more ironic how you use Pat Robertson to represent all conservatives.
As I recall, YOU defended Robertson and Falwell and they’ve both been pretty active in the GOP- Falwell opened the GOP convention last year. Robertson has been a frequent guest on FauxNews (as a Republican) as well. None of the radicals you mention even identify as Democrats let alone spoke at the convention. I do not identify Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph, etc as a Republican- the equivalent of what you’re doing with the Democrats. When have any of these individuals appeared in the media and identified themselves as Democrats?
I love the way Republicans try to be concerned about “family values”. How many times has Limbaugh been married now? How many children does he have?
I haven’t been visiting this site much recently because it’s so boring. Besides, what’s the point? Bush is a VERY UNPOPULAR president now as is HIS WAR! He has not managed to do one thing well as president and is quickly becoming a lame duck. Furthermore, he’s not even a conservative by any measure- fiscal, foreign policy, etc. Clinton was far more conservative than Bush fiscally and as far as foreign policy was concerned. I just pray Bush doesn’t manage to F**K anything else up too badly before a “grown up” takes over.
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 23, 2005 @ 1:53 pm - September 23, 2005
As I recall, YOU defended Robertson and Falwell
If “defend” means a) acknowledging their right to say stupid things, b) point out that portions of their arguments (not all) are true, and c) suggest that we analyze why their message has such effect instead of trying to outscream them, yes I did.
As I recall, though, you insisted that doing any of those things constituted as complete agreement with and defense of their position. That is your attitude; it certainly isn’t mine.
None of the radicals you mention even identify as Democrats let alone spoke at the convention.
Ah, so now it’s “we Democrats” instead of your crowing “we liberals” above. Well, we know how Democrats feel and what truly drives them — they want the US to fail.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 23, 2005 @ 4:34 pm - September 23, 2005
NDT, you are so wrong on so many levels that it’s really not worth addressing. I think you would have to admit that the Republicans wanted Clinton to fail- they were very upset that the Deficit Reduction Act didn’t lead to a huge recession, but the opposite. Does that mean they wanted the US to fail too?
You can swallow all the crap you’re fed through the meaningless talking points-Hook, Party Line, and Sinker. You probably believed that the Iraq war would be “a cakewalk”, that “it would pay for itself”, and that we “will be greeted as liberators”. And once the administration pulls out significant numbers of troops without accomplishing what we were told were the objectives (a peaceful democrat Iraq that doesn’t threaten its neighbors and allows equal rights for minorities and women) merely for political gains in 2006, you undoubtedly won’t be calling it “cutting and running”. Instead, you will be parroting whatever the GOP catchphrases are at the time. So much for independent thought.
I think the ones who really want the US to fail are the ones in charge currently. How else to explain the record deficits, badly mismanaged war, dependence on foreign oil, corruption, and gross incompetance. They seem to care more about their political party than the US.
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 23, 2005 @ 5:44 pm - September 23, 2005
Do come back often, Bush Rules. Your breathless, over-the-top delivery of shopworn leftist talking points never fails to brighten my day.
Comment by V the K — September 23, 2005 @ 6:00 pm - September 23, 2005
Do come back often, Bush Rules. Your breathless, over-the-top delivery of shopworn leftist talking points never fails to brighten my day.
Glad you missed me, but I don’t think the left is organized enough to come up with “talking points”. I don’t think you’ll find many prominent Dems who share my combination of libertarianism and liberalism- I used to be considered a Republican before they lost their minds! Actually, I fully expect some Republicans to start distancing themselves from Bush since he is now so unpopular and his presidency has been a disaster. Sort of like when Bush Sr. called Reagan’s policies “voodoo economics”. Isn’t it un-American to have so much of our debt owed to China and Saudi Arabia? Bush’s legacy will be an enormous debt and more instability in the middle east than before. So much for conservatism.
Unfortunately, this site has been boring me since it does nothing but repeat the same Republican talking points. I expected more when I first visited and I was quickly disappointed by the lack of independent thought. Even the most asinine things are defended; from Falwell to ID to Bush’s poor response to national emergencies. . .it gets tiring.
Oh, and since 67% of Americans now disapprove of the president’s handling of Iraq, why does America hate America?
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 23, 2005 @ 7:20 pm - September 23, 2005
NDT, you are so wrong on so many levels that it’s really not worth addressing. I think you would have to admit that the Republicans wanted Clinton to fail- they were very upset that the Deficit Reduction Act didn’t lead to a huge recession, but the opposite. Does that mean they wanted the US to fail too?
I think your assumption about what Republicans were allegedly thinking is no match for my direct quote of what a Democratic staffer is saying publicly.
Of course, you have to divert and deflect attention, Bush Rulez, because what she’s saying is true. It is at its heart what Democrats believe, but it’s not publicly kosher to admit that the only reason your party exists is to obstruct, delay, and harm others for political gain.
You probably believed that the Iraq war would be “a cakewalk”, that “it would pay for itself”, and that we “will be greeted as liberators”. And once the administration pulls out significant numbers of troops without accomplishing what we were told were the objectives (a peaceful democrat Iraq that doesn’t threaten its neighbors and allows equal rights for minorities and women) merely for political gains in 2006, you undoubtedly won’t be calling it “cutting and running”. Instead, you will be parroting whatever the GOP catchphrases are at the time.
I’m impressed with your attempts to read my mind, Bush Rulez. Not with your accuracy, but with your attempts.
Meanwhile, I daresay you believed that Iraq was a kite-flying paradise, that the Taliban really were quite respectful of women’s rights, and that Saddam Hussein never persecuted or harmed minorities and gave his people political freedom.
See how the game is played?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 23, 2005 @ 9:17 pm - September 23, 2005
Hey, why don’t you actually READ the history of Ginsburg’s nomination before you make this comparison?
And more to the point, since you’re comparing the past to the unprecedentedly polarized present, why doncha throw in the usual post comparing the “party of Lincoln” to the Dixiecrats. That’s another fine specimen of recent Republican argumentation.
Comment by zippy — September 23, 2005 @ 9:49 pm - September 23, 2005
…you’re comparing the past to the unprecedentedly polarized present…
You’ve just hit a major pet peeve of mine.
We are not in a time when political polarization is greatly different than any other era. It goes all the way back to the birth of the nation.
Look at the fights between the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans for goodness sake!
[/rant]
Comment by Dina Felice — September 24, 2005 @ 12:11 am - September 24, 2005
#33
Me too!
But without the sarcasm.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 24, 2005 @ 12:31 am - September 24, 2005
Meanwhile, I daresay you believed that Iraq was a kite-flying paradise, that the Taliban really were quite respectful of women’s rights, and that Saddam Hussein never persecuted or harmed minorities and gave his people political freedom.
Ummm, I had direct quotes from prominent Republicans about the war. This is how the war was sold to the American people and most people were gullible enough to believe it. Now show me the direct quotes about a “kite flying paradise” etc.
I believe in facts, not in dogma and talking points. I also don’t take quotes out of context to prove my point and expand it to include all members of the other party. If I did, I would be accusing all Republicans of believing racist, homophobic, and insane things uttered by Lott, Falwell, DeLay, Frist, etc. I know that most Republicans have been duped by their leaders into thinking their party is one of “fiscal responsibility” which is what has won them quite a few elections. . . but Americans are waking up and discovering that this president is the biggest spender EVER. He even outspends LBJ, the previous champ, in non-military discretionary spending. Again, Clinton was extremely fiscally conservative compared to this administration.
If I’m wrong about your gullibility prior to the war, then document for me your healthy skepticism about how long the war would last, how many US casualties would result, that Iraq may not end up “a Jeffersonian-style democracy”, and that “we would be greeted as liberators”. You probably also were skeptical that Iraq had WMDs or, at least, that they couldn’t “prove” a negative.
I’m sure you did a lot of writing in the build-up to this war- your unwillingness to believe this administration’s Pollyanna-ish predictions should be well documented.
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 24, 2005 @ 12:24 pm - September 24, 2005
NDT, you should probably read Soderberg’s quotes in context. Also, consider the venue- a comedy show. Clearly she was joking about N. Korea and Iran. . .or maybe you think that President Bush really whacked off a horse for its milk?!?!?!?
Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don’t want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don’t want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can’t credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what’s happening in Lebanon is great, but it’s not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily.
Maybe you think Republicans want the best to happen for Democrats? Weren’t they all undermining the Kosovo war while our troops were in harms way just for political reasons? And, BTW, I know Clinton-bashing is popular around here, but can you name one thing other than a blowjob that Clinton deliberately lied about? Was it anti-American that Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et al were undermining our war effort at that time on the basis of Clinton getting a blowjob?
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 24, 2005 @ 5:44 pm - September 24, 2005
Oh and I think you are forgetting the biggest traitors in our nation’s history. The only ones who took up arms against our government.
The Confederacy and its leader, Jefferson Davis. And still the confederate flag is flown and incorporated into state flags in the south.
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 24, 2005 @ 5:47 pm - September 24, 2005
Now show me the direct quotes about a “kite flying paradise” etc.
Ever watch Fahrenheit 9/11? Ever hear Cindy Sheehan speak? Why don’t you explain why these two DNC talking points now say that getting rid of the Taliban was wrong, much less of Saddam Hussein?
If I did, I would be accusing all Republicans of believing racist, homophobic, and insane things uttered by Lott, Falwell, DeLay, Frist, etc.
Problem is, you do.
Maybe you think Republicans want the best to happen for Democrats? Weren’t they all undermining the Kosovo war while our troops were in harms way just for political reasons?
The reason most Republicans were “undermining”, Bush Rulez, was because there were no troops in Kosovo, and there should have been.
Kosovo showed why Democrats are patently unfit to lead a war. The issue in Kosovo was that Serbian armed units were going into Kosovar villages and slaughtering the populace. You can’t stop that with airstrikes, because when you drop bombs on soldiers intermingled with civilians, you kill civilians. The only way to stop it is ground troops, not bombing totally unrelated areas — which was what the strategy was. That’s why Kosovars were dying by the thousands while the Clinton administration was bombing the Chinese Embassy.
I believe in facts, not in dogma and talking points.
We’re used to this, Bush Rulez. You come in spouting your stereotypes, get bitch-slapped, then start turning all moderate and claiming you rely on “facts” in an attempt to paint yourself as something you’re not.
You don’t believe in facts. When I pointed out that the teenage pregnancy rate of Democrat-controlled Cleveland and Cuyahoga County was massively higher than a so-called “red county” whose rate you were calling an example of “failure”, you first tried to argue that I didn’t link to my source (an outright lie); then, when you made an absurd claim that you said was based on facts, I challenged you to post them, and you couldn’t.
Go back to the DNC and get a new set of talking points. You’d better hurry, because Saddam’s trial starts soon, and you’ll need to explain why intervening to stop his butchery, torture, and imprisonment of millions of people was “unnecessary and unjustified” in the context of you wetting yourselves to get into Kosovo. Slobodan Milosevic was horrific and evil, but Saddam makes him look like a Boy Scout.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 24, 2005 @ 6:48 pm - September 24, 2005
You don’t believe in facts. When I pointed out that the teenage pregnancy rate of Democrat-controlled Cleveland and Cuyahoga County was massively higher than a so-called “red county” whose rate you were calling an example of “failure”, you first tried to argue that I didn’t link to my source (an outright lie); then, when you made an absurd claim that you said was based on facts, I challenged you to post them, and you couldn’t.
This illustrates how full of it you seem to be, NDT. I clearly stated that an unreference stat from one web site was proof of nothing and asked you to find the data to prove your point. I was the only one who provided any statistical proof of anything. You twist my words (and the words of others) with the intention of deceipt.
For instance, you probably know that Moore wasn’t attempting to paint Iraq as a “kite flying utopia”. At least I hope you do. Or else every timesomeone talks about Hitler inventing the Autobahn and the VW Bug, you must get furious about the ‘utopia’ being portrayed. Hell, I can even see that Rush Limbaugh isn’t seriously portraying Gitmo as a real ‘vacation retreat’, but maybe I have a better understanding of artists and communicators’ intentions.
Let me explain it for you. It is clear that Moore was showing everyday life for the citizens of Iraq who had learned to live under a dictator. Just because the citizens of Iraq lived under tyranny doesn’t mean that they didn’t lead normal lives. He was illustrating the fact that the war undoubtedly changed things in Iraq and not always for the better.
You can spout all the propaganda you want, but ‘freedom’ without security means nothing. Just ask the residents of New Orleans or Iraq. I wonder how thankful those in New Orleans were that they can vote when there were armed bands of bandits raping and murdering innocents? It’s great that one can vote, but would be even better if one had employment, electricity, water, and could safely get to the polling place without fear of being shot.
I’m sure you recall that I asked someone to prove his snide comment that liberals had no ‘family values’. I went on to prove, from government statistics, that Blue states have lower divorce rates, less domestic violence, and less child abuse. He then accused me of saying that all conservatives are child abusers. Just like you are twisting my words now.
The fact is you pulled a questionable claim from a TV news web page without any supporting evidence and then had the audacity to stand by it with no supporting evidence. By that method, I can prove Cold Fusion:
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/04/26/ColdFusionDogma.html
That should solve our energy problems, huh? Why doesn’t the government want us to know about cold fusion? Is it because they are in bed with the oil companies?
Or that Lyndon Johnson killed JFK.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjohnsonLB.htm
Compelling, huh? We Yankees just can’t trust those Texans, even when they’re our running mates. . .
Or that Clinton is a homicidal maniac who killed 19 people during his two terms:
http://users.rcn.com/virtual.nai/sot/videos/clinton.htm
And he was impeached for lying about a blowjob? Talk about a technicality! You would think there would be enough evidence to convict him of at least one of those murders, wouldn’t you?
Who needs facts when you have dogma? Just ask the anti-science crowd about the ‘theory of evolution’ or whether a person with only the brain stem can “talk, laugh, and communicate” or be rehabilitated!
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 24, 2005 @ 10:34 pm - September 24, 2005
Go back to the DNC and get a new set of talking points. You’d better hurry, because Saddam’s trial starts soon, and you’ll need to explain why intervening to stop his butchery, torture, and imprisonment of millions of people was “unnecessary and unjustified” in the context of you wetting yourselves to get into Kosovo.
You lie and distort, NDT. My earlier response seems to not have taken, but I have been the only one to ever provide the raw statistics for my facts. Just quoting one uncredited statistic from one web site does not count- I could prove anything using that method.
Furthermore, one can condemn the brutality of a dictator without thinking it’s the US’s responsibility to take over every brutal regime. Or maybe you are consistent and believe we should invade North Korea, Sudan, Ethiopia, etc, etc. I believe Hussein should be prosecuted for his crimes, but that doesn’t mean I think we should invade every country run by a totalitarian regime unless it’s in the US’s best interest. By your logic Limbaugh, Hannity, DeLay, etc were on Milosevic’s side and don’t believe he should have been prosecuted.
As to the charge that I adhere to the DNC’s talking points, maybe I should check them out. I didn’t know that they had talking points at all, let alone that they support gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, etc! I see a lot of phrases around here which come verbatim from the RNC (“blame game”, “liberal elite”, amongst many others).
And as to the charge by others that Ginsburg is “radical”, many of her beliefs are echoed by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank. But many in both parties like the word “freedom” more than the idea itself- as Rumsfeld put it, “freedom is messy”.
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 25, 2005 @ 4:51 pm - September 25, 2005
Kosovo showed why Democrats are patently unfit to lead a war.
This is so funny that I assume you’re joking! Compare Kosovo to the Iraq war and I think any military commander would tell you which one was better managed. Kosovo had a clear objective, a clear time frame, a real coalition, and the cost in troops and financial resources was modest. None of the same can be said for Iraq. In addition we’ve had blunder after blunder- from not immediately securing the weapons we knew existed to not having enough troops to provide security and safeguard the borders, to prison abuse, to “losing” 9 billion taxpayer dollars, to no clear objective or way to gauge our progress.
Are you suggesting that the Serbs are still persecuting the Albanians or that there have not been as many civilian deaths in Iraq? We didn’t promise a utopian Jeffersonian Democracy that was a beacon to the entire region in Kosovo. How long do you think establishing that in Iraq will take and how much will it cost?
Again, you surely must be joking to even compare the two. And, ummm, did you see that 67% of Americans disapprove of how Bush is running the war in Iraq? What was the Kosovo approval rate under Clinton? He ended his 2nd term with nearly 70% approval.
And check this out:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1577750,00.html
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 25, 2005 @ 5:44 pm - September 25, 2005
Furthermore, one can condemn the brutality of a dictator without thinking it’s the US’s responsibility to take over every brutal regime. Or maybe you are consistent and believe we should invade North Korea, Sudan, Ethiopia, etc, etc.
Unlike Saddam, even North Korea had the sense to listen. If the ears of one must be opened with bullets, then bullets must be used.
Kosovo showed the world that the only mistake Milosevic made was in killing white Europeans. Millions of Arabs and Africans can die, and Democrats will do nothing. Saddam’s major mistake was in overestimating the strength of the Democrats.
Kosovo had a clear objective, a clear time frame, a real coalition, and the cost in troops and financial resources was modest.
All of which were?
Why don’t you read a bit about your “effective war”?
As it turns out, Serbian atrocities increased after the air war began, and the Serb knowledge that there would be no ground troops committed allowed them to react accordingly — dispersing their forces to successfully avoid air attack.
Meanwhile, why is it that Democrats call this success? You insisted that there was no longer any ethnic violence in Kosovo. The facts show clearly otherwise?
And, ummm, did you see that 67% of Americans disapprove of how Bush is running the war in Iraq?
That will end as soon as Saddam’s trial shows the lies that you and your fellow Democrats were telling about Iraq being a kite-flying paradise.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2005 @ 11:39 pm - September 25, 2005
That will end as soon as Saddam’s trial shows the lies that you and your fellow Democrats were telling about Iraq being a kite-flying paradise.
The Milosevec trial didn’t end you and fellow Republicans thinking of pre-war Kosovo as a kite-flying paradise, did it?
This is the most incompetant administration ever- Rumsfeld told us the war wouldn’t last more than 6 months and there was absolutely no planning for the occupation.
And if you think the Kosovo war was mismanaged, you must really hate the war which was strategically similar- the first Iraq war. If dropping bombs from 20,000 feet bothers you, wasn’t that the strategy employed during the Iraq war? Iraq will never be the utopia of a “Jeffersonian democracy” which is an ally, peaceful, and a beacon to the rest of the middle east. Hell, I would be very surprised if there’s not a civil war once we leave (and we will “cut and run” before the 2006 elections, believe me) At least we didn’t drop nuclear bombs to end the war (a la WWII)- a strategy some of your fellow Republicans have been promoting.
If you still have faith that things are going as we were told, you are extremely naive and should sign up for the military immediately. Hey, free flowers and chocolates!!!
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 26, 2005 @ 7:35 am - September 26, 2005
And, NDT, just for the record: you are now claiming that the American people will largely support the continuation of the Iraq war once Saddam’s trial begins. I suppose Bush will also then have a 65% + approval rating, as well?
I believe the real legacy of Bush will be massive deficits and a national debt controlled by the Saudis and Chinese, and less stability in the MidEast because Bush prioritized a war of choice and, meanwhile, allowed Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. And I further predict that some of our “allies” will become our future enemies (Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia).
It’s sort of funny that the 90s were going so well that a President was impeached for lying about a blowjob! And he still had nearly 70% approval rating! Maybe you and your rightwing websites don’t think the Kosovo war was relatively successful, but the American people know otherwise. Why are you on Milosevic’s side? Maybe you would have liked to live in his “kite flying paradise”?
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 26, 2005 @ 7:55 am - September 26, 2005
NDT, maybe I’m mistaken. Please show me where Saddam and his evil regime went so far as to ban kites! That really was the tradgedy, wasn’t it?
And I suppose that now more kites are flying than ever? That’s the problem with the Liberal Media® (talking point copyright RNC) and the Liberal Elite®, they “don’t ever show the good things that are going on in Iraq”®! They never show the new Iraq as a Kite-Flying Utopia® and the cars that don’t explode; not to mention the cute puppies and kitties being born every day!
Just like Hurricane Katrina, the Liberal Media® only focuses on the bad. There were many good things happening in New Orleans, but all the Liberal Media® focused on was the flooding, the looting, and the people dying. Just like in Iraq!
But, hey! “We Have to Fight Them Over There So That We Don’t Have to Fight Them Here®”, right?
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 26, 2005 @ 10:03 am - September 26, 2005
The Milosevec trial didn’t end you and fellow Republicans thinking of pre-war Kosovo as a kite-flying paradise, did it?
How quickly you forget the facts, Bush Rulez. Republicans were opposing the way the action was being run in Kosovo because the Clinton Administration refused to send in ground troops — which, as my previous post of facts showed, was a counterproductive strategy.
And if you think the Kosovo war was mismanaged, you must really hate the war which was strategically similar- the first Iraq war. If dropping bombs from 20,000 feet bothers you, wasn’t that the strategy employed during the Iraq war?
Please show us the fact — since you only deal in facts, Bush Rulez — that there were no ground troops whatsoever involved in the first Gulf War and that the first Bush administration flatly refused to even consider using ground troops, since you argue that the wars were the same.
I believe the real legacy of Bush will be massive deficits and a national debt controlled by the Saudis and Chinese, and less stability in the MidEast because Bush prioritized a war of choice and, meanwhile, allowed Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.
ALLOWED? Iran and North Korea both were certified “nuclear weapon free” and did not have a development program — or so said the IAEA and the Clinton administration, under the Agreed Framework. You think they just started building them? They’ve been in development for DECADES.
If anything, under the Bush administration, both Iran and North Korea have been CONFRONTED about the fact that they’re lying to the world. But to admit that they did lie exposes your liberal incompetence, so you try the spin that North Korea and Iran just went out one day and decided to build bombs.
Maybe you and your rightwing websites don’t think the Kosovo war was relatively successful, but the American people know otherwise. Why are you on Milosevic’s side? Maybe you would have liked to live in his “kite flying paradise”?
Desperate spin, Bush Rulez. Saddam was hundreds of times worse than Milosevic, but you denied anything of the sort was taking place and claimed any action against Saddam was “unnecessary and unjustified”.
I supported both actually FIGHTING the Kosovo war, instead of leaving Milosevic’s forces unscathed on the ground to murder and mutilate hundreds of thousands, as well as the war in Iraq.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2005 @ 12:27 pm - September 26, 2005
[...] Patriot West over at Gay Patriot has this to start with and only gets better. Matt over a Blogs for Bush has the run down of the happenings. Don Surber [...]
Pingback by Keith D. Milby :: blog » Blog Archive » Voting on Roberts — September 2, 2007 @ 9:04 pm - September 2, 2007