A year and a half ago, when we graded the president on fulfilling Reagan’s legacy, I wondered if we spent so much defending him because:
his critics, particularly those on the gay left, make such outlandish (and very often inaccurate) accusations against him. Had they made more responsible critiques, they might find us less critical of them.
As our report card showed, we found that the president deserved criticism in a number of areas, most notably federal spending and federalism.
Too often it seems that the president’s critics come from the fringes. They fault him not only for his policies, but at the same time also accuse him of being a horrible, no good, very bad person, seeing his position only as a means of power for himself and of financial gain for his cronies.
Yet, conservatives bloggers (and pundits) have, like us, taken issue with the president in a civil manner. We have even on occasion found such civil criticism on liberal web-sites and editorial pages.
These past few weeks, I have been reading about two books, each of which (at least according to the reviews I have read) offers some pretty judicious criticism of the president without, at the same time, faulting him for being simultaneously dark, dangerous and dastardly. Last night, I bought Alan Greenspan’s The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World and immediately started reading it. (To be sure, the book is a memoir of the immediate past Federal Reserve chair, more than just a critique of the current administration.)
While Matthew Benjamin calls the tome gift to Democrats and grenade for Republicans, I see it instead as a tonic for my party. In the book, the former Federal Reserve chairman reportedly skewers “President George W. Bush and congressional Republicans for what he said was reckless spending and a politically driven economic agenda and said they deserved to lose control of Congress in 2006.” We Republicans need this reminder that if we attempt to retain power by sacrificing our principles, we will be left bereft, standing for nothing and out of power.
In the second book, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration, Jack Goldsmith considers his time as head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department where he advised the president on the laws governing the War on Terror.
While many of the reviews have focused on Goldsmith’s criticism of the president’s methods, he also notes, in Michael Barone’s words, how “the administration has been strangled by law, and since September 11, 2001, this war has been lawyered to death.” From what I’ve read about the book, it seems Goldsmith gets at one of the key flaws of the president, that he did not work as well with Congress as he could (and should) have. Barone writes:
argues that the administration would have ended up with more latitude in fighting terrorism if it had worked with Congress to get legislation, even if those laws would not have been as expansive as the administration wanted. It’s a serious argument, and he also presents fairly
It’s too bad that more critics of the president don’t make the effort as Goldsmith and Greenspan apparently have to make such serious arguments in a similarly fair manner.
As my schedule permits, I look forward to reading both books. Let us hope as well that other Republicans take the time to consider these two conservatives’ criticism lest they repeat the mistakes of the incumbent and his party in recent years.
Some people on the left just love to hate. There may have been hatred like this of Clinton on the right, but nothing compares to the hatred not only of Bush but anyone to the right of Stalin, expressed since the year 2000. Witness Barry Manilow’s recent infantile and petulant remarks about The View’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck. It’s symptomatic of a much larger problem: the decline of civility, good manners, self-restraint, and decorum.
Some T-shirt company actually made “Kill Bush” T-shirts in the style of the “Kill Bill” movie posters, but they were quickly removed only because of the outburst once they were publicized.
It’s too hard to make constructive criticism of someone when you’re foaming at the mouth with hatred for them.
So true Attmay.
Why don’t you ask Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds how they retain their civility, good manners, self-restraint, and decorum while foaming at the mouth with hatred of all things liberal?
Maybe you could gain some insight into the process.
As usual, great post Dan. It does boggle the mind that liberals cannot figure out this out for themselves. They could attract even voters who normally wouldn’t vote for them but are angry with the GOP. This makes it very annoying at the ballot box, but given how left the DNC has drifted perhaps its a good thing they are so clueless.
Trying to figure out what you’re trying to say “Veritas.” For neither Goldberg, nor Malkin nor Hewitt nor Althouse nor Reynolds foam at the mouth when taking on liberals.
There has been plenty of substantive criticism of this Administration coming from the left, center and right for years now. Certainly there have been their share of wild criticism in the noise as well. However the level of legitimate criticism has been so high for so long it is astonishing how long Republicans have been able to ignore it (and in many cases still do).
no presidency is perfect. why ask for it now? most of the people publish solely for money and recognition. Books that may seem lame 20 years from now.
Malkin going unhinged not just on liberals but libertarians, the media and academia in her 9/11 Rememberance:
“Not every American wears a military uniform. But every American has a role to play in protecting our homeland–not just from Muslim terrorists, but from their financiers, their public relations machine, their sharia-pimping activists, the anti-war goons, the civil liberties absolutists, and the academic apologists for our enemies. The Left greets such a commitment with mockery and derision, preferring instead to suck its collective thumb, play the grievance card, and engage in hindsight hypocrisy.”
Hugh Hewitt unhinged on the left and “media” during the Foley affair:
“The Washington Times wants Speaker Hastert to resign. To do so would be to capitulate to Democratic-activist-induced and MSM-abetted hysteria. Not only should Hastert not resign, he should use every opportunity to swing back hard at a MSM deeply compromised by its ideological extremism and a Democratic Party committed to retreat and defeat in Iraq and fecklessness in the war generally. If Republican candidates recognize that the “clamor” is just the echo chamber, they’ll quickly come to understand that this is another Wellstone Memorial Service moment, when the left has persuaded itself that the American electorate is stupid and easily stampeded, and where overreaching appeals to emotional and unjust conclusions cannot be sustained in the new media environment.”
or during the Terri Schiavo affair:
“But people do need to focus on an unintended consequence of the weekend legislation: the illumination—again—of the contempt of the federal courts for their coordinate branches, and the contempt of the left for people of faith.”
On Goldberg, how about an entire book trying to equate liberalism with Nazism “Liberal Fascists” (while being careful to note that he doesn’t think liberals support ethnic cleansing)
#7
You call that unhinged? That’s nothing compared to the diarrhea we’ved endured from the left.
How many of those hosts have been investigated for skits portraying the assassination of the president? Not only that, how many movies were made or books written about killing Clinton? Thank you. Next!
Why don’t you ask Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds how they retain their civility, good manners, self-restraint, and decorum while foaming at the mouth with hatred of all things liberal?
Foaming at the mouth with hatred of all things liberal?? Now I’m mostly familiar with Rush and can tell you’ve NEVER listened to his show. Please provide an example. Oh, be sure to use an example from his show and not what Soros front group Media Morons says he did.
#8 Mr. Moderate: Dare I ask? What exactly do you find unhinged in the quotes you cite? Perhaps you don’t like “anti-war goons.” Malkin is not saying all war protesters are “goons.” She is talking about those who are protesting the war using the tactics of “goons.” They exist, why pretend they do not? And what is it that I am supposed to see in Hewitt’s remarks? That the democrats are being whiplashed by their ideological extremists?
In all good faith, why should the Republicans have to be entirely civil in their discourse while Durbin calls the troops Nazis and Murtha says they kill in cold blood and Kerry claims they sneak into houses in the dead of night and terrorize women and children and Gore says Republicans are extra gene people and a whole panel unanimously approve a general that they then say is a known liar who is betraying his country and that terrorists have all the Constitutional accomodations as a hard working, tax paying loyal American citizen.
What the heck is your standard, Mr. Moderate?
Leftists’ definition of “unhinged”: A conservative who opens his or her mouth.
Anyone notice that today Democrats started calling GOP obstructionists for threatening filibustering legislation? So now the GOP is the Democrats of yesteryear and vice versa. Personally, I was happy to see the Democrats do it back in the day and I’m happy to see it now. Faux bipartisanship is worse than no bipartisanship at all. Aren’t you glad the GOP didn’t get rid of the filibuster when it became inconvenient for them?
Aren’t you glad the GOP didn’t get rid of the filibuster when it became inconvenient for them?
Now I know I was only edumacated in Mississippi, but the “nuclear option” was not to end all filibusters once and for all. Especially since it’s been done before and we still have filibusters.
So when, exactly, did the GOP try to “get rid of the filibuster”?
This is what “unhinged” looks like:
“We’re going to smash their heads against their base and flush them down the toilet.”
– Tom Mattzie, head of AAEI on the GOP.
So when, exactly, did the GOP try to “get rid of the filibuster”?
They were going to get rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees. They decided not to. The premise was the majority has the right to do whatever they feel like. It was the “will of the majority” versus the “tyranny of the majority.” Democrats were labeled obstructionists on countless legislation. It was when the pressure was brought to bear on the judicial nominees that the “nuclear option” was brought up. In 2005 it was conventional wisdom that the GOP would control the Congress and the White House for at least the next decade if not longer. At that time the Democrats argued that it was the responsibility of the majority to work with the minority party and not rule by fiat. Now the roles and positions have flipped. Any of this ringing a bell TGC?
TGC, that was a good one for an unhinged left winger. How about one or two from the right now:
“I don’t know why we don’t use a bunker-buster bomb when he comes to the U.N. and just take [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] out with everyone in there.” Michael Savage
“This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of ’em is making sure [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] doesn’t become the [House] speaker.” Sean Hannity (notice not just fight for but die for)
Sorry but both sides often become unhinged in this whole thing.
TGC,
BTW I realize that the filibuster could always be added back by another session of Congress, but do you think that the Democrats would give it back once they had the majority?
Mr. Moderate lacks a common sense of perspective. Mr. Moderate presents the musings of Michael Savage as the ravings of a serious minded lunatic. Mr. Moderate should know that if anyone believed Michael Savage was fomenting an attack on the United Nations that Michael Savage would be in custody.
Mr. Moderate should understand that Michael Savage is not an elected, appointed or paid spokesman of government. Mr. Moderate knows that Ed Shultz, Randi Rhodes, Al Frankin and others have tried to gain an audience in the same arena where Michael Savage has found success. Mr. Moderate should understand that in that arena all players bait and goad the opposition.
Mr. Moderate may be surprised to learn that most conservatives do not consider the United Nations to be hallowed ground. Mr. Moderate may be disappointed to know that most conservatives place the Constitution in first place and the UN charter somewhere beneath the instruction sheet for composting corn cobs.
Mr. Moderate fails to remember that the democrats required the cloture majority to bring judicial nominees to the floor of the Senate for a vote. If Mr. Moderate believes that the rules of the Senate should be changed to require a three/fifths plus one majority in order to do business, then Mr. Moderate should have the b.b.’s to say so.
Mr. Moderate should take solice in the fact that Sean Hannity was not able to raise a mob willing to die for him in the cause of keeping Nancy Pelosi from becoming Speaker. Mr. Moderate can bask in the glory of having Nancy Pelosi as Speaker where she is conducting the cleanest, most ethical, most bi-partisan leadership since Adam and Eve. She has raised the public respect for Congress to new levels and her trips to visit the Mid Eastern dictators have brought us new light, wisdom, understanding and the first real glimpse of peace in our time. Her attempted chairmanship appointments of Murtha, Jefferson and Hastings show that she is committed to concept of redemption. Now if she can just get legislation passed to let paroled pedophiles run day care centers….
Oooops! Sorry, Mr. Moderate, that last statement may have been…well…immoderate.
Heliotrope, nice diatribe. The whole point was that you pretend that all conservatives are always rationale and poise in their arguments while liberals are always off the handle and lunatic. The reality is that there are problems of people talking in extreme language no both sides. I know, I know, when conservatives do it they aren’t *real* conservatives. All sides like to pretend their crap doesn’t stink.
You don’t like the idea of using cloture to stop rail roading of legislation? Are you complaining about the GOP doing it now? They are using the exact same tactic. I think it’s great in both cases. Sorry, if the politicians we elect can’t play nice with the other kids in the school yard then this is what happens. I am very much against tyranny of the majority and the filibuster mechanism is doing what it is supposed to be doing–preventing such a scenario from happening. I’d love to see you condemn the GOP for using it now. Will you?
I have no illusions about the corruption of politicians on both sides. That’s the whole problem with the party ideologues. They are blind to the corruption within their own group. Did you decry the DeLay corruption? Oh wait, that didn’t exist of course, Sean Hannity told you so. The Democrats will say the same thing about the Pelosi corruption. I saw both and condemn both. Do you have the “b.b.’s” to do the same? How about the intellectual honesty to do that?
Mr. Moderate: Please look up the word diatribe and think about it for more than a moment. Sorry, but nothing I wrote supports your contention that I think all conservatives employ perfect logic and dignity. Nor do I believe that all liberals are kooks and on the fringe. There have been some great liberals in our past. I just can not name a single one today.
Can you match the partisan rhetoric of Durbin, Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Schumer, H. Clinton, Wrangel, Kerry, Murtha, Leahy, Conyers, Dingall, in numbers and intensity with Republicans? No! Because for democrats, “bi-partisanship” is a one-way street.
Nice side-step on using the cloture threshold for reporting judicial nominations out of committee. I did suggest that if you are so enamored of the cloture threshold, why don’t you require it across the board. You go lame and say that just because the democrats used it against the Republicans, it is no reason for the Republicans to toss it back at them. Duh!!! You seem to think that it should be the Mongols vs. the Eunichs.
I am fine with you and the vaunted “tyranny of the majority.” But that same Federalist Paper warned about the “tyranny of the minority” as well. Have you conveniently forgotten that?
As for the b.b.’s, I have never met a dynamic, leadership blessed moderate. Moderates I have met at usually criss-crossed with tire tracks lying dead on the line in the middle of the road. Somehow, I do not think you are a moderate at all. I think you are a liberal who thinks he is clever. I think you are too clever by half. I think you are hiding behind a moniker because you are not brave enough to state your case with conviction. I think you are in the “dime a dozen” club.
Because for democrats, “bi-partisanship” is a one-way street.
And for Republicans it’s a four letter word. That’s the whole problem and why the use of filibuster is a good thing.
You go lame and say that just because the democrats used it against the Republicans, it is no reason for the Republicans to toss it back at them. Duh!!!
You are totally misreading what I’m saying. I’m saying it was a useful and good tactic when the Democrats were doing it to the Republicans and it is also good now that the Republicans are doing it to the Democrats. I was also pointing out that when both sides were on the receiving end of it they cry about “obstructionism.”
I am fine with you and the vaunted “tyranny of the majority.” But that same Federalist Paper warned about the “tyranny of the minority” as well. Have you conveniently forgotten that?
Tyranny of the minority is a problem that hasn’t plagued history unlike the former. Being in the minority party I’d guess you aren’t too sore about having a strong minority power structure built into Congress. I know I’m happy that the founders were wise enough to build the system like that.
I’m sorry you feel i’m some sort of liberal in moderates moniker. I’ve been pretty consistent in my contempt for corruption on both sides of the isle and also receptive to studying both points of views from both parties. I don’t like ideologues of either flavor. Both sides come up with good policy and both sides also come up with bad policy. What makes me a moderate is that I’m willing to look at the policy on its own merits, not whether it was proposed by someone with a D or an R at the end of their name; and certainly not just because it came from a “conservative” think tank or “liberal” think tank. If being willing to substantively weigh policy by both sides is a sign of being a “liberal” in your mind, then so be it. It sounds like a moderate position to me, but I’ve only known myself for a little over thirty years so I’m sure you’ll be able to provide more vision into who I really am than I ever will.
Mr. Moderate, the filibuster has had a long and most undistinguished history in the Senate. In “the good old days” a Senator had to actually take the floor and delay the business of the Senate until one side caved. That process has morphed into a filibuster by proxy where a mere mention of the word signals that a cloture vote will be the minimal number to continue consideration of the item. This crowd of camera hams we have now do not care to “take to the cots” so they have allowed this ruse to take root and become Senate procedure. If 3/5ths plus one is a desired number for anything to pass in the Senate, then put it in the Senate rules and be done with it. It is the Democrats who made this mess by refusing to report the President’s judicial nominees to the floor for an up or down vote. Currently, that would be 1/2 plus one. Apparently, you would be comfortable with 3/5ths plus one, but you do not explain why you would support such a high threshold.
If Republicans do not engage in bi-partisanship, how did Ginsberg get on SCOTUS? How did McCain-Feingold see the light of day? How did Kennedy’s education bill get into law? How did Homeland Security become a separate government bureaucracy?
How is it that the Senate can not give its “advice and consent” to the President’s nominees? Why do the nominees have to fit the mold the Senate designs by a 3/5ths plus one vote? That is partisanship at its most flagarant.
Finally, Mr. Moderate, please direct me to a listing of the world’s great moderates. Patrick Henry didn’t say “give me liberty or a cup of coffee and we will talk.” Perry didn’t say “Don’t Give Up the Ship Unless You Are Tired of Fighting.” TR didn’t say “Talk softly, but carry a big stick so you can use if to vault fences when you turn and run.” FDR did not say “This is a day that will live in infamy, but infamy is over at five o’clock when cocktails begin.”
Perhaps there is a way to be moderately pregnant, moderately gay, moderately drunk or sober, moderately within the law or moderately partisan, but it escapes me. It is possible to be civil, informed, determined, hopeful, cordial, polite, open, play by the rules and be totally opposed to someone’s ideas and philosophy of government. Moderate doesn’t cut it. I will rephrase what I said before, you tilt toward liberalism and socialism. I oppose both. There is no moderation. You seem not to care for conservatism. Where’s the moderation? Show me the path.
Mr. Moderate, you would get a little farther in debate here if you didn’t start off with a handle that plainly insults everybody’s intelligence – including your own.
Your protests of being “moderate” – when, in reality, you end up presenting and endorsing the Left / DNC talking point invariably, or with no exceptions, and with full buy-in on your part – posits a universe where people are so dumb, they will believe any label. Like “ice cream” on a haunch of pork. I’m sorry to say, such behavior discredits you.
For the record, I agree with others – the quotes you offered in #8 are by no means irrational (or “unhinged”); meaning it is your job to prove them so, if you find them so. And you have not. In #9, you showed us yourself where Goldberg is, in fact, careful and reasonable.
#17 is a different matter, but I challenge whether your Hannity quote reflects his true view, i.e., is not just a misstatement (on his part) if not a misquote (on the part of your source). It doesn’t accord with anything I’ve heard him say.
#23 I would be happy for them to return to having to actually filibuster rather than threatening to do so. As far as your examples of bipartisanship, you had to go back 14 years to come up with an example? There are the rare exceptions where things of substance are done in a bi-partisan way in this day and age. That is the far exception and not the rule though. Instead it is more locking the base and getting one or two swings to get a simple majority. That isn’t bi-partisanship in any sense of the way. I don’t support requiring a 3/5’s majority to pass all legislation. I’m for providing a mechanism to block legislation against simple majority because a hard-line extremist majority is bad for the country. You certainly don’t like the idea of Reid and Pelosi being able to pass whatever they feel like without GOP consent if a Democrat was in the president’s chair do you?
My favorite moderate from history would be Teddy Roosevelt, if you want a name one. Another one would be Dwight Eisenhower.
#25, The Malkin quote isn’t unhinged? We have to protect our homeland from anti-war people? We have to protect our homeland from people who support constructionist views of civil liberties? How pray tell do we “protect ourselves” from these threats that Malkin puts on the same level as OBL, al Qaeda and the organizations that finance them?
The Hewitt quotes. You think that Democrats as a block think that Americans are stupid? I know I’ve seen Randi Rhodes be called to task by the right when she accuses Republicans of thinking that. For some reason when a right wing talk show host says it isn’t a slander, it’s a fact? Likewise, the meme that Democrats are hostile to people of faith is also a crock. It’s right up there with Republicans hate gay people. It simple political hay about the opposition party.
Your protests of being “moderate” – when, in reality, you end up presenting and endorsing the Left / DNC talking point invariably, or with no exceptions, and with full buy-in on your part – posits a universe where people are so dumb, they will believe any label. Like “ice cream” on a haunch of pork. I’m sorry to say, such behavior discredits you.
Which left talking points have I been adhering to on this post? The fact that Republicans are being obstructionists? I have quite plainly stated that that characterization is inappropriate both now as it was when it was applied to the Democrats. Is the problem that I’m not criticizing the Democrats actions in 2005 but lauding the Republican ones now? To me that’s called intellectual honesty. Please enlighten me on what I’ve posted here that shows some hard line adherence to either sides talking points?
But that isn’t what Malkin said, MM. Per you, she said:
How interesting that you – repeat, YOU – would equate her reference to anti-war “goons” or extremists as a reference to all people who may be anti-war for some reason. Or that you interpret her reference to civil liberties ***absolutists*** as a reference to people with “constructionist views of civil liberties” (whatever you particularly have in mind with that). And that you overlook that her other 5 of 7 references are indisputably appropriate (if you really are “moderate”) references to terrorists or elements of their support machine.
Again, let’s check Hewitt’s actual quote. You must be referring to this part:
Not “Democrats as a block”, Mr. Moderate. But “the left”, meaning – in context – the leadership of the extreme left.
And do I think that the LEADERSHIP of the EXTREME Left thinks Americans are stupid? Yes, absolutely. It is the only logical inference possible for a great many of their strategies and actions.
You’re 0-for-2, Mr. Moderate. And let’s be clear: In both cases, you misquoted or misinterpreted the person whom you alleged was “unhinged”. Thinking I wouldn’t catch it. I am sorry, but I fear you may be the one here who is, in fact, unhinged (i.e., not thinking or operation rationally).
For starters: your seeming belief that certain Republicans wanted, in the last Congress, to end the filibuster. They never did. They never remotely suggested or proposed it. They only wanted to bring judicial nominees to the floor for an up-or-down vote. That narrow action had nothing to do with the filibuster, for the simple reason that in 200+ years of American tradition, the filibuster had never before had anything to do with judicial nominees. The belief that Republicans had wanted to “end the filibuster” is a mistaken construction courtesy of Left/DNC advocates.
(to be clear: at #28, my reference to your “misquoting” is not to your original quotes of Malkin and Hewitt at #8, which I accept as accurate, but to your later mis-paraphrases or mis-representations of those quotes in your comments to me at #26)
As for Goldberg devoting a book to “liberal fascism” – That may be a concept difficult for some to grasp, but is by no means unhinged.
He was referring, first, to the way in which left-liberal academics (and others) attempt to shut down dissent from their views – such as through campus speech codes, for example.
Second: The type of ever-growing government interventionism advocated by modern American left-liberals does, in fact, bear striking and troubling resemblances to classically fascist programs. NOT in overt racism, as Goldberg himself was at pains to emphasize. (Though many left-liberals do seek to maintain racism or race-consciousness in America, through racially-biased university admissions, job quotas, etc.) And certainly not in militarism. But in the sheer weight of government interventionism, and of expecting that everyone should act and even think alike like a left-liberal: Yes. So no one can honestly call Goldberg “unhinged” there, either.
And with that, I have to go.
#28
So she is making a fine distinction between “anti-war people” and “anti-war goons”? Yeah right. Nuance is so typical of her. The same thing with the civil rights quote. It is the fact of lumping the radical with the not-radical that is the literary device of being unhinged. It is the same as saying, “Many political parties through time have shown evidence of overt racism including the Nazis, the National Party and Republicans.” As far as Hewitt’s quote “the left” is even a more general terminology than Democrats. That applies to all on the spectrum. He doesn’t say “the far left,” “the extreme left” (as you stated) or “left wing fringe.” Your contention that he is solely talking about the leadership of the extreme left is also off. Where are you seeing this isolation to solely talking about the far left leadership only. It simply isn’t there not even by inference.
For starters: your seeming belief that certain Republicans wanted, in the last Congress, to end the filibuster. They never did. They never remotely suggested or proposed it. They only wanted to bring judicial nominees to the floor for an up-or-down vote.
How did they intend on ensuring that an up-or-down vote would occur for judicial nominees? They intended to change the rules so that the filibuster would be a non-option for judicial nominees. The Frist proposal was to have the threshold to filibuster drop with each consecutive vote until it dropped to a simple majority. Did it apply to judicial nominees only? Yes. Was it removing the tool of filibustering from such an application. Yes. The rest of the comment, the origin of my original comment, was the wailing by the GOP about how obstructionist the Democrats were being in not letting their one sided legislation pass for a vote. We are now seeing the exact same thing in the other direction. Which is a good thing! I don’t want policy passed that must match the litmus test of MoveOn.org and that fringe group anymore than I wanted such legislation as stamped by FRC or FoF.
That narrow action had nothing to do with the filibuster, for the simple reason that in 200+ years of American tradition, the filibuster had never before had anything to do with judicial nominees.
It never had anything to do with judicial nominees in the history of the country? How about the first time was 1968 during the nomination of Fortas to be supreme court justice? From the Washington Post in that era, “A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice.”
The belief that Republicans had wanted to “end the filibuster” is a mistaken construction courtesy of Left/DNC advocates.
As I’ve shown above that conjecture is only true if the comment was about ending the filibuster across the board. You may have read that into one of my comments, but that isn’t what I meant to imply.
Mr. Moderate: I take it back. You are clearly a moderate within the extreme fringes of the left wing. I was mistakenly placing you somewhere toward the middle of the current political spectrum. My fault.