Quote :

"Obama getting fewer judges confirmed than Nixon WASHINGTON – A determined Republican stall campaign in the Senate has sidetracked so many of the men and women nominated by President Barack Obama for judgeships that he has put fewer people on the bench than any president since Richard Nixon at a similar point in his first term 40 years ago. The delaying tactics have proved so successful, despite the Democrats' substantial Senate majority, that fewer than half of Obama's nominees have been confirmed and 102 out of 854 judgeships are vacant. Forty-seven of those vacancies have been labeled emergencies by the judiciary because of heavy caseloads. "

We fucking elect the people to run the country? Which part of the "run the country" don't they understand?

9/6/2010 5:22:47 PM

Democrats have a majority. Not our fault they can't do shit.

9/6/2010 5:45:04 PM

Not a filibuster proof majority. Which is good in some ways as a reasonable check and balance, and bad in so many others with record setting numbers of filibuster attempts and obstructionism even in areas where the GOP isn't opposed. Its kind of telling when the GOP filibuster threats a nomination and when it finally comes to a vote they vote for the candidate, or more generally when they cancel meetings as a broader part of obstruction (think Burr canceling a Senate Armed Services Meeting that a few generals traveled half way around the world to attend just to punish Dems).

[Edited on September 6, 2010 at 6:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2010 6:21:01 PM

that's what happens when one side says they want to play fair and one side says not only are we not going to play fair and keep it politics as usual but we're going to show that the other side isn't being as truthful as it says

everyone's at fault here but only the dems feel ashamed about it, republicans are eating it up and apparently their base is ok with that

(coming from someone outside of both parties)

9/6/2010 6:44:01 PM

^^ This to me is a complete cop out. If the republicans are going to filibuster let them filibuster, but at least then the democrats can honestly say that they're being held up by the republicans. But if the democrats are just going to roll over an play dead every time the republicans go "Boo!" then any complaints about republican stalling come off as excuses for incompetent legislators.

9/6/2010 7:16:09 PM

While I disagree with your governance-by-stamina model, it doesn't really apply when not every bit of obstructionism requires the old fashioned filibuster (think delaying procedures, endless amendments, whenever a waiting period can be & typically is waived requiring it go to the max, canceling meetings discussing issues you actually support, etc to the point that its essentially a filibuster).

9/6/2010 8:13:00 PM

The democrats have a super majority. The only way the Republicans can currently be obstructing is if the Republicans want to be seen as obstructing, which they do, and the democrats want to appear obstructed, which they do.

9/6/2010 8:32:57 PM

Quote :

"The democrats have a super majority. "

Senator Lieberman and Sanders aren't a part of the Democratic Party. And Lieberman has made that clear in demanding concessions to vote with the Dems.

But even if they were, that doesn't bring them up to a super majority.

[Edited on September 6, 2010 at 8:53 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2010 8:48:05 PM

After Martha Choakley handed the special election to Scott Brown, the Democratic caucus in the Senate has had 59 members; also the moderate Democrats have repeatedly demanded concessions (like removal of the public option) in exchange for their votes, and I'm not sure whether even a majority of Senators are liberal (I know on the House side that Democrats who are not Blue Dogs do constitute a minority).

9/6/2010 9:09:27 PM

Quote :

"If the republicans are going to filibuster let them filibuster, but at least then the democrats can honestly say that they're being held up by the republicans."

Exactly! Make them get up there and read the encyclopedia until they piss their pants. When they go to the bathroom to clean up, hold the vote.

The counterbalance to the filibuster is the impracticality of actually doing it. With the current rules, it is as easy to filibuster as it is to vote no, so why not?

9/6/2010 11:05:24 PM

I just got this chainletter

Quote :

"Monkeys -- Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water. After a while another monkey makes the attempt with same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another Monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, put the cold water away. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the snot out of him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm. Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs OR even why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. Finally, after replacing all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know, that is the way it has always been done around here. And that, my fellow monkeys, is how Congress operates - And precisely why we need to REPLACE all the original monkeys this November. "

Although they fucked up the punchline, I get what they are saying.

[Edited on September 6, 2010 at 11:11 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2010 11:10:32 PM

IMO the author of the chain letter meant "all at once"

but of course in the Senate that would be impossible

9/6/2010 11:14:37 PM

Ah yes, the old five monkeys in a cage with a banana hanging from a string and a ladder analogy...

9/6/2010 11:16:05 PM

There are 178 Republicans in the House of Representatives. There are 253 Democrats.
There are 49 Republicans in the Senate. There are 59 members of the Democratic Caucus.
There are 0 Republicans in the White House. There are 2 Democrats.

227 is 42% of 541.

And people thought that the President and the Republicans in the Legislative Branch have nothing in common.

The percentage of Republicans in the Executive and Legislative Branches is equal to the President's Approval Rating.

Is it only a coincidence that the majority of Americans agree with the minority of Congress?

If 42% isn't enough to stop the President's agenda, don't you have to admit that not every Democrat in Congress agrees with the President's agenda? If you can't admit it, please ask yourself why only ONE Democratic Member of both Houses of Congress had ran an ad to highlight that they voted FOR the Health Care Overhaul bill (that being Senator Reid, D-NV).

If you didn't think the Republicans were going to oppose President Obama's agenda, you need to look at the history of the Bush-43 Administration.

If you believe that Republicans were going to opposed the agenda, then you need to turn your blame towards the less-liberal-than-you Democrats in Congress, and stop wasting everyone's time trying to blame 42% of the people who make laws for the inability of the other %58.

9/7/2010 5:14:06 AM

Quote :

"you need to turn your blame towards the less-liberal-than-you Democrats in Congress"

plz read any liberal blog out there

one of their principal goals is to boot the "ConservaDems" out
as if it were feasible for a good liberal Democrat to win in every single one of those constituencies

9/7/2010 5:19:13 AM

This could just as easily be "So fucking sick of Democrats". The party does not matter. The country is not polarized. Politicians are polarized - and there is probably no going back. The only real solution is short term limits and 3,4, even 5 parties with near equal representation, both of which will likely never happen.

9/7/2010 8:30:59 AM

Quote :

"The country is not polarized."

it absolutely is. Politics is no longer about ideology in this country. It's about whether you're team donkey or team elephant, and you stand by your team no mater what fucked up thing they do.

It's disgusting, and followers of both parties play the same game.

Either way, this country is going to be bankrupt in the next decade or so.

9/7/2010 9:34:56 AM

I really don't think that most people are radical. I think most people's true opinion is moderate, but the two-party system has distilled the choices down to two polar opposites. The average person knows that they are merely choosing what they think to be the lesser evil.

9/7/2010 10:07:15 AM

They way fillibuster is used these days is a threat to the function of democracy.

9/7/2010 10:10:21 AM

Quote :

"The only real solution is short term limits and 3,4, even 5 parties with near equal representation, both of which will likely never happen."

Not only will they never happen, but I'm not convinced that they will even solve the issues you think they will. I think that shorter term limits will result in more pet projects aimed at garnering the favor of local voters since re-election would never be far over the horizon. Campaign season is already bordering on ridiculously long and if we shortened terms it would last nearly half the term. There would be far less incentive to take any kind of political risk.

More parties seems like another solution but look at the parliaments of other countries. They still need a majority in order to create a functioning government. This leads to loose coalitions being formed and ridiculous concessions often being made in the name of bringing parties together. Deadlock and infighting are often the norm which frequently results in early elections being held

9/7/2010 10:16:05 AM

maybe i'm using the wrong words - but i meant term limits as in one cannot be president for more than two terms, not that presidential elections occurs every two years instead of every four years. i would hope to diminish the re-election related issues. but yeah, not exactly a panacea.

9/7/2010 10:43:28 AM

^ah, in that case disregard my previous

9/7/2010 11:14:54 AM

Term limits would be great, but it'll never happen. Politicians would have to vote to voluntarily relinquish their power, and it's unrealistic to think that will occur. Once they get a taste, they become egomaniacs, and there's rarely any turning back.

I'm fine with the use of filibuster. Almost everything the legislative branch does now is destructive, so I'd rather Congress grind to a screeching halt and nothing be accomplished. It's much, much better than the alternative.

9/7/2010 11:24:49 AM

Fucking Repulicans. They're almost as bad as the Democrats.

9/7/2010 11:50:54 AM

Quote :

"FUCKING REPUBLICANS"

Quote :

"HOW DO THEY WORK?"

9/7/2010 12:12:58 PM

Quote :

"Fucking Repulicans. They're almost as bad as the Democrats. "

9/7/2010 3:58:33 PM

lol no, they are uniformly worse...unless you also hate freedom and wish to subvert the First Amendment and Article VI to establish a theocracy

Quote :

"it absolutely is. Politics is no longer about ideology in this country. It's about whether you're team donkey or team elephant, and you stand by your team no mater what fucked up thing they do"

actually it's more about ideology than it used to be; among the politicians and pundits it has long been about partisanship and the two major parties have become more ideologically aligned since the '50s
but among voters it's not about partisanship or even about ideological alignment

9/7/2010 4:33:12 PM

Quote :

""it absolutely is. Politics is no longer about ideology in this country. It's about whether you're team donkey or team elephant, and you stand by your team no mater what fucked up thing they do""

This hits the bullseye. It's so easy to see. We need to eliminate parties altogether. That way we are forced to do our homework on a candidate.

9/7/2010 5:41:43 PM

parties were mentioned nowhere in the Constitution and even denounced by Washington, yet they arose on their own

it's like when the whites, Hispanics, and blacks band together in gangs, only in the Congressional facility the great majority are white

9/7/2010 6:37:50 PM

I'm not sure but if your judge ain't getting through you could always nominate one a little less left, and it might get through. He'll look at the ones R.R. put in.

[Edited on September 7, 2010 at 6:40 PM. Reason : Ipad]

9/7/2010 6:39:57 PM

lool

iirc these judges actually have bipartisan support but the Rethugnicans want to hold them up just to hurt Obama

9/7/2010 9:12:01 PM

You spelled republicans incorrectly

9/7/2010 9:16:45 PM

All bipartisanship went out the window when they used reconciliation to pass death care. That was a seriously fucked up thing to do. Now I doubt they can even rely on the RINOs to sneak things through in the lame duck session.

9/7/2010 11:25:09 PM

^death is actually what the Rethugs wish on poor people and that's why they uniformly opposed the health-care reform no matter how many measures were taken by the Democrats to moderate it

9/7/2010 11:32:10 PM

THank you Alan Grayson...

It's not at all possible that opposed THIS attempt at reform because it made problems worse. Naaah. They just hate poor people

9/7/2010 11:49:30 PM

No. That bill was toxic and completely ignored the root causes of rising health care cost. It was health insurance reform, not health care reform. Any bill that doesn't directly alter the tax code might as well be thrown out.

9/7/2010 11:53:38 PM

they hate anything that helps out the under-privileged

9/7/2010 11:53:57 PM

Quote :

"We fucking elect the people to run the country? Which part of the "run the country" don't they understand?"

At least Sharron Angle is now looking less likely to join their ranks.



[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 4:12 AM. Reason : .]

9/9/2010 4:12:20 AM

42%

9/9/2010 10:43:48 PM

Quote :

"they hate anything that helps out the under-privileged"

there is a key word in there I think you and many liberals miss

Quote :

"privilege"

the goal seems to be to convience people that a privilege should all of a sudden become a universal right to everyone.

9/10/2010 1:05:20 PM

Quote :

"TO CONVIENCE PEOPLE"

9/10/2010 4:45:41 PM

another good term for "under-privileged" is "have-nots"

but then again on a global scale, even a person making poverty-level wages ($10,380 for 2009) makes about as much in a month as someone at the "global" poverty level ($1.25/day) makes in 2 years
so in that sense even the vast majority of poor Americans have privilege

but even in the usual sense, liberals believe that many categories of people have undeserved privilege, like men, whites, native English-speakers, Christians, heterosexuals, light-skinned people, the native-born, suburbanites, the able-bodied, the cisgendered, and (most of all) children of wealthy families

none of these categories has anything to do with an individual's willingness to work hard to make it in America and they ought to have nothing to do with their worth as a human being, and one broad goal of the liberal agenda is to reduce the effective privilege of each category, to step in where our racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. society has failed to allow for de facto equality of opportunity (even where it ostensibly exists de jure)

9/10/2010 4:50:27 PM