TPMDC Morning Roundup
Hillary Warns North Korea -- And Slams Bush
During her overseas trip to Asia, Hillary Clinton simultaneously warned North Korea about their nuclear program -- and blasted the Bush Administration for creating the conditions that have helped it get this far. "There is no debate that, once the Agreed Framework was torn up, the North Koreans began to reprocess plutonium with a vengeance because all bets were off," said Clinton. "The result is they now have nuclear weapons, which they did not have before."
Obama Going Back To Washington Today
President Obama is heading back to Washington today, after having spent the weekend in Chicago. He is scheduled to leave O'Hare at 11 a.m. ET, and to arrive back at the White House at 12:45 p.m. ET.
Biden Meeting With Fire Fighters Union Head
Vice President Biden is in Washington today, where he'll be meeting with Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters.
Report: Obama To Form Auto Task Force, Drop "Car Czar" Plan
President Obama will reportedly appoint a special task force, co-chaired by Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, to oversee the restructuring of the auto industry, replacing the prior proposal to appoint a single "car czar." This comes as General Motors and Chrysler face a deadline tomorrow to submit a business plan for how they can become viable again after receiving $13.4 billion in aid from the Bush Administration.
Burris: "I Responded To All Questions"
At a press conference yesterday, Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) responded to his critics over his failure to disclose during the Blagojevich impeachment hearings that Blago's brother had asked him for political contributions this past November -- though Burris says he didn't actually donate. "I responded to all questions that were asked of me by the impeachment committee in the time allotted," said Burris. "At no time did I ever make any inconsistent statements."
Cornyn: Coleman Knows How Important Keeping The Seat Is To Us
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), the chairman of the NRSC, told the Politico that Norm Coleman will keep contesting the MInnesota Senate race "however long it takes" -- and it's important to the GOP. "I encourage him to see it through the end," Cornyn said. "He feels like he owes it to the voters of Minnesota and his colleagues here. He realizes how important retaining that seat is to us."
Stimulus Includes Money For Health Care Effectiveness Study
The New York Times reports that the stimulus bill now includes a key piece of health-care reform: $1.1 billion, and a 15-member advisory council to the president, to compare the costs and benefits of different treatments for the same illness. Rep. Peter Stark (D-CA) said the new research "will save money and lives," while Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) was less than enthusiastic, warning that "federal bureaucrats will misuse this research to ration care, to deny life-saving treatments to seniors and disabled people."
Ken Starr Predicts Trouble For Obama's SCOTUS Nominees
Speaking on Friday to a group of attorneys in Boston, Ken Starr hinted at some more partisan rancor to come when Barack Obama appoints a Supreme Court Justice. Starr gave this line about Obama, which is sure to be repeated by any Republicans who might filibuster a nominee: "He is the first president of the United States ever in our history to have participated in a Senate filibuster of a judicial nominee. Never before has that happened."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Happy BirthDay Josh. Now that you are officially over the hill, will you slow down ? :) Hope not.
February 16, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You always pick up speed on the downhill slope.
February 16, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
speed to where?
February 16, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Repugs want to add Ken Starr to the list of luminaries who are advising them on strategy like Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter, I say "bring it on!"
As if people will support blocking the President's SC appointments because Obama participated in a filibuster when he was a senator. It takes a lot of effort to be that deluded!
February 16, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I expect a filibuster proof majority after the next election cycle and hence Kenny is blowing hot-air.
February 16, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he appoints a pro-choice justice to the SCOTUS, I think it wouldn't get filibustered even now. Snowe (and I think Collins) are Pro-Choice
February 16, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
But aren't there also a few pro-life Democratic senators?
Still, I think a filibuster is unlikely to succeed because Obama will follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution in seeking the advice and consent of the Senate (whereas Bush just went for the consent part of that).
February 16, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes there are, but they wouldn't be willing to filibuster the President who is the head of the party. You seriously think Reid would filibuster Obama's SCOTUS pick because he is against abortion?
I think we can all agree that Reid is a putz on numerous points and levels, but he isn't that dumb.
February 16, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are more optimistic than I.
February 16, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone is more optimistic than you, Jonze ;)
February 16, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I resisted going there but you had to go there, didn't you? So, true! LOL!
February 16, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I walked right into that one...
February 16, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just jesting, Jonze. I know you mean well. Cheers.
February 16, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to see the GOP filibustering Obama's SCOTUS nominations because I want candidates that are idelogically liberal as Alito and Roberts were ideologically conservative.
I want to see Collins, Snowe and even Murkowski and Hutchison filibuster a female candidate.
February 16, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
There won't ever be judicial filibuster. That was the whole point of the Gang of 14. Rather than have the filibuster outlawed totally, they reached an agreement that judicial nominees would get an up or down vote once they were voted out of committee.
February 16, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't hold your breath. They won't filibuster a female candidate, nor will the republicans attempt a filibuster.
I don't know about the choice selection. I wouldn't label roberts and scalito as ideologically conservative, I would label them as republican party hacks, big difference. I am not interested in dem party hacks being appointed to the supremes. I want appointees that do the job of the supremes, which is to protect the rights of the minority against the majority and protect the rights of the individual against the government and business. If that's "liberal", so be it, but that is the job of the supremes.
The job is not to be a rubber stamp for government action and to protect big business. Unfortunately, the republican party hacks on the court have lost their copy of the constitution or something.
February 16, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>I wouldn't label roberts and scalito as ideologically conservative, I would label them as republican party hacks, big difference. >
Oh, please! What planet are you on? Roberts and Scalia are brilliant (but evil) judicial minds. (If you meant Alito, he's also brilliant.) They are not "party hacks" by any stretch. They're just right-wing nutters but to say that they're hacks is just bullshit.
Harriet Miers? Clarence Thomas? Now those are party hacks!
February 16, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Earth. What planet do you live on? The planet delusion, which makes twisted points with insults and by twisting what people say to fit their own agenda.
I wouldn't label roberts brilliant by any stretch. Alito's opinions that I have seen are questionable. Alito was the big proponent of signing statements being used, like the king did, to circumvent the will of congress and rewrite laws. The ABA shot that one down. Scalia's opinions are intellectually dishonest and he is a big bud and hunting buddy of darth vader. By and large scalia toes the republican party line on virtually every opinion that he writes. How is that brilliant?
Incidentally, if thomas votes 99% of the time with scalia, how is he just a party hack and scalia is brilliant? That makes no sense obviously.
Your turn, rant and rave away.
February 16, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thurmood Marshall voted the democratic party line 99% of the time. So did Brennan and Stevens and Blackmon and Ginsburg. Does that make them "hacks"?
Here's a newsflash: having a conservative or liberal ideology has no bearing on a jurist's intelligence.
Thomas votes with Scalia because he follows whatever Scalia says. He *never* speaks from the bench because he's afraid of showing how lost he is on the issues. His record before being appointed to the bench was so fucking mediocre as to be an embarrassment.
The ability to convincingly argue a dubious point because it fits into your political ideological like Roberts actually shows how bright he is.
Even liberals and constitutional scholars like Lawrence Tribe and Barack Obama give Scalia, Roberts and Alito props for being up-to-the-task although they disagree with them on just about every issue.
February 16, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I agree on the liberal vs. conservative ideology, but the problem is that scalia, alito, thomas and roberts do not have what I would call a "conservative" ideology. They are not "conservative." They are reactionary. Their positions shift with the wind and evidence a complete lack of a judicial philosophy. Being a judge is not like arguing a position as an attorney before the court. That is why I have never thought that scalia's opinions were brilliant. He evidences no judicial philosophy. Depending on the fact scenario and how to fit a square peg into a round hole, he is either a "strict constructionist" or employs a "living constitution" philosophy depending on the politics of a case. That is intellectually dishonest in my opinion. That is not brilliant, that is dishonest and not what a judge should be doing.
On Thurgood Marshall and Brennan, I would say that they were not voting the dem party line and were actually ahead of the party and leading the charge concerning individual rights against the government and big business. That's what a supreme court justice should be doing, within the bounds of the law obviously. On the far end of the spectrum in the opposite direction was rehnquist at the time, who was of the opinion that the government and big business could do no wrong.
On Stevens and Ginsburg, again, I do not see them "toeing" the dem party line. If the dem party line is the rights of the individual against the government and big business, then yes, but I don't see that as "the dem party line." Protecting the rights of the individual is the job of the supreme court, which the "right-wingers" or republican party hacks or whatever you want to refer to them as on the court fail to appreciate and see.
The most troubling of all the decisions which involved the hacks was ignoring the us constitution concerning the geneva conventions. It's in simple language and in black and white in the freaking constitution and they ignored it. That's really outrageous. Also, scalia's comments that the constitution permits torture is beyond outrageous as well. It's not brilliant, it's pathetic.
February 16, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
CHALLENGE: Please identify a few instances each when Marshall, Brennan, Ginsberg, Blackmun, Stephens departed from the conventional liberal/progressive stance when issuing a decision.
Doesn't happen. Just like conservatives don't depart from the right wing position. Both sides find constitutional rationale to vote in a way that supports their ideological beliefs.
That's why you can figure out how the court will decide before the case is argued, 80-90% of the time. The only mystery is which way Kennedy and O'Connor would vote.
February 16, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. I said toeing the dem party line, not being "liberal/progressive." Some of the dem party platform is surely liberal/progressive and some of it I would submit is classically conservative. At the time of some of brennan and marshall's historic decisions, the dem party was definitely not leading the charge concerning some of the decisions.
2. The problem is definitional. In my opinion, the present day republican party is not "conservative" as classically defined. The republican party is reactionary. That's why I would not label any of the 4 republican judges as conservative, they are not. The modern dem party is classically conservative in many respects and "liberal/progressive." You can't easily put a label on either party's philosophies.
3. Bottom line, yes brennan, marshall, stevens and blackmun would probably be defined as being liberal. They believed in a living consitution, which is probably considered a liberal concept. Scalia, roberts, alito and thomas are not "conservative." They are reactionary and do not adhere to a particular judicial philosophy except what is convenient at the time for their political ends, which is not what a judge should be doing in any event. That is judicial activism at its worst.
4. This link kind of points out the problem with labels.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/two-progressivisms.html
February 16, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I agree that Scalia and Alito and Roberts may be reactionary. But that's not what started this conversation.
You said they were hacks, which implies they're are clueless idiots who do not have the intellectual rigor to be a Supreme Court justice. That's the part I say and still say is not accurate.
They let Bush do what he wanted to do even though much of it was clearly unconstituional but to say they're stupid is just not true. Those three guys are very, very bright. They know exactly what they want to achieve with their opinions and are bright enough to find constitutional cover for unconstitional things.
Clarence Thomas and Harriet Miers? Total party hacks!
February 16, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I don't interpret party hack as being someone who is automatically stupid. A party hack is somebody who uncritically toes the party line regardless of whether it is right or wrong, honest or dishonest. That to me is a party hack. I would never say that the 4 of them are stupid, they would not be where they are today if they were stupid, even thomas. Intellectually dishonest, yes. Total party men, yes. Immoral, yes. Stupid, no.
Also, some of the twisting they do just defies logic. Again, I come back to the gitmo cases. Competely illogical and contrary to the express terms of the us constitution. Same thing with the signing statements. Alito totally made that garbage up. There is no legal foundation for what they did with signing statements. That's being a party hack in my book.
February 16, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
FreeRider,
As much as I do not agree with Thomases' rulings, to say he is without reason because he fails to speak from the bench is false. Thomas has written and stated that he does not speak from the bench becasue it is a faux exchange. The supremes decide before they get to the bench behind closed doors and Thomas has said he finds it unnecessary to be apart of the legal jousting charade. It may make good theatre but it fails to sway any of the justices minds.
February 16, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clarence Thomas is a dumb as a box of hair. Of course, he makes some excuse for not speaking from the bench. What do you expect him to say? "I don't speak from the bench because my law clerk isn't there to whisper in my ear!"
Look at his record before he was appointed. The guy was AT MOST distinguished enough to be a US District Court judge. No more.
The thought of his sitting in Thurgood Marshall's chair, one of the most brilliant trial lawyers and supreme court justices, makes me throw up a little in my mouth!
February 16, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harry Blackmun was actually a Republican. That's why Nixon appointed him when his first two SCOTUS choices failed miserably. He was considered a "sure bet" because he was good buddies with one of the all-time SCOTUS dimwits, Warren Burger.
Didn't quite turn out as hoped for Nixon (and the 'pugs), though--similar to Geo. HW Bush's pick of David Sutter. Blackmun trended toward meticulous detail of fact--and fact has that dreaded, well-known liberal bias--even if he, himself, wasn't a "liberal."
Bob Woodward's "The Brethren" documents all this in detail. Great read.
February 16, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blackmun was a republican appointee but I don't think we know if he himself was a republican or not. In his rulings, he was truly a liberal. I vividly recall him coming out 4 square against the death penalty in the 90's. The interview he gave on PBS where he explained his positions was riveting.
JP Stevens was also a Republican appointee. Nixon appointed him to the Court of Appeals and Ford appointed him to the Supreme Court.
The fact that Blackmun, Stevens and Souter were appointed by Repugs tells you how far we've gone down the road of litmus test appointments.
February 16, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your final point.
As his biography states, though, Blackmun was a registered Republican. (Public record.) John Paul Stevens *is* a registered Republican--it's brought up by every MSM hack each time he has cast a "controversial" vote. Neither man made/makes his decisions based on party ideology, however, to both men's credit.
Same is true with Sutter--and in his case I don't know if he's a Republican or not. My guess is that he was known to be one, since HW Bush appointed him in a panic, but that's only speculation.
February 16, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I just remembered on roberts, he was of the opinion that the geneva convention is not the law of the land, even though the constitution says it is because it was a ratified treaty. Also, he was of the opinion that gitmo was a black hole where no laws applied. How is that brilliant? Give me a break.
February 16, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Surprise, surprise! The liberals view the constituion one way and the conservatives another. He's a right winger so, of course, he will attempt to interpret the law to fit his positions.
You obviously don't get that there's a difference between intellectual rigor and ideology.
You sound like some right winger who thinks that Blackmun was stupid because he wrote the opinion in Roe v. Wade. Just because you vehemently disagree with an opinion doesn't mean the person who wrote it is stupid. You and Limbaugh should understand that.
February 16, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I do. See above comment. Surprise, surprise.
February 16, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roberts is so frickin brilliant he flubbed the oath of office.
February 16, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, he has trouble reading that constitution, when he can find it even.
February 16, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know. The only reason people violate the constitution is because they're too dumb to read it. If Bush could have only READ the constitution, we never would have had torture or illegal wiretapping.
February 16, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that was not the point. The reactionaries on the Court have refused to enforce the Constitution concerning the king's antics. That was the point. I never said that roberts was dumb. I said that he was not "brilliant." Just because I say someone is not brilliant, does not automatically mean that I think someone is dumb.
February 16, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said Roberts was a "party hack". That means he's just a tool being used, doing what he's told, following marching orders.
February 16, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about this for a definition of political hack:
A political hack is a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction. The term "hired gun" is often used in tandem to further describe the moral bankruptcy of the "hack".
http://www.answers.com/topic/political-hack-1
February 16, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. We all know intelligence is determined by how well we can recite passages from memory in a high pressure situations. {snark}
You sound like those people who claimed Obama is stupid because he misspoke on the campaign trail like saying there were 57 states.
February 16, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP have already declared war on Obama so of course a Supreme Court Justice appointment will be a partisan dogfight. That's nothting new. The public will just view it as Republicans being obstructionists as they view them now.
I suspect Obama will appoint a Hispanic woman to the bench as his first appointment.
February 16, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you abotu the partisian gamesmanship. Although, I suspect Obama will appoint a black female.
February 16, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I applaud the creation of an Auto task force as opposed to the farcical appointment of a 'car czar'. A single person in charge of fixing a problem won't do the job right (see Drug Czar for details). FDR showed that we are a nation that fixes its problems best with Commissions, Authorities, Councils, and Committees and the like.
February 16, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally hope they ban the stupid term "czar" concerning any government post in any event. Don't these fools know what that term stands for? It is totally against everything this country stands for. It's like calling the position the "car dictator."
They can add banning the term "homeland security" as well. We don't live in 1930's germany last time I checked either.
February 16, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding, I'm pretty uncomfortable calling the country "the Homeland"
Its too close to "The Fatherland" for my liking
February 16, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's more interesting than Starr's fact-impaired musings is the tone of the comments over at the Washington Times. As one of the sane commentors points out, Obama didn't ever participate in a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, because no such filibuster ever happened. But as we know about our right-wing friends, facts should never get in the way of making their own reality.
And their own reality is on florid display among the comments. Obama can't make any appointments, one points out, because as an alien, he isn't really president; another points out that it's all illegal immigrants' fault (whatever it is)l while a third fulminates against socialism and revels that Republicans are getting their testosterone back. Several more decry the weakness and gullibility of Specter, Snowe and Collins in colorful terms.
No surprises, here, but the level of vitriol and contempt is telling. I do hope that the President and his staff, for all their respect for compromise and unity, do read the Washington Times and equivalent outlets and keep their guard ever up.
February 16, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think they're crazy? Go take a look at what's going on on hillaryis44.org these days. I feel like one of those 19th century jerks who went to lunatic asylums to jeer at the inmates for entertainment, but, the craziness keeps getting worse and somehow I can't stop watching.
February 16, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
When did their divorce from reality become final?
February 16, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
HillaryIs44.org is a front for Ralph Nader supporters who want to make someone else's supporters seem even more looney than themselves by comparison.
February 16, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me make sure I understand this. He says they will filibuster a nominee who hasn't even been named yet. I guess it doesn't need to be pointed out how petty these people are. And this comes to us from the crew who nominated Harriet Miers.
February 16, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the VP meeting with the IAFF about?
February 16, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn’t Ken Starr have some cum stained panties to investigate somewhere?
February 16, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary just left...give Bill a day or two of trolling...
February 16, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. OK, I admit that was a good one.
February 16, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
woo-hooo....lmao..excellent retort
February 16, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know I hate to say but that was the laugh of the morning SFC.
February 16, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conservative Senators next...
Dear gods, are we going to have to wait until 2010 to see some moderate policymaking?
February 16, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I recall the repubs threatened the nuclear option if anyone filibustered a Bush SCOTUS nominee. So what would be their excuse if they filibuster An Obama SCOTUS nominee. Oh yeah HYPOCRICY
February 16, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it Josh Marshall's B'day? Happy one to you Josh. What is Ken Starr talking about? These republicans are getting really serious about following Limbaugh's 'hope he fails' message aren't they. I guess that is what they are going to hold on to until they get their stuff together and come up with some new ideas on their own. And the media is going to keep reporting on the republican bs because they don't have to do any real reporting.
February 16, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question...if passing the Stimulus Bill was so important that Senators didn't even have time to read it, why is Obama waiting 4 days to sign it into law?
February 16, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with your analysis is that the senators and house had more than enough time to read it. They had several weeks and you could read it in a few hours if you wanted. 1100 pages double spaced and the language spread out on the pages and fully indexed, really isn't that much to read. It's not like reading war and peace.
Incidentally, they had much more time to read the stimulus bill, than the "patriot act," which was written by the king's administration and printed in the dead of night for a vote the next day. Did you complain about that one? I don't recall boehner throwing a copy of the "patriot act" to the floor and complaining about no time to read it. Have a youtube link of that? I doubt it.
February 16, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try. Did you watch debbie wassserman smack down of the whiner repub on the no-time-to-read bs ? He was left as limpy and wimpy as noodle at the end of it.
February 16, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about Obey's smackdown of the "millions for a mouse!" Republican bs spouted on the floor of our House.
"Come on down here and show us where that is in the bill!" sez Obey. "Come on! Show me where it's at!"
The response? One large GOP gulp, and then a quick call to Rush to see if this accusation was in fact true. What a bunch of asshats!
February 16, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously....this is the biggest disaster since the great depression...we're losing 500,000 jobs a month (according to him) that's 66,667 jobs lost while he's waiting for his photo op...SCHP was signed hours after it passed...what gives?
February 16, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean why Obama is not ramming down this package down the throat of repubs like Bush, Paulson and Bernanke pulled the mafia treatment on the congress on the TARP in matter of hours ?
February 16, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's already been rammed through (supposedly because it's a "Crisis")...Did the crisis end once it passed?
February 16, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, how long after the "patriot act" was "rammed through" did the king sign it in a signing ceremony into law? Just curious.
February 16, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)
Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)
Signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001
February 16, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got me, I should have checked out the timeline first. Have a youtube clip of boehner throwing the "patriot act" to the floor due to the inability to have sufficient time to read it? That would be more telling.
February 16, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz' smackdown was a thing of beauty, and provides a roadmap for Democrats for 2010. You could tell how effective it was by how irritated the Republican being smacked down was.
February 16, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELLO, McFly! The rush was because Congress was going on recess. A good portion of the Congress is already out of the country.
Sheez. Please stop repeated Repug talking points.
February 16, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is Hilda Solis going to be confirmed this MONTH?
February 16, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just went over to GOP.com to see if they were coming up with any ideas yet and looked at Chairman Steeles 'Blueprint for Tomorrow' (2/6/09). There are 5 comments from republicans. What is up with that? Why aren't there more comments? Why haven't they posted an alternative to Obama's stimulus package. Why don't they have a tab about tax cuts with stats and studies on how well they work? I was rather surprised at the lack of participation and ideas on the site.
February 16, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steele was a knee-jerk, republican childish tit for tat selection to counter Obama (sheesh, what morons !). The red meat base of that party will kick him out before the year is out.
February 16, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP is bankrupt of ideas, they have none except for the same tired, old ones that have been around since Ronald Reagan. I would think that would be clear by now.
February 16, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And "respected legal scholar" Ken Starr was the breaking edge of the wave of moral and intellectual bankruptcy that's driving the Republican Party to extinction.
February 16, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tearing up the Agreed Framework is one of many examples that demonstrate how the Republicans are as bad at foreign policy as they are at domestic policy, and that reality is underscored by the fact that they were given a world animated by both peace and prosperity by Bill Clinton, yet somehow found a way to obliterate them.
February 16, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...and that reality is underscored by the fact that they were given a world animated by both peace and prosperity by Bill Clinton, yet somehow found a way to obliterate them."
Because there was no evil in this world until Bush/Chenney ignited it...thank God the Messiah is now in charge so that evil will be banished from the face of the earth again! I betno one has starved in Darfur since the election!
February 16, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's really not that complicated. It's because Bush/Cheney relied on ideology rather than facts to guide their policy choices.
This has been another edition of Simple Answers to to Obtuse Posts.
February 16, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Linsay Graham is banned from the internet. If he appears on your TV change the channel. Deny he even exist. He is being used by the GOP as some kind of special secret sauce that has spoiled and is now on recall.
February 16, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Mr. Starr will of course now call for the Senate to consider Judicial nominees only by straight 'up or down' votes right? He concedes that it would be rankly hypocritical of the Republicans to resort to threat of filibuster now that they're in the minority, right? Right?
February 16, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink