You say that the Democrats should not use options that get around a filibuster to pass healthcare reform.
If they do, and if as Eric Cantor suggested, the Democrats lose their majorities because of it… would you use options that bypass the filibuster to overturn the legislation?
If so, why does that not confirm your hypocrisy?
Rachel Madow criticized GOP Representative Shock for his attacking the stimulus and then taking credit for projects funded by the stimulus. His response?
With all due respect, Rachel, does that mean you’re going to give back your Bush tax cuts that you continue to rail against?
This was a lame argument when he made it himself. But then I started reading it all over the place. Politico mentions Garrett saying pretty much the same thing.
Garrett said Democrats have accepted the Bush-era tax cuts although many voted against them.
But that really isn’t true. Democrats supported Barack Obama for President. Barack Obama, as a candidate for President, said that he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for people making $250,000 or more. Obviously the people who are Democrats who are exposing the GOP hypocrisy want those tax cuts rolled back. But they have to file their taxes just like anyone else. So until those taxes are rolled back, they are required by law to fill out their tax forms that include those cuts.
And remember, we are not criticizing the GOP for actually spending the funds. The funds are there and have a purpose, to create jobs and put Americans back to work. What we are criticizing is the constant claims that the stimulus didn’t create jobs and is bad for the economy and then turning around and using the projects created by the stimulus to propel your political career.
So not only do the GOP fail for their hypocrisy, they fail again in trying to expose a supposed hypocrisy (that does not exist) on the part of the Democrats.
Nobody has used the filibuster as much as the GOP has this year. The GOP are even filibustering bills that they would support of they were in power just to hand Obama political defeats. To them, political victories are more important than passing policy (even if the policy is one that they would agree with).
That being said, there are liberals who are saying that you only need a majority to eliminate the 60 vote cloture requirement. Senator Tom Udall believes that it can be done at the beginning of each Congress when they “set the rules”. He is calling it the “constitutional” option.
The Constitution is clear. It allows the Senate to make its own rules. Any rule that the Senate makes must then be deemed constitutional (unless it violates a specific requirement placed on Congress listed in the Constitution). The Constitution does not require the rules to be rewritten every term.
You and I both know that had the GOP actually used parliamentary trickery to eliminate the filibuster when they had control, that the Democrats would have cried foul. Had they actually used the “nuclear option”, they would have been the target of harsh campaign ads.
Democrats, we all want to point out that the GOP is being a bunch of hypocrites for campaigning against the stimulus while using the funds in the stimulus to bolster their political careers. However, when making that argument we need to do so with clean hands. If we start acting like Republicans in trying to eliminate the filibuster by doing it outside of a simple rules change as defined in the Senate rules, we will look like hypocrites (well, you will… because I do not agree with parliamentary trickery and am firmly stating so here).
There is a movement going on called PASS. It stands for Parent Approved Skip School day. Conservatives have a letter ready to go to their principal in Mandeville telling her that they intend to keep their child home from school on this coming Tuesday because they want to “make it clear to you, your staff, other parents, and (most importantly) our child, that we do not support this President or his his radical leftist agenda.”
So they are keeping their kids home from school in an act of “civil disobedience”. But it seems they have forgotten an important part of the act of civil disobedience. And that is when you commit an act of civil disobedience, you must also be willing to deal with the consequences of that act.
They write in that letter: “Our son, __________ will be prepared to make up any classwork he has missed. We expect he will be given an opportunity to make up any tests as well.”
I say nay nay! Of all the horrible lessons that they are teaching their kids (that you should skip school if you disagree with the subject matter or that you should not listen to people who disagree with you), this may very well be the worst lesson that they can teach their children… that your actions do not have consequences. If they want to keep their kids home from school then that is their call. But this should not count as an excused absence and if there are tests on that day, too bad. Little Johnny gets a 0. After all, that is the consequence of missing school with an unexcused absence. I hope their kids grow up and when they are late for curfew say “but that’s ok Dad, I was practicing ‘civil disobedience’ and as you showed me when I was younger, acts of civil disobedience require no punishment”.
I also want to point out, as others have pointed out so far, the absolute hypocrisy of the arguments made by these conservatives. They claim that the President should not use children to push his agenda. But Ronald Reagan did just that by explaining why we should cut taxes. They claim that President Obama is awful for asking kids to write and tell him how they can help Obama “achieve his goals”. Even if that was the case (which it isn’t, the Department of Education was talking about students achieving their own goals) it shouldn’t matter because President George H. W. Bush asked students: “Write me a letter on ways you can help us achieve our goals”
Obama is doing a good thing by suggesting that kids should stay in school and by telling them how important an education can be. But people hate him so much that they just have to turn every positive Obama does into a negative, even if it means that they are hypocritical when they likely supported their former GOP presidents while they did the same thing. With all that, and with their teaching their children terrible lessons (that their actions should have no consequences), this is why conservatives who are against Obama speaking to the schools should be constantly mocked and ridiculed for their foolish behavior. It is time we drew a line in the sand and said “no more” to this foolishness.
Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother?
No. And where were the conservatives when this Republican Senator pushed this back in 2007? And they get mad when we suggest that this is fake outrage and these protests are astroturf and not grassroots?
Read the link and share it with your friends, especially conservative ones who believe the crap Palin and other wackos and liars are telling them.
Republicans often threatened to use the “nuclear option” to eliminate the ability of Democrats to filibuster the judicial nominees of President Bush. Harry Reid has stated that Democrats have taken the “nuclear option” off the table.
I was waiting to see what might happen if the Republicans prove themselves (again) to be hypocrites by actually going against the false claim that an “up or down vote” is required by the Constitution (especially since talks of judicial filibusters are gearing up). I was ready to criticize Democrats had they threatened to use the nuclear option. I am glad that I don’t have to.
Jindal spoke to a GOP fundraiser last night and again proved himself to be a hypocrite.
Calling for more civility in politics, Jindal said “it is wrong to suggest that this new administration has anything other than good intentions.” He said the tendency in politics is to talk about the other party as if its members are “sinister people.”
Really? Is that why your campaign for Governor claimed that people who opposed you were part of some corrupt crowd? Bobby Jindal really needs to learn to practice what he preaches. When he doesn’t, the media needs to call him out on it.
During his trip to Washington, Jindal attended a fundraiser hosted by former Rep. Bob Livingston, R-Metairie, now a lobbyist, and was to attend another fundraiser today — both benefiting his 2011 re-election campaign.
Because Louisiana is prospering in this economic boom so there is not much for Governor Jindal to do back at home. And of course, Jindal and his staff would never use taxpayer funds to cover expenses on these trips, right? Wrong!
While the Governor uses campaign funds for travel that is not state business, his staff and security detail bill the state taxpayers for their expenses. In addition, taxpayers foot the bill for all of the car rentals that the Governor and his staff use on all of these trips regardless of the purpose.
And this was supposed to be the ethical governor? Are you kidding me? What do you say now Jindal apologists?
Cross posted at Jindal is Bad.
Yeah, I am sure his family is thrilled to hear that. He has no regrets about resigning. Hey Bob, what about the fact that you HAD to resign in the first place because while complaining about Clinton’s ability to keep it in his pants, you couldn’t keep it in your pants either.
You had a chairmanship of a powerful committee and you would have house speaker. And you threw that all away with your quixotic quest to bring Clinton down for the same sin you committed yourself. Imagine what could have happened in Louisiana in the years that followed with a Louisiana Congressman as Speaker of the House. Imagine the levees that could have been strengthened and the shoreline that could have been fixed.
How many less people would have had to die in Katrina had you been able to get us stronger levee protection?
I guess we will never know, because you stood up there and resigned… trying to be some sort of hero. And I guess it paid off for you since you now have your lobbyist salary. Perhaps your wife can overlook your sins because of your hefty paycheck. However, the fact that you prosper should sicken every person you ever claimed to serve. Unfortunately you, like many pols, have blind backers who view your stance as heroic. These are probably the same people who will claim to support family values but will still vote for Vitter as well.
What is it about LA01 and Republicans who cannot respect the “sanctity of marriage”. I guess to the LA01 voters that support you, the Congressmen are not actually required to follow the same moral code that they push for.
It is really truly sad.
In my last post I linked to this article showing the hypocrisy of Republicans that I knew would come out once we got a Democrat in the White House.
Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.
Let us look at some statements by John Kyl on the issue of up or down votes:
It doesn’t make sense, Mr. President, to suggest that a tradition of this Senate to give people an up-or-down vote is all of a sudden going to be overturned because all of a sudden a President is proposing people that are wildly out of mainstream.
But yet that is exactly what Kyl suggests he will do on Obama’s nominees.
You can still vote against the nominee. You don’t have to vote for the nominee, but at least give them an up-or-down vote.
That is, unless you don’t. Basically, Kyl is against filibusters on judicial nominees except for when he is for them. Hypocrite.
I rather ask them to approach this on the basis of moving forward in a bipartisan way to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities to grant these judges an up-or-down vote, to provide our advice and consent so-that we can put people on the court in these very important positions to serve the American people.
I explain why Kyl is completely wrong here.
Also, what Kyl seems to forget is that Republicans blocked many Judicial nominees in committee. By doing so, not only did they not afford those nominees an “up or down” vote that they claim is required. By doing so they managed to prevent a nomination from getting that vote with far less than the 41 votes needed to maintain a filibuster.
That is an old quote from The Gipper himself, Ronald Reagan. And the Louisiana Republicans have dusted that old tired line out to try and convince current Democrats to turn over a new leaf (just like John N. Kennedy did).
Of course there is probably some truth Reagan’s statement. See, the Democratic Party stopped being the party that used the mantra of “states rights” in order to keep black people as second class citizens and started to become the party that fought for civil rights legislation, equality, and liberty.
Reagan, on the other hand, announced the official start to his campaign in Neshoba County Mississippi, the site where three black civil rights activists were murdered in 1964. Reagan campaigned on the “states rights” platform and utilized the “southern strategy” to attract the racists who also felt that the Democratic Party left them too. Since Reagan felt that the place where three black civil rights activists were murdered was the best way to start off his “states rights” campaign then sure, the Democratic Party left him behind … in the dust.
You can see the front and back of the flier (or should I say f-liar) my wife received in the mail today.
Not only does the f-liar have a picture of the Gipper, but it also has one of the Governor himself. It asks Democrats to “join Bobby Jindal in the Republican Party”.
Most noticeable are the prominent Democrats that are pictured on the f-liar. You have Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Kathleen Blanco and everyone’s favorite Bill Jefferson. Absent is Mary Landrieu (who is likely to win re-election), Mitch Landrieu (who got more votes that Jindal statewide) and other Louisiana Democrats who tend to be a tad bit more Conservative on the issues than those pictured (with the exception of pro-life Blanco whose only difference with Jindal on the pro-life stance is that she has a heart and would allow exceptions for rape and the life of the woman).
The f-liar says what “Democrats Believe In”.
The first lie is that we believe in no new oil exploration. Well, there are 10,000 oil leases that are not being drilled on yet. Seems to me that the Democrats would not have allowed those leases to be opened if they are opposed to new drilling.
The next lie is that Democrats support Amnesty for illegal aliens. The truth is that Democrats in Congress supported a plan that would require any person here illegally to get back in the line and pay a fine for their crime before ever getting a chance at citizenship. Forcing someone to pay a fine does not sound like amnesty to me. Of course, the Louisiana Republican Party and Florist Gump himself forgets that Republicans don’t want illegal immigration to go away because that would mean their corporate buddies would have to hire people at the minimum wage. I would also point out that the plan Democrats supported was called the ________ - Kennedy Fair Plan. Anyone? Anyone? The McCain – Kennedy Fair plan. So if this plan is so called “amnesty” then I guess anyone who supports McCain wants “amnesty” too!
The next lie is that Democrats support tax increases on the middle class. This is, again, untrue. Democrats support eliminating the bush tax cuts for people making $200,000 and above. In fact, here is Obama’s tax plan.You can plainly see that he wouldn’t increase taxes on the middle class.
In fact, when I campaigned for Congress in 2004 I proposed that we give a housing tax credit to everyone and not require it be itemized. Obama supports:
establishing a universal credit for the 10 million homeowners who do not itemize their deductions
Good to see someone else agrees with me.
They tell the truth about Government run health care. Democrats do support that. Of course, if you want to look at failures in Government run healthcare you only need to look at the tenure of Bobby Jindal and his time as head of the Louisiana Department of Health. During his “leadership”, Louisiana’s health ranking dropped to dead last. But that is just typical of Republicans. They cry about how awful government is and then spend their entire political careers proving it
The f-liar asks “what do you have in common with these Democrats”? Well, if I had to make a flier of my own, it would probably look like this. (Well, actually I would spend a lot more time on it, not do it in paint, and not base it off the old one, but you get the point).
Anyway, it sure seems that the Republicans are scared that they won’t be able to get John “the liberal candidate in the 2004 Senate race” Kennedy to beat Landrieu. I am happy my wife got the f-liar. It was good for a laugh and it is good to see the Republicans wasting money on that garbage.
