Skip to main content

View Diary: Picking their judge (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Makes sense to me. (none)
    And I don't really want to hear people moan and groan because democrats weren't appropriately rude to her.
    •  Not saying they should be rude. (none)
      But for chrissakes did they have to publicly fawn over her?  She is an unknown quantity.  Why couldn't they just have said they would learn all they could about her and then decide about her.  It's all this public slobbering over her by the Democrats that has me disgusted.  It makes me think they won't even bother to question her aggressively.  I'm not asking for the filibuster, just some honest brokering.  

      And Kos, for you to claim that we want to go right for the filibuster to bolster your argument seems to me to be intellectually dishonest.  It's setting up a strawman.  Either you are for her or you want her filibustered.  I think there is a cohert of opinion in the middle, ironically where a lot of those here think is the best place to reside.  Its a simplistic dismissal of those who have legitimate concerns.  And no matter what happens, it is not a "victory", only a loss whose degree is to be determined in the future.

      I do agree with one thing.  We lost the election.  And there are consequences to your vote.  The so called Independents and moderate Dems who voted for Bush should suffer the consequences. Unfortunately many of those consequences will fall not on them, but on those who can least afford, and who do not deserve them.

      We are f**ked, and there's no prettying up that fact. So don't expect us to swallow all these silver lining scenarios.  I wouldn't presume to ask you to stop, just don't expect a happy response.

      •  They loose nothing (none)
        by giving the appearence of being reasonable.  Who's saying she shouldn't go through a very intensive confirmation process?  I don't think any democrats have said that they are giving her a pass.  I certainly wouldn't expect them to.  
        •  Schultz (none)
          On AAR today, Ed Schultz made a similar comment about Harry Reid's nice remarks. Said if Harry had come out immediately negative we'd be labeled again as obstructionists. That is was reasonable to start out with a few nice remarks, but that it didn't mean the hearings would go that way. I don't know.

          "Is the President concerned that there's a stench of corruption around the Republican establishment in Washington?" -- Terry Moran to Scotty, 9/28/05

          by OLinda on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:09:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Considering that the democrats (none)
            did catch some flak for supposedly being against whoever was going to get Bush's first nomination this seems like a wise way to go.

            I'll wait before I pass judgment.  Let's see what they do with this one.

            •  And where did i say they should come out negative? (none)
              I was hoping for NEUTRAL.  If this is strategy, and they actually come out fighting in the hearings then i will gladly admit my mistake.  I just don't see it, based on recent history.
      •  "We are f**ked ... (none)
        and there's no prettying up that fact."

        Funny -- a lot of wingers are saying the exact same thing on their sites. Maybe we should work with them to scuttle this nomination.

        No animals were harmed in the making of this comment.

        by Shiborg on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:30:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site