November 17, 2003
Much ado about nothing
Last week Republicans demonstrated the absurd by being absurd.
“[T]he Senate on Wednesday launched 30 hours of uninterrupted debate on President Bush’s political nominees not making it to the federal appeals bench, setting up cots and preparing to cast blame at each other throughout the night,” the AP reported.
Finally hitting back with a filibuster of their own, Republicans have been accused of holding up work in the Senate. But Democrats have been doing precisely that for months by refusing to put to a vote four important Bush nominees to the federal bench.
Democrats claim that 168 judges have been confirmed by the Senate while only four have been held up. Republicans rightly counter that all four judges blocked by Senate Democrats just so happen to be U.S. Appeals Court nominees.
Coincidence? I think not.
Hitting them back with their own medicine is a great idea. But except for political junkies, no one got the message.
Howard Kurtz noted last Friday in The Washington Post that "[m]ost of the press dismissed the episode as more partisan wrangling."
"The Washington Post ran a story on Page 27, the L.A. Times on Page 26," he observed. "The New York Times ran two pieces inside the paper, and USA Today found room only for a couple of paragraphs in a piece about the filibuster and general unpleasantness on the Hill."
So who won the partisan war? According to the general public, who cares?
Posted by Deleted Author at November 17, 2003 05:03 AMDustin, your article is timely and the point that the 4 are appellate positions is well taken. But, regardless of party, there are a host of extremely important matters to be dealt with. Where is the wisdom to quit wasting the people’s time and money with issues that can’t be won and moving on to those that can and will benefit the American people?
This fiasco regarding judicial nominees is appearing to become an obsession which points to a Republican desire to eliminate all opposition in all branches of government. This would effectively create a one party government, with one point of view, which would not represent the majority of the people.
In other words, it is beginning to appear that the leaders of the Republican Party are far more interested in total political domination rather than finding solutions to the problems facing American society. I want my taxes spent on defense, infrastructure, a growing economy and protection of liberties granted by the Constitution - not on beds for all nighter hissy fits over not getting there way 100% of the time.
My 12 year old daughter can do that at a fracton of the cost.
Posted by: David R Remer at November 17, 2003 09:20 AMThe whole debate smacks of lunacy. You’ve got hypocrites like Robert Byrd supporting a filibuster most likely based on the race of a couple of the nominees, Ted Kennedy calling them Neanderthals and Rick Santorum crying that Democrats can count on filibusters on their nominees in the future. Something tells me that this wasn’t the original intention of the filibuster. There are so many more important debates worth 30 hours than this…
Posted by: JT at November 17, 2003 11:58 AMThe number of judicial candidates that your people blocked are far greater. But of course, you measure things by your political leanings. It’s oh so unfair, you say, that four candidates out of God knows how many didn’t get approved.
But this is after you blocked fifty or sixty of Clinton’s candidates. The difference? Your candidates are “right” and you believe ours are a threat to national security, to the character of our nation, and to the very traditions of western society.
Stop whining. Stop yelling about payback, because if you aren’t too careful, you might just get it yourself. I mean, you should half expect it, given the fact that you make out like being a liberal is a crime against humanity. I mean, in a democratic society, is it really that smart to be building up resentment in your political rivals? The more you polarize things now, the more you have to deal with your own mess later.
Posted by: Steve Daugherty at November 24, 2003 11:12 AMSteve, you have accused me of “mak[ing] out like being a liberal is a crime against humanity.” I never implied, nor would say, such a thing, and this is a great mischaracterization of my argument. Furthermore, you accuse me of “whining.”
We at WatchBlog prefer to limit comments to discuss the argument at stake and not to put words in the mouths of our authors nor verbally denigrate what they have to say.
Thank you for your future cooperation,
Dustin Frelich
Republican Column Managing Editor
