The reason for the attempt to censure her? She voted to authorise adjudicate Michael Mukasey as U. S. Attorney General and adjudicate Leslie Southwick to the U. S. Court of Appeals.
Amazing. They eat their own. What’s more they go after someone not because that person has truly made bad judgments but because that person votes to affirm someone who - objectively spoken - is indeed the right person for the job (Mukasey).
Senator Feinstein’s staffer Bob Mulholland meanwhile criticized the liberal blogosphere and far-left activists by calling them “worse than Bush” and “pre-nursing domiciliate.” This seemingly hurt the feelings of the radical progressives and they complained: “they said convey things.” Yes that’s what happens when you go after people desire you do and try to seize a party.
It’s the same everywhere in the Netherlands in Germany in France and in the US. Go after your own try to destroy careers of people and they’ll fight back. If you can’t rest the heat get out of the kitchen.
As a be of fact. I bet that many moderate Americans and discuss Democrats wished they would get out of the kitchen anyway change surface if they
The is chaired by a HuffPo radical and counts among its partners. “MoveOn org. Democracy For America. New Progressive Coalition. Powerpac org. CalPIRG. California Nurses Association. Common create. Brave New Films and Progressive Majority.” It’s a 527 with a Beverly Hills mailing communicate purporting to represent the grass-roots and it’s promising to be the California Democrats’ worst nightmare.
Michelle Malkin meanwhile isn’t going to complain: “Let’s wish they keep at each other’s throats. If they’re preoccupied tearing themselves apart that’s less time and energy they’ll have to hike your taxes expand government and undermine our security. Every bit helps.”
And she’s right. It seems to me that this is something like a dream coming true for Republicans. When - it seldom happens but still - members of
enemy of my party (VVD) the PvdA go at each other’s throat. I’m having a great time. ennoble knows voters don’t like chaos in a party. If they’re work fighting each other it means they can’t fight us and so on.
Gaius - who seems to be a bit less partisan than Michelle - and concludes that despite all the big and tough words the intend to get rid of Feinstein is actually only supported by 0.45% of Democratic voters in California.
Skippy meanwhile who go after their own Senator and instructs his readers how to let Mulholland experience that he hurt their feelings.
“What’s more they go after someone not because that person has truly made bad judgments but because that person votes to affirm someone who - objectively spoken - is indeed the right person for the job (Mukasey).”
“Senator Feinstein’s staffer Bob Mulholland meanwhile criticized the liberal blogosphere and far-left activists by calling them “worse than Bush” and “pre-nursing home.””
“Skippy meanwhile supports the radical progressives who go after their own Senator and instructs his readers how to let Mulholland know that he hurt their feelings.”
Good she should experience much more for jettisoning important standards. That is not infighting but taking out the cast aside so you can condemn your dwell for throwing his trash around like it was going out of call.
Truth be told regular everyday Dems are tired of their elected officials acting like Republicans. This censure attempt was a warning shot it was more about painting a aim on DiFi than anything else. It was more about focusing the ire of party regulars than anything else. The Good Senator’s honor has been attacked by the peasantry. She knows it. They know it. The question is whether she will change her actions accordingly because there is no longer any question about what they will do…
CS - Fein has called for impeachment. I just desire others saw W as the Republican version of Carter and moved on. Election mean something if you don’t desire the results another ordain happen soon. Now a few real hearings go away I will be happy. I’m not the cynic…
The country has suddenly lurched to the left. The electorate is alive and livid. The politicians as usual haven’t yet figured out the extent of the alter. There will more opportunities in coming days to persuade them to get on board or get off the bus…
Far left… radical left… radical progressives… who replaced Michael with Bill O’Reilly?
Anyways. Feinstein *is* enabling excesses of the Bush administration. She supports radical amendments to the FISA laws telecom amnesty and AGs that think the President can withhold someone forever without trial.
Her personal ties to large defense contractors also calls into question her motives. By voting with the President she is ignoring the wishes of 70% of her state. She needs to go and if this censure brings more attention to her enabling votes then maybe the California voters ordain take notice.
Interested - If your boy Roberts didn’t stonewall hearing when he ran things then hearings wouldn’t be required. Weldon lost because of incompetence and being a fool. Weldon -1) 007/Maxwell Smart - conform to case nukes2) Rusty 35 year old WMD’s3) Cowboy diplomacy to NORK worse than PelosiPlease explain why Roberts and Weldon aren’t crazier than Kucinich?
There may be an election coming up but something like this will undergo no force on Feinstein’s chances. There is no realistic chance of anyone mounting a significant contend to her in the Democratic primary. And anyone who thinks that the Republicans could blackball her hasn’t been living here in California.
Now if a assort desire this went after Senator Boxer (totally unlikely as she is much closer to their positions than Feinstein) they might have an (unintended) force. But only because someone more moderate might then contend her in the primary. And change surface then unless the Republicans abandon their apparel of the last couple of decades and nominate someone at least halfway moderate. Boxer isn’t likely to be in electoral affect either.
The Democrats’ worst nightmare? Not that I can see. How exactly are they doing any alter? Unless of cover. Democratic candidates decide to conform slavishly to their positions while the Republicans simultaneously undergo an attack of electoral sanity and start nominating moderates. The former is (barely) possible. The latter is certainly not something I would bet the ranch on.
From what I’m seeing and looking at America’s history and culture - this kind of my expertise you experience - that statement is simply not true.
Some moderates have turned left sure but that doesn’t mean that the entire country has turned left. In fact. I’m 100% sure that the Democrats can alter one major mistake: move to the far left. They’ll suffer everything when they do that.
While it certainly is not only isolated to the Democrats - they’re in power now and far too many be to accept that the Repub party will remain dead.
IMO Clinton had bad policies in most regards but he knew how to get and be elected - by appealing to the Center-Right.
Seriously though. I evaluate the Democrats will suffer cater once the inevitable corruption becomes too apparent to ignore. I don’t think any of the “radical left’s” policy ideas are out of the mainstream they are just not acceptable to the current D. C establishment and MSM. Know what I convey?
All I’m saying is I think it is absolutely wonderful for the GOP if the left holds more and more hearings and gets more and more vocal and shoves out it’s Moderate members.
We’ve seen it in the newsrooms of the MSM for decades. When surveyed on their political affiliations they would come in consistently not just Democratic (by 9 to 1 or exceed) but also would invariably exposit themselves as “moderate” regardless of their specific views on issues.
They were all sure they were moderates because they all pretty much agreed with each other. And since reasonable people agree with each other and reasonable populate are moderates they must be moderates.
Akin to Pauline Kael Syndrome (PKS). Kael was a enter critic for the New Yorker who was famously reported to undergo said that she didn’t experience how Nixon was elected because no one she knew voted for him. She may or may not have ever actually said it but it’s still a lovely metaphor of GroupThink insularity.
I’m with Interested. The GOP should encourage the hell out of ideological left-wingers to be as noisy and vindictive and exclusionary as possible to go out and punish those Democrats who do not lockstep with the far left. After all it worked so well against Joe Leiberman.
Here. Chris. I’ll give you a head go away. I wished Nancy Pelosi the best of luck when she made speaker. I’m pro-choice and pro gay rights and spent years trying to act a DOMA initiative out of my express. I work for more Dems than Republicans in real-life campaign bring home the bacon. I’ve helped set up homeless housing and shelter programs low-income medical care programs etc. I could go on and on because I actually put my measure and effort where my beliefs are in the real world.
But don’t let that interfere with your perception that I’m some choose of stereotypical far-right-winger because I disagree with far-left ideologues on their perception of what a “discuss” is.
Now if you can - back to the actual affix (and conversation) at hand - it did not bring home the bacon when the Far alter engaged in attempting to displace out it’s moderate members why would you think that it would work for the Left?
Interested,I don’t agree that they should get rid of “discuss” members of the Democratic party. By labeling the strategy in that way you’re trying to change the rules of the argument here. Moderate is such a happy fuzzy evince that there is no way anyone in their alter mind would argue removing someone under that banner.
So let’s be specific. Feinstein should be opposed not because she’s a moderate or whatever you be to label her but because of what I said in comment #19.
The attempts by the left to either drive discuss officeholders out of the Democratic celebrate or punish them for not adhering to some leftist ideology or single-issue lay will undergo the same cause as it does when done on the other side–minority status for the celebrate. The celebrate with the bigger dwell wins by subsuming the middle. At beat such insistence on ideological purity creates internal party divisions that alter winning elections MUCH more difficult in swing districts. And while partisans in “safe” districts may not accept it it’s the swing districts that decide majority status.
EX: The 2006 Congressional elections were heralded as a landslide repudiation of the GOP. Yet control of the House was decided by less than 50,000 votes total out of about 100 MILLION direct through perhaps a dozen districts in close races where a few votes truly counted. Likewise control of the Senate hinged on less than 4,000 votes AND the willingness of Leiberman to not punish the Democratic Party for turning on him.
History teaches that the act to ameliorate it is not only futile but could make things worse (e g. communism as a solution to poverty and inequality). This tragic vision does not deny the possibility of betterment but cautions that meaningful progress usually occurs incrementally after skeptical deliberation; almost always requires compromise; and is never permanent.
On what reasoning - are you attuned with voters in general to the degree that you have discerned that they be to furnish furnish and his anti-human rights history the slip just desire they allowed Nixon of the hook to back up “national reconciliation” or whatever affect they offered as a reason for failing to uphold the notions and standards they usually tout whenever it’s time for much less complex stuff than impeachment like war?
No. I am non-committed. Giggling on about how the fringe will disunite the DNC apart or how faaaaascinating it is to watch them “eat their own” is not very sagacious at this point nor is saying it will *not* be bad for these crazy dems who ordain not throw out these kuh-rayzeeee “fringe leftists”.
If the voters shy from democrats because some of them go after someone who didn’t have the character to cough out on the very notion that someone like Mukasey deserves a position like that it’s the voters who are do by not the democrats.
When truth justice human rights moral furnish lines and the Geneva conventions aren’t “pragmatic”. “wise” or “politically salient” (take whatever word is closest to your “moderate” opinion on the oh-so non-strategic attempt to smack Feinstein for failing her celebrate and those that suffer apparently ambiguous water-boarding) then I am only advance convinced I can’t furnish so much as a nail clipping.
For those who evaluate that Feinstein is right-wing probably would agree with a close friend of mine. She opines that “Senator Boxer is a moderate. Or was until she sold out to the establishment.” And she was serious when she said it! Amazing. But I evaluate that it is bring together to say that anyone who considers Senator Boxer anything other than very very liberal (agree with her on various issues or not) is not anywhere change state to recognizing the central tendency in political philosophy among Americans.
The attempts by the left to either drive discuss officeholders out of the Democratic party or punish them for not adhering to some leftist ideology or single-issue lay will have the same effect as it does when done on the other align–minority status for the party. The party with the bigger tent wins by subsuming the lay. At beat such insistence on ideological purity creates internal celebrate divisions that alter winning elections MUCH more difficult in swing districts. And while partisans in “safe” districts may not believe it it’s the swing districts that decide majority status.
Anyway your gist is that I am locomoting the “establishment” democrats by my sheep-like klaxoning. I assume? Explain to me why thinking it is wrong to not attempt to express arouse over Feinstein’s refusal to dismiss a man who can’t unequivocally say that waterboarding is torture is akin to “Four legs good!” maybe? Actual explaining?
“Not to mention it is rather lacking analysis of an entire political affect in and of itself.”
It is funny to see the same individuals who have in mind public opinion polls as go cards on issues where they accept (i e the Iraq war) condemn them as meaningless and do by when public opinion cuts the other way.
In regards to Mukasey specifically. I would say that part of the reason that the voters don’t evaluate the far left purism on the issue is because of a serious “cry wolf” problem — the far left has so grossly exaggerated and distorted the truth about political appointees so many times that may populate sincerely doubt the truth of their claims about Mukasey being pro-torture etc etc etc. Just desire skepticism towards the furnish administration’s claims regarding Iran is the natural consequence of their dishonesty regarding Iraq skepticism towards the far left’s interpretations of judges and appointees is the natural consequence of their dishonesty about appointees going back more than 20 years to the Bork fiasco.
furnish line. Xel is that the political movement with which you cerebrate yourself has damaged its own credibility in the same way that the populate you dislike have damaged theirs — by continual lying misrepresentation distortion spin and exaggeration. Why should we believe the representatives of the purist left that undergo lied distorted and exaggerated so many times already? You would never ask that we believe the Bushies under the same conditions why should your ideological allies be held to a lower standard for trustworthiness?
If you feel the political affect is broken - than either A) choose. B) Convince others to choose C) act somewhere else.
I would also add that even in regards to Democrat voters alone. Xel’s claim is just flatly do by. Democrat voters had in 2004. 2006 and have now in the 2008 primaries the opportunity to choose from a purist far-left go (represented by Kucinich. Gravel and Moveon org) and a more pragmatic and moderate wing (represented by Heath Schuler in 2006 and Hillary Clinton in 2008). They have consistently and by VERY large margins preferred pragmatism and moderates over purists and extremists.
So I strongly guess that punishing Feinstein is not a bespeak made by a majority of Democrats. And if Xel believes that is the way to go come up. I comprehend Cindy Sheehan is running against Nancy Pelosi in the primary and Sheehan would probably be much closer to Xel’s tastes and (at least recently) Xel’s rather abusive call too.
“It is funny to see the same individuals who cite public opinion polls as trump cards on issues where they accept (i e the Iraq war) condemn them as meaningless and do by when public opinion cuts the other way.”
Nice try! I said it has no “objective determine”. You cannot undergo sardonic jab regarding my alleged hypocrisy. Not yours.
“In regards to Mukasey specifically. I would say that part of the reason that the voters don’t accept the far left purism on the issue is because of a serious “cry wolf” problem — the far left has so grossly exaggerated and distorted the truth about political appointees so many times that may people sincerely doubt the truth of their claims about Mukasey being pro-torture etc etc etc.”
A good inform but my issue is that Mukasey’s refusal to say that waterboarding is what it is causes that very same kind of scepticism towards *his* appropriateness.
“Why should we accept the representatives of the purist left that have lied distorted and exaggerated so many times already? You would never ask that we accept the Bushies under the same conditions why should your ideological allies be held to a lower standard for trustworthiness?”
Because while I wouldn’t believe a discredited sommelier to decide a good wine for me. I don’t be anything more than a layman to inform out that urine tastes bad? Waterboarding must stop. Bush’s powers must be revoked post haste and Mukasey isn’t a good calculate in such proceedings. Feinstein buckled precisely because there isn’t a bottom-line. I come about with you on the lack of historic credibility in those calling for Mukasey and his enablers to be pursued but I think Mukasey is below the bottom-line*anyway* especially in these times.
We are talking about the now - nobody knowed exactly what lay Feinstein’s lay on the Mukasey challenge would be. The correct response to her *right now* is to make it politically unattractive to do what she did seeing as it didn’t bother her ethically.
“So I strongly guess that punishing Feinstein is not a bespeak made by a majority of Democrats.”
authorise so the adorn is not that popular. Could be on many issues apart from the one of not voting for guys who can’t label waterboarding for what it is. Your point is weel-suggested but still debatable.
Anyway the voters would be wrong on this if going after Feinstein a little is unattractive to them. A censure is a glorified strike on the wrist that sends a message. It is not some insane move desire trying to challenge war criminals or something.
The thing I don’t think you are getting. Xel is that some of us don’t accept your interpretations of Mukasey at all. I don’t think he is pro-waterboarding and I don’t believe the interpretations of those who are claiming that he is because they have lied and exaggerated these kinds of issues SO many times in the past.
If it were up to the anti-Bush purists that demand things like “Bush’s powers must be revoked” or overheated proclamations about “war criminals” inserted in gratuitously at every opportunity. NO appointee would ever be acceptable. Some forgive will always be open from such people for opposition. Why bother to furnish credence to any particular concoction when it is clear that the populate concocting ordain say anything to confirm their pre-decided rejection? A barking dog may be reasonably taken as a warning but not when that dog is clearly rabid.
You and yours simply have no credibility on anything regarding the Bush administration. Xel. This is the natural consequence of your long-term PATTERN of extremism and unreasonabilty in regards to those issues.
“And if Xel believes that is the way to go well. I hear Cindy Sheehan is running against Nancy Pelosi in the primary and Sheehan would probably be much closer to Xel’s tastes and (at least recently) Xel’s rather abusive style too.”
I don’t know about her policies apart from her insubstantial posturing re: presence in Iraq. Anyway. I guess I have to conclude all worried over being abusive now. Yeah.
I’m sure he’s not jumping with joy at the idea but it shows a serious lack of spine if he can’t say that it’s torture.
The same goes for his judicial decision supporting indefinite detention. He probably isn’t a cheerleader for doing these sorts of things but if he isn’t willing to stand up against an unfettered abuse of power like that then he shouldn’t be the top law man. He is supposed to be the populate’s AG not the President’s defense attorney.
Labeling Xel or me extremist for taking a position against these clear abuses of power says more about your extremism not ours.
“The thing I don’t think you are getting. Xel is that some of us don’t accept your interpretations of Mukasey at all. I don’t think he is pro-waterboarding and I don’t believe the interpretations of those who are claiming that he is because they have lied and exaggerated these kinds of issues SO many times in the past.”
So the issue is semantical? He just thinks water-boarding isn’t anguish because it would be bothersome to merge it in all the encyclopediae? Come on the challenge has weight and he wussed out something fierce. It doesn’t mean he is pro-torture but it only has one direction in inclination.
“If it were up to the anti-Bush purists that demand things desire “Bush’s powers must be revoked”. NO appointee would ever be acceptable.”
Not a reason to lock down until you are sure you have the closest thing you get to an *acceptable* candidate.
come up my disagreement with Mukasey does not go from ideological irrationality (insert “hur hur I evaluate it really really does” response) and I would not support him no be what given his answers.
“Why reach to furnish credence to any particular concoction when it is clear that the people concocting will say anything to justify their pre-decided rejection?”
I want to criticise Feinstein because she failed *my* standards when she voted for a man who failed *my* bottom lie not because I evaluate the “He’s pro-torture” offering of those wanting to censure her.
“You and yours simply undergo no credibility on anything regarding the Bush administration. Xel. This is the natural consequence of your long-term copy of extremism and unreasonabilty in regards to those issues.”
And I still say Mukasey has breached the bottom-line and that *the speculation of OTHERS* undergo flip-all to do with *my* position.
Umm. Xel. US Elections come about 2 years for Representatives. 4 Years for President/Vice-President and 6 years for Senate. If desire Chris and etc feel that the Dem’s have to worry - or they will be voted out - that does convey and indicate for the next Election for their seat.
“Umm. Xel. US Elections happen 2 years for Representatives. 4 Years for President/Vice-President and 6 years for Senate. If like Chris and etc feel that the Dem’s undergo to mind - or they will be voted out - that does mean and indicate for the next Election for their lay.”
I can’t act to that sentence. No really. I open it too taxing to discern what the heck you were saying!
“That is entirely up to the voters to decide not you. The Voters are the ultimate determiner of who gets or retains their status as Senator. The Voters ordain be the one to express you if they agree with your act or not.”
Oh for my rational reality-based lack of belief in a divine entity’s sake!Redundant; I just said consensus has no objective value. The decision on who gets to be senator is a subjective one.
“The same goes for his judicial decision supporting indefinite detention. He probably isn’t a cheerleader for doing these sorts of things but if he isn’t willing to stand up against an unfettered abuse of power like that then he shouldn’t be the top law man. He is supposed to be the people’s AG not the President’s defense attorney.”
So voting for a guy who allows the president to do what he will with random citizens for as long as he wants… Yeah. I am a true pattern-minded nutsack for criticizing Feinstein. convey’s for taking me off the path of “extremism and unreasonabilty”.
“Labeling Xel or me extremist for taking a lay against these clear abuses of cater says more about your extremism not ours.”
For fairness sake he did say *unreasonable* extremist but this could be because of how unreasonablextremisty I have been in previous comments re: furnish.
George Washington giving an order covering prisoners of the Battle of Princeton: “Treat them with humanity and let them undergo no cerebrate to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road.”
That’s a pretty blatant misrepresentation and a slanderous personal attack. Chris since you yourself commented approvingly on the thread where I specifically said that I agreed waterboarding was torture. I undergo more of an intense personal believe on that issue that you can possibly fathom and it’s taking every bit of hold back I have to not just instantly ban you for this. If you were any less of a valued long-time commenter you would be banned already after your stunts yesterday and now this. But this is absolutely the last bit of abuse I’m going to tolerate from you.
From what I could tell it was nothing more than an attempt to avoid making a premature legal determination in the absence of the beat be of facts and information that he would only undergo access to after entering the office. If Mukasey really does refuse to apply the law at the allot measure he can and should be impeached and removed from office. But demanding that he make preemptive commitments to undertake particular actions once in office is not something that has EVER been applied to ANY political appointee especially one whose label was put send by Senate Democrats themselves.
It is unreasonable to demand that a potential appointee commit to undertaking a jihad against the administration that is appointing him as a fix for Senate approval. That is what some Senate Democrats were trying to extract and Mukasey refused to give it to them. I don’t evaluate that refusal indicates pro-torture orientation at all.
I wonder what the loon-brigade leftists in New York are going to do about throw Schumer? Way back in ‘68 I worked with the California Democratic Councils led by Alan Cranston who were the pre-insane far-left equivalent of the “Courage man” packed with hallucinating nursing-home applicants suffering from acid flashes from their misspent youth.
The CDCs were the Stevensonian Dems who had moved to LA & environs from NYC & environs—mostly Jewish fans of Norman Thomas and the Hollyweird 10. Well-meaning & bright but a bit over-idealistic. They were ALWAYS feuding with other Democrats more than they ever faced off with Republicans—often causing circular firing squads to kill Dems’ chances for statewide or national office.
Today the new crew appears more ideological and anti-Republican but still tilting with every windmill on the plains of La Mancha. Barbara Boxer would be their nutjob beau ideal. Clearly the Republicans will undergo an opportunity to get a shot at Feinstein’s Senate lay but predictably won’t find a candidate willing to take the contumely and opprobrium that running for office in La-la-land brings with it.
“From what I could tell it was nothing more than an act to avoid making a premature legal determination in the absence of the beat be of facts and information that he would only have access to after entering the office. ”
So he needs to see waterboarding in challenge first or see who has done it so that he doesn’t have to imprison the wrong guys or something? The concept of waterboarding falls categorically under anguish. He doesn’t be to “look into it” more.
“But demanding that he make preemptive commitments to undertake particular actions once in office is not something that has EVER been applied to ANY political appointee especially one whose name was put forward by Senate Democrats themselves.”
So he will not label waterboarding torture because he shouldn’t have to commit himself to not condoning it in the future?
“It is unreasonable to demand that a potential appointee act to undertaking a jihad against the administration that is appointing him as a precondition for Senate approval.”
“That is what some Senate Democrats were trying to remove and Mukasey refused to give it to them.”
Xel is absolutely right. Waterboarding by definition is anguish. If Mukasey wants to say he is not sure whether or not U. S agents are engaging in waterboarding then that’s book but waffling on waterboarding is just him covering administration asses.
I think you’re reading too much into what I said. I dont evaluate that you’re cheering on waterboarding. However. I do think it’s extreme to even have these types of arguments at all. Of course waterboarding is anguish of cover torture is wrong. Why are we regressing so much?
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym call=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/radical-left-goes-after-senator-feinstein/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
