New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republican Claims

People For the American Way has developed a chart compiled from Congressional Research Service data that lists the judicial and executive branch nominees filibustered prior to the Bush administration. Twenty-six of the filibusters – more than three-quarters of the total – were initiated by Senate Republicans.

You can view the chart here (pdf).

< Rallies Weds. to Preserve Filibuster | One Year Anniversary of Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is just a tri-colored chart of 26 names. Look at it, its laughable. Surely, PFAW could have put more information on this chart. What are they hiding?

    Actually, I hope the filibuster stays - people so ingrained in the "advantage of the moment" over principles of democracy - deserve to live to see that current advantage turned to their disadvantage (again) in the future. After the dismal use of the filibuster to block civil rights and other progressive legislation for years; and your frequent pointing to what happened during Clinton - WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING IT? Use the short-term ("advantage of the moment") thinking of the Republicans to kill this dinosaur.

    Surely, PFAW could have put more information on this chart.
    No, because it's PFAW. They rarely know what they're doing. Take, for example, the fact that they've highligted executive nominees. Now, I know they did that to boost the numbers, but it does kinda make them look like they can't tell the difference beteween the branches of government.

    Blaghdaddy says you're absolutely right: NO Republicans have EVER filibustered a judicial nomination. NO Republicans have EVER held up DOZENS of Clinton nominations, so that they died in Committee and couldn't even get to the floor for a vote. NO Republicans have threatened to vote against any "nuclear measure." That, folks, from HORSE and his mates...all evidenced by the "laughable" chart. They're right, aren't they? That you can ignore the data if you don't like it? Good work guys. Dooohhhhh!!!!

    And Fleet, people are defending the filibuster because it's PART of the SENATE TRADITION and serves as a check to Presidential hubris. If the Republicans had objected to 10 Clinton nominations, no one would be talking about this. The fact that you can't admit is that the Republicans abused their power over Clinton's nominations across the board and now seek to prevent "legitimate" filibustering so they can ram through ALL of Bush's nominations. Get it? How about everyone else out there? Doesn't Blaghdaddy make any sense? He feels so alone....

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 11:51:58 AM EST
    WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING IT? Because when congress grinds to a halt, congress does less damage. As some discussed earlier in the week, anything that causes gridlock in Washington is good for America.

    You know, the knuckle-dragger republicans who show up here never cease to amaze me. This country exists because of Congress. Our government serves us in multitudes of ways and keeps us a so-called civilized society. If you want life with government, go to Sudan. Idiot.

    Life without government. Sorry.

    Kdog, I think you just became a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. My condolences.

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 01:53:27 PM EST
    And here am I thinking I'm as liberal as they come, jpaul. I had no idea that preferring our legislature move slowly and not do anything rash made me a Republican. Also considering I've never voted for a Republican in my life. I would argue our country continues to exist in spite of Congress, smart guy.

    As I say, the left truly deserves the filibuster - and I hope I am still posting around here when the whining begins the other way. Blah, I have been absolutely consistent - I have never denied other judicial filibusters by the Republicans. I do not believe this part of Senate tradition (this applies to all filibusters - not just judicial) is good. Not now. Not in the past. Not in the future. Its overall history has retarded progress. (Did I miss something?). And if you are going to retain it - make them not just threaten but do it. Lets get back to the good old days of Senate tradition when a Senator got to talk for 14 hours. Please disagree with me, but do not warp what I say. I am pretty clear.

    You would argue that the moon is made out of platinum if only not to admit you were ever wrong, you horribly blinkered cretin, stupid mouthpiece of ignorance, gawd what moron. The United States Government used to be one of the best in the world, until the filthy republicans trashed it by blowing up the rule of law with Bush vs Gore and bankrupting the place by spending like a nymphomaniac in a condom shop. That's how this country became great: democratic representation where votes were counted, sane fiscal policy, freedom, and most of all an activist government that allowed a middle class to be born out of the rank abuses of capitalism. Out government did that. Get a clue, learn to tie your shoes, and then get back to school. Lord what a serious waste of a brain.

    Reminds me of old SNL - "Jane you ignorant slut" Discuss the democratic use of filibuster to block meaningful civil rights legislation until 1964. After all, civil rights couldn't have been right until you could overcome that minority of southern dixiecrats. Or then again - maybe just back to SNL

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#14)
    by marty on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 02:20:10 PM EST
    "...but it does kinda make them look like they can't tell the difference beteween the branches of government." Dumbasses!- How could they be so stupid....the 3 branches of government is something most of us learned in 3rd grade....but, that's libruls for ya. Oh by the way......care to guess which US President once said that one of the three branches was the Administrative branch????? Huh??? You guessed it..........it is the current occupant himself. Guess he's just as dumb, huh?

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#15)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    It always amuses me to see people try to connect the Dixicrats from the past to the current party. How do you do it with a straight face? The party dynamics have changed greatly over the last 40 or 50 years. Once Reagan, Helms and Thurmond were Democrats. Such men were moved by the spirit of segregation and those values emptied out of the Democratic platform; when they did they found an amiable home in the GOP.

    Glanton, You know me better than that - I am trying to take the discussion of the filibuster out of party politics entirely, and discuss it as an institution that will act as a stage regardless of the actors. Some long-term strategic vs short-term tactical thinking. The point is that the filibuster is just as likely to torpedo liberal agendas as conservative. That is its history and its future. Or you can live in the moment

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#17)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:07:12 PM EST
    JCH: Posts will show that I have been highly open to ending the filibuster since this debate began. I think if the Dems were one half as articulate or passionate in addressing the American electorate as they are in filibustering, they wouldn't need to filibuster in the first place. That doesn't mean, however, that --SURPRISE--they GOP is lying through their teeth in terms of how they frame the filibuster debate. One of FOX News's favorite things to do is "remind" viewers that "Dems" filibustered civil rioghts legislation--expecting that viewers will be so ignorant as not to realize the changes that have actually taken place in both parties. Again, yesterday's Dixicrats are today's Republicans, no ifs and or buts about it. Just ask Jesse Helms, if he can stop drooling long enough to answer you.

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:09:11 PM EST
    The Democrats have already discussed the extent to which Bush's nominees suck; they're using the filibuster as an obstacle to voting rather than a tool to allow debate. I think there's an important difference between filibustering to allow more debate, and filibustering to block a vote when there has been sufficient debate. The data behind the chart doesn't distinguish, so I consider it basically useless. (Pre-emptive correction: I am not claiming that Republicans only or predominantly filibuster to allow debate)

    I don't think any of the people supporting the filibuster have any illusions that it won'tbe used against any future Republican or Democrat administration. The thing I think that galls MOST Americans that couldn't care less about any parlimentary procedure is the fact that since a 95% approval rate for the judges Team Shrub has put before the Senate isn't good enough, they want to change the rules mid-game. Most Americans, and for that matter people in general, are raised to believe in following the rules, even if you are losing. Americans don't like extremists whether they be from the left or the right, and maybe some in the GOP don't see the nominees Team Shrub is putting forward to be radicals, but the rest of the public does. With recent developments in America the Republicans have shown that they can't care less about ethics or civil decorum, they just want to rule over us. And this isn't even really about the judges being put forward now(well Owens, Price, and whatstheirface are the exception), but the upcoming battle over the appointment(s) Shrub will try to make to the SCOTUS. It surprises me, JCHFleetguy, that you would so obviously obfuscate the point behind this debate. And here I thought you were one of the few HONEST Republicans left.

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:37:11 PM EST
    We've had a governmental system that operates with checks and balances for 200+ years. Now the wingers want an all-powerful - (he's already all-knowing),monarch whose bidding it is all-of-our-duties to obey. Sorry that democracy, the system that you all want to "spread", is sometimes so messy and inconvenient. Deal with it.

    Glanton, not all: Senator Byrd was the next to last speaker in that 1964 filibuster. At no point have I said either the Democrats or the Republicans were generally telling the truth about their motives. I try to separate myself a little from what politicians say and look at the issue on its own. Is this tactic really a bedrock of democracy? Sherman: I made it pretty clear that I thought the Republicans were doing this for the same "short-term" advantage reason - esp with an upcoming SC nomination. There is no ultimate good in their current efforts - even in the republicans who are going to vote to keep it: they just want it around for when the Democratics have some judges or issues to block

    With none listed earlier than the 1960s. Excellent work PFAW. You saved me the work of having to explain to brainwashed America the difference between ideology and political parties.

    The Republicans set forth a basic premise: The President should have any nominee that he wants as long as that nominee is qualified. The Republicans betrayed this basic principal when it came to Clinton's appointments. This was done through committee action (in action) and straight voting). The Republicans then did not care about the deference to be given to the President's nominees. The Republicans care about one thing and one thing only: POWER. This is why the party that had been in favor of balanced budgets and fiscal discipline now believes in busting the budget to award corporations and the richest of our society. This is why the spokesman for Federalism then intervenes in a state case. I could go on. The Republicans are arrogant and believe that any choice, not matter how radical has to be approved. They have chosen this battle to show their power and to tear down the last remainders of checks and balances. Please note that the Republicans do not hesitate in the rightness of their cause even though public opinion of this administration continues to decline as the public sees their true colors. But opinion does not matter since the Republicans have an iron clad mandate to change the world all they want after that glorious lanslide victory. A little revolution is good for the country. I hope it wakes up and deposes these power hungry liars.

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    Byrd's actions were despicable and you won't find a liberal thinker among us who will say otherwise. No matter what party he belongs to, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot. Of course, on the level of policy--i.e. how he actually votes and what he actually says--Byrd also demonstrates that he has changed dramatically since those terrible days. Today he is a voice for free speech, a friend to the poor, and actually takes bloodshed seriously. Sets him quite apart from the Dixicrats of old and the GOP of today, don't it? Some refused to change, some changed, that's a big part of what went down. Helms did not. Thurmond did not. Reagan did not. And today's GOP totally reflects the values ot those old Dixicrats, lock stock and barrel. The upshot of all this is, if you wanna kill the fillibuster kill it. But why lie in the process? Indeed, as Blaghdaddy has so wonderfully asked, why does the GOP always find it necessary to lie, when the spotlight is upon them?

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:39:56 PM EST
    If the Dems weren't fillibustering, does anyone think there will be honest debate? Both sides toe their party line, and the corporation (money) line. The Reps have 2/3 power, so I'm relieved the Dems are putting the brakes to some of the more hardcore right appointments. Whatever it takes. At least they aren't fist fighting like other Legislatures. PS...When congress rushes into things, you end up with the war on drugs and war in Iraq. Govt. gridlock from time to time is allright by me.

    kdog, It wasn't me that assigned you a position in the vast right-wing conspiracy. It seemed to me that paradox was taking issue with your position and assigning you status as a conservative in the process (and conservative is not the word that comes to my mind when I read your commentary). Personally, I agree with you. And it's funny, but that seems to make me a member of the left-wing lunatic fringe. Could it be that we have discovered the wormhole in the political continuum? Seriously though, anything that stops congress from passing leigsilation with no thought is fine with me. And that it what the filibuster is really good for.

    Can someone summarize the arguments on both sides for me? Clearly the GOP can NOT claim that this is the first time a judicial nominee has been filibustered. They can NOT claim that they were not unfair to Clinton's judges when they were in the majority, using TACTICS to defeat them in the face of "advise and consent". The DEMS can not argue that we are partially responsible for this mess, because we changed the fillibuster cloture rules from 67 votes to 60. Since this body is supposed to represent the will of the people, the polls clearly show that a VAST majority oppose this rule change. But - a slight majority also feel Dubya's nominees deserve an up-or-down vote. Perhaps DEMS should let the GOP "vehicles", after an appropriate amount of debate (describing in detail why these nut-jobby judges should NOT be confirmed) go to an up-or-down vote. They should ask that the GOP respect this in the future when a Democrat holds the office (IE Dems being the better man). Dems SHOULD, however, hold firm against any wingnutty Supreme noms. That is a compromise that makes sense and would work in the interest of the majority of Americans.

    Glanton, Please - I have lived through Kennedy (liar - Vietnam, Bay of Pigs); Johnson (liar - where to start); Nixon (scary liar); Carter (not a liar); Reagan (not a liar); Bush Sr. (struck me as honest); Clinton (I liked him but - liar, with a pretty large group of liars in his administration); Bush Jr. (got to go with liar). And I haven't seen any real change in the nature of the Congress (liar or not) whether it was run by Democrats or Republicans. Really, the Democrats have to go a long way in my mind to become the "honest" politicians vs the "dishonest" republicans.

    glaxton, there is plenty of blame to go around. The minimum wage law was passed to prevent blacks from finding work by accepting a lower wage than whites. A big part of the labor movement was to protect the jobs of whites from minorities, whether they were children, women or blacks. Even into the 1970s, most teamsters were white. The same goes for trades like plumbers, carpenters and meat cutters. License requirements for certain occupations were (and in many cases, still are) racist. Remember the recent hubbub over hair-braiders who were mainly black ladies. Which side supported relaxing or eliminating licenses, so these ladies could work legally? I feel that the minimum wage and social security are the two most racist policies that the U.S. has today, and both are mainly supported by Democrats. Do I think liberals are racist? No. Do I think liberals support racist policies? Yes. And, I don't mean to be offensive, but I strongly disagree the Ronald Reagan was a bigot, if that is what you meant.

    Agree with both Kdog and Justpaul, though I suspect that JustPaul and I disagree in that I believe that the Democrats have brought this upon themselves by caving to Corporate (and other) interests. One of the posters above mentioned the cohesiveness of Conservative constituencies in pursuing power. There can be no cohesiveness on the Left so long as the Democrats fear (or give Carte Blanche to) Corporate interests.

    Tampa, I'm not sure what you mean, so I can't say I disagree. If you care to explain, I might care to disagree, but I can't promise such. Sam, As I see it, there is a difference when the majority simply refuses to bring up a nominee, since they are in control of the senate, and when a minority, not in control of the agenda, uses a political tool to enact the same effect, but I'm not taking issue with the Democrats doing this. If I have a problem with this, it's with Frist and his unwillingness to do his job. A filibuster is not supposed to be the absence of debate, it is supposed to be a way to extend the debate. So far, the Democrats have not actually had to debate the issue outside of the Sunday morning talk shows, and that, I think, is the bigger problem. Changing the rules of the senate rather than using the leverage that already exists within the rules seems like a stupid exercise of power.

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#32)
    by teacherken on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 05:33:58 PM EST
    did you notice the name of Janet Napolitano for US Attorney? Hmm, wouldn't it be interesting were she to speak out about how republicans have used filibusters against Dems -- do so publicly in AZ -- that might put pressure on McCain, given how popular she is

    Tampa, Always been the way - the right unites against the left; and the left tears itself apart. Funniest political satire: Life of Brian - best scene: operatives from three radical groups killing each other in front of the guards in front of Pilate's wifes door to see who got to kidnap her. I was a left demonstrator at the DEMOCRATIC (and republican) conventions in Miami in 1972 when McGovern was running against NIXON. We refused to support him because the Democrats wouldn't recognize Gay rights in their platform. THIS WAS DURING VIETNAM.

    Sam, good summary. This is all about Circuit Court of Appeals judgeships, which are usually a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Democrats fear that Republicans want these nominees on the Circuit Court, so Bush or a later Republican President can appoint one (or more) to the Supreme Court. They are probably right. After having opposed Justice Thomas, Democrats don’t want to take the political hit of opposing another minority nominee to the Supreme Court. Bush knows this and is attempting to use it to his advantage. The rest of this, rules changes, filibuster support, claims of extremism and such, is just political maneuvering and neither side really cares about the outcome of those things. But, to me, that is what makes politics so much fun!

    Anyone notice, not a single depiction of "Old Glory" on PFAW's website? Creepy.

    How did conservatives come to love the nuclear option? Here's the answer in black and white...

    Always good to keep in mind that the filibuster against the civil rights act of 1964 ultimately failed because LBJ would not back down and senators like Humphrey and Dirksen did the right thing. It was a monumental battle of wills. The filibuster has had its moments.

    There is very little as powerful as an idea whose time has come. Dirksen, Humphrey and LBJ indicated that Byrd could talk as long as he wanted. It was an amazing showdown. Might have happened before, but didn't. Personalities, time, politics, etc. LBJ had the backing of so much of the country in the wake of the JFK assassination and the 64 election that it really did look like a mandate. Patience is a virtue. Let them talk. The filibuster gives time for ideas to develop and movements to start or stop. LBJ as another dixiecrat was able to make the rest of dixiecrats cave on the civil rights bill. JFK, God bless him, probably would never have won that battle. The dixiecrats would not have been able to give it up to a guy from Boston or NY or Chicago or anywhere north of the Mason Dixon line.

    Actually, I think article is right - Dirksen was the key. But how long were real civil rights delayed? 70 years, 50, what? How long before this could they have had 51 votes?

    justpaul writes - "A filibuster is not supposed to be the absence of debate, it is supposed to be a way to extend the debate." Actually, a fiibuster is not a debate. One person holds the floor, and no one else may talk. That is exactly an absence of debate.

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:12:46 AM EST
    PPJ...Congress has been absent of debate for at least 50 years, fillibuster or not.

    kdog - You know, there aren't many giants left.

    Jim, You have a very myopic view of what a filibuster is. That explains a lot. By your definition, every time a senator stands and speaks, all debate has ended, since they all talk one at a time.

    Fleetguy - Brown v. Board of Education dragged into busing in Boston in the 70's as I recall. The implementation of civil rights is not dependent so much on legislation and judicial rulings as it is upon the will and understanding of the country at large. The spectacle of the 1964 civil rights debate/filibuster and power struggle worked upon the understanding of the country at large. One of the sad side-effects was that southern racists moved from the Democratic party to the Republican party. The sad part is that they did not have a revolution in their thinking and remain in the democratic party where their economic interests were and the long term effect has been the Reagan - Gingrich - Bush years. The widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. But to fail to understand that southern racists were democrats for one hundred years in reaction to the Party of Lincoln makes as much sense as to claim that today's Republican party retains any ideas that Mr. Lincoln would recognize. So, when the neocons here like to recall fondly that Mr. Lincoln was a republican, I have to think back about exactly which southern state he was born in. As to the filibuster? Keep that tool in the tool box, but make them actually stand and talk for the hours, no shortcuts. America needs the theater to understand politics and public policy.

    More famous lies by the GOP... The GOPher party certainly has newspeak down right. How do they continue to hoodwink working men and women in the heartland into voting for this foolery!?

    Conscious, That is the solution; I just hate to see liberals forget the largely ugly past of the filibuster because of a short-term interest.

    Very interesting. As I understand it, England rule of law has been harmed by what they call "the tyranny of the majority" where the 51% can ride roughshod over the 49%. I thought the filibuster was a tool to prevent just such a thing from happening. Presidential appointments that need to be approved (and I admit to scant knowledge of the nuts and bolts of this)should be able to gain the support of the majority party and at least some of the minority party. This has not happened for some Bush nominations and the result is a showdown where Dems are saying that some nominees are simply unacceptable to their constituents. (Picture, for example, the Dems nominating Ted Kennedy!) In an ideal world, the President would vet nominees for broad appeal. If the Dems were opposed as a whole to a nominee the Senate and Pres usually work behind the scenes to avoid this kind of showdown. It seems to me that rather than work cooperatively (remember "the uniter, not divider"?) the pres. has decided he has a mandate to shove these (you've go to admit) extremely right wing nominees right down the Senate's throat. Anyone who disagrees is apparently "anti-God" and therefore filibustering these nominees is the "devil's work" and it's the job of every religious conservative to fight for right. So you basically have to decide... are the Dem's just being petulant and ornery or are they representing their constituents by going to the wall to prevent abuse of power? Personally, I think the filibuster is one of the great tools of our democracy. Whether for good or bad when we look back, the filibuster is high drama that brings issues to the public's attention and allows an individual Senator a voice to express his/her conviction on a stand by being willing to engage in this extreme measure of democracy. I worked at my son's Cooperative daycare (now I understand the longing for a strong leader and decision making that leads to facism!!). We had a policy of consensus voting, meaning everyone had to ultimately agree. We found that one person could sabotage an effort by refusing to agree. Period. Or threatening to refuse to agree with agenda item votes. Ultimately, although we still held consensus to be the best model for a close-knit community, we agreed that a vote to override consensus, and then a 2/3 majority could decide issues. Two thirds is a far cry from 51%. And you have to ask yourself honestly whether the fact that the Dems are united in resistance and Repubs are a bit divided on the nuclear option indicates that something more's going on than a few "rogue" politicians.

    "today's Republican party retains any ideas that Mr. Lincoln would recognize..." Self reliance, for one, CA.

    LOL! Orrin Hatch is on the Senate floor right now and just blasted the PFAW report! "As you can see, the Liberal Propoganda machine has been working overtime..." "12 of the 13 listed Justices were confirmed, and the 13th did not enjoy majority support..." "Believing such manufactured, fradulent arguements requires one to believe that no vote is the same as a vote and a filibuster is the same as a no-confirmation..." "and they call us radical? Lol, well done Senator Hatch!

    Horse, I expected better from you. As if the Swift Boat Veterans, Family Research Council and Heritage Foundation are non-partisan fact machines???? So what's your point?

    MFOX - Excellent summation in support of Democracy and the roll of the fillibuster. As a moderate, I fully agree that the idea of a BARE majority conrolled by a LUNATIC minority should not shove its oppresive will down the throat of the true MAJORITY - IE the American people. Most Americans want judges that are fair, open minded and not driven by ideology (of either persuasion).

    The point might be to do a little fact checking before you quote them if you believe PFAW is in the same category as those you characterize as the opposite of non-partisan fact machines

    "I just hate to see liberals forget the largely ugly past of the filibuster because of a short-term interest." I'm sure you do and I for one deeply appreciate your concern to educate all of us on racism in American history. Oh, while we're on the subject of racism, it appears that Tony Perkins, he of "Justice Sunday," has ties to David Duke and other southern racists of the ugliest sort. But of course you knew that. The Nation has the details (partisan it may be, but what they print about Perkins is factual.) As it is, I've forgotten nothing about the history of the filibuster and still see no reason for the rightwing lunatics in charge of the Congress to go nuclear.

    that Tony Perkins, he of "Justice Sunday," has ties to David Duke and other southern racists of the ugliest sort. But of course you knew that
    Why would I know that? Everything I know about Justice Sunday I got here - wasnt advertised at my church; none of my friends emailed. I'd have to google right now to know who Perkins is. I know Duke (ugly man) - kinda know you (hate index pretty high). This event was important to the Left for sure; I assume the 5000 that attended; not sure who else since, again, this is my one source of knowledge about it.

    "I know Duke (ugly man) - kinda know you (hate index pretty high). " I assume the second half of this sentence was a typo on your part.

    Why? Most of our conversations I have had to fight through hyperbole about liars and lunatics; assumptions about my positions that are sterotypical; rhetoric that is insulting; etc. It wasn't an insult - I think there is a huge amount of vitrol (sp?) left and right. I think it clouds thought and blocks understanding/compromise - but it is hardly unusual. People have closely held views that they feel are under assault; that they are willing to defend earnestly. I think you are angry about what has happened to a country that you love and want some ass. Hence - hate index high.

    If the American People disapprove of a party's continued use of a Filibuster to obstruct the desires of a One-Party government, they can vote out the "offending" Senators in '06. What's the matter...have no faith in the "will of the people"? Given all the constant garbage being spat about America becoming a Conservative ideological monoculture -- why are you all so afraid of allowing the Democrats to use the 100 year old rule and face the consequences of their alleged NEWTonian "obstructionism"? Senators don't debate. They now issue verbal press releases for the sake of the Camera in a venue where debate last happened long ago.

    It's spelled vitriol, jchfleetguy. And I don't hate you or anyone else. I only hate the rightwing's sins against truth and against my country. (By the way, that last paragraph was sarcasm, a poke in the ribs at the wool those hypocritical christianists try to pull over people's eyes about hating the sin, not the sinner.) My hate index is high compared to Tom Delay? Randall Terry? Rick "man on dog" Santorum? (Oh sorry, Santorum doesn't hate anything but the sinner, I forgot.) Why, compared to them, I'm the all-forgiving Buddha. So I'll just assume your comment about me is simply one of those snarky Ann Coulter-style comments that only rightwing lunatics realize should be taken as a joke. To pull this back to topic, Al Gore has made a magnificent speech about the nuclear option. It is available here. And yes, jchfleetguy, I admit it: I hate the fact the presidency was stolen, and especially from a man of his exceptional character and ability. And while you're at Salon, you might want to look at Anne Lamott's beautiful essay on religion and politics. The joke at the end is priceless.

    Thanks i will (and I missed Comparative Hatred 101)

    The fellows you're so enamored of didn't.

    I am enamored of my wife, like my pastor and kids alot, moms and such, and God - know few others

    FRom what i erad it seems important to block these judges because the new method to enact a law is to file a law suit and then let the judges make the law. Economics does away with a complete branch of government.

    Fine JCH - Like you I got all my info re: PFAW here. I was responding more to the position they take and supporting it. I don't think, however, that dogging agencies as biased (they seem to mostly be so)and using that as a reason to discredit their position is a valid argument. For example I hate the NRA but support many of their arguments. Tristero - give JCH a break. He at least has a political position that he attempts to defend logically which is more than I can say for a few other commenters who shall remain nameless (but we know who you are!!)

    Re: New Filibuster Chart Puts the Lie to Republica (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:26:29 AM EST
    "Self-reliance". This from the guy that carries water for the most expensive govt. in history.