Reid’s Short Memory on the Filibuster

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blasted Republican senators for their refusal to support bringing former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel’s nomination to the floor for an up or down vote. Amidst references to the unprecedented nature of the Republicans’ obstructionist efforts, Reid failed to mention his opposition to a Bush administration cabinet nominee on nearly identical grounds.

“Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse, it gets worse,” Reid lamented this morning on the Senate floor. “I’m going to call Chuck Hagel when I finish here and say, ‘I’m sorry, sorry this has happened. I’m sorry for the president, I’m sorry for the country, and I’m sorry for you.”

The momentum for a filibuster picked up steam when senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham indicated they would not vote to end debate and allow a vote on the nomination until the White House provided more information on the Benghazi attack. “Chuck Hagel had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi,” Reid argued.

Former Idaho governor Dirk Kempthorne didn’t have anything to do with the Bush administration’s position on public land sales in Southern Nevada, either. Nonetheless, Reid in 2006 supported a filibuster of Kempthorne’s nomination as secretary of the interior until the administration agreed to redirect funds from an enormously profitable Nevada land management fund, set to go to the Treasury Department, to the state of Nevada.

“I said before that I couldn’t support Governor Kempthorne’s nomination unless we could come to an agreement about key public land issues,” Reid, who said the Senate minority leader at the time, said in a statement. When the Bush administration acceded to Reid’s demands, he declared his support for Kempthorne’s nomination.

Reid today repeatedly decried the GOP’s opposition to Hagel’s nomination, pointing to the historical nature of the alleged obstruction. As it turns out, Kempthorne was the last cabinet nominee to face a filibuster . . . thanks in part to Harry Reid.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340768/reids-short-memory-filibuster-eliana-johnson

I guess they want their SecDef to be just like them.
.
.
Why do Progs want, as their SecDef, a man, who was described by an Obama adviser as “BAFFLING” and “INCOMPREHENSIBLE”?

I guess they want their SecDef to be described just as they are.
.
.
Why do Progs want to put into office a BIGOT, who has made anti-Semitic comments frequently, has demonstrated homophobia, and is even against abortion even in the case of rape?

I guess they want a “bigoted hater” just like themselves.

I guess they want people just like them to occupy high offices.

I’m staying on topic. You have yet to refute my point that in fact the Repubs are acting differently here.
They are using this nomination to argue about something unrelated. To the point of filibuster.
They do not dispute this.
Why do you?
Right….because you just have to.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Yes, I have. They have been demanding document disclosures from Hagel for weeks.

They do not dispute this. Why do you?

The Republicans are not acting differently than Democrats, but, of course, you probably think that sequester and pro forma sessions were created by them.

Right….because you just have to.

And, why would I “have to” considering the FACT that I’m not a conservative nor have I EVER been a Republican?

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 5:16 PM

You wanna shift the argument here.
I’m staying on topic. You have yet to refute my point that in fact the Repubs are acting differently here.
They are using this nomination to argue about something unrelated. To the point of filibuster.
They do not dispute this.
Why do you?
Right….because you just have to.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013

…do you need lotion?

What was your position when Democrats rejected the nomination 53-47 for Secretary of Defence of a newly-elected President, GHW Bush, in 1989? Senator John Tower’s nomination to become Secretary of Defence was the first time that the Senate had rejected a cabinet nominee of a newly elected president.

The post of Secretary of Defence was left vacant for 3 months.

What was your position when Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada, who had received a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association (which is not a conservative or even libertarian-leading organisation. I know. I have been a member.)?

“On March 6, 2003, there was the first of seven failed cloture votes on Estrada. Fifty-five senators voted to end debate on his nomination and allow a final confirmation vote, and forty-four senators voted not to end debate. After twenty-eight months in political limbo and a protracted six-month battle using the filibuster, Estrada withdrew his name from further consideration on September 4, 2003.”

Democrats filibustered Bolton. They wanted more documents.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Relating to Bolton…to determine something about…Bolton.

Pretty simple.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:57 PM

And, the Republicans want documents FROM Hagel, including financial disclosures concerning his speeches, advocacy, and advisory roles, especially those pertaining to overseas organisations and countries.

If a nominee was receiving money from Iran or North Korea, wouldn’t that be pertinent information to consider before confirming her to such a sensitive position?

Why won’t Hagel turn over the information? Is he hiding something?

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 4:56 PM

; )

Lol! RWM, how about a smile for me. I could use one. ; )

Bmore on February 14, 2013 at 4:48 PM

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Relating to Bolton…to determine something about…Bolton.
If you wanna say that’s wrong, ok.
But you’re saying it’s the same thing – and it’s not.
Pretty simple.

(fixed)

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:57 PM

They wanted more than just documents about Bolton.

Republicans want documents – too – about Hagel, which he has refused to turn over.

Now, should we talk about John Tower?

Come on…you’re not one of those, are you?
RWM is more than capable…able to engage with out the back pats.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:56 PM

She doesn’t need my help showing you were wrong. The Democrats said the issue was not Bolton.

Democrats filibustered Bolton. They wanted more documents.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Relating to Bolton…to determine something about…Bolton.
If you wanna say that’s wrong, ok.
But you’re saying it’s the same thing – and it’s not.
Pretty simple.

(fixed)

THAT’S GOTTA HURT!

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Come on…you’re not one of those, are you?
RWM is more than capable…able to engage with out the back pats.

Democrats filibustered Bolton. They wanted more documents.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Realting to Bolton…to determoine something about…Bolton.
If you wanna say that’s wrong, ok.
But you’re saying ti’s the same thing – and it’s not.
Pretty simple.

Why were they were filibustering? Was it because they were ‘demanding answers’ on an issue that did not involve John Bolton? RWM – I’m not saying they can’t do this.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Um, they said it wasn’t about Bolton. They wanted documents, which included Bolton, but the scope of the demand went beyond him.

My point is that they remain the party of perpetual outrage and obstruction. In fact, their ‘outrage’ is just another device to obstruct.

They have a right to demand documents. They have a right to demand the White House answer questions and turn over documents related to Benghazi. If the WH will not do it in the normal course of business, then they have a right to filibuster.

As for “perpetual outrage,” I seem to recall that there wasn’t ANYTHING that Bush did that failed to raise the outrage of Democrats.

I remember your party calling Bush a liar, unpatriotic, a traitor (“He betrayed this country!!!”). So, puhlease, save it with your “both parties don’t do this” shit.

And they admit that…and Ed acknowledges it.

They have not admitted that they are filibustering simply to obstruct and, if Ed “acknowledged” that, then he is incorrect.

We can continue to examine other filibusters waged by Democrats…if you’d like.

Turnabout is fair play. Get used to it.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 3:27 PM

As George Costanza yelled at the end of “Titanic”:

THAT’S GOTTA HURT!

Well, not a different angle. But RWM offered a false ‘same behavior’ example…and you high fived her for it. So…Match point for me on that one!

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Er, wrong. Either the issue was Bolton or it wasn’t. Democrats said:

Democrats said the issue is no longer Mr. Bolton, but an institutional fight with the administration over access to names from foreign communications intercepts, which Democrats want to see to determine whether Mr. Bolton was trying to bully analysts.

“Repubs are behaving differently here than the Dems did with Bolton. Dang facts. It’s not ‘both sides’.”

Er, wrong. Dang facts.

Fortunately, not the highlight of my year.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:24 PM

It’s really OK if it is. Pretending to win arguments on an anonymous news forum seems to be the draw for you guys. It’s not like you can defend Obama’s presidency on the numbers.

Ah…not really accurate –
(You put a period where there should be a comma…simple error…yes?)

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Yes

Democrats said the issue is no longer Mr. Bolton, but an institutional fight with the administration over access to names from foreign communications intercepts, which Democrats want to see to determine whether Mr. Bolton was trying to bully analysts.

Either the issue was John Bolton or it wasn’t.

Filibustering Bolton

“Yes, filibuster Bolton!”

Tales of Two Filibusters: The Judges & John Bolton

Democrats Extend Debate On Bolton

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 27, 2005

Senate Democrats refused to end debate on John R. Bolton’s nomination to be U.N. ambassador yesterday, extending the contentious issue into next month and angering Republicans only three days after many had heralded a bipartisan breakthrough on judicial nominees.

…

Democrats said they launched the delaying tactic only as a means of pressuring the Bush administration to provide documents related to Bolton’s handling of classified information and his role in preparing congressional testimony about Syria in 2003. They rejected the administration’s argument that some of the requested information is not relevant to the confirmation debate.

…

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) told reporters that Democratic leaders had assured Frist that he would get 60 votes to end debate if he tried. But Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Democratic leader “told Senator Frist this afternoon he did not have the 60 votes needed, and urged him to consider holding off on the vote” while Biden and others pressed the administration for the requested documents.

He rejected Democratic complaints that they did not have enough information. “They have what they need,” McClellan said.

Biden said yesterday’s vote was meant “to tell the administration that they cannot dictate to the United States Senate.”

“Maybe they’ll take notice,” Biden added. “But the administration is so arrogant, you can’t be sure.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/26/AR2005052601910_2.html

The same can certainly be said about this administration, which has arrogantly made “recess” appointments when the Senate could not possibly be in recess pursuant to Article I, Section 5, Clause 4, the Adjournments Clause, of the Constitution. Your guy has no respect for separation of powers and he was, rightfully, slapped down by the DC Ap Ct. He will lose if he appeals to the Supreme Court, too.

Democrats filibustered Bolton. They wanted more documents.

Republicans are filibustering Hagel. They want more documents, including the transcripts of his speeches and the amount of money he received from foreign groups.

Turnabout is fair play. Get used to it.

I think we just found the highlight of your year!

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Fortunately, not the highlight of my year.

Well, not a different angle.
But RWM offered a false ‘same behavior’ example…and you high fived her for it.
So…Match point for me on that one!
Repubs are behaving differently here than the Dems did with Bolton.
Dang facts.
It’s not ‘both sides’.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I think we just found the highlight of your year!

The Democrats went on a silly fishing expedition to find something incriminating on Bush in the wiretaps on the pretense of “bullying”. I guess the Democrats couldn’t get the goods on Bolton swiping office supplies?

It’s not ‘both sides’.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM

John Tower.

/End your argument