Sunday Thoughts

| | Comments (0)
Senator Patrick Leahy was on Fox News Sunday yesterday, and he sounded worse worse than anyone on a Sunday show I've seen since Howard Dean on Meet The Press the summer before the primaries.

He evaded all the questions, and Wallace cut him very little slack. It was a massacre. What's scary -- for the Democrats -- is that Nancy Pelosi was on This Week and she got smacked around similarly by George Stephanopolous. While fair in his role on ABC, he certainly leans pretty far left, and if he is not buying what she's selling, how does she expect anyone else will?

Here's a basic translation of Leahy's ordeal.

Q: How would you fix Social Security?
A: Bush won't talk to us.
Q: But what would you do?
A: Bush won't talk to us.
Q: Sorry, but you're lying. He has said the exact opposite. He said everything is up for negotiation, except for raising taxes. It's the Democrats who said they won't bargain on privatization.
A: Nuh-uh!
Q: Actually, yes.
A: Um, well, Bush told me something different last night. You weren't there.
Q: Uh, riiiiiight. So what was your plan again? I mean, you're in Congress, he's not. This is your job.
A: Please stop. I got nothing.
Q: Moving right along ... you said 8 years ago you would fight against any judicial filibuster. Now you are participating in one. Why the switch?
A: That was a different kind of filibuster. You're completely misrepresenting what I said! Besides, Frist filibustered too! I guess he only favors filibusters if there's a Democratic President.
Q: Like you favor them only for Republican Presidents? And Frist would also do away with the kind of "filibuster" you say you were objecting to, which is not actually a filibuster, and you said you objected to all judicial filibusters anyway. You said you wanted an up-or-down vote, which is what Frist's plan would do. What's the problem?
A: I didn't really mean any filibuster. You should know that because I am telling you now, 8 years after the fact, in a convoluted explanation that is patently ridiculous. You see, what I objected to was one person holding up a nomination in committee, even if they didn't have enough votes to be confirmed. What I am in favor of is many people holding up a nomination on the floor, even if they do have enough votes to be confirmed. You see the difference? And I used the term "filibuster" to refer to the former and not the latter, even though to most people it refers to the latter and not the former, just to confuse you. It worked, hahahaha! And besides, we have approved 208 out of 218 of Bush's nominees, that's pretty good!
Q: But it comes out to only 2/3 of his appellate nominees. That's pretty bad.
A: Well ... if it were just up to me and Specter, this wouldn't be a problem.
Q: How would you fix it?
A: Frist won't talk to us.
Q: Come on.
A: Again, I got nothing.
Q: You already used that up with Bush. Try again.
A: Sigh, OK. Well, you see, if the majority can just change the rules, then why not have only 5 Senators needed to approve judges? Or why not require 85? If we allow them to do whatever they want, they could make all gay people spontaneously combust tomorrow, and maybe that's what you want, but it is not what the American people want!
Q: Huh. When you said you got nothing, you weren't kidding.
A: I tried to warn you.

Leave a comment

<pudge/*> (pronounced "PudgeGlob") is thousands of posts over many years by Pudge.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by pudge published on May 2, 2005 9:14 AM.

Mac::Glue and Tiger was the previous entry in this site.

Music: I Did It Again is the next entry in this site.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.