Jump to content
The news, editorial, and entertainment divisions of the major networks are separate entities. This letter asks what is the "true face" of NBC? I imagine in all its divisions the drive for corporate profit is its primary commonality. Beyond that, though, a network shouldn't have an agenda through which its news, entertainment, and editorial content is filtered. Thus, we watched "The Sound of Music" last night on the same network that showed "The Blacklist" (an apparently violent show with which I am unfamiliar) and have viewed Rachel Maddow's liberal commentary on the same network as Chuck Todd's more objective reporting where he has justifiably explained failures in the Republican effort to shut down the government to halt Obamacare, as well as Obama's failures to launch the healthcare.gov website with competency.
It's not hypocritical to have variety on the same network. I just wish the news weren't so profit-driven these days.
Besides, I wrote "must of" instead of "must have," which is way worse than mixing up further and farther.
My intention was actually to quote you, not to correct you, and must of used "furthest" by habit. While we're on the subject, though, typically "farthest" is limited only to physical distance, whereas "further" gets all of the figurative usages, including extensions of time, depth or degree. I just read online where the English don't use "farther" at all, which I didn't know.
I think your point about Carter is accurate.
If you ask the experts cited by Politifact, it seems pretty clear that there are many ways to block a nomination before they reach a final vote, which causes candidates to withdraw their names from consideration, and that the Republicans have taken that to a whole new level....
....and if you ask folks from Occupy or supporters of Hugo Chavez if Obama is "indistinguishable" from their movements, I guarantee you would get a hearty laugh and an earful about his lack of liberal credentials....
....and if you could ask Ronald Reagan (and many other Republicans at the time) whether or not Obama is an anti-second amendment extremist for essentially proposing the same kinds of legislation Reagan supported with the Brady Bill, Reagan might point out that their positions are virtually indistinguishable AND that Obama has signed every pro-gun piece of legislation to cross his desk.
Is Obama the "furthest left president we've ever had"? He's a bit left of Clinton. I'm not sure about Carter, though. Johnson was a perhaps a moderate at heart, though he pushed through some pretty liberal government programs. Kennedy was a Hawk who had to be pulled into the civil rights movement. Truman? I have no idea. But Obama is definitely not to the left of FDR.
PearlY, I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. As for this discussion, the Politifact article has a link which explains the 1540/4 confirmation ratio in more detail. Among its conclusions is this insight from Ian Ostrander, who has detailed at what point nominations failed in the nomination process: 84 percent stalled or were withdrawn before going before a committee. Another 0.03 percent were rejected by a committee vote, while 0.01 percent were rejected in a floor vote.
"McConnell is choosing to count as failures cases that only account for a small fraction of overall failures," Ostrander said.
There are many ways to block nominations. The vast majority of the time they are stopped before getting to a vote. When nominees withdraw, it is typically because the opposition has made their confirmation so unlikely that they choose to step aside for the good of the country, so that the office may be filled by someone else. So, while the 1540/4 figure is technically accurate, it is also vastly misleading. That's why it only rated a "half-true."
As for your claim that Obama has nominated a bunch of extremist lefties, I don't know where that claim is objectively supported. He himself, contrary to what the Limbaughs and Palins of the world would have us believe, is largely a moderate, which has been a constant frustration to the Occupy Wall Street folks and the real lefties out there. I don't know his nominees personally, but it would surprise me if they were anything but highly qualified, intelligent, moderately-left people.
Namvet, I acknowledged in my comment that both sides have engaged in filibustering judicial nominations. The constitutionally appropriate reason to do so is if you feel a nominee is unqualified for the seat. The inappropriate reason is if you simply want to obstruct the elected president's function and prerogative of filling vacant seats.
The question is not whether both sides have abused the filibuster. They have. The question is a matter of degree.
According to Politifact, "By our calculation, (in the history of the United States) there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 so far during Obama’s term, for a total of 147." Here's the link.
That figure represents an unprecedented level of obstruction, which hasn't been limited to nominations. It has also included President Obama's efforts to revive the economy. Harry Reid was loath to invoke the "nuclear option," as was evidenced by his resistance to the left wing's repeated call for this over the past few years, but the Republicans ultimately gave him no choice. They have effectively shut down the government from a minority position. That can't be allowed to continue for another three years.
(In what I submitted, these were numbered 1-10.)
Republicans broke multiple agreements with Harry Reid to limit their filibusters of judicial nominations. And as this editorial points out, the blocking of nominations has not just been due to objections of the qualifications of the appointee; it has been political.
Have both parties done this? Yes. Is there a fair equivalency? Absolutely not. Republicans have obliterated the previous records for blocking nominees. Some have even admitted to trying to wait out Obama's term before filling the vacancies. Talk about a cynical subversion of the Constitutional powers given to a president.
Here is what these same Republican senators said while Bush was in office...
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
It's more than one study, PearlY. The new IPCC report, which looks at hundreds of studies, raised its level of confidence to greater than 95% that warming is caused by human activity.
Understated, yet...well...understated. I like it.
Last login: Thursday, November 28, 2013
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.