Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Republican Hypocricy Concerning Bolton  
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 852 times:

Before I start...

[DISCLAIMER]
Yes, its another topic about John Bolton, but something that has not been discussed before.

No, I will not be making generalizations about Republicans. I will however be saying this about the President and Congress.

Yes, I feel that this Bolton nomination is such a disgrace and insult that is should continue to be discussed.

Now that I've finished this disclaimer...

***

It hit me today like a sack of bricks. When the Democrats stalled Bolton's nomination, they used a right they had in the constitution. The Republicans threatened to eliminate this right with earlier conflicts over Bush's judicial nominations. We all remember this well.

Now, when Bush and his fellow congressional Republicans didn't get what they want, they decided to wait until the August recess to appoint him. I think Bush was cowardly, I think he was abusing his power, but it was his constitutional right to do so, as much as I hate him for it.

Now let me get this straight, does the constitution of the United States of America only apply to situations where Republicans get the benefit? When Democrats blocked Bush's judicial nominees, they threw a shit storm and threatened to change the rules so they could get what they want (ultimately the threat was the same as they got both the judges). Now Bush and Co. are using a constitutional right to appoint Bolton. Why is it ok for them to do this, when its not ok for Democrats to use their rights?

Why do the Republicans throw such a hissy fit about giving the man an up or down vote? The whole point of a fillibuster is so he doesn't get one. Its the minority's constitutional right to do so. Yet they are using the constitution to get their man in...

It boggles my mind. Such hypocrisy simply blows me away.


NO URLS in signature
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2066 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 839 times:

It`s more the nomination of Bolton, and not the way it was done (what else should we have to expect from this government? They are scruplesless) which damages the reputation of the USA in the world again.

Axel  Yeah sure

[Edited 2005-08-03 11:46:14]


Wer wenig weiss muss vieles glauben
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 817 times:

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 1):
damages the reputation of the USA in the world again.

We are idiots, plain and simple.


User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2066 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 810 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 2):
We are idiots, plain and simple.

No, you are egoists.  Big grin

Axel



Wer wenig weiss muss vieles glauben
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 782 times:

How does a recess appointment - a power specifically provided to the President by the Constitution and used by every President starting with Washington - make the GOP hypocrits?

It's called strategy. Bolton's appointment will be valid through the end of this Congress. If the GOP picks up a couple Senate seats (not unlikely) then the Democrat's threat of a fillibuster may be moot.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 779 times:

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 3):
No, you are egoists.

Speaking of Ego!

I see all these Europeans offering their opinion on how screwed up this country and this government is . . . now that's frickin' ego . . . knowing so much about the government and people of this country . . . presuming to talk about this country and government when your own countries and governments have issues of their own.

But of course, I don't see the egotistical Americans (myself included) bashing anything in Germany, France, the U.K., etc. Not my business . . .


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 779 times:

It makes them hypocrites because they were screaming and crying about the Democrats use of the fillibuster, a power specifically provided by the Constitution and used by every congress. Its called strategy.

However the Republicans threatened to get rid of this constitutional right when it didn't serve in their interests. That's how it makes them hypocrites.

Use the Constitutional rights when it serves your interests, destroy them when it serves your opponents interests.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 773 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5):
I see all these Europeans offering their opinion on how screwed up this country and this government is . . .

Reminds me of when I used to attend executions in Texas. Controversial ones would draw scores of protesters. The most vocal protesters were from Europe.

One execution, a cohort of mine (a Professor) said the following; Are you from the same Europe that played host to World War II, deaths of X Million people?

(and I know it happened 60+ years ago, blah blah).


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29786 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 758 times:

Clinton actually had more recess apointments then Bush has had to this points.

And who was abusing their power. Democrats who have refused to allow a vote for the past 6 months, while the US has been without representati0on at the mercy of seasoned UN scumbags, who want to see this great nation destroyed.

Or Bush who after waiting six months for the Senate to give an up or down vote, gave up and recessed apointed him....

I would say the former was in the wrong.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 751 times:

But why are they in the wrong? They were both excercising their powers given to them in the constitution. Now I'll admit, I think Bush abused his power, but he had the right in the constitution to do that and you don't see the Democrats threatening to change that (not that they could anyways as the minority).

You are proving my example perfectly. You say that the Democrats who excercised their Constitutional right were in the wrong, but the Republicans excercising their Constitutional right were in the right.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29786 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 749 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 9):
You say that the Democrats who excercised their Constitutional right were in the wrong,

I don't think preventing an up or down vote is the right thing to do.

But you have illustrated the big weakness of our 2 party system...Mainly that our goverment wasn't designed for two parties. It was designed for more then that, and if we had 3 or 4 it would force coalitions and probably would have gone a long way to preventing many of these stop work issues that the demoncrats are causing.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 732 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):

I don't think preventing an up or down vote is the right thing to do.

But do you agree that it is within their constitutional rights?

I don't think Bush's appointment of Bolton was the right thing to do, but it is within his constitutional rights.

The big hypocricy here (and this is the point I'm trying to make) is that when a constitutional right was excercised that went against the Republican agenda, they tried to eliminate it, in the case of the fillibuster. Why does the Constitution of the United States of America only apply when it serves in the interests of the Republican agenda? Which in this case, was the appointment of Bolton.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineLAS757300 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 727 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 8):
And who was abusing their power. Democrats who have refused to allow a vote for the past 6 months, while the US has been without representati0on at the mercy of seasoned UN scumbags, who want to see this great nation destroyed.

Not all opposition to Bolton has come from the Democratic Party.

The main issue here is Bolton's ability to do his job. Threatening to fire subordinates who wouldn't bend intelligence to fit Bolton's personal opinions/desires makes him unfit.



KMSP
User currently offlineLAS757300 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 725 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):
But you have illustrated the big weakness of our 2 party system...Mainly that our goverment wasn't designed for two parties. It was designed for more then that, and if we had 3 or 4 it would force coalitions and probably would have gone a long way to preventing many of these stop work issues that the demoncrats are causing.

Bull. The founders relied on single-member district plurality voting system when they wrote the constitution. SMDP creates a 2 party system. (UK and US) To foster a multiparty system the constitution would instead rely on some sort of proportional representation system, like Israel's.

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 7):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5):I see all these Europeans offering their opinion on how screwed up this country and this government is . . .
Reminds me of when I used to attend executions in Texas. Controversial ones would draw scores of protesters. The most vocal protesters were from Europe.

One execution, a cohort of mine (a Professor) said the following; Are you from the same Europe that played host to World War II, deaths of X Million people?

Because millions of Europeans died at the hands of a mad man 60 years ago, killing people in Texas is ok. Great logic

[Edited 2005-08-04 06:28:28]


KMSP
User currently offlineLAS757300 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 718 times:

I would also not that in ANCFlyer's right wing utopia, summary executions for immigrants entering Texas illegally would be the norm.


KMSP
User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 692 times:

Quoting LAS757300 (Reply 13):
To foster a multiparty system the constitution would instead rely on some sort of proportional representation system, like Israel's.

Nonsense. The thinking of the Founders was not that the voting public would be split into 2 factions.

And they also relied on only people with property being able to vote... thankfully that has changed, and so will the winner take all system

[Edited 2005-08-05 00:40:47]

User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 683 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 15):
Nonsense. The thinking of the Founders was not that the voting public would be split into 2 factions.

And yet the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist were big enemies while many of the founding fathers were still around. Ask Jefferson how friendly his first electoral victory was.


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 681 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 16):
And yet the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist were big enemies while many of the founding fathers were still around. Ask Jefferson how friendly his first electoral victory was.

I'm sorry, but this comment has zero relevance to my comment. Next?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29786 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 670 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 16):
Ask Jefferson how friendly his first electoral victory was.

Ask Jefferson to go into how Jimmy Madison rigged the Constitutional Convention. Fact is that event was timed so that Madison could get his plan through. Something that thankfully didn't quite work out for him.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 11):
But do you agree that it is within their constitutional rights?

Yes, but do you agree that the president has the right after 6 months of stalling to go ahead and apoint the man he wants.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 663 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 18):
Yes, but do you agree that the president has the right after 6 months of stalling to go ahead and apoint the man he wants.

Yes, read what I wrote in my above post:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 11):

I don't think Bush's appointment of Bolton was the right thing to do, but it is within his constitutional rights.

Once again though, I feel like a broken record, I feel the hypocrisy is that the Republicans basically eliminated the fillibuster (while they're in power), a constitutional right. They used their constitutional rights when it was in their advantage, and destroyed the opponents constitutional rights.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 659 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5):
But of course, I don't see the egotistical Americans (myself included) bashing anything in Germany, France, the U.K., etc. Not my business . . .

Come on ANC - maybe you don't, but many Americans bash the Europeans all the time. Too many people in this country hate France and don't even know why. Now the Europeans aren't perfect, but neither are we. All this petty bickering and hatred of people, who many of us descended from BTW, is pointless and does no good. That is especially true in a world where we have plenty of enemies to worry about as it is - with much more sinister intentions than just criticizing us.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 6):
Use the Constitutional rights when it serves your interests, destroy them when it serves your opponents interests.

There is definitely some truth to this statement - I agree that, by definition, this is hypocrisy.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 8):
Clinton actually had more recess appointments then Bush has had to this points.

Bill Clinton - love him, hate him, or feel indifferently about him - has been out of office for 5 years. Why is it every time a democrat brings up a republican flaw, the republican counters with a Clinton comparison?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):
I don't think preventing an up or down vote is the right thing to do.

That's right out of the RNC talking points - but let's examine that statement in a non partisan matter.

Many Republicans (think George Voinovich for example) publicly had reservations about the nominee. Let's not forget that Bolton came out of the committee without a recommendation for approval - and the committee, like the Senate, is majority Republican.

Many democrats had reservations also, though there is no doubt many of them were simply acting in a partisan manner. But - nonetheless, there were unanswered questions remaining - and the White House did not release all the information that was requested, appearing as if they had something to hide OR that they did not want to cooperate.

So, the minority party - using legally granted tools - delayed and/or blocked the confirmation vote. On the surface, I would say they acted in a respectable manner - looking out for the people. Of course, I know many of them only did it because they have a (D) behind their name, so that diminishes the respect a great deal. So too do I lose respect for Republicans who believe this guy is wrong for the job but would have voted to approve him only because of the (R) behind their names.

All in all, knowing that so many people questioned Boltons nomination, I feel that the issue deserved careful consideration and debate - not a rubber stamp of approval from Senate Republicans. If the only way the minority party can prevent the rubber stamp is by using a filibuster, or some other delay tactic, I have no problem with that - in theory anyway. If they are only blocking for partisan reasons, I have a problem - but come on it's not just partisan in this case - Bolton does not seem like the right person (to many folks, myself included) to be the top U.S. diplomat at the UN.

Quoting LAS757300 (Reply 12):
Not all opposition to Bolton has come from the Democratic Party.

True - as mentioned Voinovich (R-OH) very vocally opposed, or at least had questions about, Bolton. Also, mostly due to Voinovich, Bolton came out of committee without a recommendation to approve him. I would guess, but don't know for sure obviously, that many more Republican congressmen privately had reservations as well.

[Edited 2005-08-05 08:27:48]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush Pushes For Bolton UN Confirmation posted Thu Nov 9 2006 23:29:29 by Falcon84
Democrat Beats Republican... And The Dem Was Dead! posted Wed Nov 8 2006 21:29:15 by 727LOVER
Rumor About Another Republican Page Scandal? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 05:17:11 by Texan
2008 Republican Convention In St. Paul posted Wed Sep 27 2006 19:26:25 by AsstChiefMark
Gotta Love A Republican Era posted Tue Aug 1 2006 21:57:20 by Matt D
Your Republican Congress At It Again posted Thu Jun 29 2006 23:26:59 by Tbar220
NH Republican Voting Scandal Convictions posted Wed Apr 12 2006 07:03:44 by Tbar220
6 Months Later - John Bolton At The UN posted Sat Mar 4 2006 10:50:24 by Cfalk
More Bad News Concerning Mexico..... posted Thu Jan 26 2006 18:40:27 by Alberchico
Warning! Republican Flying Without A Safety Net! posted Thu Dec 22 2005 00:27:13 by Dan-Air