February 16, 2005
OBSTRUCTION IS AS OBSTRUCTIONIST DOES:
The Baddest Man in D.C. (JONATHAN CHAIT, February 11, 2005, LA Times)
It's entirely natural that Republicans would have no love for a leading Democrat. And there's nothing wrong with hating a particularly loathsome member of the other party, or even of your own party. I've done plenty of both myself. The trouble is that this particular campaign is highly dishonest.A headline on the RNC document, for instance, calls Reid the "Chief Democrat Obstructionist." Now, "obstructionist" has a very specific meaning. An obstructionist doesn't merely try to stop legislation he disagrees with. If that were the case, every minority leader in a legislative body would be guilty of obstructionism. Obstructionists try to stop any legislation from passing, good or bad, merely to prevent the majority party from claiming credit. During the first two years of the Clinton administration, Republican Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole kept setting his preconditions higher and higher until eventually he renounced his own healthcare bill. Now that's obstructionism.
What act of actual obstructionism has Reid committed?
Bush Tries Luck Again With Judicial Nominees (Michael A. Fletcher and Charles Babington, February 15, 2005, Washington Post)
Bush has said that his nominees are well qualified and deserve a vote in the Senate. "Every judicial nominee deserves a prompt hearing and an up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," he said yesterday.Posted by Orrin Judd at February 16, 2005 6:32 AMWord of the nominations, which the White House had signaled in a December statement, was met with dismay from Senate Democrats and the activist groups that support them. Democrats vowed to continue opposing the candidates they had previously blocked.
"We should not divert attention from other pressing issues facing this nation to re-debate the merits of nominees already found too extreme by this chamber," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the Senate minority leader.
"What act of actual obstructionism has Reid committed?"
Jonathan, you ignorant slut! You've already forgotten he's voted the Party line on every filibuster vote in the past four years, haven't you?
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 16, 2005 1:06 PM"...nominees already found too extreme by this chamber."
That's just it; they weren't found too extreme by the "chamber", only by an obstructionist minority. "Chamber" dishonestly implies a full vote of the chamber was taken and the nominees lost. Dissembling is yet another form of obstructionism...and extremism, to boot.
Posted by: Noel at February 16, 2005 9:28 PMMr. chait is tech. correct here, as Harry Reid has not had the opportunity to obstruct, therefore he cannot be called an obstructionist...yet. Gosh I get miffed whenever 6 year olds cut hairs and try to argue like that.
Posted by: Dave W. at February 17, 2005 12:17 AMMr. chait is tech. correct here, as Harry Reid has not had the opportunity to obstruct, therefore he cannot be called an obstructionist...yet. Gosh I get miffed whenever 6 year olds split hairs and try to argue like that.
Posted by: Dave W. at February 17, 2005 12:18 AMSenate Democrats still act as if they're in charge and that their votes are the ones that really matter, and their's alone.
Posted by: Dave W. at February 17, 2005 12:21 AM