Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes based on his statement 24 years ago he is a hypocrite but he wasn't the senate majority leader, you need only go back 1 week to see the hypocrisy of the senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. There are plenty of examples on both sides as you stated, do we need to do a treasure hunt and keep score.
Mitch McConnell stated in 2009 that he would obstruct Obama every chance he could if he follows through on this threat as he had for the past 7 years it will take it to the next level.
You are spinning.
Stop being a sheep.
Anyone with a thinking brain should realize that had Romney won in 2012, then today in 2016, ALL of the big Democrats would be arguing what the Republicans are currently and vice versa.
Yes McConnell is a hypocrite. Guess what, Obama is a massive hypocrite, not just for putting into action nearly every Bush position that he blasted, but for opposing Bush's nomination on ideological grounds, something that he is trying to deny to the current senate.
Biden, Obama, Harry Reid and many Democrats are hypocrites.
So are many Republicans like McConnell.
They can get away with being hypocrites, because there are many sheep in their flock who excuse it away or ignore it. You can't be mad at Republicans that are sheep and excusing or downplaying their hypocrisies, because you are bahhing out a similar tune.
We must hold our politicians accountable or we will get more of the same.
In 1992 there was a distinct political season, since 2000 there has only been a political season and that is always underway ...
There have been primaries. We are in the middle of an election cycle. I don't know what the best answer is but both parties have said it should wait, albeit at different times, such as when the congress is a different party than the president. Nonetheless, if Hillary or Trump get elected you'll get your liberal judge anyway.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Anyone with a thinking brain should realize that had Romney won in 2012, then today in 2016, ALL of the big Democrats would be arguing what the Republicans are currently and vice versa.
Yes McConnell is a hypocrite. Guess what, Obama is a massive hypocrite, not just for putting into action nearly every Bush position that he blasted, but for opposing Bush's nomination on ideological grounds, something that he is trying to deny to the current senate.
Biden, Obama, Harry Reid and many Democrats are hypocrites.
So are many Republicans like McConnell.
They can get away with being hypocrites, because there are many sheep in their flock who excuse it away or ignore it. You can't be mad at Republicans that are sheep and excusing or downplaying their hypocrisies, because you are bahhing out a similar tune.
We must hold our politicians accountable or we will get more of the same.
I am not even questioning that if the shoe was on the other foot the democrats would be questioning appointments, Schumer, Obama already have but they were not senate leaders. A senate leader threatening to filibuster for a year when they don't even know the nominee is new ground but I wouldn't expect anything different from McConnell but this is pretty up front.
This from 2009:
“Mitch said, ‘We have a new president with an approval rating in the 70 percent area. We do not take him on frontally. We find issues where we can win, and we begin to take him down, one issue at a time. We create an inventory of losses, so it’s Obama lost on this, Obama lost on that. And we wait for the time where the image has been damaged to the point where we can take him on.’ ”
One will never get anywhere pointing out Democrats' hypocrisy on any issue. Their sycophants simply don't care.
Of course, Biden was wrong anyway. As with the Scalia vacancy (and as I stated), the president should nominate someone, and the Senate can take as long as they want to follow through.
bottom line, the Pres gets to nominate but the senate has the right and duty to provide what the constitution calls Advice and Consent.
What The Constitution means by that is that the Senate is a check on the power of the President. THis is one of the beautiful parts of our Republic. We have a process that allows the people to insure that a well deserving president is backed by a congress that is supportive OR with a president that has caused the public some concern, those same people can elect a congress that will check that president.
just about a year and a half ago, the AMERICAN PEOPLE SPOKE by limiting the powerbase of the president. The AMERICAN PEOPLE gave republicans their largest House majority in a generation, and turned the democrats out in the Senate. This second part, that gave majority power to the republicans in the Senate was a very loud and certain sound.
CHECK THIS PRESIDENT. The republicans are now constitutionally in the position of providing this president a check on his power. They have every right to say things now that they would not have said 2 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Period.
IN this case, we lost a Justice that believed the TEXT of a law mattered and who believed in an Originalist interpretation of the Constitution. The Majority party has every right to demand his replacement be a person with the same convictions and perspective. AND to refuse to even give hearing to any they don't want to give a hearing to.
Its the Constitution and the American PEOPLE who have spoken. As Mr. Obama says "Elections have consequences"
I am not even questioning that if the shoe was on the other foot the democrats would be questioning appointments, Schumer, Obama already have but they were not senate leaders. A senate leader threatening to filibuster for a year when they don't even know the nominee is new ground but I wouldn't expect anything different from McConnell but this is pretty up front.
This from 2009:
“Mitch said, ‘We have a new president with an approval rating in the 70 percent area. We do not take him on frontally. We find issues where we can win, and we begin to take him down, one issue at a time. We create an inventory of losses, so it’s Obama lost on this, Obama lost on that. And we wait for the time where the image has been damaged to the point where we can take him on.’ ”
im not sure what the issue is with what Mitch said there.
I agree with that.
It is also very much in keeping with what every democrat has done thru the years with popular republican presidents.
whats your point?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
