Dear BROWN voters, Do you appreciate...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

...seeing people such as Sonia Sotomayor reach the pinnacle of their abilities? Surely a state that can elect Ted Kennedy for nigh on half a century has a social conscience.

If so please explain how you just gave the GOP the ability to filibuster the president's judicial nominations.

Every other nominee as well: cabinet positions, agency chiefs, etc.

He either offers nominees to assuage them or he gets stonewalled while they bray about unfilled positions thus magnifying their slander that the president "dithers."

You just dragged our president into neo-con territory.



I really wish you had thought this out a little more.



EDITED: to correct title and expound since I upset folks by being unfairly general in my terms.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

5. ...

:rofl:

[jonnyblitz]

13. I know how you feel. I felt similarly when CT folks were getting

screeched at by DUers because Lieberman beat Lamont a few years back.

[Forkboy]

2. Dear Nuclear Unicorn,

I live in Mass. I voted for Coakley. Go to Free Republic and ask those Mass voters.

[pnwmom]

4. How are you holding up, MA-voter-for-Coakley? n/t

[Forkboy]

8. I'm too cynical over politics to be truly disappointed.

I expect the worst and I usually get it, so this is nothing.

Besides, look at Haiti or Rwanda or Liberia (or even my friend who is paralyzed)...things could be worse than losing a Senate seat. It sucks, but it's all relative.

[pnwmom]

15. How true. It helps to keep things in perspective. n/t

[tekisui]

27. Yep. We'll get up and do it all again tomorrow.

Really, not much has changed other than the level of the noise, which will subside in time.

[gateley]

3. The people here voted. Those you are talking to don't read DU. nt

[T Wolf]

6. Not COMPLETELY true. There are "holds" on many of the administration's nominations by

the pukes that will never see the light of day (or the inside of their office) like Southers at TSA - without the need for them to filibuster.

And there will always be so-called Dems who fuck up things as well.

The 60-vote, filibuster-proof, one-party rule has always been bullshit, at least as far as the Democrats are concerned.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. True but...

...this sure doesn't help.

As if the blue dogs weren't bad enough when we DID have a super-majority. now they have every excuse to go weak-kneed.

[virgogal]

7. You are preaching to the choir.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. True but...

...I'm not in the mood to visit the Church of Satan that is Free Republic

[WilliamPitt]

10. Yeah, cuz your shit isn't awe-inspiringly stupiud and generalized after the edit.

Seriously.

Don't go fuck yourself.

Whatever you do.

Don't go fuck yourself.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Instead of being rude in return...

...I'll ask:

Is it not reasonable to expect that a GOP emboldened and given back the ability to filibuster the president would seek to hurt him at every opportunity?

Why wouldn't they begin wholesale filibusters of his nominees?

I can't help but think the withdrawal of Mr Southers is fall-out from last night.

Obviously good democrats worked hard to wake people up before the nightmare but a nightmare is where we find ourselves today.

[WilliamPitt]

19. Spare me

Your OP was crap, before and after the edit.

Where do you live?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. You saying something doesn't make it so.

And I live in America...the country without universal healthcare, rampant environmental destruction, two needless wars, and possibly no more progressive judges after last night.

And I'm not happy about that.

Just because I happen to point that out is no excuse to be rude. Maybe a rhetorical OP wasn't the best way to go. I should have said, "What else last night means for us progrwssives..."

But you outrage is just silly and immature.

[WilliamPitt]

21. (facepalm)

[walldude]

11. LMFAO.. gonna find a lot of those Brown voters on DU...

[pnwmom]

17. Another DUer just insisted it was liberal Democrats who voted for Brown. n/t

[walldude]

25. Coming out of the woodwork today...

Think I'll come back tomorrow... after the troll patrol has finished it's job :)

[Bluebear]

14. Who are you addressing at DU?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. It's mostly rhetorical

And I have no desire to go to FR and address them personally because--well--those sorts of people are just plain mean.

[tkmorris]

22. Umm, read your OP again good sir.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Look, I'm not here to upset people...

...if I poorly expressed myself I'll own up to my mistake but I'm honestly not seeing it apart from people being upset that I APPEAR to blame the folks here for Coakley's loss.

I don't. Many people fought very hard to avert this train wreck. I understand this and appreciate their efforts.

I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact that this horrible election will have ramifications beyond HCR. Judges stay seated long after their appointing president has left office (Thomas and Scalia ring a bell?). That's not DU's fault. On the contrary the people here are far more informed and impassioned than 99.99% of the voters.

I was simply using a rhetorical flourish and it was poorly communicated. It's absurd to think anyone here would vote for Brown so obviously the issue is the style, not the substance. I try not to be misunderstood.

Pay me the courtesy to show me exactly what in my post upset you. I'd like to set the record straight and correct myself. I have no ego in this, I'll fess up if and when it's due.

But if I try to apologize and set the record straight I'd like to think people--especially progressives--would be quick to accept. Nerves are on edge, I get it but the rudeness of some is uncalled for.


BTW - I'm not a "sir"...just sayin' :hi:

[last1standing]

23. If 59 Democrats is "neo-con territory" they don't deserve their seats.

Its long past time to stop with the excuses and demand that our elected officials represent us! If they can't, or won't, then it's time to get rid of them - starting with Reid!

[leftynyc]

24. Force them to fillibuster

and don't cave at the mere threat. Make them sit there 24/7 and speak from the floor with no food or bathroom breaks. Obstruction will not be a hazy theory then - every night on the news will be the pukes reading a cook book from the senate floor while health care, judges, budgets get stalled. I remember the last time the pukes shut the goverment down - it got Clinton re-elected.

[Unvanguard]

28. That's not how filibusters work. All they have to do is repeatedly note the absence of a quorum.

No need to speak at all. A single Senator can do it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. What they did to Sen Sanders when he offered his HCR amendment...

...was unforgiveable.

[leftynyc]

31. Isn't a quorum

half plus 1?

[leftynyc]

32. Is this not the way it works?

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.<12>

Why can't Reid force this issue?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. I suppose that's one way of looking at it...

...as long as our guys hold to their principles (assuming the "moderate democrats" have any).