All this after getting on Television and swearing to work with President Bush, "we will work in a bi-partisan way to make sure the Congress is working for the people that elected us" Nancy Pelosi.

President Bush is just as guilty of saying that he'd work "bi-partisanly" but doing the opposite.

For example: John Bolton wouldn't have been confirmed by the Republicans, either. I don't think it matters whether or not he could do the job well, he wouldn't get confirmed because there are enough people in both parties that hate him. I really think that even if the Republicans had held on, he wouldn't have been confirmed. I don't think he's the man for the job, but that's just me.

As for the judges? There was that group of 12 that were confirmed without a fight, and most of these judges aren't just republicans - they're über republicans. Again, many of these are repeat confirmations that couldn't be done by a republican controlled congress. One of these guys has been on the confirmation table for twelve years. something tells me there's a reason that he's not being confirmed.

I respect your fear of the democratic congress, but I really think it's too early to be accusing of lack of bi-partisanship when the president seems to be so set on not working with them.

Ignoring the obvious liberal mumbo jumbo directly above...

I love that Bush sent back a strong slate of highly qualified judges that have thus far been blocked.  I love that he is not backing down on Bolton either.  He shouldn't just fold up his tent and go home and let the Democrats have their way with the congress and the country.

The judges that he sent up have one thing going against them - a refusal to find law where none exists, and refusal to make things easy on criminals.  They deserve -- at a bare minimum -- an up or down vote.  If the Democrats can't be honest with themselves and the country to even allow that, then they are pathetic and they have done and will do absolutely nothing bipartisan.

That being the case, I hope that they find the same level of bi-partisanship hits them square in the face in the form of vetos and filibusters from the other side.

The same holds for Bolton.  He has done a good job in his position and deserves to continue there.

In the case of some of the judicial nominations, the Republicans could vote now on those nominees but they won't because Arlen "I might as well admit to being a Democrat" Spector won't allow the votes while the lame duck session goes on.

Reply By: San ChoninoPosted: Friday, November 17, 2006 All this after getting on Television and swearing to work with President Bush, "we will work in a bi-partisan way to make sure the Congress is working for the people that elected us" Nancy Pelosi. President Bush is just as guilty of saying that he'd work "bi-partisanly" but doing the opposite.

but this article is NOT ABOUT bUSH, IT IS ABOUT HOW QUICKLY the Democrats have already staked out oppossing positions 180% from Bush. Five subjects, five differences from the president, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

For example: John Bolton wouldn't have been confirmed by the Republicans, either.

Wrong. He would have, but there was not enough to overcome a filibuster.

Bush not working with Democrats? Ummm...who wrote NCLB? Who co-wrote the Patriot Act? (Hint: Starts with D and ends with s).

Aren't you guys sick of R's and D's?

Don't you wish we had more in life then talking about losers like R's and D's?

Don't you wish we had more in life then talking about losers like R's and D's?

Very nice, Dan, very nice . . .

Reply #2

Reply #3

Reply #4

Now I remember why I don't talk politics on this site very often . . . because the minute you think differently you're shoved in your place.

Buncha conservative asshats.

The Democrats have stated there will be no conservative SCOTUS judges no matter how qualified to be confirmed and appointed.

Hmmm, if a candidate for a job is refused even an interview even though they are highly qualified... isn't that called "discrimination" and aren't the democrats supposed to be against that?

I was just teasing with my comments, always trying to lighten the mood on weekends I am.