FLAIT

It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor.
- Sen. Charles Grassley in 2005

Regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote."
- Sen. Mitch McConnell on 2005

Now:

"'Under the rules of the Senate, all things (the filibuster) are possible."
- Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2009

More here.

IOKIYAR.

Since 1) Republicans never bring responsibility, maturity or anything of substance to the table, ever, 2) all they do is attack, attack, attack, attack - during last years campaign Barack Obama went from a "liberal" (I wish), to an "elitist," to a "socialist" to a "fascist" to a "terrorist" - and 3) they had to come up with shouting points to hand to their brainwashed base, the "best" they could come up with was that Sotomayor's a "bigot," a "racist" and "affirmative action" nominee. It didn't matter it that it made them look like foolish hypocrites (which they don't care about since their only
objective is to keep their brainwashed base in a perpetual state of anger...at liberals).

Sotomayor's obviously not a racist. Do Republicans really believe Obama would nominate a racist to the Supreme Court, knowing full well the G.O.P. would do what they're doing and have the ammunition to do it? Obama's not stupid (but we know who is).

Another racist attack that makes yet another Republican look incredibly foolish is here. And a racist group's disgusting attack is here.

Instead of having a mature, honest and intelligent debate on Sotomayor's record, this is what we're dealing with.

I'd like to remind you these are adults (and Congressmen!) that are acting like this. But the next time Republicans act like adults, and have a mature, honest and intelligent debate on, well, anything, and don't play their nasty partisan politics, it'll be the first time.

Regarding Republican attacks on Sotomayor's qualifications and being an "affirmative action nominee," Salon's Joe Conason writes:

When the wingnuts attack Sotomayor with inaccurate stereotypes, they're projecting onto her the shortcomings of their own beloved Clarence (Thomas).

Eighteen years ago...the lingering question about the man selected to replace the legendary Justice Thurgood Marshall was whether he fulfilled the White House description of him as "the most qualified [candidate] at this time." As Thomas confessed in his memoir a few years ago, "Even I had my doubts about so extravagant a claim."

So extravagant was Bush's assertion as to verge on comical. Far from being the "most qualified," Thomas was a nominee with no experience on the bench beyond the 18 months he had served on the U.S. District Court of Appeals. He had never written a significant legal brief or article. He had achieved no distinction in private practice or law enforcement. He had never even argued a case in federal court, let alone at the U.S. Supreme Court...

Flash forward now to the discussions within the first Bush administration over how to replace Marshall, the liberal lion whose departure provided conservatives with a chance to spin the direction of the court. Every account of those deliberations indicates that Bush and his aides went through a list of potential African-American nominees to the high court -- and rejected politically moderate judges with better qualifications than Thomas, such as Amalya Kearse. They picked him because they had to fill a "black seat" on the court, and because he was prepared to enforce their ideology on the court -- a function he has reliably performed in lockstep with Justice Antonin Scalia. (bold mine)

In other words, Thomas was chosen from a Bush White House shortlist that excluded white males – supposedly a profound sin when committed by the Obama White House in selecting Sotomayor.

So a lack of experience and trivial qualifications are okay as long as they're extremely conservative "affirmative action nominees" appointed by Republican Presidents. I see.

But wait, there's more!

Republicans have pounced on this from Sotomayor: "(the) court of appeals is where policy is made."

Ah ha! You see, she is a "liberal activist" judge!

Um...

Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well.

...the judges of inferior courts often make law...
- Antonin Scalia

IOKIYAR. No, really, IOKIYAR!

But wait, still more!

Another line of attack was Sotomayor's apparent compassion and empathy she has for those who come before her in court.

...when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases --I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position...

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
- Sam Alito, during his confirmation hearings

A terrific summary of all these attacks, lies and hypocrisy is here.

All together now, it's OK of you're a Republican!

Note: It's only fair to point out that Democrats are also bought and paid for by the health insurance industry and many of them are blocking a public/"single payer option" as well. They're also bought and paid for by the teachers union, so of course they'd oppose vouchers.

The Justice Department is going after those who violated their oath of office by giving classified information to reporters. Those reporters will be sitting in jail by the end of the year until they reveal their sources."
- Republican Pete Hoekstra, August, 2007

Now:

Hoekstra did not attend the (classified intelligence) hearing, but said he later spoke with Republicans on the subcommittee who did. He said he came away with even more proof that the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA proved effective. “I think the people who were at the hearing, in my opinion, clearly indicated that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked”
- Republican Pete Hoekstra, June 4, 2009

So it's okay to leak classified information...if you're a Republican!

One of the messages I had -- because we need to build trust and confidence in our number one creditor, is that the budget numbers that the US government had put forward should not be believed. The Congress is actually gonna spend quite a bit more than what's in the budget, and the health-care bill probably being the lead driver of additional spending by the Congress.

That would be like a business man having a line of credit with a bank and one of the businessman's workers telling the bank that he "doesn't have the money he says he has" and due to a chronic medical condition, he'll be "spending quite a bit more then what he originally budgeted."

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow puts it better perspective here.

What would Republicans be saying screaming if Kirk was a Democrat?

I'll tell you: Why does Mark Kirk hate America?

IOKIYAR.

Heading into a critical vote, House Republicans are unified against the $106 billion war supplemental bill, saying because they don't trust President Barack Obama's promises to never let certain detainee abuse pictures see the light of day.

Why do Republicans hate the troops?

IOKIYAR.

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.

And yet, it was George Bush (George Bush!) who sent prisoners - terrorists, who we were told, would kill Americans on the spot given the chance - from Guantanamo Bay to the Care Rehabilitation Center in Riyadh, the Saudi government's rehabilitation program for jihadis. It's a "former resort complex, complete with swimming pools, and other recreational facilities."

Let me repeat that: George Bush sent terrorists from Guantanamo Bay (you know, the place that Republicans don't want any prisoners released from, ever) to a former resort complex, complete with swimming pools, and other recreational facilities in Saudi Arabia.

Hey Republicans, why was George Bush such a soft on terrorism, "bleeding heart" liberal?

Incredible. Only a cult can get you to dismiss such hypocrisy.

December 28, 2009 insert:

Americablog:

ABC: Two al Qaeda Leaders Behind Northwest Flight 253 Terror Plot Were Released by Bush in 2007...The Gitmo detainees were sent to Saudi Arabia, where they underwent "art therapy," and then were set free. But now the Republicans have a problem with President Obama wanting to try suspected terrorists in US courts. Maybe if we promise the maximum sentence will be "art therapy," the Republicans will come on board.

Hey Republicans, why did George Bush hate America?

February, 2010 insert:

Brennan: All Transferred Detainees Who Returned to Terrorism Were Released by Bush, No Recidivism for Those Released by Obama

Can you imagine what Republicans would be screaming - screaming! - if it was Obama that released prisoners who later "returned to terrorist activities"? My God, impeachment hearings would commence...tomorrow!

So you see how this works? Not only is it okay for Republican Presidents to release terrorists, but if/when they return to terrorist activities, there's not a peep out of the GOP. But if it was done by a Democratic President...

Yup, it certainly is OKIYAR.

July, 2009 insert:

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

Then:

...on April 16th 2008, then Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed some of the same end of life counseling she now decries as a form of euthanasia. In a proclamation announcing “Healthcare Decisions Day,” Palin urged public facilities to provide better information about advance directives, and made it clear that it is critical for seniors to be informed of such options...

But wait, there's more!

Republicans voted for "death panels" in 2003:

GOP officials John Boehner, Thaddeus McCotter, Johnny Isakson, and Chuck Grassley all voted in 2003 for a measure very similar to the one in the current House health care bill they now suggest in various ways could lead to government-encouraged euthanasia.

IOKIYAR.

Yet another August, 2009 insert:

While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes...$8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland...

Now:

The AP reported earlier this month that Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R-LA) administration is planning to request $300 million dollars from the federal government to develop a high-speed rail between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. The trains, which would run at about 79mph, would be part of a larger Gulf Coast rail plan with top speeds of 110mph. Much of the money, however, comes from the Recovery Act, a stimulus measure Jindal not only opposed, but recently called a failure.

IOKIYAR.

September, 2009 insert:

According to news accounts, there are 32 or 34 so-called czars in the Obama White House. Respected voices in the Senate—Senator Byrd and Senator Hutchison, a senior Democrat and a senior Republican—have pointed out that these czars are an affront to the Constitution. They’re anti-democratic. They are a poor example of a new era of transparency which was promised to this country. They are a poor way to manage the government and they seem to me to be the principal symptom of this administrations eight-month record of too many Washington takeovers.

Sen. Alexander in 2002 and 2003:

(President Bush) talked about appointing a sort of manufacturing job czar in the Commerce Department, which I would welcome.

Within a few weeks the Congress will be considering the nomination of Randall Tobias to be the new AIDS czar...who is not yet confirmed by the Senate. I hope he will be.

But that's nothing. In response to a question about Obama's "czars" this past July, Bush's political advisor cult director Karl Rove tweeted:

darned if I can figure out all the czars, despite a giant expansion of Presidential power.

Ah, Rove was Bush's "domestic policy czar!"

But wait, there's more (don't you know by now there's always more?)!

Bush had more czars then Obama!

Hey Republicans, why was George Bush such a Communist?

Again, they don't care when they're proven wrong, proven to be blatant hypocrites and in the process made to look terribly foolish because that's what cults make you do...for the cause.

And because IOKIYAR.

October, 2009 insert:

Over the past nine months, House Republicans have worn their Party of No badge with pride, opposing every spending bill to come down the pike and littering the airways to moan about America's descent into socialism...

Of course Washington is rife with people who try to take credit where none is due (see: Bush, George; "Mission Accomplished"), and if it was just one or two shameless hypocrites pulling this nonsense we could dismiss it as just that -- shameless hypocrisy. But sixty-seven times? That's not coincidence, that's policy.

No, it's not "policy," it's OK if you're a Republican!

February 2010 insert: More Republican stimulus hypocrisy is here.

But wait, as always, there's more. A lot more. This Rachel Maddow video clip should not be missed (she had to make a small correction, here, but is still able to prove hypocrisy. And since there's no end to Republican hypocrisy, there's more here.).

September, 2010 insert: More exponential, pull-your-hair-out Republican hypocrisy on the stimulus is here. It's incredible. It really is. October, 2010 insert: Even more is here.

November, 2009 insert:

The Republican National Committee’s health insurance plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls "a fundamental assault on innocent human life."

So let me see if I have this straight: were it up to the militant, pro-life Republican Party, abortions would be banned. And Republican Congressman voted, in unison, to prohibit abortion coverage in the public option or any insurance plan in the exchange. But if you work for this militant, pro-life Republican Party, striving every single day to ban abortions, your abortion would be covered.

I see.

But wait, as always, there's more!

The Republicans took the health care legislation concerning end of life counseling sessions families would have with their doctors, and turned them into shouts of "death panels" and "Obama was going to pull the plug on grandma."

From Think Progress:

...Cigna, the RNC’s health insurance provider, also urges beneficiaries to think about end-of-life services. Cigna’s website has a page called “Care at the End of Life,” which covers topics such as how to talk with “loved ones” about “end-of-life choices” and whether to stop life-prolonging treatment.

It’s unclear whether the RNC’s insurance plan covers these end-of-life consultations, and neither Cigna nor the RNC replied to inquiries from ThinkProgress. But nevertheless, the RNC’s insurance provider has posted information on its website advising beneficiaries about the complicated questions that accompany decisions at the end of someone’s life.

I guess it's okay to kill grandma if you're a Republican...a pro-life Republican.

November, 2009 insert:

(Barack Obama) is caving into political correctness and the left wing base of his political party...I am really disgusted by it...To me, it’s truly an insult to the memory of those killed on 9/11. - Rep. Peter King

...holding the trial in New York "emboldens terrorists" and (the) Obama administration's failure to recognize terrorist attacks as acts of war is a victory for the terrorists. - Sen. James Inhofe

The Obama administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people. - House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Umm, 195 terrorists were prosecuted in federal courts during the Bush Administration.

And, ah...

...Prime Minister (Rasmussen of Denmark) and I share values, and he spent time making sure that I understood his strong belief that when we fight the war on terror and we help new democracies, that we've got to uphold the values that we believe in, and he brought up the Guantanamo issue. And I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister is concerned about the decisions that I made on -- toward Guantanamo. I assured him that we would like to end the Guantanamo. We'd like it to be empty. And we're now in the process of working with countries to repatriate people.

But there are some that, if put out on the streets, would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world. And, therefore, I believe they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States...(bold mine)
- George Bush, June 2006

You see? It's okay to put terrorists on trial in the United States, in federal court...if you're a Republican!

December, 2009 insert:

...Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats are intent on "sticking it to seniors with cuts to Medicare."

Sen. John McCain said:

I will eagerly look forward to hearing from the authors of this legislation as to how they can possibly achieve a half a trillion dollars in cuts without impacting existing Medicare programs negatively and eventually lead to rationing of health care in this country.

That is what this motion is all about. This motion is to eliminate those unwarranted cuts...

However, in 1995 Newt Gingrich and the Republicans passed legislation that would have...

...cut $270 billion, or 14 percent, from projected Medicare spending during the next seven years (President Clinton vetoed the bill).

And in 1996, Gingrich said:

We don't want to get rid of it in round one because we don't think it's politically smart...But we believe that it's going to wither on the vine because we think (seniors) are going to leave it voluntarily.

In fact:

...since 1991, Senate Republicans have voted to slash $1.31 trillion from Medicare while their Republican counterparts in the House voted to take over $1 trillion away from America's seniors.

I guess it's okay to kill grandma if you're a Republican.

But wait, as always, there's more! During his Presidential campaign last year:

John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs. (bold mine).

So let me see if I have this straight: Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have opposed Medicare ever since it was created in the 1960s...and they've been trying to cut it and/or kill it ever since...But then they use double talk to scare seniors by telling them that Democrats are cutting Medicare, which is exactly what the GOP wants, but they're opposing them...after proposing them...

Either that's more Republican Logic or more Republican hypocrisy. Hey Republicans, which one is it?

February 2010 insert: Republicans still want to kill grandma!

December 29, 2009 insert:

In the wake of the attempted terrorist bombing of a U.S. airliner, the actions of Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) is giving new meaning to the phrase, "ugly American."

It isn't enough for Hoekstra to just try and cash in on attempted terrorist attacks, he's also decided to do a media tour to peddle blatant hypocrisy:

Hoekstra says the U.S. needs to be more forward-leaning in its approach to terrorism and put into place the latest technology for dealing with it.

Well, sure, except when Hoekstra is voting against that technology:

... A full 108 Republicans voted against the conference version, including Boehner, Hoekstra, Pence, Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, Darrell Issa, and Joe Wilson.

The conference bill included more than $4 billion for "screening operations," including $1.1 billion in funding for explosives detection systems, including $778 million for buying and installing the systems.

So let me see if I have this straight: It's okay for Republicans to vote against anti-terrorism funding, but if/when Democrats fail to fund them, they would be labeled shouted down as...hmm...what's that "oldie but goodie" talking point again...?

Soft on terrorism!

I see. It's okay to be "soft on terrorism" if you're a Republican. But wait, there's more:

In the aftermath of the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas day, we've learned a number of things: that Republicans, while burnishing their Party of No creds, voted against funding the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), that two of the al Qaeda leaders allegedly behind the plot were released by the Bush administration into an "art therapy rehabilitation program," and that there is no permanent head of the TSA because of Jim DeMint (R-SC):

An attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day would be all-consuming for the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration — if there was one.

The post remains vacant because Sen. Jim DeMint , R- S.C. , has held up President Barack Obama's nominee in opposition to the prospect of TSA workers joining a labor union.

So we have Republicans refusing to fund anti-terrorism efforts, Republicans who made poor decisions on releasing terrorists, and a Republican who is playing politics with the TSA because he doesn't like unions.

All which can mean only one thing. The attempted terrorist attack that occurred last week is all President Obama's fault.

Keep in mind, all this hypocrisy was in less then four days two days since a long Christmas weekend was involved.

(January, 2010 insert: Original reporting was incorrect. It's unclear as to which terrorists were released, how many, and if they had anything to do with the attempted attack, here.)

December 30, 2009 insert:

But wait, still more!

Politico:

Eight years ago, a terrorist bomber’s attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner was thwarted by a group of passengers, an incident that revealed some gaping holes in airline security just a few months after the attacks of Sept. 11. But it was six days before President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the press or any opposition Democrats that his response was sluggish or inadequate. That stands in sharp contrast to the withering criticism President Barack Obama has received from Republicans and some in the press for his reaction to Friday’s incident on a Northwest Airlines flight heading for Detroit.

...Like the Obama White House, the Bush White House told reporters the president had been briefed on the incident and was following it closely. While the Obama White House issued a background statement through a senior administration official calling the incident an "attempted terrorist attack" on the same day it took place, the early official statements from Bush aides did not make the same explicit statement.

Bush did not address reporters about the Reid episode until December 28, after he had traveled from Camp David to his ranch in Texas.

Unlike President Obama who made a formal appearance in front of the media just three days later. And then spoke about it again the following day.

..."Four days after Richard Colvin Reid, 28, tried to set fire to his explosives-laden shoes on a trans-Atlantic flight, neither the White House nor other authorities had spoken officially on the alleged would-be suicide bombing," AFP wrote on Dec. 27, 2001.

...While many congressional Republicans and their supporters have been critical of Obama, (Republican Reps.) Hoekstra and King have been the most ubiquitous, becoming regulars on cable TV, providing details about the case at a time the administration was still tight-lipped.

In an appearance Monday on WCBS-TV in New York, King said, "I'm disappointed it's taken the president 72 hours to even address this issue. Basically nobody, the president, the vice president, the attorney general, nobody except [Homeland Security] Secretary [Janet] Napolitano has come out..."

And speaking Monday on Fox News, Hoekstra took a similar tack, arguing that the slowness of Obama’s reaction showed terrorism wasn’t high on his agenda. "On many other instances and occasions the president is out front. He’s out front leading very early on a lot of different issues. When it comes to terrorism to the threat to the homeland, the president has decided to stay silent for 72 hours. He needs to explain that," said the Michigan Republican, who is the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee. "Why this is not a priority? It should be his No. 1 priority."

Must be okay to ignore a terrorist attack if you're a Republican President.

It's incredible when you think about all this hypocrisy. Because were it not for Republicans having done what they later accuse Democrats of doing, it wouldn't be hypocrisy. So time after time after time after time after time...the amount and regularity of the hypocrisy is incredible. It really is.

So whenever Republicans accuse Democrats of "hating America," "loving terrorists" or being "Socialists," "Nazis" or whatever the "attack of the hour is," you can be sure it's the Republicans that are those things, not the Democrats.

What's scary is that the GOP has done such a great job brainwashing their mindless and gullible base (how much more proof do you need?) that they don't notice, care or see the hypocrisy at all (which is exactly what cults do). And that's what this is all about. It's not about the truth, the facts, logic or governing responsibly; it's not about terrorism, "keeping the country safe" or making health care more affordable and accessible; it's not even about what's best for the country.

What all this hypocrisy and all these nasty partisan attacks are all about, is - stop me if you've heard this - keeping the Republican base in a perpetual state of rage at Democrats. And if that means playing incessant, hypocritical attack politics with the nation's security and making sure we keep the most asinine and most expensive health care system in the world the way it is well, everything, so be it.

Those Republicans sure love America, don't they?

December 31, 2009 insert:

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow sums up all these lies and blatant hypocrisy, including Dick Cheney's, here. I strongly recommend watching it because she does an excellent job of making these Republicans look very, very foolish (not that they care) and then incredulously calls them out on all of it.

She also shows clips of Dana Perino and Mary Matalin making statements regarding the timing of the 9/11 attacks that puts their mental stability into question (January, 2010 insert: and Rudy Giuliani's as well. Another January, 2010 insert: More Giuliani insanity/say-anything-the-base-will-gobble-up/hypocrisy, courtesy of Rachel Maddow, is here). I'm serious. Either that or this is a cult because no sane person would tell such an ignorant, foolish lie (with the straight face they did) that they know sets themselves up to look ignorant, foolish and insane (but that's exactly what cults get you to do).

Again, I strongly recommend watching this clip.

We came very close to a terrorist attack that would have rivaled Pan Am 103. But instead of thanking God at how lucky everyone on that flight was, instead of offering the President constructive ideas that would make this a safer world, instead rallying behind the President, instead of just keeping their mouths shut, the GOP used this terrifying incident to rally against the President, rile up their base and raise money.

They sure know how to play politics, don't they? If only they cared about the country half as much.

February 2010 insert: Maddow goes after more of Dick Cheney's hypocrisy here.

It never ends.

# posted by Steve