Because they can get away with it and that is their role.
Kennedy can hope to accomplish nothing more in his life than to enhance his reputation among those that still respect him.
Kerry still hopes to be President and he must curry the favor of the lefter wing of the party that might nominate him.
One might think you could learn from that, and grow. But it’s just a lot more fun to talk like a third-grade-reader version of Ann Coulter, isn’t it? It’s a lot less painful than thinking, isn’t it?
People like you are doing great damage to a country, and world, that I love very much. I think you even know it. Now try to accept a little responsibility, willya?
Senator Kennedy may well be self-righteous and a blowhard. But you’re quite mistaken about your last assertion: he DOES have business standing in judgement of others. Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution vests the Senate with the power of advice and consent to judicial nominations. Senator Kennedy is a senator. The Constitution does not limit this power only to Senators that have lived heretofore blameless lives.
Not only witty and observant, but a lot of syllables, too. I hope that that wasn’t your objection. Suck it up; you’d have been grinning if someone used that against a Democrat. Don’t perpetuate the myth of Republicans as being sour and humorless when opposed just because your chosen leaders choose that demeanor.
Clear as mud. This is why we have two parties in the Legislative branch, instead of a mindless body in lockstep with the President. Checks and balances. There’s nothing wrong with voicing a dissenting opinion.
Congress has the right to advise and consent. They also have the right to oppose nominations they don’t want. It can be for policy or past history or philosophical reasons, or it can be purely parisan. Congress is not supposed to just be a rubber stamp for anyone a president wants to nominate. They have the right to reject any SC nomination, as they see fit. As for the argument of “save it for the important fights”, I personally see that as what the Dems have been doing for years. It’s just code speak for “shut up and do what you’re told”. The purpose of an opposition party is to oppose. If it is then called “obstructionist”, then so what? How many abject failures and screw-ups has the administration created or perpetuated, because the Dems keep rolling over? If nothing else, win or lose, a filibuster would show that SOME Dems won’t roll over every time they are told to do so.
Yup, exactly this.
I suppose it might appear that way to people who feel that the key to success for the Democrats is to be more like the Republicans. To those of us who feel that the key to success for the Democrats is to unapologetically **be ** Democrats, they’re doing exactly what we chose them to do.
That was why I said independent and moderate voters.
IMHO: if the democratic old Guard couldn’t beat the Moron Bush and his evil corrupt sidekick **Dick ** Cheney, then I would say the Democratic party is out of touch with America. Please send us a Clinton type without the baggage and you could probably win back the center.
To me Kerry and Kennedy are everything wrong with the Old school Democrats. No real vision, no new answers, not even a “New Deal” or “Great Society”. What was Kerry offering except I am not Bush?
Ask yourself how the Democrat Golden Boy could lose the last election, then face the facts, you need to provide those in a middle a compromise candidate to ensure the Right doesn’t get another 4-8 years and retains control of the congress.
…Heck, give us a Dem that campaigns against wasteful government spending by the new Right Wing conservative Republican party. Steal their old issue. Give us a Dem that can function with a moderate Republican like McCain, Giuliani or Mayor Bloomberg.
…At least give me Barack Obama whose Public speaking skills are awesome and radiates personal integrity. Not my ideal candidate but if it came down to Barack Obama vs Jeb, at least I would fell like I was voting for a man of integrity vs. a scumbag. Instead of when I voted for Kerry and I felt like I was voting for a pathetic wealthy waste products over a stupid corrupt (wealthy) scumbag.
Jim
What exit?, Kerry wouldn’t have been my pick for candidate in 2004. I think he’s a good senator, and would have made a decent president, but he’s not exactly a shining example of vision and charisma. But if you think that the substance of his campaign was “I’m not Bush”, then how can you *also * think that his problem was that he was too far to the left?
Who is this mythical middle? And if they’re willing to vote for GWB, how moderate are they, exactly? Not very, IMO, and the Dems should stop pandering to them.
Jim, I’m not disagreeing with you about what you say, and I know that you’re responding to another poster’s comment to you. I happen to like Kerry and Kennedy as Senators, but I still had qualms about voting for Kerry as President. And yes, for me it was the “not Bush” factor, which was a very strong point for me. If it had been Kerry v. McCain, I may very well have voted for McCain; I happen to have a lot of respect for him.
Still, the OP is about the two of them acting in their Senatorial capacities, and I responded to that point. And, as such, I believe that they are doing exactly what they should be doing. My earlier comment about Kerry’s previous spineless support of the war in Iraq was because I believe that he was voting then with an eye toward a future candidacy, instead of voting as a Senator. I wasn’t sufficiently clear, and I’m sorry if it caused a hijack from the OP.
And yeah, I see Obama as a very real candidate someday.
I doubt a filibuster will stop Alito’s confirmation. That doesn’t mean it would be a waste of time or effort. Somebody has to make it clear to W that his political capital is spent.
. . . Relevance?
well to the knee jerk battlions, any quote coming from Kerry from some ritzy type place one w/great $$ would vacation at doing such wealthy only things like Skiing would naturally be tainted, as it were, from the fact that those good ole heartland type voters woudn’t be able to afford such things. and of course, would also not look for alternative reasons why the Senator might have been there. that pesky conference fer instance.
The Constitution doesn’t require that.
What makes you think there’s any difference, anyway?
Trust me, if the “lefter wing” of the Democratic Party gets to choose the 2008 nominee, John Kerry will not be our choice!
It never fails to astonish me how American conservatives view the left side of the spectrum through the wrong end of a telescope. Can’t make out essential distinctions to save their lives.
Me too. But “someday” wouldn’t be 2008; he’ll still be only a freshman senator then.
Well I think I am a moderate, I voted for Kerry despite a strong dislike for him.
It was purely an Anti-Bush vote however. I hate Bush for starting an illegal war while being a draft dodger. I hate Bush for picking an evil VP like Cheney and scum like Ashcroft & Rumsfeld. I hate the Bush admin for its steady pressure assault on Clean Air & Clean Water. I hate them all for pandering to the religious right. I hate them for driving the deficit back up again after it was finally heading the right direction.
I am a swing voter, maybe the Dems could just find someone less unappealing to swing voters.
Were Clintons more moderate policy distasteful to you?
I voted for him in his second term. It didn’t leave me feeling dirty like voting for Kerry did.
Plynck: You are correct, the pair from Mass. is acting in a proper manner but I do feel it would hurt the democratic party if they didn’t come out and say they wouldn’t support the filibuster. I dislike both Senators from Mass, and I guess this is obvious though from my post.
I would like to see either a moderate Republican or a moderate Democrat on the ticker next time. The last Election was a true Liberal vs. a true Religious Conservative. My worst case scenario.
Jim
:rolleyes: See above.
Jim, that’s exactly my point. A true moderate would not consider voting for GWB. Anyone who *would * consider voting for GWB is lost to the Dems, and they need to forget them. Now, I’ll grant you that only applies to elections where there the Republicans are running the equivalent of GWB, but when they are, there’s no practical reason for the Dems to inch rightward. All that accomplishes is to make **me ** feel dirty when I vote for them.
Some of Clinton’s more moderate policies were, in fact, distateful to me. But I’m not convinced that Kerry would have advanced a significantly more “liberal” agenda than Clinton did. If anything, I would have liked to see him take a stronger liberal stand on civil rights issues like gay marriage and abortion. Would it have helped? Well, it couldn’t have hurt.
Jim, give it up. I’ve given up hope of winning our party back to common sense until it fractures. The wing nuts and socialists are in control now, and their “answer” to everything is to move further and further left every time the electorate rejects the hogwash they’re selling. See, they know what’s best for all of us, how we should think, where our money should be spent, and who should indoctrinate our children with their morals. If we’d only shut up and do everything they say, our life would be bliss. Maybe after '08 when Hillary is trounced by whoever the pubbies nominate, decent Democrats with common sense and integrity will be able to stand up and say “enough!” and oust the fanatics. Then if the Republicans can do the same to their lunatic fringe, we might just have something. I ain’t holding my breath though.
What about John Kerry’s platform would provoke you to label him a socialist wingnut? I’m seriously asking. Because I’m utterly bewildered.