CE9

[Galactus]

Why wouldn't the best man be someone with frothing disdain for the very office he holds?

[Artknocker]

shin said:

Here's a great chance to really counter the GOP propoganda of Fox News with a blatantly pro-Democrat news channel...

Even if Fox News is pro-Republican, there already is a blatantly pro-Democrat news channel: CNN--not to mention MSNBC, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News and NPR. Seems to me more conservative outlets are needed on TV to counter that six-headed monster.

[ken]

No.

To quote Maddox: Liberal media: Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media." To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.

[ken]

And here, artknocker, is a fairly convincing study on the polarization of the media.

www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/books/review/31POSNER.html

[Artknocker]

Pundits need not be included, as they are clearly opinion-based.

"PAX" I didn't know "America's Funniest Home Videos" was so neo-con!

[Artknocker]

The New York Times? I wouldn't trust that liberal rag as far as I could throw its Sunday edition.

[rockysigman]

For the record, the Constitution does NOT require the Senate to vote on appointments. They have the power to accept or reject nominees, but nowhere in the Constitution are they required to vote on every one.

In my opinion, it's a fair interpretation to say that the Senate has made their recommendation by refusing to vote. They have several options in considering candidates, and refusing to vote is one of them. They rejected him by refusing to approve him. This type of thing is not mentioned one way or the other in the Constitution, and is clearly allowed for in the Senate rules.

Now, I realize that it is a common interpretation of the Constitution that the Senate should vote on every nominee, but this certainly isn't a literalist approach because the Constitution says nothing of the sort. But to claim that refusing to vote is a clear violation of their Constitutional responsibilities is clearly false -- it definately not explicit no matter what the interpretation. And considering how much of the Constitution was instituted for the sole purpose of ensuring that minority opinions are not trampled by the majority, it seems pretty reasonable to think that the Framers may have intended this to be a possible way for the Senate to work.

[Galactus]

Rocky, even if that's the case do you feel it's the right to bypass that process and send such a contraversial choice...almost seemly just to spite both those who oppose him as well as the UN itself?

[shin]

artknocker said:

Even if Fox News is pro-Republican

This is where I stopped reading the post.

[chrisfan]

rockysigman said:

For the record, the Constitution does NOT require the Senate to vote on appointments. They have the power to accept or reject nominees, but nowhere in the Constitution are they required to vote on every one.

In my opinion, it's a fair interpretation to say that the Senate has made their recommendation by refusing to vote. They have several options in considering candidates, and refusing to vote is one of them. They rejected him by refusing to approve him. This type of thing is not mentioned one way or the other in the Constitution, and is clearly allowed for in the Senate rules.

Now, I realize that it is a common interpretation of the Constitution that the Senate should vote on every nominee, but this certainly isn't a literalist approach because the Constitution says nothing of the sort. But to claim that refusing to vote is a clear violation of their Constitutional responsibilities is clearly false -- it definately not explicit no matter what the interpretation. And considering how much of the Constitution was instituted for the sole purpose of ensuring that minority opinions are not trampled by the majority, it seems pretty reasonable to think that the Framers may have intended this to be a possible way for the Senate to work.

For clarifications sake (assuming you are responding to me here) I did not say that they're constitutionally bound to vote. I said it's their job to vote. Semantical to a degree, but a relevant difference I think. Sure the Constitution is the basis of their job, but it does not cover all aspects of the job.

The problem with a non-vote here is two fold. First, it puts the entire process in a huge stall. Now, if it is extrememly important that we have a low-key, mild-mannered, diplomatic, UN-loving representative at the UN, because it's such an extremely important organization, then isn't it important that we HAVE a representative? A no vote means we have no one. Sure, Bush could withdraw the nomination and put someone else up, but why? The votes are there to confirm Bolton ... it's just the BS of actually voting that we can't get through.

No one would sit by and say "that's cool" if the state of Illinois had pushed back their primaries last year when Jack Ryan dropped out, because Alan Keyes sucked as a nominee and the Republicans wanted more time to come upwith someone better. There is a rpocess you follow, and when it's time to vote, you vote. Why should the standards for Congress be any different?

[rockysigman]

chrisfan said:

For clarifications sake (assuming you are responding to me here) I did not say that they're constitutionally bound to vote. I said it's their job to vote. Semantical to a degree, but a relevant difference I think. Sure the Constitution is the basis of their job, but it does not cover all aspects of the job.

The problem with a non-vote here is two fold. First, it puts the entire process in a huge stall. Now, if it is extrememly important that we have a low-key, mild-mannered, diplomatic, UN-loving representative at the UN, because it's such an extremely important organization, then isn't it important that we HAVE a representative? A no vote means we have no one. Sure, Bush could withdraw the nomination and put someone else up, but why? The votes are there to confirm Bolton ... it's just the BS of actually voting that we can't get through.

No one would sit by and say "that's cool" if the state of Illinois had pushed back their primaries last year when Jack Ryan dropped out, because Alan Keyes sucked as a nominee and the Republicans wanted more time to come upwith someone better. There is a rpocess you follow, and when it's time to vote, you vote. Why should the standards for Congress be any different?

Yeah, I was responding to you. I know it all kind of got lost in the chatter of the day. I guess I could have quoted for clarification. Sorry.

The main tenents of their job are dictated by the Constitution, which we agree (not that there is a reasonable disagreement on this point) does not dictate that they must vote.

As for whatever aspects of the job are not laid out in the Constitution...well, I understand that there's a lot of disagreement on what people want Congress to do, but outside of what's written in the Constitution, and to a lesser extent within their own rules, I just don't think you can get very far insisting that something is their job. Perhaps you want it to be, perhaps even it should be, but it is a fact that it is not their job just because you say so. Unless there are enough of you to really set your foot down and vote whoever out of office for stonewalling a vote.

As for the problems you list...well, yeah, it does stall the process, but that comes from both sides. It couldn't be any clearer to Bush that he is NOT going to get a vote on Bolton. And, as I said, IMO, a refusal to vote is a legitimate way of rejecting a nominee. With this being the case, then Bush is just as guilty of stalling the process by continuing to push him as anyone in the Senate is for refusing to vote on him. A no vote doesn't have to mean we have no one. It could just mean that we have someone else, if Bush would care to nominate another candidate without such obvious drawbacks.

In general, electoral politics do prevent these things from getting out of hand. The Democrats know that, when they are next in the White House, they are likely to face similar problems from Senate Republicans as they are giving Bush now. For this reason, they don't do this for every Conservative nominee, just the ones that they find truly and unbearably objectionable. And if they step too far then they'll pay for it in political capital.

And the difference between this and the situation in Illinois last year is pretty simple. The law. The law states that the election is to be held on a particular day. The law does not state that any particular party has a right to field a candidate in every election if they can't have one nominated by election day. The law does NOT require a vote on presidential appointees. Pretty simple, in a nation of laws, IMO.

[Topdog]

chrisfan said:

rockysigman said:

There is a rpocess you follow, and when it's time to vote, you vote. Why should the standards for Congress be any different?

Because we keep electing nimrods to public office who, for some reason, think that once they are voted in the rules no longer apply to them. It all becomes about special interests and money and getting re-elected and special interests and money and getting re-elected, ect.

[rockysigman]

Which rules are you talking about, Topdog? Refusing to vote on a nominee breaks exactly ZERO rules.

[rockysigman]

ded said:

Rocky, even if that's the case do you feel it's the right to bypass that process and send such a contraversial choice...almost seemly just to spite both those who oppose him as well as the UN itself?

I don't think it's wise to do this. I don't think it's necessarily ethically wrong, and recess appointments, just like refusing to vote for nominees, is well within the law (although whether or not his appointment is still valid past the point that Congress reconvenes is, I think something that has not yet been settled historically--I'm sure Mary could help me on that detail). But, again, both sides should be careful about when they do this kind of thing, as it can always blow up in your face.

And no, I don't like Bolton at all, and I think appointing him to UN Ambassador will further damage our position in the world. However, it's within Bush's rights to be boneheaded, and I think it might help give the Republicans the boot in the next few elections. This isn't enough to actually make me want to put him in there, but hey, I'm just trying to find some silver lining.

[Galactus]

Right. I'm not questioning if he can do it, but simply discussing whether or not it's a good idea.