Comments: 9 Score: [-] 265 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 9 months ago by DorK:
That sucks. I like McCain. But politics is politics and I'm sure McCain would do the same had the situations been reversed.
but what does this mean:
Mr. von Spakovsky's nomination was approved by the Rules Committee in September, but then Mr. Obama intervened with a "hold." Other Democrats have since joined him.
How is Obama able to "hold" the Comittee up when they have already approved of Mr. von Spakovsky's nomination.
Side note: Spakovsky is a cool name
Score: [-] 34 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« DorK : That sucks. I like McCain. But politics is politics and I'm sure McCain would do the same had the situations been reversed.
but what does this mean:
How is Obama able to "hold" the Comittee up when they have already approved of Mr. von Spakovsky's nomination.
Side note: Spakovsky is a cool name Politics is politics, but sort of behavior is past that. This should be criminal. He is not doing is job that he has sworn to do so that he can benefit personally.
I don't know if McCain would or wouldn't do so. Perhaps he would. However, if he did, I am sure way more publicity would result than this.
Obama is able to hold it up according to procedural rules, than surprise surprise, other democrats are joining him to put the party ahead of the nation. That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. It is also unfair to the man being hired. His livelihood is put on hold while the play mafia-tactics instead of their sworn duties.
Score: [-] 14 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by DorK:
« 2manyusernames :
Obama is able to hold it up according to procedural rules, than surprise surprise, other democrats are joining him to put the party ahead of the nation. That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. It is also unfair to the man being hired. His livelihood is put on hold while the play mafia-tactics instead of their sworn duties. Now I don't want Obama to be president but IF he is able to hold up the nomination because of the procedural rules, than how should it be criminal. Sure, he isn't doing his job he is sworn to do but ALL the major candidates have done something in their own personal intrist.
The way I see it (and I don't know everything about this nomination process) is that Obama is trying to run McCain out of the race financially and he has found the oppertunity to do so and is acting upon it.
Score: [-] 34 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by dollyllama:
Well sheesh, who would have thought in a grotesquely slanted opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (run by a devout Republican who gets away with a virtual monopoly due to his connections) that the facts would be wrong?
Guess no one bothered to check.
Now I'm not going to give an opinion on whether von Spakovsky should or shouldn't be appointed but it wasn't Obama who held it up.
Oh here's a bit more on von Spakovsky, yeah, he sounds like a real peach.
Oh and this is even more interesting because it may well be the Republican Senator McConnell who has more to do with this than any Democrat.
Fascinating stuff.
Score: [-] 106 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by PulsisX:
Don't worry 2many it will all even out with the republican hacked e-voting machines.
Score: [-] 49 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« DorK : Now I don't want Obama to be president but IF he is able to hold up the nomination because of the procedural rules, than how should it be criminal. Sure, he isn't doing his job he is sworn to do but ALL the major candidates have done something in their own personal intrist.
The way I see it (and I don't know everything about this nomination process) is that Obama is trying to run McCain out of the race financially and he has found the oppertunity to do so and is acting upon it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it is right in all situations. What he is doing may or may not be illegal, but it is wrong.
A security guard at the airport can hold you up to do a screening. If that person did so for personal reasons than it is wrong from a civil matter and perhaps a criminal manner as well.
If you could prove he was holding it up just to screw McCain well you could make a case that he was derelict in his duties (not sure if that is criminal) and a civil case could easily be made by McCain and Spakovsky. Of course you could never prove his intent.
I feel he (and anyone else that does similar actions) should face some sort of severe penalty. His actions hurt McCain, Spakovsky, and the American people. I know they won't and I am only slightly more mad that this isn't getting more news coverage. (Unless the WSJ has it wrong or is exaggerating)
I do wonder if they are 2 people short of a quorum, Obama's hold up of 1 person hurts, but the problem would still exist if the guy was confirmed.
Score: [-] 14 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« dollyllama : Well sheesh, who would have thought in a grotesquely slanted opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (run by a devout Republican who gets away with a virtual monopoly due to his connections) that the facts would be wrong?
Guess no one bothered to check.
Now I'm not going to give an opinion on whether von Spakovsky should or shouldn't be appointed but it wasn't Obama who held it up.
Oh here's a bit more on von Spakovsky, yeah, he sounds like a real peach.
Oh and this is even more interesting because it may well be the Republican Senator McConnell who has more to do with this than any Democrat.
Fascinating stuff.
That first link says that Kennedy protested the appointment, not that he held it up or am I missing something?
It does appear that McConnell might also be part of the blame (perhaps even originally to blame) and deserves to be censored or face some sort of criminal action, but he isn't more to blame. He might even share 50% of the blame, but I don't think it is a majority.
However if the hold up has been for 18 months, that would point that Obama isn't solely to blame. He might just be the latest hold-up. Still he is doing his part for personal gain which is wrong.
After 18 months of problems, you'd think Bush would just appoint another candidate. I guess you could even say that Bush shares part of the original responsibility for failing to appoint someone else.
I don't know much about Spakovsky, but I am tired of people saying that requiring picture IDs to vote is racist or prevents people from voting. That is silly. I guess I feel that way because when I started voting Hawaii required IDs and there were no problems. Hawaii has large number of many many different minorities and is solidly democratic.
That is a moot point. It does appear that there is more to this than just Obama cashing in. That doesn't mean that what Obama is doing is right or that he should be allowed to do it, but it does point to a larger story.
Score: [-] 32 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by dollyllama:
« 2manyusernames : That first link says that Kennedy protested the appointment, not that he held it up or am I missing something?
It does appear that McConnell might also be part of the blame (perhaps even originally to blame) and deserves to be censored or face some sort of criminal action, but he isn't more to blame. He might even share 50% of the blame, but I don't think it is a majority.
However if the hold up has been for 18 months, that would point that Obama isn't solely to blame. He might just be the latest hold-up. Still he is doing his part for personal gain which is wrong.
After 18 months of problems, you'd think Bush would just appoint another candidate. I guess you could even say that Bush shares part of the original responsibility for failing to appoint someone else.
I don't know much about Spakovsky, but I am tired of people saying that requiring picture IDs to vote is racist or prevents people from voting. That is silly. I guess I feel that way because when I started voting Hawaii required IDs and there were no problems. Hawaii has large number of many many different minorities and is solidly democratic.
That is a moot point. It does appear that there is more to this than just Obama cashing in. That doesn't mean that what Obama is doing is right or that he should be allowed to do it, but it does point to a larger story. I'm really not so sure it's for personal gain. Since it's been going on for 18 months and this guy clearly has an agenda that is pro-republican win at the risk of violating civil rights, I think holding him up is the only AMERICAN thing to do. If McConnell would allow the nominees to be voted on individually then 3 people could be seated who are also nominated and that would be enough to allow a vote on McCain's issue (which, he may not get in his favor anyway).
Apparently McConnell's loathe for McCain is such that he'd rather let the Dems win this round then let McCain get the opportunity for a vote. Sounds like he's the major stumbling block here.
There's lots of information on von Spakovsky on the net. The ID thing was just the tip of the iceberg, perhaps the tip-off to what this guy was really up to, there's plenty more that he did and what he did may very well have swayed the election in Florida in favor of Bush. If Bush appoints another nominee he may be backing out on a favor to the guy that got him in office for a second term and he may not be able to find another nominee who would as effectively get another Republican elected, which from everything I've read this is exactly all von Spakovsky is really doing when he starts changing the way things really work (read up on him, you'll find he's really bad news).
Score: [-] 56 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« dollyllama : Much Wisdom. Thank you for clarifying and pointing out the misleading slant in the article
Just assume this says "woman"
Score: [-] 54 [+].
< 1 >
