its fair to single him out on a thread that is devoted to singling him out as being better than the rest when he has displayed monumental levels of hypocrisy on every aspect of the detainee situation. i don't think its a willingness to compromise on beliefs. compromise is something i'd submit obama does too much. in the case of graham its hypocrisy in the sense that he doesn't really have those beliefs, he just wants to act like he does, so he can come off as a sensible moderate conservative. i don't think he has any specific beliefs on these issues in fact. there's no reason to think he does. secondly i actually don't think there's that much hypocrisy on major positions from many members in congress. the democrats typically don't have balls, but its not duplicity or hypocrisy, its lack of convictions in that their policies would appeal or lack of belief that they could sell them. and for most republicans, i really think they are bat **** crazy (ie cornyn, sessions).
To paraphrase something that IIRC B-Bob pointed out a while back, anybody who can draw the ire of both the glynch/insane man demographic as well as the OddsOn/thumbs/giddyup demographic enters my evaluation with serious bonus points before even the first word is said.
This statement is r****ded. Was she nominated by Obama because she was "competent." As in was her hat drawn out of a hat out of a list of 5000 other "competent" candidates? Or was her name advanced because her ideological beliefs are in line with the particular political agenda by the White House for any litany of political issues the Supreme Court will engage during her tenure and her personal ties to Emanuel, Summers and the rest of that cabal? Graham is actually a douche and he's making those statements for political gain since there's no way for him to gainsay the inevitable confirmation for Elena Kagan on the floor or in committee... I guess because as demonstrated on this thread most Americans will automatically extend a halo of gratitude whenever their own views are validated by a politician: .... he just said he wont oppose my candidate... I dont know why but I suddenly feel like he's an okay guy. I dunno why...
As Graham said its to be expected that a President would nominate someone with ideological beliefs, and other ties, that they would agree with. That is what it means by "elections have consequences." That doesn't mean that they aren't competent. I agree that Graham is a douche but not for the reasons that you cite, but I don't see what he political gain he has. He is from a very red state and there is little political gain for him to just go along with Obama.
You seem to have a reading comprehension issue here. Hayes said that it is Congress' job to make sure the candidate conforms to a minimal level of competency. The President's job, on the other hand, is to choose whichever candidate he wants, for whatever reason he wants.
very uplifting to see such a thing. this whole vote along party lines is getting out of hand. i wish that the people who we chose to represent us would actually choose what they believed in instead of whatever their party told them to vote for.
Hyperpartisanship in general starting after the 2000 elections. Failed nominees have always had problems - that's nothing new. After Bork, you had Souter, who got 90 votes. Clinton's nominees - Ginsberg and Breyer - both got 85+ votes as well. So Bork isn't particularly relevant here. All of the nominees in the 2000s have gotten fewer than 80, with Roberts doing the best (78 votes), then Sotomayor (68), then Alito (58), though those numbers don't take into account how many opposition votes each got. It will be interesting to see where Kagan fits in.
Elections have consequences. I must have made people puke from having to read that phrase, due to the number of times I've posted exactly that here over the years. Damn right they have consequences, which is why someone who doesn't bother to vote and pay attention during elections is a fool, with no reason to complain.
