The BS continues: What Chuck Schumer said about the filibuster when the shoe was on the other foot
16 thoughts on “Banana Republic, “breaking Democratic norms,” etc.”
Comments are closed.
A public record of some of my thoughts. Feel free to comment, but don't expect me to respond.
Comments are closed.
Since your post really is a whataboutism…let’s make some more…
Obviously, Repugs are complaining about something they’ve also done…like, why was Schumer whining back in the day? Now the Repugs are bitching about what the Dims might do.
The filibuster is not in the Constitution. Constitution mentions just a majority of votes in the Senate. The filibuster is what kept slavery and Jim Crow the law of the land for so many years. IDK if that was a good thing or a bad thing. Maybe things would have turned out for the worse if we didn’t have the Civil War when we did. Maybe it was good to delay it. We’ll never know.
As for hypocrisy, we can talk about the Repugs refusing to put Garland to a vote for SCOTUS because it “was an election year” (8 months out before election), and then they confirmed Amy Coney Barret just 2-3 weeks before an election.
Repugs sure can get triggered.
As for my opinion on filibuster… I’m probably not for modifying. If anything, if we’re going to have it, we should make it a real filibuster and not the wimpy kind we have now. If they want to block legislation, then they should have to stand and speak at the podium instead of just phoning/voting it in.
I’m all for the filibuster if it was used to legitimately spark authentic discussion and debate about very serious matters. Yet, in today’s environment, it’s used primarily as an obstruction device and sometimes eliminates potential legislation that could be for the common good of the nation.
I sometimes wonder if the founders could have predicted how our political system would diminish, if they would have been more intentional about codifying and clarifying certain standards instead of leaving them as “expected norms” to be followed by people of good will. I suspect you need a different set of standards when you have people who are looking out for the common good of the country than those who are only looking out for their self-interest and/or partisan interests.
How is my post “whataboutism”?
And yes, Republicans and Democrats switch back and forth on these things, showing the hypocrisy of both sides.
It’s good when hypocrisy is called out on either side. Yet, an interesting dynamic is that it’s typically called out when it’s the “other side”. Somehow, the side that’s doing the calling out tends to consistently miss like issues on their side of the aisle or only confesses to it under stress.
That said, a comment like “the BS continues” is appropriate in this context and Schumer should be taken to task. I suspect the same should be noted relative to McConnell and Graham when they were doing their hypocritical song and dance with Supreme Court nominations.
I believe I called out McConnell when he threatened to change the filibuster, but I can’t find it. There was an unfortunate incident a while ago that caused me to erase a lot of my older posts.
It is certainly true that we tend to notice errors in our opponents and not in the people on our side.
My hypocrisy brush is broader than the filibuster issue. It’s about many partisan topics discussed by numerous pundits and commentators. I find it very common on both sides for them to not point out issues with the same frequency and fervor on their side as they do their opponents.
Another interesting dynamic is that some will utterly crucify their opponent for a given partisan issue/behavior but justify and defend to the hilt their side doing the same thing. Somehow it’s “right” when they do it but not when their opponent does it. It’s the kind of thing that makes one shake their head in total bewilderment.
What’s up the Newt Gingrich stating that members of the Jan. 6 investigation committee are at risk of “jail”? Is this the stuff of a banana republic, going after political rivals when they gain power?
“I think when you have a Republican Congress, this is all going to come crashing down. And the wolves are going to find out that they’re now sheep and they’re the ones who are in fact, I think, face a real risk of jail for the kinds of laws they’re breaking.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/cheney-fires-back-gingrich-jan-6-commission-jailing-claim-2022-1
Chaney spoke well when she said…
”A former Speaker of the House is threatening jail time for members of Congress who are investigating the violent January 6 attack on our Capitol and our Constitution. This is what it looks like when the rule of law unravels.”
Did you look at what Gingrich actually said?
He claims (you can see it here) that the Jan. 6 panel is running over the law, pursuing innocent people and causing them to spend lots of money on attorneys for no justification, etc. “It’s basically a lynch mob.”
I don’t know if Gingrich is right or wrong about that, but it puts what you said in a different light.
I saw that clip with Gingrich. He does’t provide any scrap of evidence that the panel in question is running over the law. If someone really thinks that this is so, let us see the evidence. As to “pursuing,” this is typical vagueness and ambiguity on Fox. Innocent people may be asked to come to interviews or even be formally summoned, as in any legal proceeding. But that does’t mean that anyone is “pursuing” them in any hostile sense. A case in point is the recent request of an interview with Ivanka. From all appearances she was actually trying to get her unhinged father to stop the insurrection. The commission has every right to know about the particulars of this event, but that doesn’t mean that they are out to get her. As for spending money on attorneys, this is again no different from the usual legal proceeding.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect Gingrich to provide evidence of such things in that forum.
The question William raised is whether this is “banana-Republic-ish,” and there’s nothing in Gingrich’s response that is any more banana-Republic-ish than what the Democrats are doing right now.
The Democrats claim — without presenting any evidence — that these people were involved in an armed insurrection, and they’re investigating a bunch of citizens (some or most of whom are innocent) and they’re also trying to investigage various Republicans. They think they have reasonable evidence to suspect a crime (on the part of protestors and various Republican figures), so they’re investigating.
Gingrich is saying exactly the same. They think they have reasonable evidence to suspect a crime (on the part of the Jan. 6 committee), so they might investigate in their turn.
This is all crazy behavior, because we know that these are partisan investigations designed to make political points. I doubt anyone on the planet believes these are honest, by the book, fair and legal investigations to find the truth. And if there is such a person, I have a bridge to sell him.
QUOTE: The Democrats claim — without presenting any evidence — that these people were involved in an armed insurrection, and they’re investigating a bunch of citizens (some or most of whom are innocent) and they’re also trying to investigage various Republicans. Gingrich is saying exactly the same. They think they have reasonable evidence to suspect a crime (on the part of the Jan. 6 committee), so they might investigate in their turn.
First, it’s not just Democrats, the committee is comprised of Democrats and Republicans. Interestingly, the Republicans wanted no parts of this committee when it was first proposed.
Second, if Gingrich’s perspective is correct then more than the January 6 committee should be culpable and “face a real risk of jail for the kinds of laws they’re breaking”…given the committee is following the protocol of previous congressional investigations chaired by Republicans. BTW Newt, what laws are being broken?…the people want to know.
Well said, Robin.
In October 2012, there were more than seven Congressional probes of the Benghazi attack, mostly led by Republicans. One investigation cost 7 million dollars and went on for two years. They used the similar methods as the Jan 6 committee and yet they were not consider a “mob” at risk of being jailed for exercising their legitimate authority.
Maybe good ole Newt was projecting and expressing concern given how Republicans handled previous congressional investigations. According to an interview with Kevin McCarthy, the Benghazi probes had “done their job”. He went on to say, “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would’ve known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.” With comments like that one has to wonder what was the real purpose of the investigation. Were “they” going after a political opponent for partisan purposes?
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough when I said “we know that these are partisan investigations designed to make political points” — meaning almost all the investigations either side has done for the past couple decades.
What Gingrich said was simply a reflection of the current rules of the game, and was no worse than what the Democrats have been doing. And the Republicans before them. And the Democrats before them ….
QUOTE: What Gingrich said was simply a reflection of the current rules of the game, and was no worse than what the Democrats have been doing.
What Gingrich said was “…they’re the ones who are in fact, I think, face a real risk of jail for the kinds of laws they’re breaking.”
Given Gingrich’s actual comments, should Republicans have been at real risk of jail? Is it appropriate to make statements about jailing political opponents once your party is in power (especially without clear evidence of breaking the law)?
QUOTE: Did you look at what Gingrich actually said?
Yes. Yet, based on your response, I’m wondering what you saw when you looked at it.
QUOTE: He claims (you can see it here) that the Jan. 6 panel is running over the law, pursuing innocent people and causing them to spend lots of money on attorneys for no justification, etc. “It’s basically a lynch mob.”
On what basis is he making these claims? The activities of the committee is within the purview of a congressional investigation. What laws are being broken? What evidence does he present that the panel is abusing its power? Why should he believed just on mere accusation?
A lynch mob??? No, the lynch mob is the ones the committee is investigating. Interestingly, that mob actually had a noose outside the Capitol Building shouting that it should be used on the Vice President of the United States.
QUOTE: I don’t know if Gingrich is right or wrong about that, but it puts what you said in a different light.
How so? He provided no legitimate evidence for why committee members are at risk for be jailed. Chaney was apt in her characterization of his comments.