Wednesday, January 25, 2006

 

What Joe said

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Alito did not sufficiently answer questions of concern to Senate Democrats. ...

"I plan to vote 'no' on the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court," he said, "and I do so for three reasons: First, his expansive view of executive power; secondly, his narrow view of the role of the Congress; and third, his grudging reading of anti-discrimination law reflecting, in my view, a lack of understanding of congressional intent and the nature of discrimination in the 21st century."

Biden was my first choice in the '88 primary, until he withdrew for health reasons -- OK, and because Dukakis caught him "borrowing" phrases from speeched by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. Smart man, he is, nonetheless.

--ER

Comments:
chirp-chirp-chirp silence chirp- chirp- chirp
damn cricket
 
Dang it, I didn't have time this morning to dig out my "Bork the Dork" editorial from college. Maybe tonight.
 
Amen. Can I hear a whole buncha other "I vote no" please?

How much of a fool am I? I still have hope that we can keep Alito out. Not much hope, but some hope.

SuperB
 
Only two out of 43 presidents have been elected to the Presidency directly from the Senate. That was Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy. All the other Senators that became President did so because they were Vice-President when the President croaked, or had been out of the Senate for a longish bit. Last Senator elected directly to the Presidency from the Senate was Kennedy.
Betting on a Senator is simple not a good statistcal gamble. Besides they carry too much baggage with them, I.E. their Senate Record. Senators are not supposed to be leaders they are suppose to be compromisers (flip floppers). That's why the Democrats should not bet on any Senator this time if ever. Got any Govenors out there?
 
Alito's a shoo-in. 51 vote commitments as of this morning. If Dems filibuster (a long longshot) the Gang of 14 will break apart and it'll be thermonuclear legislative war. And the GOP will win -- 'cause they got the numbers.

Simple lesson: Elections have consequences. When Clinton won, the consequences were Ginsburg and Breyer. Now that Bush won, it's Roberts and Alito. That's the way the game is played.
 
Yes election do have consequences. Did you notice in the 20th Century that every time America needed to kill a whole lot of its enemies it elected a Democrat to do it? As I said in an earlier post the Democratic Presidential kill ratio for the enemies of America is about 50 to 1, Democrats to Republicans within the last hundred years. Republicans talk war and then piddle and piss around when the fighting starts, Democrats talk peace and and then when the fighting starts they slit your throats or nuke your cities. Republican talk big and swagger, Democrats compromise then Kill.
Republicans measure blood in pints. Democrats measure it in acre-feet.
Ole George W. and tne Neo-con Republicans got us into this Middle-Eastern War, it will take the Democrats and everal hundred thousands of casulties to get us out.
Elections count, and the Democrats damn well better elect a viable KILLER next time.
 
But it was also a democrat that caused the Cold War. That same president fired his best general after refusing to give him the authority to destroy the Red Chinese. Had Truman allowed Patton and McArthur to do what needed doin', the cold war would have been averted and the twentieth century would have unfolded much differently. Better? Maybe. Maybe not. I just wanted to point out that Dr. Lobojo's theory has a few holes in it.
 
What Drlobojo said. And that sums up my attitude: Peace, peace, right up until it comes to ass-kickin' time.

Rem, I think Truman fired the hothead to keep him from walking into a billion Red Chinee who would have destroyed the whole dang U.S. armed forces.
 
Patton was being over-ruled by Eisenhower whom you may remember was latter a Republican President. Ike thought he was a psycho and he was. McArthur almost lost the damn Korean War by letting us get pushed all the way down to an itsy-bitsy little pennensula in the very end of Korea (people tend to forget that), not to mention that he violated a direct order from the comander in chief in order to get himself fired.
What theory?
I am talking numbers of dead.
Let's just look at what our America Soldiers had in the way of casulties under Democratic Presidents:
Wilson: dead 53,513 wounded etc. 267.900
Roosevelt: dead 291,131 wounded etc. 786,000
Truman: dead 33,651 wounded etc. 103,248
Ike: got a little piece of Korea
Kennedy& Johnson: dead about 30,000
wounded about 120,000
Nixon: dead 18,000 wounded about 40,000
Reagan: dead about 600 wounded unk.
G.H. Bush: about 400 wounded unk.
Clinton: several hundred killed
G.W. Bush: dead 2,300 wounded unknown.
Now remembering that our Kill ratio are now about 10 of them to one of us and in WWI it was about 3 to 1.
Which Party has had to stand up and do the deed?

Oh Yes, I did not know that Stalin was a Democrat, didn't he have a lot of say in starting the Cold War? Was Ho Chi Minh a Democrat? Does anyone think we could have really kicked their ass and gotten away with it at that point in history? The guy that really had the solution was General Curtiss LeMay who want to take his new Hydrogen Bombs and his new B-52 bombers and do a first strike, Ike thought he was a mad man and of course didn't let him do it. Good thing I guess, in that we would have had a few environmental problems afterward.
Except for Nixon, the Republicans ain't done no respectable amount of killing since the Civil War.
Hurrah!
 
Yeah, but Ike was being overruled by Churchill and Truman. With the help of the Germans (who would have loved the chance), we could have pushed Russia back across the Volga. Too many people were tired of killin' though. That, and the Pacific Theatre was still open when the iron was the hottest. 'Twould have been unprecedented.

As for McArthur - he deserved to be fired. That's correct. However, had Truman given him (or LeMay) the authorization to use 'the bomb' like he (they) wanted, China would not have been able to do much except bleed and burn.
 
As to this, Does anyone think we could have really kicked their ass and gotten away with it at that point in history? - yes, I do. Our military output was astronomical - we were supporting Russia. The bomber 'fleet' in the ETO would have been unstoppable by the Soviets. There would have been a large loss of men and material, but the US-German coalition would have beaten them.

The biggest rub would have been separating the regular Wehrmacht from the war criminals. Would it have mattered? Could it have been postponed to the conclusion with the Ruskies? What about the SS? When the iron was the hottest, the horror of the concentration camps was just sinking in. Maybe it would have been impossible, politically, to enlist the newly vanquished Germans, I don't know. It's a fun mental exercise though.

Even without the German help, I think we could have done it. I've heard several estimates on our atomic capabilities after the two dropped on Japan. Atomic bombs may not have been available, but I think the conventional bombs would have been enough.
 
I'm stayin' out of this one. My preferred century of study is the 19th!
 
Well I'm not sure conventional bombs would have been enough, but as I alluded to, General LeMay had the stuff to actually do it and get away with it. We could have blown away any and all opposition in the USSR and China and put them into the stone age for a century, as early as 1954. Like it or not it was a Republican President (Ike)who said no. I think Truman might have gone for it, he was wierd enough to do it, but we will never know. Actually I'm damn glad they didn't, turned out pretty fair anyway.
By the way check out the Sunday post for a reply.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?