Whoa. Other than asking, "Who is Mitch McConnell?" do you think the Times or Post will find these quotes salient enough to print?

I can't wait until Obama's second term, when he'll likely be replacing Kennedy and Scalia. We haven't even begun to see crazy yet.

Since this is an example of an ahistorical power move, we should check McConnell's intent by asking him if he thinks he is doing battle against the Democrat Socialist Party or simply shit-stirring against a popularly elected president!

McConnell is such a cool dude... the whoredom of the big media doesn't even need to look anywhere else for the typical "opposing views" blather they call journalism... McConnell is a whole meal-in-himself... sold gold 100% horse shit... thoroughbred, too!

*

Reports are that the Republicans are gearing up for a big fight over Obama's Supreme Court nominee- a nominee who hasn't even been announced? So much for good faith on the part of Republicans or any idea that bi-partisanship means to them what it means to normal people.

Perhaps Democrats will run them for as their candidates for Senate in the next elections.
Posted by: mhr

Stop talking Pig Latin.

Besides, your "example" doesn't stick. Republicans were running so many lies and bullshit about WMDs, smoking guns, mushroom clouds, yellow cake, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, etc. etc. etc. down the democrats and public's throats I think independent thinkers will forgive a moment of indiscretion on the part of a few democrats.

I'm assuming mhr is a fan of those Democrats who didn't wet themselves in fear, didn't shred the treaties to which we are parties, were against torture all along, who where consistent, stuck to their principles.

And will be rewarding them in the future with his support, and his vote.

Because torture is wrong, period.

Right?

Malleable principles. As in a President who would exhibit such cowardice as to secretly abandon all moral high ground for the security and safety imagined in an Inquisition Torture Chamber.

What really sticks in my craw is that, when Dems opposed Bush's nominations, they opposed specific ones (and confirmed, without much protest, more than they opposed). What the Repubs are gearing to do it oppose, a priori, without knowing whom Obama is likely to nominate. He could nominate Solomon and they'd find something wrong with him. The "something wrong" being -- *Obama's* nomination.

PS mhr must have really, really badly wanted to post; it has managed to hold its rabidly vicious white supremacism in check for an entire paragraph!

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." Groucho Marx

The only principle the GOP still has is the pursuit of power....

He could nominate Solomon and they'd find something wrong with him. The "something wrong" being -- *Obama's* nomination.

Scratch a Republican, find a monarchist.

Look at this from the GOP's point of view. They are America -- you're not. It's their country, not yours. The Democratic Party can have a parliamentary majority, or win the White House in an election, but all that's irrelevant. Those things don't confer legitimacy. Nothing can change the basic fact that it's their country, you're here on sufferance, and they are the only ones who get to run it.

No one Obama can appoint will be legitimate, because he can't make a legitimate appointment. Not because he stole the elections -- hell, elections don't matter, we saw that in 2000. Elections didn't confer authority to the GOP -- the Mandate of Heaven did that. And elections can't take authority away from the GOP, either.

The GOP occupies the place of a monarchist party in a republican parliament, one that's not interested in eventually replacing the governing party as part of the inevitable merry-go-round of parliamentary government. They're only interested in restoring the ancien regime by any necessary means.
Krugman nailed it:

It seems clear to me that one should regard America's right-wing movement—which now [2003] in effect controls the administration, both houses of Congress, much of the judiciary, and a good slice of the media—as a revolutionary power in Kissinger's sense. That is, it is a movement that does not accept the legitimacy of our current political system.

So where is McCain going to come down on this issue? Remember he was one of the gang that supposedly prevented 'nuclear option' from being put in place.

We already know from the election that he quite capaple of abandoning principle when it suits him. But since then he's been trying to recapture some of his old street cred as a moderate.

heck, the gop is so starved to find something to do to appear relevant, i bet they'd fillibuster if obama renominated bork!!

Oh yes, the 3000 people who died on September 11 are still dead. Khalid and Abu-Zubaydah are alive.

So is Bin Laden, the guy who financed the whole thing, and he's not even in American custody. Remember when Bush said he "didn't care" where Bin Laden was because he just wasn't that important?

Good times, good times.

Well, this is why we (liberals) should have supported the nuclear option when Republicans made it available to us. Each party thinks they are going to be in the majority or the minority permanently but really, each party, after electoral victories, should be able to enact their policies without super-majorities. If the policies are deemed to be failures by the electorate, then we can vote them out. But now, unfortunately, we hold parties and individuals responsible for what are really institutional failures. And that is no way to effectively run a democratic process.

When things cooled off, liberals discovered they were against being mean to terrorists....
Posted by: mhr on May 17, 2009 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK**************************************

mhr, what a joke you are. Not just liberals, but other sane, patriotic Americans are for this thing you probably haven't heard of, and clearly don't care about, called the Rule of Law. Torture is against national and international law, plain and simple. Furthermore, you don't believe in American institutions and legal standards, do you? Since when do we torture mere 'suspects' with no due process...No habeas corpus...No representation...Indefinite detentions...Renditions to countries known for inhumane treatment...etc, etc. All this for mere suspects? We've all seen the pictures of the dogs and the hoods, the wires, the naked bodies, etc. Are you as big a fool as you portray yourself to be? In your mind, "not brutally torturing a suspect" = "not being mean to terrorists"??!! WTF? You have no credibility. But do keep talking as you seem to like the taste of your toes.

it is a disgrace and disservice to the notion of principle to use the term in the context of a republican, given that republicans and republicanism are/is the antithesis of principle.

cathy,
If you care, you are in violation of the rules of posting. Do not try to dump your crap on this blog.

Steve, Please delete her messages. They are appearing on multiple posts!