Tag: Hypocrisy

Death of the Filibuster – Brought to You By Our Principled U.S. Senators

The death of the filibuster is at hand, at least for Supreme Court nominations.  But slaying of the filibuster dragon requires a whole bunch of U.S. Senators to raise their hands on the Senate floor and proclaim for all to hear, “I am a hypocrite.”  You’ll see why below.

This hypocrites hall of fame list includes each and every Senator, as it turns out, who has said they will filibuster the Gorsuch nomination.  But before we put our Scarlet Letter around the necks of each of those likely luminaries, let’s pay homage to the scant few who stand for some principle. Any principle.  To the few who understand that the business of the United States requires accommodation, compromise, and respect in order to move forward the business of the people, if only in small steps. So who populates that list?

Hat’s Off List

First and foremost, a large tip of the hat to West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.  Sure, he’s up for re-election in a State President Trump won by over 40 percentage points.  And yes President Trump made his big political move to support coal the other day.  Manchin may have his own personal political reasons for refusing to filibuster – can you say, political survival? But supporting a vote on the nominee is still supporting a vote, so a large tip of the old visor to Senator Manchin.

Second, a small tip of the hat to the Senate’s most senior Democrat, Vermont’s Pat Leahy, who said he’s “not inclined to filibuster” the nomination.  But that “inclination” was not a final decision, even for the allegedly-principled Leahy: “I am never inclined to filibuster a [Supreme Court nominee].  But I need to see how Judge Gorsuch answers my written Qs, under oath, before deciding.”  Leahy is the former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  Having presided over two Supreme Court nominations by President Obama, he should know better.

Death of the filibuster

 Death of the Filibuster – The Hypocrites List

This list is a bit longer.  Actually, a lot longer.  So sorry, but we just report the facts, we don’t make them.  The death of the filibuster is no easy matter.  But we’ll start at the top and work our way down:

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer

The first rule for the Senator in the leadership position is to – lead.  It looks like our Minority Leader also leads our hypocrites list.  You be the judge. Here’s the principled Senator, in his own words:

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination: “Our system of checks and balances requires nine Supreme Court justices.  Playing politics only weakens our democracy.  The Senate’s job is to hold hearings and vote on nominees.  The Senate has a responsibility to give advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees and stop playing judicial politics.”

Not one to play politics with this advice and consent responsibility, here’s New York’s senior Senator now:

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “I say if this nominee cannot earn 60 votes – a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees and George Bush’s last two nominees – the answer isn’t to change the rules.  It’s to change the nominee.”

Editor’s Note: Excuse us, Senator Schumer, but could you point us to the Constitutional provision requiring 60 affirmative votes in the Senate for confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee.  We know there are a couple of Constitutionally-mandated Senate super-majority vote necessities – treaties and impeachment come to mind – but we don’t recall the one regarding the Supreme Court.

Other Nationally Prominent Senators

The light will shine on whomever it must.  Try to find the guiding principal behind the advice and consent philosophies of these leading Senators:

Bernie Sanders, Vermont, and former Presidential candidate

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination:  “I call on . . . Leader McConnell to bring the [Garland] nomination to floor of the Senate if Judge Garland is approved by the Judiciary Committee.”

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “I will not support Republican efforts to change the rules to choke off debate and ram the nomination through the Senate.”  He supports the filibuster.

Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination:  The Senator’s tweet – “Heading to the Senate floor now to tell the @SenateGOP:#DoYourJob and give judicial nominees a vote.”

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “I believe Judge Gorsuch’s nomination should be blocked.”

Dick Durbin, Illinois, and Senate Minority Whip

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination:  “There’s no excuse for the Senate to ignore its constitutional responsibility – time to give Judge Garland a public hearing and a vote.”

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “I just announced that I’ll be voting against Gorsuch and for the filibuster – basically require 60 votes.”

Editor’s Comment:  Another leading light pointing somewhere into the ether to find that Constitutional 60-vote requirement. Keep looking, Senator.

Tim Kaine, Virginia

The former Vice Presidential candidate’s views:

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination:  The Senator’s tweet – “Senate has an obligation and consitutional duty to advise and consent on the President’s [Supreme Court] nomination.  It’s part of the job description.”

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “The way I look at it is the Supreme Court is the only position that requires you to get to a 6o-vote threshold, which means it mandates that there be some bipartisanship and that is appropriate.  Life tenure.  Highest court in the land.  Should have to get to 60 votes.”

Editor’s Note: As we observed, there is no 60-vote threshold.  The Senator is incorrect.  He was referring to the Senate’s filibuster-debate cloture rule.  As to “bipartisanship”, he couldn’t be more wrong.  Supreme Court advise and consent should involve no partisanship at all.  In theory (and in today’s world, that’s all we have left) the nominee should be considered on the merits, and that’s it.

Cory Booker, New Jersey, Talked-About 2020 Presidential Candidate

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination:  He tweeted “No Dem consoled Congress denied hearings or a vote.  This shouldn’t be about partisanship but about doing their job.”

Editor’s Comment: No, Democrats would never deny a vote, Senator Booker, of course not.  And you are right – this shouldn’t be about partisanship.

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “I’m going to oppose Judge Gorsuch every step of the way.  A 60-vote threshold is not something new for Supreme Court nominees to overcome.  It helps ensure that presidents seek nominees whose views are in the mainstream.”

Editor’s Comment: No, Senator, the 60-vote threshold for confirmation is something new.  And we all know that “mainstream” is the code-word for “people who share my political views.”  Yes, that’s certainly not partisan.

Others

So we grew tired of publishing a full compilation.  But here’s the current list of other Senators who will filibuster a floor vote on Judge Gorsuch. And in each case, they took the opposite view regarding Judge Garland.

  1. Patty Murray, Washington
  2. Tom Carper, Delaware
  3. Bill Nelson, Florida
  4. Ron Wyden, Oregon
  5. Al Franken, Minnesota
  6. Ed Markey, Massachusetts
  7. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
  8. Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
  9. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
  10. Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire
  11. Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire
  12. Gary Peters, Minnesota
  13. Debbit Stabenow, Michigan
  14. Kamal Harris, California
  15. Chris Murphy, Connecticut
  16. Jack Reed, Rhode Island
  17. Mazia Hirono, Hawaii
  18. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
  19. Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin
  20. Jeff Merkley, Oregon
  21. Bob Casey, Pennsylvania
  22. Tom Udall, New Mexico

Death of the Filibuster – The Principle

So we’re headed to the death of the filibuster.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?   Some claim its death gives us more democracy.  Others fear it just grants a small majority further, and enduring, control over the lives of the minority.  A fair debate.

But it’s a list of principled men and women, yes indeed, who walk the Senate’s hallowed halls.  They bring us the death of the filibuster. Not because it is right or wrong to do so.  But because they are pure partisans, through and through.

What’s In the Republican Healthcare Bill? Pelosi Says Public Must Know – This Time!

So what’s in the Republican healthcare bill?  It’s time for the Washington hypocrites to take another victory lap. None other than House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gets the spotlight on this one.  And she didn’t disappoint.  If you need another example of why Americans hold their political parties in contempt, then look no further than the leadership provided by Ms. Pelosi.  We guess they think we are all fools.  Or will simply march behind their pied pipes to whatever tunes they choose to play.

Let’s rewind just a little bit.  The time was 2010.  The Democrats were in control of both the House and the Senate.  Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House.  The Republicans had no say in the little matter known as health care reform.  And so the House passed the Senate’s Obamacare bill in March, 2010. Continue reading “What’s In the Republican Healthcare Bill? Pelosi Says Public Must Know – This Time!”

Swamp Draining Under Obama? – Podesta’s Brother Lobbied For Russian Bank –

It looks like there was no Washington swamp draining during the Obama presidency.  We now know that during his administration John Podesta’s brother, Tony, lobbied on behalf of Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank.  John Podesta, of course, was the national chairman for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.  He had also previously been a special counselor to President Obama.  Tony Podesta’s goal: removal of sanctions imposed by President Obama on Sberbank.  Tony added David Adams to his Sberbank team.  Mr. Adams, fortuitously, served as Hillary’s assistant secretary of state for congressional affairs.

According to reports, the lobbying effort focused on the executive branch and the Congress.  Tony Podesta’s firm arranged at least two meetings between Sberbank and officials from the State Department. Looks like it was a good idea to have David Adams involved.  Easier to get into the State Department, we suppose.

Swamp Draining
Tony Podesta

So let’s try to understand this one. Democrats strongly infer collusion existed between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to somehow throw the election to Donald Trump.  At the same time, a powerful Democratic lobbying firm, with direct relationships into the White House, arranges meetings on behalf of a major Russian bank to eliminate sanctions.

Washington Swamps and Washington Hypocrisy

Does any of this stink?  Are we the only ones bothered by any of this?  If we ever needed evidence of the Washington Swamp, this is certainly it. When will the swamp draining begin?

Politics as usual in Washington.  And a little hypocrisy to boot.  We guess it’s OK for prominent Democrats to lobby on behalf of a Russian bank that is subject to sanctions.  But it’s not OK for the new President, or any of his associates, to converse with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Maybe this makes sense in some alternative universe.  Or maybe it just makes sense in Washington, D.C.

It’s Time that NATO Nations Keep Their Commitments – American Taxpayers Should End Their Subsidy

When we make a promise, our integrity is on the line.  A man is no more than his word, right?  Especially when the promise made is part of a mutual agreement.  We promise to do X and you promise to do Y.  And if we don’t live up to our promise, then we lack honor and integrity.  If you then insist that we honor our promise and we refuse, well then our virtue is further diminished.  We demean ourselves.  All of which brings us to the President of the European Union, Jean-Claude Juncker.  It’s time that NATO nations keep their defense spending commitments.  Instead, President Juncker insists that American taxpayers foot the bill.  And go into further debt to do so.

Time that NATO Nations
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker

Continue reading “It’s Time that NATO Nations Keep Their Commitments – American Taxpayers Should End Their Subsidy”

More Political Hypocrisy – The Sad Tale of Senator Jeff Merkley

Our campaign against political hypocrisy continues.  This has become a full-time avocation.  The latest sad entry comes from Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, one of the key architects of the November, 2013 change to the Senate filibuster rules.  It seems that Senator Merkley, a strong proponent of eliminating the filibuster, has become the filibuster’s greatest champion.  It took less than four years, and a change in the party of the presidency, for this remarkable turnaround.  It’s another example of why faith in our political leaders is at an all-time low.  When will anyone – anyone – stand up on consistent principles?  It’s more political hypocrisy.

The principled Senator Merkley has a deep and enduring respect for his Constitutional responsibilities.  So, according to Senator Merkley, should the filibuster be available to the minority side in the Senate?  Well of course not – except when “we” are the minority.  All of which somehow allows him to claim the moral high ground when it comes to U.S. Supreme Court nominations.  Is there more political hypocrisy here?  You be the judge. Continue reading “More Political Hypocrisy – The Sad Tale of Senator Jeff Merkley”

Was The Election Result Illegitimate? More Political Hypocrisy

It has been a remarkable, perhaps unprecedented, year in American politics.  Rancor, if not outright fear and hatred, prevails.  Half-truths, mis-truths, name calling and a litany of much worse.  A centerpiece of this blog is that those who would lead can only lead with integrity.  So we have taken up the tasks of identifying and exposing political hypocrisy. We have written about it here and now focus on it again with Donald Trump days away from the Presidency.  The context here is the simple question, was the election result illegitimate?

The Third Presidential Debate and the Threat to Democracy

We recall the famous remark during the third Presidential debate. It sparked furious claims that the foundations of our democracy were being jeopardized.

Election result illegitimate
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Debate

[Chris Wallace]: Will you absolutely accept the results of this election?

[Donald Trump]: I will look at it at the time.

And then came Mrs. Clinton’s equally famous reply:

That is not the way our democracy works.  [The United States has been] around for 240 years.  We’ve had free and fair elections.  We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them.  And that is what must be expected [from a Presidential candidate].

Mr. Trump’s comment was claimed to be monumental.  Some called it “a stunning moment that has never been seen in the weeks before a modern presidential election.”  Mr. Trump’s position was so bad that it “threatens to cast doubt on one of the fundamental principles of American politics – the peaceful, undisputed transfer of power from one president to a successor who is recognized as legitimate after winning an election.”

So here we are after the election and, guess what?  We have a challenge to our democracy – but this time from the losing Democratic side that had not expected to lose. Continue reading “Was The Election Result Illegitimate? More Political Hypocrisy”

Leadership and Hypocrisy – The Sad Tale of Senator Schumer

Leadership and Hypocrisy

What makes a great leader?  There are scores of books and articles on this subject.  We could compile a list of most desirable qualities.  We could draw references to George Washington, or quotes from Winston Churchill (well, we did borrow from Sir Winston, below).  Our focus would start with integrity.  But two qualities that don’t go together are these: leadership and hypocrisy. Which draws us to the sad tale of Senator Schumer, the minority leader in the United States Senate.

Integrity, Wherefore Art Thou . . .

What is integrity?  At its core lies honesty.  Honesty is being consistent in one’s moral and ethical standards.  It is truthfulness or accuracy in one’s actions.  Internal consistency as a virtue.  Where one has conflicting values, it means accounting for the discrepancy.

Leadership and hypocrisy
Socrates, Esteemed for         His Integrity

So how to identify integrity?  No scientific method is available.  We must look subjectively, and utilize this basic test: what could be more deficient in a leader than a failure to follow his own expressed rules and principles?  Certainly, leadership and hypocrisy can’t work in tandem.  So let’s look toward New York’s Senator Schumer. Continue reading “Leadership and Hypocrisy – The Sad Tale of Senator Schumer”

Share