(Today 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 05:20 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  To the Republicans' credit, the first two Cabinet members for Biden were confirmed rather easily.

Why is that "(t)o the Republicans' credit"?

for marching in lockstep with the democrats - what they call "unity".

(Today 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 05:20 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  To the Republicans' credit, the first two Cabinet members for Biden were confirmed rather easily.

Why is that "(t)o the Republicans' credit"?

Because cabinet positions should be relatively easy to pass, and shouldn’t have significant opposition. Opposition should really only come if the candidate is uniquely unqualified for the position - so this is an example of a bipartisan decision, where Reps didn’t stand firmly in opposition to Biden.

Same kind of comment regarding Dems who voted overwhelmingly for some of Trump’s cabinet picks (like Mattis who was 98-1).

I prefer to think of it as saving their political capital for more important contests.

Texas Republicans say thank you, Joe

(Today 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 05:20 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  To the Republicans' credit, the first two Cabinet members for Biden were confirmed rather easily.

Why is that "(t)o the Republicans' credit"?

Because cabinet positions should be relatively easy to pass, and shouldn’t have significant opposition. Opposition should really only come if the candidate is uniquely unqualified for the position - so this is an example of a bipartisan decision, where Reps didn’t stand firmly in opposition to Biden.
Same kind of comment regarding Dems who voted overwhelmingly for some of Trump’s cabinet picks (like Mattis who was 98-1).

But who voted in lock-step opposition to many, many others, particularly judges.

Frankly, I would have said it was to the republicans' credit if every vote was 50-50 with Kamala the **** breaking the tie. It's time for republicans to show the kind of lock-step unity that democrats have for years.

Senate votes on:

Gorsuch 54-45

Kavanaugh 50-48

Barrett 52-48

Remarkedly consistent on the "No" side, eh?

(Today 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 05:20 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  To the Republicans' credit, the first two Cabinet members for Biden were confirmed rather easily.

Why is that "(t)o the Republicans' credit"?

Because cabinet positions should be relatively easy to pass, and shouldn’t have significant opposition. Opposition should really only come if the candidate is uniquely unqualified for the position...

Remember John Tower!

As I recall, one of the most "damning" allegations that came to light during his confirmation hearing was that he had once drunk a shoe beer at a party -- to which most people I knew said, "That's our man!"

(Today 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Today 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 05:20 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  To the Republicans' credit, the first two Cabinet members for Biden were confirmed rather easily.

Why is that "(t)o the Republicans' credit"?

Because cabinet positions should be relatively easy to pass, and shouldn’t have significant opposition. Opposition should really only come if the candidate is uniquely unqualified for the position - so this is an example of a bipartisan decision, where Reps didn’t stand firmly in opposition to Biden.
Same kind of comment regarding Dems who voted overwhelmingly for some of Trump’s cabinet picks (like Mattis who was 98-1).

But who voted in lock-step opposition to many, many others, particularly judges.

In the Democratic view, the difference is that judges MAKE policy.

(Today 05:26 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(Today 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 05:20 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  To the Republicans' credit, the first two Cabinet members for Biden were confirmed rather easily.

Why is that "(t)o the Republicans' credit"?

Because cabinet positions should be relatively easy to pass, and shouldn’t have significant opposition. Opposition should really only come if the candidate is uniquely unqualified for the position...

Remember John Tower!

As I recall, one of the most "damning" allegations that came to light during his confirmation hearing was that he had once drunk a shoe beer at a party -- to which most people I knew said, "That's our man!"

Do you mean a short beer?

(Today 05:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(Today 05:26 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(Today 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 05:20 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  To the Republicans' credit, the first two Cabinet members for Biden were confirmed rather easily.

Why is that "(t)o the Republicans' credit"?

Because cabinet positions should be relatively easy to pass, and shouldn’t have significant opposition. Opposition should really only come if the candidate is uniquely unqualified for the position...

Remember John Tower!

As I recall, one of the most "damning" allegations that came to light during his confirmation hearing was that he had once drunk a shoe beer at a party -- to which most people I knew said, "That's our man!"

Do you mean a short beer?

A "shoe beer" is a beer drunk from a shoe -- like champagne from a slipper, but less elegant. In my day, shoe beers were a staple rite of college cabinet turnovers, Rally Club inductions, bachelor parties, and similar occasions.

(Today 05:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(Today 05:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(Today 05:26 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(Today 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why is that "(t)o the Republicans' credit"?

Because cabinet positions should be relatively easy to pass, and shouldn’t have significant opposition. Opposition should really only come if the candidate is uniquely unqualified for the position...

Remember John Tower!

As I recall, one of the most "damning" allegations that came to light during his confirmation hearing was that he had once drunk a shoe beer at a party -- to which most people I knew said, "That's our man!"

Do you mean a short beer?

A "shoe beer" is a beer drunk from a shoe -- like champagne from a slipper, but less elegant. In my day, shoe beers were a staple rite of college cabinet turnovers, Rally Club inductions, bachelor parties, and similar occasions.

I thought it might have been a sly reference to Tower's height.

(Today 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Today 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 05:20 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  To the Republicans' credit, the first two Cabinet members for Biden were confirmed rather easily.

Why is that "(t)o the Republicans' credit"?

Because cabinet positions should be relatively easy to pass, and shouldn’t have significant opposition. Opposition should really only come if the candidate is uniquely unqualified for the position - so this is an example of a bipartisan decision, where Reps didn’t stand firmly in opposition to Biden.
Same kind of comment regarding Dems who voted overwhelmingly for some of Trump’s cabinet picks (like Mattis who was 98-1).

But who voted in lock-step opposition to many, many others, particularly judges.

Frankly, I would have said it was to the republicans' credit if every vote was 50-50 with Kamala the **** breaking the tie. It's time for republicans to show the kind of lock-step unity that democrats have for years.

And if that happened, then we wouldn’t be saying “to the Republicans’ credit.”

(Today 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Today 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 05:20 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  To the Republicans' credit, the first two Cabinet members for Biden were confirmed rather easily.

Why is that "(t)o the Republicans' credit"?

Because cabinet positions should be relatively easy to pass, and shouldn’t have significant opposition. Opposition should really only come if the candidate is uniquely unqualified for the position - so this is an example of a bipartisan decision, where Reps didn’t stand firmly in opposition to Biden.
Same kind of comment regarding Dems who voted overwhelmingly for some of Trump’s cabinet picks (like Mattis who was 98-1).

But who voted in lock-step opposition to many, many others, particularly judges.

Frankly, I would have said it was to the republicans' credit if every vote was 50-50 with Kamala the **** breaking the tie. It's time for republicans to show the kind of lock-step unity that democrats have for years.

And if that happened, then we wouldn’t be saying “to the Republicans’ credit.”

"we"?

(Today 07:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(Today 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Today 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why is that "(t)o the Republicans' credit"?

Because cabinet positions should be relatively easy to pass, and shouldn’t have significant opposition. Opposition should really only come if the candidate is uniquely unqualified for the position - so this is an example of a bipartisan decision, where Reps didn’t stand firmly in opposition to Biden.
Same kind of comment regarding Dems who voted overwhelmingly for some of Trump’s cabinet picks (like Mattis who was 98-1).

But who voted in lock-step opposition to many, many others, particularly judges.

Frankly, I would have said it was to the republicans' credit if every vote was 50-50 with Kamala the **** breaking the tie. It's time for republicans to show the kind of lock-step unity that democrats have for years.

And if that happened, then we wouldn’t be saying “to the Republicans’ credit.”

"we"?

Fort Bend (who said it) and me (who agreed with it).

(Today 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And if that happened, then we wouldn’t be saying “to the Republicans’ credit.”

And I don't want republicans doing things that you think are to their credit. I want them resisting every step of the way.

(Today 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 07:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(Today 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(Today 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(Today 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Because cabinet positions should be relatively easy to pass, and shouldn’t have significant opposition. Opposition should really only come if the candidate is uniquely unqualified for the position - so this is an example of a bipartisan decision, where Reps didn’t stand firmly in opposition to Biden.
Same kind of comment regarding Dems who voted overwhelmingly for some of Trump’s cabinet picks (like Mattis who was 98-1).

But who voted in lock-step opposition to many, many others, particularly judges.

Frankly, I would have said it was to the republicans' credit if every vote was 50-50 with Kamala the **** breaking the tie. It's time for republicans to show the kind of lock-step unity that democrats have for years.

And if that happened, then we wouldn’t be saying “to the Republicans’ credit.”

"we"?

Fort Bend (who said it) and me (who agreed with it).

Well, to the Democrat’s credit, they have been consistent in opposing anything and everything the GOP or Trump wanted. Yay, unity.

Anybody see those SCOTUS nominations I posted?