take your answer off the air...

  • HorsesAss.Org: the straight poop on WA politics & the press
    progressive brilliance from the guy who pointed out Tim Eyman's nascent horse's-assedness
  • Talker's Magazine
    The quirky talk radio trade mag. Check the Talk Radio Research Project- it's not very scientific, but places on the top 15 talkers list (scroll down to Talk Radio Audiences By Size)) are as hotly contested as Emmys (and mean just about as much).
  • The Advocate
    No, not THAT Advocate... it's the Northwest Progressive Institute's Official Blog.
  • Media Matters
    Documentation of right-wing media in video, audio and text.
  • Orcinus
    home of David Neiwert, freelance investigative journalist and author who writes extensively about far-right hate groups
  • Hominid Views
    "People, politics, science, and whatnot" Darryl is a statistician who fights imperialism with empiricism, gives good links and wry commentary.
  • Jesus' General
    An 11 on the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender, a 12 on the Heavenly Scale of the 10 Commandments and a 6 on the earthly scale of the Immaculately Groomed.
  • Howie in Seattle
    Howie Martin is the Abe Linkin' of progressive Seattle.
  • Streaming Radio Guide
    Hellishly long (5795!) list of radio streaming, steaming on the Internets.
  • The Naked Loon
    News satire -- The Onion in the Seattle petunia patch.
  • Irrational Public Radio
    "informs, challenges, soothes and/or berates, and does so with a pleasing vocal cadence and unmatched enunciation. When you listen to IPR, integrity washes over you like lava, with the pleasing familiarity of a medium-roast coffee and a sensible muffin."
  • The Maddow Blog
    Here's the hyper-interactive La Raych of MSNBC. daily show-vids, freakishly geeky research, and classy graphics.
  • Northwest Broadcasters
    The AM, FM, TV and digital broadcasters of Northwest Washington, USA and Southwest British Columbia, Canada. From Kelso, WA to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, BC - call letters, formats, slogans, networks, technical data, and transmitter maps. Plus "recent" news.
  • News Corpse
    The Internet's chronicle of media decay.
  • The Moderate Voice
    The voice of reason in the age of Obama, and the politics of the far-middle.
  • News Hounds
    Dogged dogging of Fox News by a team who seems to watch every minute of the cable channel so you don't have to.
  • HistoryLink
    Fun to read and free encyclopedia of Washington State history. Founded by the late Walt Crowley, it's an indispensable tool and entertainment source for history wonks and surfers alike.

right-wing blogs we like

  • The Reagan Wing
    Hearin lies the real heart of Washington State Republicans. Doug Parris runs this red-meat social conservative group site which bars no holds when it comes to saying who they are and who they're not; what they believe and what they don't; who their friends are and where the rest of the Republicans can go. Well-written, and flaming.
  • Orbusmax
    inexhaustible Drudgery of NW conservative news
  • The Radio Equalizer
    prolific former Seattle KVI, KIRO talk host speaks authoritatively about radio.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2005


« UPDATE: BJ fires double r? | Main | Michael Medved speaks up about jack abramoff- gives him 1.5 stars »

January 04, 2006




Very simple. When it is clear that a judicial nominee has majority support it is the senate's responisibility to promptly confirm him or her.

Never before has judicial nominee(s) with clear majority support been denied an up or down vote in the Senate by a filibuster.

The Senate’s Constitutional role to advise and consent is in fact being impaired by the unprecedented use of partisan filibusters to block confirmation votes.


"Indian tribes also donated money directly to candidates they wanted to see elected, just like you and I do."

I'm afraid you are way off base on that point, otherwise those senators would not be refunding the donations in kind to charity.


Regarding the filibuster threatened over the confirmation of Priscilla Owens, I think the democrats were running scared. I've never been so ashamed of them for not filibustering this extremely poor choice of a judge. It was cowardly. Had nothing to do with rules. Simply cowardice. I think the republicans would have lived with it because they benefit as much from the filibustering as the dems do.

Also, Audioslave, I haven't noticed a whole lot of filibustering going on. It is there for both sides to use and I doubt the republicans want to see it gone. Do you really think they will be in power forever?

Ås for Priscilla Owens, her nomination was another act of cronyism. If I were you, I'd start worrying about that word. It seems to be portending the demise of republican control of congress. (Or am I thinking wishfully? Time will tell.)



There have been 10 filibusters by democrats on judicial nominees by Bush, more than any President in history.


Filibusters have historically been a tool for the minority party to use to block LEGISLATION, not Presidential appointments. The President can make recess appointments - it's a recognition that Senate approval is not required in order to fill spots in the courts or in the administration. The confirmation process is an exercise of the advise and consent function of the Senate, but that function ultimately was not intended to trump the executive authority to make appointments.

The Democrats, as a minority party, have taken the threat of filibuster (failure to gain cloture) to absurd new places when it comes to Federal judges and Supreme Court justices. During the Clinton administration, the Republicans did not pass a number of his candidates out of the Judicial Committee for an "up or down" vote on the floor of the Senate - that's because the Republicans were the MAJORITY party and controlled the Committee. Clinton could have made recess appointments on any of those candidates. But, keep in mind, that winning elections matters in our representative form of government.

Certain aspects of these governmental functions have become perverted. The Supreme Court has become a body that is more involved in making law than it was intended to be. The reason we want the minority party to be able to filibuster legislation is so that we avoid the risk of having the majority impose immoral/evil laws upon the minority. The Supreme Court is to rule on the Consitutionality of the laws brought before them in disputes that have worked their way through the lower courts. A very serious problem occurs when the Supreme Court basically makes law and circumvents the legislative process. For example, the decision in Roe vs Wade set the parameters and conditions for abortion and that has caused tremendous problems for states to deal with the effects of that. If we allow the Supreme Court to make law, instead of limiting them to ruling on the laws creating by the Congress and disputed in the courts, then we have a truly troublesome situation. There is no redress for parties when the 9 people sitting on the Court make law. In the legislature, minority parties have the filibuster to stop bad law from getting passed in the first place.

Anyway, no one wants to remove the filibuster as a tool for the minority party to exercise in the legislative process. But, I would be perfectly happy if they eliminated the possibility of filibusters for confirmation votes.


Priscilla Owens was such a shitty choice that most repubs were against her nomination as well. Writing love letters to the prez does not make a good candidate. If there were 10 filibusters, that should be an indication that this president, who only listens to a very select group of people, can't bring any unity to the table--if he had, the Supreme Court would of been complete by now.


"But, I would be perfectly happy if they eliminated the possibility of filibusters for confirmation votes."

So, I take that to mean you'd have absolutely no problem with any of, say, President Hillary Clinton's nominations to the high Court? That you'd expect a Republican minority in the Senate to cheerfully accept any ol' judge from Berkeley way she decides to install?

Uh huh.


Audioslave....many of the congress critters are giving back money from the tribes even though the money is not related to Abramoff because at this point it all looks bad. Better to return legally donated money, or give it to a charity, than keep it and be accused, although falsely, of accepting tainted money. I disagree with that, but apparently they are in a no-win situation.

Most of the general public cant be bothered to look into the details of which money was donated legally to dems AND republicans...did the politician actually DO something --quid pro quo--as a result of getting that money? Did they push legislation that was far removed from anything their constituents needed or wanted? Politicians rely on donations to fund their campaigns but it is not automatic that the money is tied to a favor. Abramoff was arrogant enough to think he could spread tribal money around for favors unrelated to tribal issues. But that does not mean that all tribal donations were tainted.


I was thinking of Harriet Miers, actually. One needs a scorebook to keep track of all the rejects that have come up recently.


sparky says"

many of the congress critters are giving back money from the tribes even though the money is not related to Abramoff because at this point it all looks bad.

I'm sorry, but most of the donations from the Indian tribes in question, including those in this state, are tied to influence from Abramhoff. I will bet you a steak dinner at the Met, that Murray and/or Cantwell will give back their donations to charity, just to clear their own political conscience.

I will say this for the 3rd time: This is only the tip of the iceberg.




I heard on the news last night that Cantwell already gave back her donation. Yep, tip of the iceberg is right. However, just watch the Republicans come out smelling like a rose on this one and it will all be a conspiracy from the left. I'm getting used to that.



You see, the Republicans don't have a track record like this current crop of Democrats. President Bill Clinton's nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. The Republicans didn't filibuster and voted to approve, even though she was known to be a liberal judge. Bill Clinton's nominee, Stephen Breyer was confirmed 87-9.

The Republicans were the minority party in both cases. The recent tactics of the Democrats are reprehensible. Filibusters were not intended to be used this way. Your whole Hillary Clinton scenario is bogus - the Republicans certainly had no affection for Bill Clinton yet they not only gave his nominees an "up or down" vote, they actually confirmed them overwhelmingly. When the Democrats were presented a candidate of impeccable character and endorsed by every side of the aisle, they still managed to line up 22 NO votes. So please, don't try to defend these tactics.


Oops - forgot to include Justice Roberts name as the person that 22 Dems voted against.


HOLD IT! STOP THE PRESSES! In a Seattle times "scoop", Rabbi Lapin said he "had no idea" that th $50,000 he took from Abramoff clients was part of Abramoff's vast scheme....H-m-m-m! A Man of God...perhaps we've been too hasty to convict!


I haven't really followed this Rabbi Lapin story. Did he do something illegal too? Or are people jumping on him because he has dealings with a guy that broke the law? Is there some special concern that Lapin is a clergy man? Would it invalidate any moral or political points that Lapin raises because he knows Abramoff? Help educate me here - I don't get the whole thread on Rabbi Lapin and why there's so much attention paid to it on this blog.


As Sparky said "Do your homework", ExDem, track back and read on..... (BTW, loved your position statements in the highly educational forum supra...)

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Tip Jar

Change is good

Tip Jar

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    pacific nw talk stations

    • KIRO 710ESPN Seattle 710 KHz
      Games and sports-blabber
    • KIROFM 97.3
      Multi-format: news and nearly all local talk. This is where classic KIRO AM news talk radio went... hopefully, not to die. The home of Dave Ross & Luke Burbank, Dori Monson, Ron & Don, Frank Shiers, Bill Radke, Linda Thomas, Tony Miner and George Noory.
    • KUOW FM 94.9
      Seattle's foremost public radio news and talk.
    • KVI am 570 KHz
      Visit the burnt-out husk of one of the seminal right-wing talkers in all the land. Here's where once trilled the reactionary tones of Rush Limbaugh, John Carlson, Kirby Wilbur, Mike Siegel, Peter Weissbach, Floyd Brown, Dinky Donkey, and Bryan Suits. Now it's Top 40 hits from the '60's & '70's aimed at that diminishing crowd who still remembers them and can still hear.
    • KTTH am 770 KHz
      Right wing home of local, and a whole bunch of syndicated righties such as Glennn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larsony, and for an hour a day: live & local David Boze.
    • KPTK am 1090 KHz
      Syndicated liberal talk. Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Norman Goldman fill in the large hole to the left on Northwest radio dial.
    • KLFE AM 1590 kHz
      Syndicated right-wing 2nd stringers like Mark Levin, Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Dennis Miller and Hugh Hewitt inhabit this timid-voiced neighbor honker for your radio enjoyment (unless you're behind something large like Costco).
    • KOMOAM
      News, traffic, Ken Schram and John Carlson.
    • Washington State Radio Stations
      Comprehensive list of every danged AM & FM station on the dial.
    • KKOL am 1300 KHz
      Once a rabid right-wing talker, except for Lou Dobbs, it's all business....