Skip to comments.Obama in 2005: Nuclear Option will Make Partisanship Worse
Posted on 11/21/2013 1:02:32 PM PST by Hoodat
In April 2005, when Democrats were blocking a list of Bush nominees and Republicans were threatening to invoke the nuclear option, the newly elected junior senator from Illinois, Sen. Barack Obama, took to the floor and sanctimoniously proclaimed that the nuclear option would not only be a violation of democratic principles, but that it would worsen partisanship.
Here are few excerpts from his remarks:
Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.
I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules . . . I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they believe they can get away with it rather than because they know its good for our democracy.
What (Americans) dont expect is for one Party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game, so that they can make all the decision while the other Party is told to sit down and keep quiet.
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehousedossier.com ...
At this point in time, I am more aggravated with the Pubbies, since they are the eunuchs that just keep letting this happen, then stand around in a circluar firing squad trying to work out their options..
Not only did he say that but if confronted about it, you’d see a 5 minute response why this situation is completely different.
BINGO - king barry loves fighting Repubs. Terrorists - not so much.
Nothing but pure hypocrisy!
The Democrats are the biggest hypocrites that have ever existed in the USA.
First they were against the Nuclear Option and now they are against it!
The GOP must stand up against this tyranny of Democratic Hypocrisy!
True but I bet it would be closer to a 10 minute response, until you forgot what the original question was.
“The GOP must stand up against this tyranny of Democratic Hypocrisy!”
Your words sound “bold”, but what EXACTLY do you mean?
(1) Give lots of embarrassing little speeches on the Senate Floor reminding Harry Reid of his “duty” to “play fair”?
(2) Re-enact the “Ides of March” with Harry Reid cast as Julius Caesar?
(3) Meet behind closed doors to discuss how to use this “rules change” to GET THE TRUTH OUT about Obama’s coming tsunammi of Marxist “appointees”. The corruption of each unacceptable nominee must be vividly exposed, so that Obama’s “cram-downs” can ALSO be an issue in the 2014 elections.
“Ms. Pritzker, when you bought your Ambassorship, did you pay any CASH to The First Lady — or did you just buy her a few $5,000 dresses and other “gifts”, instead?
Obama caught in another LIE.
Just another day in the Obamanation, waiting for the next Barakalypse to take place.
What’s ironic is that someone who uses a filibuster to block the confirmation of a appointees who has supplied all requested information in good faith would be obstructing the Senate in the performance of a *constitutionally mandated duty*; demanding that the Senate do its duty should hardly be considered radical. By contrast, there is outside of the budget almost no legislation which the Senate is constitutionally mandated to even consider. Consequently, the justifications that would apply to restricting filibusters of appointees do not apply to filibusters of legislation.
In 2014 when the GOP hopefully takes back the Senate payback is going to be a beach.
Obama himself is not what the founders had in mind.
So what’s to stop a majority from pulling a Samuel Chase on every officer they don’t like and replacing them with ones they do?
Sounds like a great way to destroy the judiciary as a functioning body.
Two minutes of which would consist of how he is focused like a laser beam, how he wants to be perfectly clear... and two more minutes saying “uhhh, ummm, uhhh”.
The other minute would be full campaign mode talking about the far right wing extremist TEA party throwing grandma and women and minorities under the bus.
It took lies:
“................Some see these nominees as an effort to pack the court after a series of decisions Obama did not like.
The issue was similar last July when Reid and company convinced the Republicans to capitulate on President Obamas terrible nominees to the National Labor Relations Board. In tricking the Republicans into approving numerous nominees the Democrats promised they were not touching judges.
Harry Reid (D-NV): Were not touching judges. Thats what they were talking about. This is not judges. (NBCs Meet The Press, 7/14/13)
Reid didnt stop there. He made a similar promise at a Press briefing:
Harry Reid (D-NV): Were not talking about changing the filibuster rules that relates to nominations for judges. this is not about judges. (Sen. Reid, Press Briefing, 7/11/13)
Reid wasnt alone in making such representations. Senators Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar also offered similar assurances:
Sherrod Brown (D-OH): I think any president should have the ability to put people in place for the at the pleasure of the president. These are not judges. Thats a whole another issue. (MSNBC, 7/9/13)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): I dont understand why for these nominees, Im not talking about judges here, Im talking about the presidents team, of which there are currently over 180 people that are just pending right now before the Senate for the Executive Office nominations. Why we cant just do 51 votes is beyond me. (ABCs This Week, 7/14/13)......
Rush Limbaugh - November 21, 2013
RUSH: I have a brief question for Senator McCain, Senator Susan Collins, and the rest. How is that “working across the aisle” thing working out for you now with this nuclear option thing? You stuck your hand out across the aisle to shake hands with ‘em, and now you gotta somehow reach around and take a knife outta your back.