Patterico's Pontifications


With Apologies to The Who

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:39 am

Meet the new boss
Worse than the old boss.

23 Responses to “With Apologies to The Who”

  1. So it isn’t news when RedState criticizes the Republican House leadership but it is news when the criticize the Democratic House leadership?

    (Yes that was a cheap shot. Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

    Crust (399898)

  2. I think it’s just news when a NorCal Pineapple Princess thinks she knows more about running the House of Representatives than a founding freakin’ father!!!

    I'm Geekier (01293e)

  3. “PALOMINO!!!”

    LagunaDave (abbcc6)

  4. I’m Geekier,

    I think it’s news because she’s seeking to shut off the exact avenue of dissent the Dems enjoyed. Her claims right after the election that she understood where the Repubs would be, and would make sure the minority still had it’s right to debate and such were 100% contrasted by her move the other day.

    I’m thrilled the Repubs fought back, and I loved the way they did it. Proceedural motions on the half hour was a stroke of brilliance, and I want to shake the hand of the person who came up with that.

    You only have to throw that elbow once for other fighters to think you’re capable of it…

    Scott Jacobs (feb2f7)

  5. Crust,

    Your comment was more nonsense than cheap shot.

    First, I ain’t the AP.

    Second, and more important, you’re comparing apples and oranges. The AP story was about the blog’s criticism; the focus of the story was the very fact that the blog had engaged in the criticism — a topic I consider a yawner as a Big Media news story (no offense to RedState; it’s just rather “dog bites man” in my view). By contrast, my post is about what the blog is criticizing; the focus of my post is the Democrats’ treatment of the majority — a far more significant issue than whether a blog is criticizing a politician..

    Patterico (e766ef)

  6. Put another way, it would be bizarre for the AP to report: “RedState criticizes Pelosi.” But if the AP reported on Pelosi’s bullying, it would be surprising (because of the AP’s bias) but not bizarre (because rational readers would consider the issue worthy of the attention).

    Patterico (71a4db)

  7. Behold the majesty of the most transparent, bipartisan, ethical Congress in history. Wasn’t there a midnight voice vote on the restoration of the lobbying air force, or do I have my facts wrong? Let’s bury those earmarks deep folks, no one really cares about those.

    Excuse me while I throw up.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  8. Truly, the gavel is now in the hands of America’s children. Who are apparently running around with their hands over their ears yelling “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”…

    PCachu (e072b7)

  9. Patterico: Democrats treatment of *the majority*? I rather suspect your complaint is that they are mistreating the minority.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  10. I’m disappointed in the Democrats over this. The goal was not to outdo the previous Congress in shredding the rights of the minority; it was to restore those rights which had been shredded.

    There’s a difficult choice the leadership in the House has to make: allow the minority the right to involvement in the process, at the risk of frustrating your own legislative agenda, or don’t. This Congress, like the preceding Congress, has made the wrong choice.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  11. Patterico: Democrats treatment of *the majority*? I rather suspect your complaint is that they are mistreating the minority.

    I think he meant how they are acting now that they are in the majority rather than what they are doing to the minority.

    Taltos (c99804)

  12. Taltos: hmm. ok, i suppose “treatment of the majority” could either mean ‘how they are treating the group which constitutes the majority’ or ‘how they are treating their majority status’. I find the second to be unintuitive, but I can see how the words could give rise to that. :)

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  13. all the demonizing nancy pelosi has undergone, somebody sneak up to her and take her shoes off quicklike so we can see if she has cloven hooves.
    the electorate cares more about the price of gas than about who the speaker is. some of them are challenged to find california on a map.

    assistant devil's advocate (1b530f)

  14. one other comment. is patterico the same blogger who so vehemently called for the then republican senate majority to ram judicial nominees down the throat of the minority, dispensing with the time-honored minority tactic of the filibuster, and so bitterly protested that squirrely gang of 14 who made a deal with the minority? maybe the speaker reads this blog for inspiration!

    assistant devil's advocate (1b530f)

  15. Why isn’t the press referring to Pelosi’s “nuclear option”? Or even mentioning the maneuver?

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  16. The rules that control the number of votes to “ram judicial nominees” were changed twice in this century and both times they were to reduce the number to achieve cloture. The last time was by Robert Byrd. The entire matter of filibuster is not mentioned in the Constitution and the rule ending debate can be changed, as has been done. The issue was whether the debate rule pertained to nominees, since there was no precedent. Had the Senate changed the rule, or, more effectively, forced the flibusterers to actually filibuster, the effect would have ben more in keeping with the powers enumerated. They should have required the debate to actually be carried out as in the days when Byrd was trying to keep blacks from voting (the reason he changed the rule the last time). Then we could see if they were really willing to do it. The Republicans wimped and we lost a couple of good justices.

    Mike K (86bddb)

  17. Hey, if the Democrats want to keep the Republicans from ever being able to take the floor during House debate, I’m fine with that. The Constitution guarantees a “Democratic form of government,” not a Republican one, so that’s what we’d be getting. A very Democratic form of government, Charlie Brown.

    Besides, they can only stifle dissent this way because they live in Bush’s Amerikkka. They can’t help it. It’s just how it is now.

    Al Maviva (89d0b6)

  18. Patterico, you’re right: 1) you “ain’t the AP” and 2) this post is about the story not the meta-story. I guess that’s what I meant by “cheap shot”, but I probably should have listened to my internal editor more closely and not posted that comment at all.

    That said, I still disagree with you on the RedState “open declaration of war” on the House Republican leadership. I see that very much as man bites dog, but anyway I already made the case in the other thread.

    Crust (399898)

  19. Besides, they can only stifle dissent this way because they live in Bush’s Amerikkka. They can’t help it. It’s just how it is now

    God damn.

    That might be one of the dumbest thinsg I’ve read on here… And I’ve read stuff posted by AF and LA…

    Scott Jacobs (feb2f7)

  20. Scott Jacobs, I think that was supposed to be humorous.

    Crust (399898)

  21. I hope so…

    God do I ever hope so…

    Scott Jacobs (feb2f7)

  22. We’re all hoping that Al Maviva’s misstatement of Article IV section 4 indicates a joke.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  23. Everyone who holds power does what he can to minimize the chance he will lose power, forgetting that if he carries his measures too far he’ll wind up getting tossed at the next scheduled revolution.

    Alan Kellogg (250df8)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2018 secs.