Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hatch just bald-faced lied on C-Span - shouldn't he get himself to a

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Democrat 4 Ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 09:01 AM
Original message
Hatch just bald-faced lied on C-Span - shouldn't he get himself to a
church and ask for sack cloth and ashes? He just said that every single judicial nominee of Clinton got an up or down vote in the Senate. He gave the viewers the impression that every single Clinton nominee was voted on. Of course, that is a big, fat, huge, sloppy, nasty-assed, LIE. SOP for Repugs. Many of Clinton's nominee didn't even get a vote because they killed them in the committee. These guys lie with impunity. And the holy rollers in the party think that is just fine - lies good to overthrown a democracy, lies bad, well seems they are never bad for this bunch.

The Republican Party are a bunch of popinjays who will rot in whatever hell they believe in for all the lies, cheating and bible thumping. And it can't come too soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Not a bald faced lie. They DID get an up or down vote in committee.
I think I smell a question on Franken's peabody winning show "wait, wait, don't lie to me" :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lochloosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Not true
Edited on Wed May-18-05 09:21 AM by Lochloosa
Some of them had a hold put on them by Senators from their home state, effectively killing the nomination. The Repugs changed this rule already. Before, if a hold was put on a nomination there was no vote required.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. In that case, the senator had an up or down vote with himself. He was
the only person voting on it, so it was technically an up or down vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. :-)
I love it when Hatch and his boys say that it is SO wrong to let the filibuster force a "supermajority" requirement that 60 Senators be in favor of a nominee.

Under his watch, he allowed a super-supermajority under which a nominee had to have 100 Senators supporting them before they would get a hearing since the objection of only one Senator was enough to derail a nomination.

Hypocrites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. No they didn't. Many of them never even got a hearing, much less a vote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. Cowardly drink-soaked sexually deviant pony wanking
fascist little popinjay bastards from HELL.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
3. Orrin had an extra shot of mendacity in his capuccino this AM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurgherHoldtheLies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
4. That was ME! That was my call/question....
"As a 20 year Republican, I am most concerned about the direction of my party......" Then I asked the question about so called "up or down" votes on Clinton's nominees.

I was a first time caller, so a bit nervous. I wanted to make the point that if Frist takes the Senate nuclear to pander to the religious right extremists, I will change my party affiliation and take as many moderate Republicans with me as I can in the aftermath!!! Unfortunately, Hatch jumped on the Clinton question too quickly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. That was YOU?
Ha! Good one! I definitely noticed that one! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I heard you !
Edited on Wed May-18-05 09:15 AM by kentuck
That was a very admirable and moderate call... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yep, he's sticking to LIE #8 part B - See link below for debunking
Edited on Wed May-18-05 01:39 PM by fob
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004


Edit: Changed Myth to LIE in subject header, for accuracy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurgherHoldtheLies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Darn. I wish I had that info this morning.
See above: I was the last call on CSpan today for Sen. Hatch. Oh well, I still got the point across that there are many moderate/liberal Republicans who oppose the nuclear option for a handful of extremist judges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
12. In the words of Al Gore
"HELLO?!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC