I'm trying to imagine his wife's life [or his prior wives' lives] with Rush ~ but it makes my skin crawl ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating info in the original ~ Sooz

Limbaugh sees rape, nuclear option parallel
11/22/13 03:07 PM
By Steve Benen

Rush Limbaugh has frequently struggled to understand the nuances of the Senate and the “nuclear option.” The radio host recently argued, for example, that majority-rule in the Senate would mean President Obama “gets to play dictator” with judicial nominees, which really doesn’t make any sense.

But today, as Media Matters discovered, Limbaugh took his confusion to a whole new level.


OK, let’s calmly review some basic truths that are worth remembering.

First, while Limbaugh now believes only a “lunatic” would propose changing Senate rules on a majority vote, Limbaugh believed the exact opposite when the Senate was controlled by Republicans in the Bush era.

Second, as a factual matter, before this week, the Senate changed the chamber’s rules with a simple majority-rule vote 18 times. It’s unusual, but it’s not that unusual. Besides, in this case, the change only restored the previous norm that existed for generations.

And finally, if you’re the type of person who feels comfortable comparing Senate confirmation votes on non-controversial judicial nominees to rape, perhaps communicating regularly with the public is a poor career choice.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/limbaugh-sees-rape-nuclear-option-parallel

Windbag sees little green men with stiffies on his bedroom walls.

why anyone thinks this guy has any intellectual standing is beyond me.

Well, if the Republicans get control of the Senate they can change the rule back. Anyone want to bet that they will do that.

why would they do that? it benefits the party in charge.

but as i have said before, i disagree with filibustering appointees as a general tactic, so i am happy with this change, even if it "hurts" Democrats, later.

but as i have said before, i disagree with filibustering appointees as a general tactic, so i am happy with this change, even if it "hurts" Democrats, later.

I'm not sure it's a good idea. I know the rule has been abused on occasion in the past but, without it, there's not a lot of point in having candidates vetted by the Senate. Whoever the President nominates, unless, like Harriet Miers, that person is wholly unacceptable to the ruling party is going to be confirmed. When somebody wants to stack the Supreme Court, they will really stack the Supreme Court.

NOT "on occasion", jim ~ requiring a 60-vote supermajority to avoid a filibuster has been abused consistently for the almost 5 years Obama has been in office, for both judicial and administration nominees ~ and the filibuster itself has been radically abused ~ the rule change in no way forces anyone to vote yea or nay ~ it forces an up-or-down vote, instead of leaving nominees in limbo and the administration unable to function as it should ~

And, FTR, Supreme Court nominees are NOT included in returning to the 51-majority rule ~ the Dems intentionally and specifically excluded them ~ but it's my guess THAT is the change the GOP/TPers are salivating for ~

Sooz

in the 225 year history of the US, almost half of all filibustered appointments have been made in the last 5 years.

Maddow pointed out something fascinating on her show. one of the filibustered appointments recently came up for nomination (finally, after SEVENTEEN MONTHS). he was confirmed....wait for it......

91:0

that's right. ZERO GOP members voted against him.

now i ask you, given that FACT, which of the following seems more likely:

1) the GOP is intentionally blocking appointments to undermine Obama's authority as a president OR
2) that they GOP has legitimate gripes about his appointees?

IF the GOP is undermining the presidents authority to select federal appointees using this procedure, then why should they not have the oxygen in which that foul mildew grows removed?