Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Huh?
Several Dems explicitly stated that they were going to come in and give hours-long speeches so that the vote on Rice couldn't happen until after the inaugeration - just for the symbolic hit. I think he was saying that that, of itself, was sort of low-rent. It wasn't as bad as, say, the Holocaust, but it does suggest that the new power axis of Boxer-Kerry-Dean is pushing hard for a new Ministry of Silly Walks.
|
Maybe you're not thinking clearly because of all of this inaugural euphoria, but (a) I was the one talking about "how we approach the war on terror," assuming that the number of Iraqi troops has some relevance to that subject, before club changed the subject here, and (b) no one can possibly suggest that the Democrats are trying to "score points in an election," since there won't be another election for about two years, and -- barring constitutional amendment -- Rice's boss is not ever going to run for anything ever again.
Did I defend stalling the vote on Rice? Look back at the old posts before you respond.
