Why couldn’t congress give yes or no votes on justice appointees and gasoline legislation in more recent times?

congress could. they didn’t want to because of politics. it’s not like what is going on now is any different than what we’ve seen before. between 1994 and 2000 it was the republicans who were refusing to vote on judicial nominees because there was a democratic president doing the nominating. now the tables are turned, the one who makes the nomination (i.e. the president) is a republican and congress is controlled by democrats. so these days the democrats are blocking nominees from coming to a vote and republicans are complaining about it, just like republicans were blocking the vote and democrats were complaining about it in the 1990s. the parties tend not to like nominees that are picked by a president from the opposing party, so they use their power to block the nomination when they have that power. like it or not, that’s how the system works. including, i think, the complaining by the other side about the unfairness of not having an up-or-down vote on the nominee. that’s part of the system too. checks and balances can be fun!

it’s basically the same thing if you talk about any legislation, including what you call “gasoline legislation.” the parties have different views about energy policy and so they use their tools to try to advance their agenda, and stop the opposing party’s agenda from passing.

“Why couldn’t congress give yes or no votes on justice appointees and gasoline legislation in more recent times? (A rhetorical question as a playful jab, not to have a condescending tone or whatever.)”

Democrats did give a yes or no vote on judicial appointees. They said “no” by fillibustering. What they wouldn’t give was a floor vote, because they were in the minority and would have lost the vote, allowing radical idealogues to get on the federal bench.

Regarding “gasoline legislation,” John McCain and the Republicans have spent the last two years fillibustering and obstructing energy legislation. Adam, I beseech you to exam John McCain’s complete lack of leadership on energy issues these last two years. He missed 33 important votes on energy, including vote 425 last year on HR 6. That was a cloture vote (because Republicans were fillibustering) and it failed 59-40. John McCain was the only senator who skipped the vote.

Please, can somebody defend McCain’s record on energy to me?

I mean, in reality, affairs are affairs and can be decided on by the public. If the public really sees it as an issue, they’ll vote accordingly. The media can do what they want with affairs. I also personally think the Repub’s impeachment of Clinton for lying about his affair was a low blow. His affair with Lewinsky apparently had no effect on policy or broke any laws, so what was the point? Now, had he paid her illegally with taxpayer funds to keep quiet or something like THAT, then it’d become an issue, but nothing of the sort was really uncovered.

So back to the Edwards and McCain affairs. I see it only as an issue in that Edwards always tries to paint himself as this saint of a candidate fighting for poverty and fighting for family issues. Then he goes and gets expensive haircuts and has an affair. It’s hypocrisy 101.

McCain has never really been a huge proponent of family issues as his main strength. Nor does the media paint him as such a person. So there really isn’t any hypocrisy involved on his side.

HOWEVER: the bottom line is this. Each person had affairs. Each person sought out another individual to be their partner while they were with someone currently. If society sees it as a damning quality, they’d take it into consideration accordingly. The only thing it affects really is the character of an individual. Perhaps more hurtful to McCain BECAUSE he is the GOP candidate and Edwards is not. On the other hand, while Obama does not have an affair on his resume, he too has pretty damning circumstances as well.

It all depends on each voter what they value most and what is most important to them on election day. Affairs, in my opinion, should not be on the Letterman top-10 list of what makes or breaks a candidate, so long as the affair didn’t involve any illegal activities. Like the McGreevy and Foley sex scandals. Who gives a flying hoot? But each was forced to resign not because of public outcry, but because of party bickering. You could argue McGreevey and Foley were terrible politicians to begin with, which I certainly could agree on McGreevey’s behalf (I don’t quite know enough about Foley), but that they had sex scandals should not be the reason for their resignation (unless they involved illegal activities.)

See the point?

Anyway, kudos to upyernoz actually on pointing out some good points.

BTW, smitty and jacey couldn’t give a yes or no answer to your question and you seemed flustered. Why couldn’t congress give yes or no votes on justice appointees and gasoline legislation in more recent times? (A rhetorical question as a playful jab, not to have a condescending tone or whatever.)

maybe the fact that you’re in denial, that you simply don’t want to believe that mccain did something like what edwards did now even though the story comes from mccain himself, answers my question.

wait, so you’re denying that mccain was involved with cindy mccain while he was first married to his first wife? i didn’t think that was even a serious issue. i mean, mccain the one who wrote in his autobiography that he was dating cindy for nine months while he was still cohabitating with his first wife. has mccain himself been discredited as a source about mccain?

maybe you’re thinking of the alleged affair between mccain and vicki iseman, a lobbyist. it is true that the NYT published a story on that and that the story did not seem to be substantiated. but i wasn’t asking about that, indeed, i don’t think it’s fair to attack him on an alleged affair with so little evidence to back it up. no, i was asking about the affair that mccain himself admitted he had. the one where he cheated on and then dumped his first wife–the wife who raised his children and stood by him for 5 years while he was a POW–for a younger rich heiress. that’s the affair i was referring to.

so now that i’ve cleared that up, can you answer that question: do you care about that affair?

McCain cheating? The only thing I’ve ever heard of was the COMPLETELY DISCREDITED NY Times article.

So much for this being a nonissue….

sure it does. if someone is currently in office, or is seeking office, then you can say their truthfulness or moral character or whatever is relevant because those things suggest how they will make decisions while in office. but if they are no longer in office, and are no longer seeking any office, then it no longer is relevant because they’re not going to be decisions makers anymore. if someone is no longer going to be making decisions that effect the country as a whole, they’re no different than some random person we pick off the street who may have cheated on his wife.

if you disagree with my opinion, please explain why former office holders matter more than the random person from the street.

Point Mr. LaDuca seems to be trying to make is that everyone on the Left makes Edwards out to be this saint of a politician fighting for poverty, etc. and he isn’t…anymore

then i guess my point is that mr. laduca (and also, it seems smitty) is wrong that “everyone on the left makes edwards out to be a saint.” i certainly don’t and i’m on the left. thus, everyone can’t believe that. Q.E.D.

you know, you’d probably be a better arguer if you asked me what i actually think rather than just pretend that you already know and make a fool of yourself when you guess wrong. just a suggestion.

oh and jacey, i haven’t forgotten about you! i’m still waiting to hear whether you think mccain’s infidelity is also important. adam and smitty, feel free to give your answer as well.