« Nuclear weaponry | Main | Leaving Kansas »

August 31, 2011

GOP ‘party of no’

Here we go again. President Barack Obama announces plans to nominate someone, anyone, to a cabinet or judicial post, and the Republicans immediately threaten to block his or her confirmation.

I believe the American people are tired of hearing this broken record with the same old tired message of obstruction being played over and over by the GOP.

The “party of no” seems to be so consumed with mean-spirited vindictiveness that I question whether the Republicans would vote to confirm Jesus Christ himself simply because he was nominated by President Obama.

Eddie L. Clay
Grandview

Comments

Bigvarmit

Wow Eddie I never heard you complain when the Democrats said no to all of Bush's nominations. I guess you didn't care then. Obama voted no as a senator and I didn't hear you complain then. I guess he hasn't vetted his nominations and that is ok with you. Gun runner folks are promoted to keep them quiet. I don't hear you complaining about that. Party of no is the Democrats. No we won't allow any bill from the house to be debated in the senate. No we won't allow Boeing to build planes in South Carolina, no we won't allow drilling for oil or gas. No we will not allow the Keystone Pipeline to be built. Wow how can this be?

JUNGLEJACK

Thank you for the exhaustive references, Whispering. My point was that Democrats have been at least as political over the nomination process as the letter writer thinks the Republicans are being now. Your post confirms as much.

Solomon

.......I thought borking was....wait, that's porking......wait, isn't that the same idea?

Smarter Than You

May I suggest, Whispering, that you look up etymology.

For the purposes of political discussion, like the adults were having here, "borking" specifically refers to supreme court nominee Bork.

I'm not sure if you were purposely lying or are just that dense. Six of one, half dozen of the other; it's Whispering as usual...

whispering_to_kc

1973 came before 1987. I took calculus so I know that for a fact, pretty much.

Whether he coined the phrase (again) in 1987 or only spread it wider beyond Atlanta, William Safire was certainly no Democrat.

**********

Etymology 1 - Possibly derived from a word used repeatedly by the Swedish Chef of the Muppets. In various skits, the Chef often repeats the phrase bork, bork, bork. The word may refer to the often-failed experiments in the Chef's cooking adventures.

**********

The Dems didn't coin the phrase, the Muppets did. That's probably where you picked it up.

Smarter Than You

From Whispering’s “source” (listed curiously above his provided quotations):

“Etymology 2
From the 1987 United States Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork.[1]”

Yes, truthiness; Whispering was once again caught trying to work around it.

Any time you want to get around to actually and factually defending what Obama and the Democrats did, Whispering, we’d all be happy to listen.

whispering_to_kc

"... I believe it was the Democrats who coined the phrase "to 'Bork' someone" ..."

Ah, truthiness.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bork

"Probably the first use of "Bork" in this way was by the National Lampoon Radio Hour in 1973 to describe the firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox by Solicitor General Robert Bork. The meaning, with Bork as the Borker, was subsequently undermined by conservatives using the term as described in the following paragraphs, depicting Bork as an object of Borking.

William Safire of The New York Times attributes "possibly" the first use of 'Bork' as a verb to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20th, 1987. Safire defines "to bork" by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before." This definition stems from the history of the fight over Bork's nomination. Bork was widely lauded for his competence, but reviled for his political philosophy. In March 2002, the word was added to the Oxford English Dictionary under "Bork"; its definition extends beyond judicial nominees, stating that people who Bork others "usually [do so] with the aim of preventing [a person's] appointment to public office."

Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation fights in Supreme Court history."

Ah, truthiness.

JUNGLEJACK

To the letter writer -

I believe it was the Democrats who coined the phrase "to 'Bork' someone" meaning to dismiss an appointee out-of-hand on pure political principal.

STY - you are really on your game - took the typing right off my keyboard - so to speak.

dave

Mud...I don't understand how 1/3 of the legislative body can create jobs on there own. They have sent bills over to the senate and they were defeated. The Dems had the complete power for two years when everything was going bad and did NOTHING!!!!! ooops I was wrong on that....they spent a ton of money and that is why the don't control the congress anymore, and if enough of the Dems in the senate were up for re-election last year the repubs would be controlling that also.

Smarter Than You

Obama wanted a clear debt ceiling raise with no strings, Republicans wanted greater fiscal restraint than the passed plan has.

Obama wanted the extension to run through 2013, Republicans wanted shorter term.

It seems to me there was compromise.

Last November the voting public, by record amounts, thought stopping an irresponsible Obama and the Democrats IS in the best interest of our country.

Jpo

george- The reference to "the state" is a general term meaning government. Typically the "state" in this meaning is spelled with a lower-case "s." When referring to the "States," as in Nevada, Tennessee, etc., the capital "S" is used.

John S

Actually the Democrats in power are the party of "no" at this time.

No jobs
No hope
No future
No rights
No budget
No workable plans
No freedom
No money
No answers
No respect for the People


I could go on but you get the idea.

Where was the President when he had both houses? Playing golf perhaps?

We do want Obama to be a one termer in the same way that John Kerry wanted Bush to be a one termer. It happens every four years.

Mudstump

Quote: "Republicans were elected in record numbers last November to say "no" to this President..."

No, they were elected to lead and govern......

They are refusing to be responsible, compromise and work in the best interest of the COUNTRY. Instead, they care only about party politics and defeating this president.

They have behaved irresponsibly and have cost the country it's stellar credit rating. They are petty and ignorant of their own oath to the Constitution and the country....instead pledging to Grover Norquist to never raise taxes.

Is Grover Norquist above their oath to the Constitution, country and constituents? If he is....they don't deserve the office they hold.

george

Gro, ceding power to the state is not the problem. Ceding power to the government is. If the states were left to decide what goes on in their own boundaries, we'd all be a lot better off. Instead, the states worry about pissing off the government.

Smarter Than You

In case our leftist friends missed it, and based on this letter and Whispering's posts they did, Republicans were elected in record numbers last November to say "no" to this President and his out of control party. "No" to record debt, "no" to Obamacare, "no" to more ineffective, expensive programs.

Should this President break with his history and offer meaningful, fiscally sound programs for the economy or jobs I will be happy to back him. Should he decide to tackle entitlements with any more than lip service I will be happy to consider his offerings.

His joyride with Nancy and Harry is over and it’s time for him to lead…something he doesn’t seem particularly adept at.

Gary

Eddie, you're reading from an old talking points memo. For gosh sakes, turn the page!

whispering_to_kc

The GOP only appear to be "the party of no".

Underneath that thin veneer, they're more fundamentally "the party of me".

Groenhagen

"I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free." - William F. Buckley. Jr., "Up From Liberalism"

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright