|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2017 9:21:43 GMT -5
Here's a piece on Elizabeth Warren's recent escapades, titled Silencing Elizabeth Warren backfires on Senate GOP. From it: It's supposed to be a news piece, as far as I can tell, not an op-ed. Here's another one, covering the same incident, titled Warren barred from speaking on Senate floor for rest of Sessions debate. From it: Disclaimer: I don't think much of Elizabeth Warren. At all. And I'm not a fan of Sessions, either. Nor of McConnell. That said... Senator Warren too to the floor of the Senate to shit on Sessions. We've got another thread on here that covers Cory Booker playing this same basic card, using Coretta Scott King's (who, by the way, is NOT actually Martin Luther King, Jr.) 30-year-old letter to paint Sessions as a an active racist. The reasons for Rule XIX--which covers a number of things--are the same reasons we have rules about personal attacks and the like: such things get in the way of effective/meaningful debate. Note one of the other rules in XIX: It's common sense stuff. Warren went where she shouldn't have gone--which she knew she was doing--and got called on it. Now she's playing the martyr. And it's the last, I think, where perceptions of reality diverge. The CNN piece takes it as a given that what happened here is a net positive for Warren. But is it? I don't think any more of her because of this. In contrast, I was impressed with Rand Paul some years back when he actually filibustered (took the podium and spoke for as long as he could), even though I didn't agree with his position and I'm not really a supporter. I don't put Warren's actions in that category at all. It wasn't a brave or difficult thing to do, it was a cheap and easy thing to do. And I don't think I'm alone on this. Of course, there are many who feel differently, I know. And fair enough. But the issue is whether or not Warren's actions here changed the balance in that regard. I don't think it did and CNN isn't offering any evidence to make the case that it did, the writer is just proclaiming that such is the case. And in doing that, he is--imo--further justifying the idea that the mainstream media is woefully biased and cannot therefore be trusted. The Foxnews piece is far more even-handed. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 8, 2017 11:16:14 GMT -5
I will come back when I've done my morning news reading, but I just wanted to say that, since Trump's election, I am finding Fox News to be more consistently reporting news rather than giving us either pro-Trump or the hysterical anti-Trump tirades that we are apparently supposed to accept as news from outlets such as CNN (the worst offender of the "mainstream", IMO). It's almost difficult for me to believe what I'm seeing on the front page these days.
EDITED TO ADD: Good grief - look at CNN's home page this morning. HAHAHA.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 8, 2017 12:12:05 GMT -5
True liberals want the Democrats to fight Trump and McConnell and even if they can't win the fight doesn't mean they shouldn't wage the fight. Neo-liberals and conservatives can cluck their tongues and wag their finger, but they are missing the point.
The U.S. Senate is supposed to be where the great issues and controversies of the day are discussed and debated. Mitch McConnell's act to silence Elizabeth Warren is a power play that smacks of partisanship and patriarchy.
Coretta Scott King was right about Jeff Sessions 30 years ago. She's still right now and so is Elizabeth Warren.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 8, 2017 12:30:39 GMT -5
I am not familiar enough with the history of such actions. How often is Rule XIX invoked, and has it been used in the past for similar cases?
As far as I can tell, her offense was reading from Coretta King's letter, not making direct statements of her own? And the first article claims:
If that's true, it does look a bit shady.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 8, 2017 12:57:48 GMT -5
Most likely those in each camp will see it as a plus or minus depending on the group think that they're supposed to.
I'm trying to understand though. She was reading a letter that was already on the record against Sessions?
It seems to me that they're all acting like little children. The GOP probably should have let her read the letter, but why would she want to read a letter that's already been read? It doesn't add anything.
I've had it up to here with the lot of them.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 8, 2017 13:04:51 GMT -5
Also - if one believes a nominee is corrupt or bigoted, how exactly would one say that without violating Rule XIX?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 8, 2017 13:09:47 GMT -5
How do you know she didn't do this on purpose, knowing she might get shut down, and foreseeing the PR damage it would inflict?
Sometimes these moves are calculated, not pearl-clutching ineptness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 13:23:21 GMT -5
How do you know she didn't do this on purpose, knowing she might get shut down, and foreseeing the PR damage it would inflict? Sometimes these moves are calculated, not pearl-clutching ineptness. I am confident this is what she's doing.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 8, 2017 14:00:11 GMT -5
How do you know she didn't do this on purpose, knowing she might get shut down, and foreseeing the PR damage it would inflict? Sometimes these moves are calculated, not pearl-clutching ineptness. Well, she was "warned," so I have no doubt she did it on purpose. Still not sure it wasn't selective enforcement of the rules, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 14:19:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 8, 2017 15:19:05 GMT -5
I'm trying to understand though. She was reading a letter that was already on the record against Sessions? It seems to me that they're all acting like little children. The GOP probably should have let her read the letter, but why would she want to read a letter that's already been read? It doesn't add anything. Sure it does. Coretta Scott King's letter skewers Jeff Sessions in a way and with a depth of authority and authenticity few of his other critics can match. Mrs. King is a beloved figure and her words carries considerable heft even from the grave. How do McConnell and the Republicans shut up Mrs. King? No way without looking like a party of rabid bigots. Plus, it's good politics. Furthermore, if you're one of those Democrats positioning yourself for a presidential run, it's good strategy. This isn't child play at all. This is chess and played on a grandmaster scale. How do you know she didn't do this on purpose, knowing she might get shut down, and foreseeing the PR damage it would inflict? Sometimes these moves are calculated, not pearl-clutching ineptness. Sure thing. And sometimes it's the other side doing the calculating. Anybody thinking this is simply a case of quid pro quo by the Democrats after years of Republicans doing the same to them is probably thinking right, but there's a much deeper plan behind the scene beyond the posturing and bloviating on the floor of the Senate.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 8, 2017 15:33:40 GMT -5
I'm trying to understand though. She was reading a letter that was already on the record against Sessions? It seems to me that they're all acting like little children. The GOP probably should have let her read the letter, but why would she want to read a letter that's already been read? It doesn't add anything. Sure it does. Coretta Scott King's letter skewers Jeff Sessions in a way and with a depth of authority and authenticity few of his other critics can match. Mrs. King is a beloved figure and her words carries considerable heft even from the grave. How do McConnell and the Republicans shut up Mrs. King? No way without looking like a party of rabid bigots. Plus, it's good politics. Furthermore, if you're one of those Democrats positioning yourself for a presidential run, it's good strategy. This isn't child play at all. This is chess and played on a grandmaster scale. How do you know she didn't do this on purpose, knowing she might get shut down, and foreseeing the PR damage it would inflict? Sometimes these moves are calculated, not pearl-clutching ineptness. Sure thing. And sometimes it's the other side doing the calculating. Anybody thinking this is simply a case of quid pro quo by the Democrats after years of Republicans doing the same to them is probably thinking right, but there's a much deeper plan behind the scene beyond the posturing and bloviating on the floor of the Senate. Well, it is probably good politics. The Democrats are better at that. But what my point was in terms of adding something was that if I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong because maybe I am, one of the charges against the GOP was that 2 men were allowed to read the letter into the record.
So if someone already read it into the record, what purpose does it serve to have Warren read it into the record again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 15:36:16 GMT -5
Well, it is probably good politics. The Democrats are better at that. But what my point was in terms of adding something was that if I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong because maybe I am, one of the charges against the GOP was that 2 men were allowed to read the letter into the record.
So if someone already read it into the record, what purpose does it serve to have Warren read it into the record again?
The two men were permitted to read it AFTER Warren was shut down. ETA: IMO, seriously bad optics for McConnell and Senate Republicans. They didn't enforce Rule 19 when, e.g., Cruz called McConnell a liar on the Senate floor. But they enforce it when Warren reads a letter by the widow of MLK? A letter that had a role in Sessions's rejection for a place on the federal bench? And then they let two male colleagues in the Senate read that same letter. They've given that letter and Warren far more power than either would have had otherwise. The "Republicans are anti-woman" thing? This picks up where the women's march left off. I think a big mistake was made here, but I don't think it was Warren's.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 8, 2017 16:22:00 GMT -5
Well, it is probably good politics. The Democrats are better at that. But what my point was in terms of adding something was that if I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong because maybe I am, one of the charges against the GOP was that 2 men were allowed to read the letter into the record.
So if someone already read it into the record, what purpose does it serve to have Warren read it into the record again?
The two men were permitted to read it AFTER Warren was shut down. I think a big mistake was made here, but I don't think it was Warren's. Ah. Yes, that makes a big difference and I missed that detail. Not sure why, if it was just because she was a woman, or if they decided they'd caused too much of a problem the 1st time.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 8, 2017 16:23:12 GMT -5
Well, it is probably good politics. The Democrats are better at that. But what my point was in terms of adding something was that if I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong because maybe I am, one of the charges against the GOP was that 2 men were allowed to read the letter into the record.
So if someone already read it into the record, what purpose does it serve to have Warren read it into the record again?
Here's another charge for you, Vince. The Republicans have been trying to keep Coretta Scott King's letter out of sight for 30 years.We don't know who leaked Mrs. King's letter to the WaPo, but after reading it there's no reason to wonder why the GOP from Strom Thurmond to Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell have been trying very hard to ignore its existence. The truth will out.
|
|