Farah: Failed Klayman Rally a ‘Show of Force’ »« Barton Defends His Dangerous PTSD Nonsense

Palin Babbles About Filibuster Reform

Unlike most wingnuts, Sarah Palin isn’t being obviously hypocritical in her reaction to the Senate ending the filibuster for most nomination votes. Instead, she’s being completely incoherent. See if you can find anything remotely like a coherent thought in this jumble of nonsense:

“Doesn’t any president — Republican or Democrat — have the right to be able to name his team unless a nominee is just wildly outside the mainstream?” Wallace asked.

Palin insisted that the president had a lot of “pals” who were “wildly outside the mainstream” and wanted to help him “usher in an agenda to transform America.”

“As for this rule change that some people are calling the nuclear option under Senate rules, you know, I guarantee, this week, Thanksgiving Dinner, people sitting around their tables were not going to be talking about the president blessing this thwarting of a balance of power in Congress with new Senate rules,” she explained. “People are going to be talking about our failed big government policies that will bankrupt this country.”

“So, this distraction, this new talking point in the media and with Congress and with Senators and with the president blessing this action, it’s a distraction and it’s a lot of, you know, double standard and Democrat hypocrisy because just a few years ago they were so anti, anti-nuclear option.”

Palin added: “So, American people, they don’t care about distractions like that. They’re not in the inside baseball Senate rules stuff. They want government to be back on our side. They want it to get out of our lives… So, this new rule change, it stinks.”

It’s just gibberish, a big jumble of words that don’t belong together and don’t mean anything. If she had yelled “I like circus peanuts” it would have been just as relevant as a response to the question.

Comments

  1. Rip Steakface says

    I think what she’s trying to say is that the rule change is a distraction and that we should be talking about policy.

    Of course, that would be extracting meaning from something Sarah Palin said, which is obviously a fool’s errand.

  2. imrryr says

    “I guarantee, this week, Thanksgiving Dinner, people sitting around their tables were not going to be talking about the president blessing this thwarting of a balance of power in Congress with new Senate rules. People are going to be talking about our failed big government policies that will bankrupt this country.”

    As if you needed a reason not to attend the Palin family thanksgiving dinner.

  3. John Hinkle says

    I ran it through the translator. What she’s saying is: “At Thanksgiving dinner, people will be talking about politics. Democrat hypocrisy. President’s blessing. Double standard taking point. Distraction. Therefore this new rule change stinks.”

    Wow, my translator needs an upgrade.

  4. dugglebogey says

    People want the government to get out of their lives. Unless they want birth control. Or an abortion. Or not be a christian. Or not have a religion forced on their children.

    Those are the times we need government to tell us what’s right? If there’s a vagina or Jesus Christ involved, the government should be all up my ass?

    What the fuck?

  5. Loqi says

    @The guy from the best MST episode ever
    Extracting meaning from Palin’s words is easy. Everything translates into, “Pay attention to me.” I think we learned about these kinds of transformations in linear algebra.

  6. Randomfactor says

    Of course, that would be extracting meaning from something Sarah Palin said,

    Goat entrails are easier to read.

  7. John Pieret says

    There were two words together in the otherwise incomprehensible jumble that actually made sense and approached something resembling truth: “Democrat hypocrisy.” It’s quite true that Democrats are being hypocritical about this but that skips over the very salient fact that Republicans are being exactly as hypocritical.

  8. Jordan Genso says

    @11

    The burden is on those who want to claim the Democrats are being hypocritical to explain why the difference in filibuster use is not an appropriate reason to change one’s mind on the issue.

    A Democrat who felt it was not appropriate to eliminate the filibuster in 2005 is not automatically hypocritical if they support getting rid of it today, because there is absolutely legit reasoning to do so today that didn’t exist in 2005*.

    *there were legit reasons in 2005, and so those that did want to get rid of it back then weren’t wrong, but their reasons didn’t include “the filibuster is being abused to an unprecedented extent and there is no other option”. There’s nothing wrong if that new reason (which is now true) is what caused someone to change their mind.

  9. savagemutt says

    No. inside baseball is not the same as the infield fly rule.

    Well, crap. Sarah Palin knew something I didn’t. I don’t know if I can carry on.

  10. John Pieret says

    Jordan Genso @ 14:

    First, you have to establish that the filibuster wasn’t being used to an “unprecedented” extent as things stood back in 2005. Next, you have to establish what constitutes “abuse” of it … by some measure that amounts to more than “this time it’s my ox being gored.”

    If you can do that, fine. It would a very rare example of when politics didn’t involve hypocrisy.

  11. Synfandel says

    Sarah Palin is a verbal Rorschach ink blot test. It’s not what she says that matters; it’s what you hear in it.

  12. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    If you translate that from English to Japanese via Russian, and then back to English, you get this:

    For information on changing this rule, Thanksgiving dinner, this week, 1 Warranty, you know, under the rules of the Senate, referred to as the option of nuclear, people, the Congress and the new rules of the Senate some people I’m not going to sit around talking about the president of the meal blessing stall balance power. The people, the policy of big government, he will talk about why not become bankrupt country version.

    I think it’s clear why not become bankrupt country version.

  13. coffeehound says

    @ 16,

    First, you have to establish that the filibuster wasn’t being used to an “unprecedented” extent as things stood back in 2005. Next, you have to establish what constitutes “abuse” of it

    Pretty low bar, considering Republicans got most of the things on their wish list during that time(Social Security reform excepted), and Dems as usual were reeds in the wind; Repubs would not have resisted resorting to a “nuclear option” in a minute (as they had discussed), but the point is it wasn’t needed for them to fulfill their agenda, only the threat was needed.
    It’s not hypocritical to change your mind if the context of the argument has changed. We also have new players, most of whom now view their goal as not to govern but to obstruct. Mind you, I agree politics and hypocrisy go hand in hand and Dems have their share of duplicitous players, but I don’t believe that the term applies in this specific instance given the way the face of governing has changed in 6 short years.

  14. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    @John Pieret

    Assuming you’re serious and not just trolling, you should check out Google Images for “judicial nominee filibuster graph”. Then come back and we’ll talk.

  15. Jordan Genso says

    @16 John Pieret

    I was going to say the same thing as Hercules @21.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/11/the-democratic-case-for-changing-the-filibuster-rules-in-1-chart/
    Shows both that what the Democrats were doing under President Bush was not “unprecedented” if you compare it to what the Republicans did under Clinton, and also shows that what has happened under Obama is “unprecedented” and any reasonable observer would agree is “abuse”.

    This is also a helpful graph:
    http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/07/img/congressionalnomineesgraphs1.png

    There are more, but I don’t want my comment to be blocked by posting more links.

    When looking at the objective data, do you really hold the position that my statement is wrong when I say that what the Republicans have done since 2009 has been “unprecedented and abuse”?

  16. says

    Genso: Republicans have been mindlessly stalling Democratic (and even Republican) appointees’ confirmations long before 2009. Try the 1970s, when Jesse Helms was almost the de-facto Senate Minority Leader.

  17. John Pieret says

    Hercules Grytpype-Thynne @ 21:

    OK, the Republicans used it more and more effectively than the Democrats but when does “more” equal “abuse”? Both parties sought to use it to achieve their political ends and frustrate their opponents even though they were in the minority. The Republicans have done it better (because, as Will Rogers said: “I don’t belong to any organized political party … I’m a Democrat”) but the intent was the same, just a different ox.

    Now, I think it is fine to do away with filibusters but the real test of whether the Democrats are being hypocritical.will be when a Republican President and Senate are elected.

  18. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    @John Pieret #24

    The Republicans have decided that their only policy goal is thwarting President Obama. Thwarting Bush was never the overriding goal of the Democrats.

    If you can’t see or acknowledge that difference, you’re not worth talking with.

  19. John Pieret says

    Hercules:

    Thwarting Bush was never the overriding goal of the Democrats.

    Really? If the Democrats in 2006-2010 weren’t saddled with the “Blue-Dog” faction of their own party, they wouldn’t have tried to thwart everything Bush did?

    you’re not worth talking with

    Spoken like a true tea bagger or any other ideologue.

  20. Jordan Genso says

    If the Democrats in 2006-20[08] weren’t saddled with the “Blue-Dog” faction of their own party, they wouldn’t have tried to thwart everything Bush did?

    I hope you realize you are comparing reality (the Republicans currently taking obstructionism to new levels) with what you predict would’ve happened under a hypothetical (that Democrats would’ve done the same were things different back then), and using that as a basis to claim hypocrisy. In other words, the Democrats would be hypocrites if your alternate history were true. But your alternate history is not real, and so neither is your claim of hypocrisy.

    If the Democrats in 2006-2008 acted in a manner that was comparable to the Republicans 2009-present, then I would agree with you that they are hypocrites. But even based on your own comments, you recognize they didn’t. So why do you still want to accuse them of hypocrisy for previous actions they never took? Hypocrisy only is real if the initial action (that is contradicted by later actions) is real.

  21. John Pieret says

    In other words, the Democrats would be hypocrites if your alternate history were true.

    No, what I’m saying is that you’ve failed to prove that the Democrats of today aren’t hypocritical. Prima facie they are being so … their rhetoric, as Ed has often pointed out, has been swapped for what the Republican rhetoric was in 2005. You claim there is a change in quality, not just quantity, but where is the proof of that?

    Look, I’m not acccusing Democrats in general of being evil. Hypocrisy, whether we like it or not, is an essential lubricant of politics. And I would certainly agree that there are more truly evil Republican politicians today than there are Democratic ones.

    But if we can’t look critically and objectively at what the people on “our side” are doing, how can we claim to look critically and objectively at what the people on the “other side” are doing?

  22. Pierce R. Butler says

    168 nominees filibustered throughout all presidential history.

    82 of such filibusters since January, 2009.

    IF the filibuster was ever justified, that justification had clearly fallen into severe abuse during the last five years.

    As for the goddamn Democrats after 2006, they not only neglected but actively obstructed their clear constitutional duty in the face of blatant high crimes and misdemeanors – not to mention crimes against humanity as defined by international treaties signed and ratified by the US – to such a degree that their primary hypocrisy is the pretense of representing any sort of progressive non-evil politics. (And that’s without counting in our new turbo-surveillance state, non-judicial executions, and what little we can see of the “Trans-Pacific Partnership” sell-out of democratic autonomy and free-speech to the plutokleptocracy.)

  23. Jordan Genso says

    You claim there is a change in quality, not just quantity, but where is the proof of that?

    I thought that you had already accepted the quality argument presented @25:

    The Republicans have decided that their only policy goal is thwarting President Obama. Thwarting Bush was never the overriding goal of the Democrats.

    Your response @26:

    If the Democrats in 2006-20[08] weren’t saddled with the “Blue-Dog” faction of their own party, they wouldn’t have tried to thwart everything Bush did?

    …indicated that you recognized the difference in quality. That there is filibustering to block specific nominees (quality ‘A’), and there is filibustering to thwart everything the president tries to do (quality ‘B’). You then tried to claim that the Democrats would’ve been guilty of quality ‘B’ if things had been different, but in reality they aren’t guilty of quality ‘B’.

    If you now want to argue that there is no difference in quality between filibustering to block a specific nominee, and filibustering simply to block a president from being able to do their job, then what was the point of your response @26?

    Also:

    their rhetoric, as Ed has often pointed out, has been swapped for what the Republican rhetoric was in 2005.

    Look at then-Senator Obama’s quote from 2005 in Ed’s other post:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/11/27/scarboroughs-hypocrisy-on-hypocrisy/

    There is nothing hypocritical about his statement, since it could’ve been true at the time, and no longer true today. When circumstances change, reasons to do or not do something become invalid, and so it is therefore non-hypocritical to change your position as those reasons no longer apply.

  24. Jordan Genso says

    But if we can’t look critically and objectively at what the people on “our side” are doing, how can we claim to look critically and objectively at what the people on the “other side” are doing?

    I absolutely agree. But I think the “objective” observer would easily be able to understand the difference in quality between what the Democrats were doing, and what the Republicans are doing. It’s the bias towards “false equivalency” that leads one to the other conclusion.

Leave a Reply