GW Bush = Emperor Palpatine? Who knew?
 

Lucas at Cannes

Apparently Lucas isn't just interested in rolling nude through piles of cash earned from making a mockery of the beloved Star Wars name. Good ol' George is interested in politics, too.

Fox version of story

some of the dialogue in the movie seems familiar somehow...

eh, whatever. if this really is the best Star Wars movie since TESB, count me a happy boy.

No, Cheney is Palpatine. Bush is Jar Jar.

couldn't resist, could you? :headshake

damn! beat me too it! I have high hopes for this one.. then again I had high hopes for the other two too..

Couldn't think of a reason to resist.

that is called "giving in to the power of the dark side". there still may be hope for you HM - turn away from the dark side - it can lead only to destruction.

I always saw it as more of a parallel to the rise of the Nazis. When I thought about the great social import of Star Wars at all, which was not often.

(Of course, there was that whole business with the throne room scene in Star Wars and "The Triumph of the Will."

It's a parallel to the destruction of any republic, from Rome to France to Germany.

What's ironic is that before Bush, the same sentiments would have just been accepted as dangerous/evil. Now they're partisan.

HM, what is sad is when good ideals are upheld not because they are good ideals, but because they conveniently align with partisanship.

example: this morning i heard Bill Nelson (sen. from FL, i believe) say that he doesn't really have a problem with the nominee per se, but "why should the white house get to have all their nominees?"

i'm not sure, but i thought that was how it worked. the president nominates, the senate confirms or denies based on qualifications.

i am not suggesting that GWB has put the best people forward, but i am saying that the dems need to put forward the case for why someone isn't qualified or confirm them. "GW nominated them, so i don't want 'em", isn't enough IMO.

Speaking of which...
 

...having seen Ep III last night.

Political commentary much?

i haven't seen it yet, so no spoilers... but was it good?

http://movies.msn.com/news/article.a...s=191342&mpc=1

I agree with the review but give it 3/3.5 stars.

It's easily the best of the second batch but it still doesn't measure up to the first series.

Maybe ideally, but in reality, you could put "whim" in instead of qualifications, for both sides - especially during and before Clinton, where all it took was one senator from the nominee's home state to nix a nomination, no questions asked. So no, there's no long and glorious tradition of up or down votes.

If your Nelson quote is accurate, then he's an idiot, as are the Republicans who don't bother to research the nominations and just support them because Bush made them. Because there are problems with the few judges that the Democrats are blocking, whether or not Nelson knows them - only ten out of over 200 nominations were blocked. One, Priscilla Owen, is so right wing that Alberto Gonzalez called her a judicial activist several times when they served together.

However, the particular reasons for the filibusters aren't as important in terms of the Star Wars/end of a republic/rise of an empire issue as is the method by which the Republicans are trying to block the filibusters. They are attempting to change the Senate rules in order to increase their party's control of government in the long term. Unfortunately for them, it takes a two-thirds vote to change Senate rules, so they are going to bypass that rule in order to change another. Their bypass is to claim that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional, which nobody believes but many are willing to pretend, thus bringing down the hurdle to 51 votes including Cheney. The Senate Parliamentarian ( ie, the guy whose job it is to interpret Senate rules ) says this is not legal, so they are ignoring him. All this to ensure that Bush gets a 100% nomination approval rate instead of 95%.

What's amazing to me is that the GOP talks about the courts like they are this bastion of Liberalism. Currently, 60% of the judges were appointed by the GOP. Once Bush's nominations are confirmed, 85% of the federal judges will have been appointed by the GOP. Hardly a reflection of the make up of this country.

Here you go.

For one thing, Nelson's basically a Republican to begin with; you can take whatever he says with a grain of salt.

For another, "confirm or deny based on qualifications" does not equate to "everyone the President nominates is automatically qualified." If mere possession of conservative values was a disqualifier, the Democrats would have filibustered a lot more than 10 of Bush's nominees.

There are a hell of a lot of other conservative judges in this nation who would be qualified for federal judgeships. Bush could have finessed the situation easily by nominating new judges in place of the blocked 5%, then others, then others until all spaces were filled. The Democrats would either have REALLY looked bad by being forced to blatantly filibuster multitudes on strict partisan grounds, or would have been forced to confirm judges who fall well within Bush's philosophy with a comparative minimum of fuss.

But that's not what this is about. This is about the Republicans declaring that they control the floor, control Congress, and can use their majority status to render the minority irrelevant. Objections to ten judges, no matter how strenuous? Too bad, the President wants them, so they're being renominated and going through even if the Senate rules have to be changed to stifle minority dissent.

But to circle back to the original topic, how PRICELESS was it yesterday when Lautenberg (D, NJ) whipped out a placard with Emperor Palpatine on the floor of the Senate, quoting from the new Star Wars movie in support of his arguments?

<img src=http://img272.echo.cx/img272/7946/palp6bc2ht.jpg>

uh,. yeah thanks for taking the time to read what i was saying, rather than just assuming i was supporting the white house in this matter. :rolleyes:

Please. You said this:

Putting forward the case is exactly what the Dems have been doing in Senate debate over the last few days. Nelson isn't what I would call a party spokesperson on such things.

Did anything I wrote make any assumptions about who you supported? When I referred to "the Republicans", I was referring to the ones in the Senate.

edit: Ah, you were being sarcastic to BigV, though I can't see where he makes any assumptions about you either.

actually my sarcasm was meant for VSP. my statements were based on what Nelson said. i clearly stated that the white house was not faultless - their nominations have problems... but i also stated that there needs to be a legitimate reason for nixing a nomination - "the white house shouldn't get everyone they want" isn't good enough.

the point is that there are people, like Nelson, that are using this for purely partisan purposes. we should call these fools out and ridicule them for the asses that they are.

there are other people that have legitimate beefs with the nominees. they are stating their cases. we should support them.

figure out which camp you are in and go from there.

Oops - the thread isn't visible in the "edit comment" box, and I only remembered the V initial...

I'd settle for people without real opinions not being interviewed on TV as representatives of their "side". There are enough people who can list the faults of the nominees in great detail to give the reporter no excuse for picking Nelson.

just remember that when some side-line dumbass republican does open his trap and foolishness falls out.

no, i am not talking about DeLay - he is a full on asshat.

I know that I sometimes see the world in overly simplistic ways, aided by my rose colored glasses (which when worn in SE PA which is the blue corner of an otherwise red state makes things look kind of purplish), but ...

If the issue is the qualifications of the various nominees, shouldn't those qualifications be the matter under discussion rather than just filibustering to avoid voting on the nominee? I know I get a lot of this complex government stuff wrong, and I haven't been listening to Rush Limbaugh the way I should to get my opinion handed to me on this, but hey, I'm on vacation, and so I'm letting myself go wild here ...

The entire thing is just a play leading up to an eventual Supreme Court nominee. Both sides are positioning for the future.

i think they should nominate Judge Judy to the SC. that would be sweet.

After a lot of consideration, I'd really like to see Judge Joe Brown up there. But my mom wants the People's Court lady.

The qualifications have been discussed for quite a while, and will continue to be. The qualifications are the reason the filibuster is being invoked. I'm sure that any filibuster that occurs will include more discussion of the qualifications. But at this point, the qualifications arent the biggest issue. Right now, the issue is the Republican attempt to destroy the filibuster, and with it the two party system, by getting Cheney to rule the cloture rule unconstitutional, which everyone knows to be a lie.

1) The rules allow filibuster, and filibuster has been used before.
2) The Republicans want to change the rules to ensure 100% of Bush's nominations are approved.
3) A rule change requires 2/3 vote.
4) Declaring a rule unconstitutional requires only a ruling by Cheney, and then 50 senators.
5) So, even though they know it is constitutional, for political purposes they will declare the cloture rule unconstitutional because it's easier than changing the rule.

whether or not i agree with the blocking of certain nominees doesn't really matter. what really pisses me off is that support the Cheney endrun on this issue really do not pay attention to the big picture. if they change the rules, then they will be subject to the same rules when the pendulum swings the other direction, which it will.

i said the same thing in the '90's. the R's were enjoying sicking their attack dogs on Clinton (who was an easy target), breaking all the conventions of public respect for the office of the president. did they never stop to think that eventually a republican would be back in the white house? the republicans took the leashes off in the '90's but were surprised when the dogs turned around and bit them in 2001. the nastiness that has surrounded the dem's attacks on bush are only possible because of their own attacks on clinton.

i'm afraid that if they do change the filibuster rules they will taste the same bitter pill in a few years.

At the moment, the Democrats have no significant way to say "Hello, we have concerns about the qualifications of your nominees, and wish to have them taken seriously" without filibustering. The few moderate Republicans will not break ranks without serious provocation, and with their support, any nominee can be whisked through on a party-line vote.

As noted above, this is why the Dems have given ground on the vast majority of nominees and not raised significant opposition to the qualifications, choosing to filibuster only a small minority of objectionable nominees as their sole means of meaningful dissent. Choosing to renominate blocked judges and hammer them through is strictly a power play, and one that makes the Pubs' "Stop objecting so we can get back to the normal business of the Senate" arguments hypocritical. THEY picked the fight by deliberately renominating judges that they knew would cause this showdown, rather than sending up floods of "compromise" candidates who would be, in reality, probably no better than the likes of Owen or Brown.

VSP, your view on things may indeed be accurate, but is it possible that maybe just maybe - they renominated these people not jab someone with a stick, but rather they truly believe these are the best people for the job.

whether they really are the best people for the job is impossible to say, because personal beliefs are what lead one to make a judgement like that. but if a nominee fits the profile that the white house believes is the best person for the job - wouldn't they be mistaken in NOT putting them back before the committee?

i'm not saying that is the reality of it, but it is a possibility. it seems like you get to wrapped up in your idea of D= flawed protector of our freedom, R= evil, nefarious schemer. if that is how you filter every piece of info out of washington, you will be missing 50% of the picture every single time. there are a few people on each side of the aisle that truly do have the people and the future of the country as their prime consideration, the vast majority are only there for their personal benefit, a few on each side really do want to reshape the country for less than honorable intentions.

No, because the nominations already lost. There is no reason to expect the results to be different this time unless you use the nuclear option to destroy the rules. As a hypothetical, let's assume that the nuclear option vote fails and the judges are again rejected. Whould Bush be mistaken if he didn't put them up for a vote for a third round? Should Clinton have renominated all of his rejected nominations?

It's a pleasure to watch the two of you discuss (not argue) these important topics. I agree with plenty of what each of you have to say. I want to interject my two cents worth.

I believe this is a naked power play on the part of the Republicans.

l13, your point about giving them the benfit of the doubt in that perhaps these renominations are occuring because of the belief that this is the*best* person for the job is possibly true. But here's how it plays in my small smooth brain.

When I have to make a decision in my family, I try to do the right thing, all the time. I mostly succeed, thank heavens. But not because *I* am the all knowing fount of all wisdom. I consult, I seek "advice and consent". I sometimes disregard that advice (at my peril). Like when the President makes a recess appointment. That's just....weak, slimy. It doesn't have to be that way. It only happens when the executive feels there's no other way to get their way.

In this case, though, not only can they have their way, but they can rub everyone's nose in it. Think of the deterrence factor of having my opponent's best defense whipped, killed, and stuck on a pike. This is showboating, grandstanding, message sending, and hanging on the rim. Throw the penalty flag for excessive celebration in the end zone. Why? Because even if I agree with you that the nominator's motives are pure, (something of a stretch for me...) it can't possibly be true that these nominees are the ONLY ones that can do the job. Do you disagree? Pick another one.

My wife and I run the family. If I pick a solution to a problem that works, is "best" and my wife, as co-equal, strenuously objects, what should happen? Regardless if the pick can work, if there's another less divisive solution, move on to that new track. Duh. Sure, I can just do it my way if I have the means, opportunity and motive. And the problem will be solved. But at what cost? If I have disrespected the input of the other parts of the decision making system, I have only sown the seeds of future trouble. Damn skippy I will see this same thang whack me upside MY head down the road. This is not a recipie for domestic felicity. Nor is it the way to govern the country. Those in power currently are saying very clearly: Fuck you. You're not the boss of me, I can do anything I want, I have a "mandate", etc, etc. I'll spare us all the spin and counterspin. There's enough material there to make a whole other forum of threads.

(shit. I guess I can't resist after all)

To have it misrepresented as "they want minority rule" or "they want to change the constitution"... I'm so tired of the lies, the spin, the character assasination, the ad hominem arguments.... on both sides. Don't they have a f*king job to do? Like, govern?

Great. Now I'm all pissed off.

Which is all the more reason for those who _oppose_ what the Bush administration believes is the "best thing for America" to stand up and fight this.

Oh, eat me. You have no idea what I think.

Yep. And some of those presumably were among the 95% of Bush's nominees that were cleared without opposition, no? Looking at the track records of Owen and Brown, on the other hand, it's obvious to me why the Democrats and their constituents find them offensive, and if they WEREN'T fighting to keep them off the bench I'd be outraged. I expect Bush to nominate his share of knuckledraggers; that's the constituency to which he frequently plays. I DO NOT expect the Democrats to smile and wave the most troglodytic of them through without a brawl.

If they try to ward them off and fail because they can't sway the likes of Specter, I can live with it; they gave it the old college try. But the Democrats represent a hell of a lot of people in this country, myself included for the most part; they may be in the minority, but they are not irrelevant, as the DeLays and Frists and Santorums and Cornyns and Hatches of the world would like to believe. Are there more moderate Republicans? Sure, but they're not the ones setting or driving the agenda. If they need to take drastic measures to remind Frist and DeLay and Bush that their (and their constituents') opinions matter, so be it.

For the record, I agree with you. this is a no class in your face power play. i was only suggesting that there might possibly be other motives at play here. when a politician runs for office and fails, does he go home to never try again? or if his supporters still believe in him, does he give it another shot?

i think it is important to realize that the scenario that most closely fits into our view of things isn't always the only possible scenario.

hit a little too close there?

you're right, i don't have any idea what you think. i do know the tone of what you have conistantly posted throught bush's first term, through the election cycle, shortly after the election...