Politics Forum
|
List All Forums | About |
![]() ![]() Section 4: President & Congress Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Msg# 1098380
|
||||||
Glenn
I Just saw that CSpan has posted McConnell's remarks. For about 4 min. Mitch was eulogizing Justice Ginsburg. Then about 4:47 he starts his criticism of the Dems allegations. Quite an interesting 11 min presentation by Mitch. And Mitch brings in many other issues against the Dems, as well as that situation of the Senate control being by the same Political party. I was surprised how quickly this 15 min. Youtube appeared today. |
||||||
|
||||||
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Glenn Hoping that many folks were able to hear Mitch McConnell at about 3:17 PM this afternoon. For about 11 min, he cited so many facts coming from history. Those earlier historic precedents have shown identifiable patterns, when differing parties controlled the Senate VS when the same party controlled both the presidency and the Senate branches of govt. Mitch showed how his own wordings spoken about the Garland nomination are matching and conforming with the U.S. history. Mitch's words about deferring Senate action on Garland, 2 yrs ago, matched historic precedents when an opposing party controlled the Senate. And his current Ginsburg actions, vowing to hold a vote, also conform with historic precedents, when the Senate's party was the same as the President's. He did a nice job, walking folks thru these facts, and dismantling the Dem's arguments. If folks can get replays of the Bill Hemmer show, they'll be hearing actual history. And McConnell's speech might be available from other sources. This presentation totally debunks attempts by the Dems to claim any inconsistency or alleged hypocrisy against the Repubs. quotes. Shows how differing conditions have occurred in history which are matching today's Repub. actions, VS the quotes made two yrs ago--- totally depending upon which party controls the senate. And totally conforming with history Yet I expect the Dems to continue to argue about inconsistency & alleged hypocrisy. Although that doesn't hold water, seems that's practically all they've got. Tom |