…even though it was once used to delay and defeat civil rights legislation:
“For decades, the NAACP was vehemently against filibusters because they were employed to oppose and counter civil rights legislation. But the NAACP has now switched position,” notes Project 21 member Michael King. “NAACP head Julian Bond has aggressively made verbal attacks on the Bush Administration. Though Bond and the NAACP leadership vociferously deny charges of partisanship, Bond’s actions and the silence of the membership implies that partisanship is the order of the day. By virtue of its actions, the NAACP has forfeited any opportunity to provide a reasonable voice to this discussion.”[...]
Between the 1930s and 1960s, the NAACP was outspoken against filibusters. For example, anti-lynching legislation was never enacted despite three popular bills because of filibusters. The NAACP’s fair employment proposal suffered a similar fate. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unsuccessfully filibustered.
“While the NAACP has filled its coffers and built a reputation fighting the presentation of the Confederate Battle Flag, they are now celebrating a tactic used by former Confederates and segregationists to impede the fight for civil rights,” said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. “The black community should be alarmed that the NAACP now supports the same filibuster that kept lynchings legal.” (Source)
The irony is almost painful. But hey, times change, people change. It would be interesting to know why and at what point the NAACP switched positions on the filibuster.
On a side note, Basic Readings in U.S. Democracy is a good resource.
{ 80 comments }
← Previous Comments
July 28, 2003: The Senate filibuster of nominee Priscilla Owen continues as a third cloture vote fails with 53 of the 60 votes needed.
May 6, 2003: The Senate filibuster of nominee Miguel Estrada continues as a fifth cloture vote fails 55-45.
May 1, 2003: The first cloture vote to end the Senate filibuster of nominee Priscilla Owen fails 52-44.
April 2, 2003: The Senate filibuster of nominee Miguel Estrada continues as a fourth cloture vote fails 55-44.
March 13, 2003: The Senate filibuster of nominee Miguel Estrada continues as a second cloture vote fails 55-42.
March 6, 2003: The first cloture vote to end the Senate filibuster of nominee Miguel Estrada fails 55-44.
Baklava, can you consolidate these comments? – Admin
“What were you right on Actup?”
I really didn’t care for the WMD’s. I thought saddam was properly contained and deterred, WMD’s or not. Nobody doubts that he had them in the past, the question was whether he continued to have them. We did find “weapons of mass destruction related program activities” though. that was a good line.
I have no idea why you keep thinking I’m holding Bolton up to the standard of having been correct. Thats an extreme and out of touch test for competence.
Avoid and divert. You really don’t care about the WMD’s but you have a litmus test on Bolton who said the same things as Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Albright and the French Intelligence, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligenc, U.S. Intelligence and German intelligence.
So what is it (you haven’t said still) that Bolton said or did wrong on the WMD’s?
All I can gather is he (and everybody ELSE) said something different than you think.
Sorry La Shawn. It was for emphasis because SS man (Darkstar) claimed only 2 blocked. Or at least he pointed out the Democrats “claim” of only 2 blocked.
Pretty silly and I’ll get back to my day job.
Hope you can post this LINK La Shawn.
http://frist.senate.gov/_files/JudicialNomineesTimelines.pdf
If it fails I’ll just type
frist dot senat dot gov/_files/JudicialNomineesTimelines.pdf
Baklava,
Why must you and DarkStar engage in a pi**ing contest on so many threads? And quit calling people liars. It’s not attractive. Color me ANNOYED.
Q: Why must I and Darkstar engage…
A: It’s a matter of trying to correct the record and clear people’s names that are being smeared by Darkstar. Since you follow, I’m sure you saw him do it to Ward Connerly even. It incenses me that people so casually (without having the facts straight) smear people.
Was that last paragraph calling him a liar? If so, how else do you combat the people who find it so easy to smear others? There may be people reading their text who believe their smears. And that’s not right.
Tiffany wrote on 4/13 when addressing Army NCO,
That dog doesn’t hunt with me. I agree in part with some liberal policies, for example affirmative action (yes, I’m black) and just because you may not agree with said policy (or feel it’s wrong/misguided), doesn’t mean that the individual is stupid.
However, I’ve no wish to engage in a pissing contest. It’s all semantics. I just think it hinders rational, reasonable discussion.
Whatever one believes, is just that: what ONE person believes.
I can see that what I wrote about the author of “Creating Equal” by Ward Connerly, won’t matter to you.
/steppingdown from podium
Baklava,
You missed the point entirely.
This is what you said:
Looking partisan (not so truthful either) with your comments there again.
My POINT was: Debate and dispute all you want which is what you tend do. If you say someone is not truthful then you are calling them a liar.
I’m not really following why you dug up my post from 2 weeks ago and highlighted the part where I mentioned my support for Affirm. Action unless that was a dig at my liberal leanings on that topic.
But as my brother would say: WHATEVER.
I don’t have the patience to go back and forth with you because quite frankly, it’s the Internet, everyone has a opinion that they think is right and it’s not that damn serious.
And while you’re stepping off that podium, and making a poor attempt to be cute, don’t fall off and hit your head.
I don’t get it. The democrats support private armies invading foreign countries?
Baklava,
Looked up the title of the book you referred to. Actually that subject could mean something to me especially if there are points I could agree.
Don’t assume, you don’t know much about me from a comment board.
Last word from me but I’m sure not from you.
Have a great weekend!
“you have a litmus test on Bolton who said the same things as Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Albright and the French Intelligence, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligenc, U.S. Intelligence and German intelligence.”
thats all in your head. What i’ve said about bolton and WMD’s is that i’ve heard he mishandled intelligence.
I’ve told you that i’m not holding him up to the standard that he needs to be right. Can you imagine if we used that as a test for competence? the havoc!
is that i’ve heard he mishandled intelligence.
Again with the smear….
Funny SS man, you started with the mentioning of the “numbersâ€. Everyone elses point here including LA Shawn’s is about the filibuster and not the numbers.
Sigh…
My first comment was #6 in which I wrote:
Where were all of the people now complaining about “advise and consent†when the Republicans wouldn’t even give Clinton nominees a hearing in committee?
In comment #31, I responded to someone who mentioned that Republicans never fillibustered Clinton’s nominees by writing:
They just never brought up the judges for a hearing and vote IN COMMITTEE.
In #32, you said I was untruthful. I then provided support for what I wrote. I then provided the number of Clinton nominees who didn’t get a hearing. I was responding to you.
Do you have anymore argument left?
Yep, again:
For those who say this is a constitutional issue, where are committees and subcommittees spelled out in the Constitution?
For those who say that appointees deserve an up or down vote, what did they say when those 60 Clinton appointees never got a judicial hearing to get voted out of committee?
I know of more than 2 nominees who have been waiting for more than 4 years for a vote due to the threat of filibuster.
This is what I wrote in #47:
If you are going to mention numbers, then why the fuss over 10 blocked, while 124 have been passed?
I think that’s self evident.
Can’t name anyone in the last decade who employed SS
I mentioned Ellen Sauerbry. You are not being truthful.
Sorry, in the above, #47 should be #41.
Sorry La Shawn. It was for emphasis because SS man (Darkstar) claimed only 2 blocked. Or at least he pointed out the Democrats “claim†of only 2 blocked.
In comment #41 I wrote:
If you are going to mention numbers, then why the fuss over 10 blocked, while 124 have been passed?
Baklava,
Dooh. Remind me to refresh the page after a couple of hours.
The NAACP is guitly of nothing in my view. Filibusters can be used for good, sound moral purposes. The opposite is also true. Castigating the NAACP for opposing filibusters to anti-lynching legislation way back when and supporting them now is like excoriating geese for migrating in the winter. Times change. Circumstances change. Tactics need to change with them, sometimes. Remember the tactical role reversal during the Schiavo episode? Republicans that regularly decry activist judges wanted judges to be activist so that they could get what they wanted. Liberals acted like Conservatives and vice versa. Ahh, but that was last month, right?
“Guilty”…sorry for the typo. Ugh.
Found in the Weekly Standard:
Obligatory New York Times Hypocrisy Item
A January 1, 1995, Times editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:
In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.
A March 6, 2005, Times editorial on the same subject:
The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House’s judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Democrats’ weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Bush administration likes to call itself “conservative,” but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/347aspyj.asp?pg=2
Redbeard, I’m loving it. Flip-flopping depending on who benefits. ROTFLOL.
Redbeard and Andy, I hope you two never change your mind about anything. Ten years (and probably a different writer) isn’t necessarily flip-flopping. I suppose you would accuse Jesus of flip-flopping because of the different statements He made in Luke 22:36 and John 18:11. Different circumstances require different points of view sometimes. Both of you are too intelligent not to know that or employ it in your own daily lives. To suggest that views can’t or shouldn’t evolve is ludicrous AND disingenuous. Are you two STILL sucking your thumbs? I hope not! Give me a break.
Rafael, you come up with some good points and I am firmly convinced that intelligent people should change their views as they learn and integrate new facts into their worldview.
However, this is not the case. To wit, I’ve substituted Democrat for Republican, Times for Fox News and a couple of other switches to include swapping the paragraphs and look what I came up with below. Just in case anyone misses the impact, I’ve bolded the changed text. This is nothing but a pure political flip-flop.
=======================
A January 1, 1995, Fox News editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:
The Democrats are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House’s judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Republicans’ weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Clinton administration likes to call itself “progressive,” but there is nothing progressive about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.
A March 6, 2005, Fox News editorial on the same subject:
In the last session of Congress, the Democrat minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennesee, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.
Rafael, you know this latest flip-flop by the NAACP and by the New York Times has nothing to do with maturing, or intellectual re-examination, or anything else deliberative. It’s pure political opportunism. Filibuster BAD, except when it benefits the left. Then filibuster GOOD. Let’s at least be honest about what’s going on here, and then we can discuss the relative merits of differing positions.
While NAACP flip-flops on the filabuster. I wonder if they will be flip-flopping on Queazy’s real reason for leaving the NAACP. According to leaks last night/today, it’s over a woman filing sexual harassment a la Jesse Jackson. And will Marylnd voters flip-flop their moral values to go ahead and elect Queazy for political office?
Bob Dole has a good piece in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/opinion/27dole.html?oref=login
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }