In response to a comment (that he filibustered Roberts/Alito, which is false) about a non-judicial nominee blocked, a 2005 statement by Sen. Obama was quoted:
The statement are worth reading in full, including his belief that issues, not partisan lines, should be the Democrats' focus and a reaffirmation that the party is the superior one, it's seriousness making it's job harder. The fact Sen. Obama craftily went out of his way to address criticism, including on blogs, is but one early sign of his future potential. And, darn if some of the comments (it was posted on Daily Kos) already was speaking of him running for President. This in 2005! It goes to show that there are various "qualifications" for a position, no matter what branch of government is involved.
I think well rounded view of the term is best applied across the board, actually, and in various cases I see the problem with those who are not really adequately qualified, even if they have some technical requirements of the position. A good example might be a pitcher. A pitcher can have the arm and knowledge, but if he does not have the mental toughness, the result might be not to the fans' liking. This underlines why a crafty veteran, who will be a reliable middle of the rotation guy, can be quite useful, even more so than a more expensive "talent."
I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster — a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations — blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.I was against filibustering Roberts too though thought the Democrats as a whole should have voted against him on principle. I was more supportive of filibustering Alito, some noting that the Democrats should hold their fire with Roberts to use it for the O'Connor replacement. The rather unsurprising result was that Alito also was confirmed fairly easily, a token filibuster attempt getting about 1/2 of the Democrats. The false equivalence to let's say Liu is blatant, only underlining how hard it is (even when accurate) to oppose obstructionism by noting one side is worse. One side is worse, but shared blame and inclination (partisan and general anti-political sentiment, though often not totally neutral, in nature) makes it hard to make a case that meets "tipping point" quality.
The statement are worth reading in full, including his belief that issues, not partisan lines, should be the Democrats' focus and a reaffirmation that the party is the superior one, it's seriousness making it's job harder. The fact Sen. Obama craftily went out of his way to address criticism, including on blogs, is but one early sign of his future potential. And, darn if some of the comments (it was posted on Daily Kos) already was speaking of him running for President. This in 2005! It goes to show that there are various "qualifications" for a position, no matter what branch of government is involved.
I think well rounded view of the term is best applied across the board, actually, and in various cases I see the problem with those who are not really adequately qualified, even if they have some technical requirements of the position. A good example might be a pitcher. A pitcher can have the arm and knowledge, but if he does not have the mental toughness, the result might be not to the fans' liking. This underlines why a crafty veteran, who will be a reliable middle of the rotation guy, can be quite useful, even more so than a more expensive "talent."