I think it’s partly because they don’t want to vote no against a really reputable, smart, talented woman. It makes them look really bad.
And this way they get to act like they’re doing something new and newsworthy. But I don’t think it accomplishes much as far as making a statement. If anything it sends sort of a confusing message, like they’re not going to stay and fight.
The entire left refuses to accept a loss on any level. They don't self-reflect on defeat, which means they don't seek to improve when they fail. The media is a perfect example. With failing ratings, instead of doing a better job, they double-down on the fake news.
they plan on making this a circus then use the fact that it is a circus to make the point that the process is broken, and thus must be replaced with some elite committee of experts (instead of, you know, the people's representatives).
Elementary my dear Watson, they simply had no valid reason to vote no.
So to avoid the inevitable questions of "Why did you vote no?" and the potential for scandal when they can't come up with a good excuse, they simply didn't vote. Now when they are asked "Why didn't you show up?" they can pontificate on the message of unity they needed to send to prove they are ultra tolerant and wont stand for differing opinions and the blah blah blah.
Correct. Plus any one Dem on the committee can lie and say their dog was sick and that ACB was going to pass anyway.
It's all about not pissing off the middle more than necessary. They learned from Cavanaugh. If you're going to fight ugly, you have to win. They couldn't win this one, and they knew it.
This is quite accurate. ACB is so obviously an amazing judge and scholar and human being and the dems can’t oppose her confirmation, they can only oppose the process for strictly political reasons.
What do they hope to accomplish here? Genuinely? They look like children.
Sadly, this pede is correct.
Their base will love it. It's snarky, edgy, and disrespectful. They will eat this shit up like popcorn.
I think it’s partly because they don’t want to vote no against a really reputable, smart, talented woman. It makes them look really bad.
And this way they get to act like they’re doing something new and newsworthy. But I don’t think it accomplishes much as far as making a statement. If anything it sends sort of a confusing message, like they’re not going to stay and fight.
They don't have much of a base left.
The entire left refuses to accept a loss on any level. They don't self-reflect on defeat, which means they don't seek to improve when they fail. The media is a perfect example. With failing ratings, instead of doing a better job, they double-down on the fake news.
Translation: they are children.
they plan on making this a circus then use the fact that it is a circus to make the point that the process is broken, and thus must be replaced with some elite committee of experts (instead of, you know, the people's representatives).
We didn't start the fire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p3DzUwxI0o&list=PLoSDdU9TDdN3Hro0_shAeO6Yp4H3APEN1&index=8
Scary but true
Literally this. It is all theater to them. Just like the fake crying in front of fences, etc.
Party approved experts.
Elementary my dear Watson, they simply had no valid reason to vote no.
So to avoid the inevitable questions of "Why did you vote no?" and the potential for scandal when they can't come up with a good excuse, they simply didn't vote. Now when they are asked "Why didn't you show up?" they can pontificate on the message of unity they needed to send to prove they are ultra tolerant and wont stand for differing opinions and the blah blah blah.
Correct. Plus any one Dem on the committee can lie and say their dog was sick and that ACB was going to pass anyway.
It's all about not pissing off the middle more than necessary. They learned from Cavanaugh. If you're going to fight ugly, you have to win. They couldn't win this one, and they knew it.
This is quite accurate. ACB is so obviously an amazing judge and scholar and human being and the dems can’t oppose her confirmation, they can only oppose the process for strictly political reasons.
Same as it ever was...
"I wont participate if I can't win"
They don't want them on tape voting no for a woman justice. Saying no and not voting are not the same thing.
bUt sIlEnCe Is vI0lEnCe!