Has ANYONE here bothered to read this? (Feingold's statement re: Roberts)

[dolo amber]

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statement/05/09/2005922608.html



I know a lot of you already have your torches and pitchforks at the ready, but if you'd stop and think for one second...HOW many times have we bitched and complained that no Dems stand for anything? That they have no spine? That there are no leaders, only followers??

This man weighed the evidence. He spoke privately with Roberts. He spoke extensively with people of all political stripes who've known the man for years. He speaks, at GREAT length, in his statement about the reservations and disappointments he had after the hearings. And after considering all of that, he made a very tough decision.

The same man who voted AGAINST the war, unlike the ever-popular Hillary and John Kerry.

The ONLY man who voted against the USA PATRIOT act.

The man who, in my definition, made a very difficult and unpopular decision due in part to:

"History has shown that control of the White House, and with it the power to shape the courts, never stays for too long with one party. When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for this Committee and the Senate. And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts to be perhaps the last Chief Justice of the United States in my lifetime."

I do not particularly like this decision. But I was not privy to the same information and resources that Russ Feingold was, and neither were any of you.

Making an extremely unpopular decision based on your own beliefs, not what you're expected to do, or what your peers advise you to do is called LEADERSHIP.

[Zuni]

1. Feingold is a school destroying Chertoff-enabling fascist

:hi:

[dolo amber]

3. You're a chertoff

:P

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. One of my senators

Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) had a private meeting with Roberts and came out of it saying her questions still weren't answered. So she is not voting to confirm. I find this interesting, as Lincoln is one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate, and, I believe, is pro-life rather than pro-choice. And remember Arkansas went for Bush in the last two elections.

Just wanted to add this for contrast. I think it is a tough decision for any Senator to make, and it sounds like both of these thought a long time about things before making their decision.

[greekspeak]

5. Doesn't seem too hard to me....yes or no to fascism...lets see here

NO is the answer. Wow...very hard.

[Zuni]

26. that is a little extreme

don't you think so?

Roberts, despite his tight lipped demeanor, based on what I have read is likely to be more moderate than the man he is replacing

[StopTheMorans]

31. no, he is the intellectual love-child of hitler and stalin, with a dash of

Pol Pot thrown in. fascist enabler :grr:

[Zuni]

32. nooooooooooooooooooo

:scared:

[StopTheMorans]

34. i bet that your tinfoil isn't even mind-control-ray tested

:eyes:

[Zuni]

35. it is only HAARP proof

as far as Pyschic CIA and FBI assassins, I am still highly vulnerable

[StopTheMorans]

36. just as i've thought; they've gotten to him

FreeRepublic is --------------> that way

[Czolgosz]

46. Roberts is more PLEASANT than the man he will replace; he's not more

moderate. There isn't enough background (and he was not candid enough during the hearings) to say whether Roberts will be the next Scalia or if he is to the right of Scalia, but he's certainly to the right of Rehnquist.

Let me ask you this; do you agree that Bush's presidency is based in large part on his fears of making the same "mistakes" he believes his father made? Don't you agree that Bush's unyielding enthusiasm for the quagmire in Iraq is fueled by his need to live down the neo-con criticism that Bush's dad missed the opportunity to take Baghdad during the Gulf War? Given that these same neo-cons loudly bemoan Bush's dad's pick of Souter to the Supreme Court, don't you agree that Bush would sacrifice all propriety to avoid the neo-con criticism his father endured? I assure you, Bush didn't appoint this Ken-Starr protege without knowing that he would be a home-run for the neo-con agenda.

[FreedomAngel82]

49. I think he's a coroporate whore

This is why W wants him. Who does Bush answer to? Cheney. Who does Cheney answer to? Halliburton. It's really not very hard to figure out.

[Czolgosz]

55. Roberts's pro-corporate, anti-consumer, anti-safety/environment regulation

views are the only rational explanation for his bizarre and way-outside-the-mainstream pre-New Deal views on narrowing the commerce clause to immunize corporations from congressional oversight. Roberts's dissent in the Rancho Viejo case is far, far more radical than anything Rehnquist ever decided and ranks with the most activist things Scalia has done.

[springhill]

59. Are you really that naive?

Bush and his neo-conservative rightwing fanatics nominated him. They wouldn't have nominated him if he wasn't going to do their bidding. What on earth makes you think this guy will be any different that any other nut they choose. Why on why would you trust them to make a decision based on equal justice for all? Name just one, just one person or decision that was for the benefit of anyone but their own butts. God, it's just amazing that after all this time people can be so blind.

[dionysus]

79. better keep that crack smoking icon, cuz you are

n/t

[baby_bear]

11. Thanks for the info about Lincoln

I have heard her name come up as a possible presidential candidate, so the more we learn about her, the better. I have heard her speak on the Senate floor and was impressed, though her voting record is to the right of my preferences in general.

b_b

[Kelvin Mace]

4. I will not burn Feingold for this

but I disagree with his reasoning.

By approving him, he is telling BushCo it is perfectly OK to refuse to turn over records to us and you may do so in the future. And you can damn well bet they will do precisely that on the next nominee.

The Dems should have balked until the records requested were delivered. They should have boycotted the hearing until the records were provided and explained that they would filibuster the nominee if their request was ignored.

Now they have made it impossible to oppose anyone Bush sends.

Barring serious illness, we have lost the SCOTUS for at least 20 years. We can have back-to-back liberal admins from now on, they will be defeated in the court.

[dolo amber]

7. Also from the statement:

"In addition, the Administration's refusal to respond to a reasonable, limited request for documents from the time Judge Roberts served in the Solicitor General's office did a real disservice to the country and to the nominee. My voting in favor of Judge Roberts does not endorse this refusal. In fact, if not for Judge Roberts's singular qualifications, I may have felt compelled to oppose his nomination on these grounds alone. Future nominees who refuse to answer reasonable questions or whose documents the Administration -- any administration -- refuses to provide should not count on my approval."

[DURHAM D]

6. Feingold nearly voted to impeach Clinton.

I just see him as enjoying the attention one can get from being an outliar. He does it over and over again while everyone looks for deeper meaning in his action I have come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than needing attention.

[TheVirginian]

42. Feingold is on the same committee as...

Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden, and you think he is looking for attention?

[CityDem]

54. No shit

Most are being way too hard on Russ. He is a true progressive and one of the more thoughtful dems in the senate.

[eyesroll]

64. How does a Senator vote to impeach?

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[cmkramer]

72. Conviction comes in the Senate

If I recall, there was some kind of a vote regarding the impeachment trial -- I think it may have been whether even to proceed -- where he voted against Clinton, but he was never considered someone who would convict Clinton in the end.

[stillcool]

8. politicians...

behaving like politicians is unacceptable

[mzmolly]

9. I don't get how we can expect a person to have a backbone, yet require

that they always agree with us.

I am still a fan of Mr. Feingold.

[dolo amber]

25. It is rather juvenile, innit?

:hi:

[blondeatlast]

66. binGO! count me among a dues-paying member as well. nt

[Oreo]

10. Maybe Roberts admitted to Feingold that he's gay

And will announce after he's sworn in.

[AllyCat]

12. Pitchfork and torch still in hand

Mr. Feingold got private information that should have been public. He has rewarded Bush for hiding information on nominees. He has rewarded the next nominees (for ANY position) that not answering questions will get the job, and he has not taken into account the fact that the man has a whole TWO YEARS of experience as a judge. And now he's going to be CJ?

Sorry. I applauded Russ' vote against USA Pat. Act as well as his vote against the war (his reason: we didn't have enough information if I recall correctly). But this man will sit on the bench for the next 30+ years, making policy (yes, he dislikes the powers of Congress so I call it "making policy") that will likely negatively affect women, minorities, voting rights, children, workers, and legal process.

He's not lost my ire. And Kohl, up for re-election in '06 has officially lost my and my husband's vote (hubby a recovering conservative).

[Skittles]

16. THANK YOU

no way that creepy little f*** Roberts is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. NO F***ING WAY.

[Sandpiper]

13. So basically, he's hoping for the best despite Roberts' lack of candor

And hoping that the Repukes will play nice the next time a Dem president nominates someone to the court.

Good thinking Russ. Betting on the goodness of the Republican Party has really gotten us far.

[Julius Civitatus]

17. Exactly, he is playing nice, expecting the Repugs will play nice too

How many times have we played this game? How many times will we get kicked in the teeth?

We are Charlie Brown to the repugs' Lucy. We just don't learn.

[Fenris]

14. But this interferes with my preconceived ideas and crackpot theories!

Why are you apologizing for that DINO? He's clearly being Liebermanesque!

[AllyCat]

15. Self-delete

Major errors while posting (?)

[CBGLuthier]

18. And him telling us to bend over and trust him

is what I call getting fucked.

[In Truth We Trust]

19. He voted to support a neo con fascist as cheif justice of the suprem court

Enough said!

[scubadude]

20. There's an old saying in Tennessee

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

[esvhicl]

21. What do his constituents want?

Our senators are elected officials who are voted in to SERVE US.

Never mind about some crystal ball and looking into a futute time when Dems will be in charge (not as long as we have electronic voting). And don't expect the Republicans to act with integrity--those days are over. If they had any integrity there would be oversight into the actions of the Pres and his cabinet.

Each senator should vote what the citizens in their district want. How have the phone calls and petitions been in Wisconsin? Do the people of his district want Roberts or not?

That should be the deciding factor.

[AllyCat]

29. Most I've talked to here do NOT want Roberts

We are relying on Russ to do the job of advising and consenting as he is ordered to do by sitting on the Judiciary Committee. Instead, he has rubber-stamped not only a poorly qualified nominee, but also the entire way BushCo. does bidness.

Thanks a lot Russ. Being a maverick is great, but there was too much on the line for this one to be your moment to stand out and get press.

[Sandpiper]

39. Russ had something on his mind when he cast his vote...

Feingold 2008.

[AndreaCG]

76. he can fucking forget THAT!

What an idiot.

[FreedomAngel82]

50. Al Gore said it best in 2000 at the convention

"Sometimes you have to do what's right and not what is popular." (in reply to post twenty-one)

[scubadude]

22. "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Te

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

[scubadude]

23. There's an old saying in Tennessee

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

[Dr Fate]

24. I dont trust Democrats who trust Bush. n/t

n/t

[StopTheMorans]

38. and I don't trust Bushs who trust Democrats who trust Bush

:thumbsup:

[Magrittes Pipe]

27. I think everything's going to work out just how I want it to, right now!

Tra-la-la-la-la-la-la



Tra-la-la-la-la

[Zuni]

28. hey, neato picture

:D

[Beware the Beast Man]

30. HeS teh TRATtOR11!!!111

Purge, purge, purge them alll!!11!!!

[Zuni]

33. burn him!!!!

[confludemocrat]

37. One quibble: Kerry and Clinton are in fact "ever UNpopular".

So he's looking down the road, not offering a totally lame, fatuous, excuse like Leahy.

[stray cat]

40. Feingold is not a raving ideologue. He is a statesman .

We need more like him who put rational thought and good governance ahead of partisan games at the expense of society and those he represents.

[dolo amber]

41. Thank you.

:)

[Dr Fate]

52. How does voting up Roberts, help society & good governance?

What is rational about voting for a man who hides parts of his resume, refuses to answer questions and is endorsed by the likes of Pat Robertson & Rick Santorum?

[Psephos]

83. Exactly n/t

[Zero Division]

43. I think Feingold is gearing up for a filibuster against the next nominee

who's likely to be the definite threat, the "red meat" candidate chosen by Bush to reward his base, whereas Roberts can be seen as simply a replacement for Rehnquist (and I think it's safe to say that Roberts is not likely to be any worse than Rehnquist, perhaps even not as bad).

[Dr Fate]

53. HE could do that AND vote "no" for this unqualified candidate too.

I suppose now your are goig to argue how qualified Roberts is.

[Zero Division]

62. I didn't say it was a good choice, just explaining what part of his

reasoning might be. I'm not going to suddenly assume that someone who had the courage and foresight to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act and the IWR is actually as stupid and spineless as some DUers now claim because of one bad vote, especially one as relatively inconsequential as this.

Criticizing a bad vote is one thing, but saying that we should fully revoke support from someone with a mostly stellar record like Feingold's(one which is much more progressive than many of those who are voting against Roberts) for one bad, relatively inconsequential (the Democrats are not going to be able to block every single Bush nominee, all of which will not be acceptable to liberal/progressive voters) vote will get us nowhere. It's the opposite extreme of never holding our representatives responsible for anything, IMO. Politicians like Feingold, who can successfully represent more progressive values in purple/red states don't just fall off of trees, as some DUers seem to believe.

I think this old post best sums up the phenomenon we're witnessing on DU recently: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1474549

[Dr Fate]

63. We were not kidding when we asked Democrats to represent us on this.

I like a lot of what Russ has stood for too- problem is, Roberts will work to destroy those things.

Yes- Russ voted against the war- but that does not give him a free pass on his vote for a lifetime appointment...

Too many times over the past 5 years, DEMs have made the mistake of giving Bush what he wants- we cant give any quarter to DEMs who would rather go along with media & RW framing while ignoring the pleas of the base. That type of "strategic" thinking is exactly what got us into Iraq.


Anyway, I'll keep an open mind- Feingold can redeem himself- but it will be tough.

[radio4progressives]

85. that's my hunch - I'm not interested in burning Feingold to the stake on

this one - I'm actually hoping he runs for President - based on what I do know about him - his performance on the committee, statements and votes on other matters that were important.

I think he's playing his cards close to his chest on the next two nominees. Word has it that there will be two more seats - one to replace Kennedy as well as O'Connor.

Roberts will be impeached for conflict of interest if he doesn't recuse himself from certain court cases against Bush Co. coming up before the supremes in the next session... or if he decides in favor of the Bush Crime Family.

just guessing of course...

[leesa]

44. Seems like more blah, blah, blah to me. If Roberts respects

precedent, then why did he help overthrow states rights when he helped Bush in the selection coup in 2000? If he believes in precedent, why did he help cover up Iran Contra, which helped an administration get away with defying a direct Congressional directive??
Why is Feingold ignoring these lapses? I see NO leadership here, just politics.

[Czolgosz]

45. Based on this vote, I'm no longer considering Feingold '08 (as I had been)

You characterize Feingold's vote as leadership, but you are making the Bushesque mistake of confusing decisiveness with leadership. Feingold's vote may reflect decisiveness and it may reflect independence from traditional Democratic values, but I've had enough of "leaders" who would lead in the wrong direction.

Feingold's statement on his unfortunate vote reflects how poorly he has reasoned through this important decision.

Feingold praises Roberts as "a fair-minded person." Where was that fair-mindedness when Roberts failed to disclose that he was in the middle of the job interview of his life with one of the parties in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, where Roberts soon after handed Rumsfeld and Bush a key victory by upholding the military tribunal process for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay? Roberts is a neo-con's dream judge (and by neo-con, I mean the neo-Trotskyites at PNAC who are anything but conservative).

Feingold praises Roberts's "respect for precedent." Where was that respect evident within Roberts's dissenting opinion in the Rancho Viejo v. Norton case where Roberts offered an interpretation of the commerce clause that would ignore over six decades of precedent and eviscerate congressional authority to regulate misconduct in the states? Roberts is an irresponsible corporation's dream judge.

Feingold praises Roberts's respect for "the constitutional right to privacy" and the other protections within the First Amendment to the Constitution. Was Roberts a feerless advocate of the First amendment in Rust v. Sullivan (where offered his view that Roe v. Wade should be reversed even though the case did not even involve the right of reproductive freedom) or Lee v. Weisman (a case where Roberts unsuccessfully argued against the separation of church and state)? Roberts is a fundamentalist-Dominionists dream judge.

Feingold shares his naive belief that Roberts "will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States." Was Roberts (a life-long political appointee entrusted to set Republican ideology with respect to the court system) eschewing an ideological agenda when he disparaged equal rights for women based on his disbelief that "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good"? For women, and those who love them or at least believe they should be treated equally, Roberts is a nighmare. Was Roberts eschewing ideology when he advised Jeb and George in the Florida re-count coup? Were the lawyers like Roberts who had advocated "states' rights" their whole careers right up until 1999 when they needed the Supreme Court to interfere in Florida's recount process eschewing Rebublican ideology? Roberts is the choice of a fool.

This is a political IQ test that Feingold has failed miserably. I'll be supporting a smarter candidate in the next round of presidential primaries.

[Generator]

57. Great post!

You made two of my points. Conflict of interest. Roberts is a weasel. Strong Dems could have added this to the list of not releasing documents and not answering questions. The only loyalty and conscience Roberts has his to ideolgocial GOD-the Bush/Cheney team.

And you will support a smarter candidate. Exactly, either Feingold has been deceived or believes in his fantasy. Both are not smart! And to that person that made that other point about him representing his people NOW not in some fantasy future-another great point.

[Don1]

70. Good points.

I am not ready to give up on him, though. This was a major screw up, so if he has another major screw up, I cannot support him.

[Czolgosz]

82. I felt the same way when he voted for Ashcroft. For me, that was his

"mulligan" which I was prepared to forgive.

[samsingh]

47. actually you make valid points

i don't trust Roberts though.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. No democrat should be voting for this man

If that's what you want to call him. He's a Bush corporation loyalist. Do you honestly believe this person will uphold the Constiution? Honestly? And I still want to see those fucking papers! He should not be voted on until those papers are released.

[texpatriot2004]

71. You are 100% right here. NO DEMOCRAT should vote for him.n/t

[tritsofme]

51. That pretty much sums up where I stand on Roberts.

Thanks Mr. Feingold, you said it very well.

[Generator]

56. Political cacluations that silence his conscience

Read the Dean thread. Beyond that-he's hornswoggled! He honestly believes that a Democrat will be president again! (okay fine-he thinks the elections are a-okay let's give him that fantasy) But he's insane if he thinks a REPUBLICON will ever say, "Hey, you did all right by my guy, so I gotta approve your guy." No-sucker-he will fight you with everything he's got until you give him a more moderate candidate. The Republican won't back down until every document is released, every conflict of interest is resolved. (I posted a major conflict of interest thread on Roberts yesterday and nobody gave a shit) Which is what you could have done here-if the Democrats realized they were Democrats and not appeasers that believe someday the Republicans will be nice to them because they were.

THEY ARE FRIGGING not just in denial, but not even in reality.

But thanks for this post-it explains everything.

[many a good man]

58. Presidential wannabees

often fantasize that THEY are president and vote accordingly to give more power to the office they wish to hold.

He's also just trying to draw attention to himself. There are better reasons to vote against Roberts. Feingold chooses his frames weakly.

[KansDem]

60. Let's not kid ourselves, but if Gore was allowed to be President

...like the voters wanted in 2000, none of this would be happening.

That's where my anger comes from. "Going along to get along" is not my idea of "leadership."

[Wordie]

61. I read each paragraph, thinking, "Well, then why will you vote for him???

He gave SO many reasons to VOTE AGAINST Roberts. In fact, he gave me some NEW reasons that Roberst should be opposed, things I had not yet heard (I have been in a post-Katrina fog).

Especially this:
<snip>
Finally, I was unhappy with Judge Roberts's failure to recuse himself in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, once he realized he was being seriously considered for a Supreme Court nomination. It is also hard to believe, as Judge Roberts testified, that he does not remember precisely when the possibility of an ethics violation first came to his attention. Judge Roberts sat on a court of appeals panel that heard the appeal of a District Court ruling that, if upheld, would have been a huge setback for the Administration's position on military commissions and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. And he heard oral argument just six days after interviewing for a Supreme Court appointment with the Attorney General of the United States, who also was a major participant in the underlying legal judgment of the Administration that was challenged in the case. I am troubled that Judge Roberts apparently didn't recognize at the time that there was an ethical issue.

Hold on a minute! Is Feingold seriously saying that Roberts, the nominee for Supreme Court Justice recently had a little "whoops" moment regarding ethics, but failed to recognize it? IS HE REALLY SAYING THAT AND THEN GIVING ROBERTS A PASS ON IT????

And then, in the very last part, there it was. (I clicked on the link before I read all your post.) At least now I understand the reason, although it may be the Feingold is expecting a sort of collegiality from his peers that may just not be forthcoming when it gets down to it (if it comes, remembering the CURRENT court's decision on Bush v. Gore).

I understand his reason now, but I'm not happy with it. If he had THAT many serious doubts, he should have listened to them.

[blondeatlast]

65. Feingold is the essence of what a politician SHOULD be, part statesman,

part strategist, part marketer.

I respect his right to make a very difficult decision regardless of whether I agree with it.

Good to see that "L" word again... :bounce:

[leftofthedial]

67. Feingold sold out based on class and personal connection

I can not support this decision no matter how he rationalizes it

Roberts' evasiveness in the hearings was tantamount to lying

[sadiesworld]

68. I don't like the vote (I've even had a few tinfoil moments)

but Feingold has such an impressive voting record overall, I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. He has a long record of voting against our so-called free trade agreements, he voted against the IWR and against the Patriot act.

No other Senator has this record.

Rock on, Russ.

[Don1]

69. What happened to transparent democracy?

"I do not particularly like this decision. But I was not privy to the same information and resources that Russ Feingold was, and neither were any of you."

Why aren't you privy to this information? It makes absolutely no sense. If Feingold has a point, he can say it to the people. That's what transparency in government is all about.

The issue here is not that Roberts is on the opposite side of the political spectrum either. He was a corporate lawyer, not a constitutional lawyer for the people. That is not ideological, it goes to qualifications and bias against the people.

[yojon]

73. When that day comes, and it will,

the Repug bastards will grind the poor sucker to bits.

Feingold is too much of a gentleman. He thinks Repugs play fair.

[AndreaCG]

74. Feingold also voted for Ashcroft

He would not have made it out of committee otherwise.

[AndreaCG]

75. Feingold also voted for Ashcroft

He would not have made it out of committee otherwise.

[dolo amber]

77. Reprinted from a blog: (thanks, eyesroll)

"Russ Feingold has said repeatedly that he gives presidents wide latitude to choose their own Cabinet members. He said this prior to confirming John Ashcroft. He said this prior to running for re-election in 2004. He said this during Campaign 2004. He said prior to confirming Condoleeza Rice, that he would vote to do so, for this reason. He will likely confirm the rest of Bush's nominees, for this reason. People who have paid attention to Russ Feingold know that he has voted and will continue to vote in this manner, and people who re-elected Russ Feingold did so either because they agreed with his position or chose to overlook it. It is not a betrayal of either his word to the voters or of his progressive values for him to do what he said, repeatedly, he was going to do."

[dionysus]

78. naw

that's flowery bullshit excusing a really unconsciencable vote :puke:

[JNelson6563]

80. No torches or pitchforks here

I'm a Feingold fan. He has stood alone when he had to. That's backbone.

Julie

[Vektor]

81. He does give a good, if not LONG :-) argument to justify his vote.

Sadly, Bush will NEVER appoint a progressive/liberal judge. So, congress is forced to vote on who and what they are given. With Bush at the helm, no one the Dems would REALLY want to see on the bench is going to get nominated. If Feingold believes, based on all the knowledge he has received about Roberts, that voting to confirm him was the right thing to do, so be it. He has to vote his conscience and it sounds like he did. :shrug:

[Zhade]

84. I think Feingold is foolish to try this oft-failed tactic.

The Republican party does not keep promises, and does not play nice.

If he honestly thinks that a Dem will get due consideration in response to Dems voting for a secretive rightwinger, he's dreaming.

But thank you for providing the context.