Williams NOT confirmed by Senate

[hokeyfine]

I think it was the Dems that voted FOR a high profile dem regardless of his indescresions.
I think the R's voted FOR what they thought was the right thing to do.

So you have one group representing the people and the other, representing themselves.

Why are we surprised by this?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

If you think the Republicans voted against him because it was the right thing to do you must live under a rock. A majority of them likely voted no because he is a high profile Democrat.

What was the right thing to do? Keep PW or throw him out? I think we agree it was to throw him out. Yet the Dems didn't do the right thing. Why? The only explaination is that PW is a high profile Dem who thought he was beyond reproach and the Dems fell in line. No I don't live under a rock. Maybe you do, but you probably shouldn't try to throw that rock in your house.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I never said not confirming him wasn't the right thing to do because IMO it was. All I'm saying is that a lot of the R's likely voted against him because he is a high profile Dem. Some of them ended up on the "right thing to do" side just merely for that reason. That's politics.

:clap: repubs and dems could have cared less about what pw said about the griz football team. it was classic montana politics.

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

I think it was the Dems that voted FOR a high profile dem regardless of his indescresions.
I think the R's voted FOR what they thought was the right thing to do.

So you have one group representing the people and the other, representing themselves.

Why are we surprised by this?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

If you think the Republicans voted against him because it was the right thing to do you must live under a rock. A majority of them likely voted no because he is a high profile Democrat.

What was the right thing to do? Keep PW or throw him out? I think we agree it was to throw him out. Yet the Dems didn't do the right thing. Why? The only explaination is that PW is a high profile Dem who thought he was beyond reproach and the Dems fell in line. No I don't live under a rock. Maybe you do, but you probably shouldn't try to throw that rock in your house.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I never said not confirming him wasn't the right thing to do because IMO it was. All I'm saying is that a lot of the R's likely voted against him because he is a high profile Dem. Some of them ended up on the "right thing to do" side just merely for that reason. That's politics.

Why are you questioning the motivation of a party that did the right thing without holding the other party accountable for doing the wrong thing?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

If you think the Republicans voted against him because it was the right thing to do you must live under a rock. A majority of them likely voted no because he is a high profile Democrat.

What was the right thing to do? Keep PW or throw him out? I think we agree it was to throw him out. Yet the Dems didn't do the right thing. Why? The only explaination is that PW is a high profile Dem who thought he was beyond reproach and the Dems fell in line. No I don't live under a rock. Maybe you do, but you probably shouldn't try to throw that rock in your house.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I never said not confirming him wasn't the right thing to do because IMO it was. All I'm saying is that a lot of the R's likely voted against him because he is a high profile Dem. Some of them ended up on the "right thing to do" side just merely for that reason. That's politics.

:clap: repubs and dems could have cared less about what pw said about the griz football team. it was classic montana politics.

The board of regents has always worked together to do what's best for all entities in the university system. A hyper partisan like PW could have poisoned that group, which is a bigger issue than his comments.

For someone who claims to be independent, your liberal blinders are pretty thick here.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[grizatwork]

What was the right thing to do? Keep PW or throw him out? I think we agree it was to throw him out. Yet the Dems didn't do the right thing. Why? The only explaination is that PW is a high profile Dem who thought he was beyond reproach and the Dems fell in line. No I don't live under a rock. Maybe you do, but you probably shouldn't try to throw that rock in your house.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I never said not confirming him wasn't the right thing to do because IMO it was. All I'm saying is that a lot of the R's likely voted against him because he is a high profile Dem. Some of them ended up on the "right thing to do" side just merely for that reason. That's politics.

:clap: repubs and dems could have cared less about what pw said about the griz football team. it was classic montana politics.

The board of regents has always worked together to do what's best for all entities in the university system. A hyper partisan like PW could have poisoned that group, which is a bigger issue than his comments.

For someone who claims to be independent, your liberal blinders are pretty thick here.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Lets look at it this way. Throw out the partisan votes. All democrats who voted for and all republicans who voted against. That leaves 2 people who crossed party lines. 2 republicans who voted for. Seems like those are the 2 who have the most splainin to do. Democrats followed party lines. Williams gave the republicans a reason to vote for party lines. The "right thing" to do is vote your conscience regardless. I am sure every single one of them on both sides of the aisle felt like they did the "right thing."

 

[trendlauncher]

Hear he may get reappointed after the session ends.

 

[Fahque]

If you think the Republicans voted against him because it was the right thing to do you must live under a rock. A majority of them likely voted no because he is a high profile Democrat.

What was the right thing to do? Keep PW or throw him out? I think we agree it was to throw him out. Yet the Dems didn't do the right thing. Why? The only explaination is that PW is a high profile Dem who thought he was beyond reproach and the Dems fell in line. No I don't live under a rock. Maybe you do, but you probably shouldn't try to throw that rock in your house.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I never said not confirming him wasn't the right thing to do because IMO it was. All I'm saying is that a lot of the R's likely voted against him because he is a high profile Dem. Some of them ended up on the "right thing to do" side just merely for that reason. That's politics.

Why are you questioning the motivation of a party that did the right thing without holding the other party accountable for doing the wrong thing?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Like I said before, there are FAR more important issues to hold them accountable on than whether or not they voted to confirm PW.

 

[Fahque]

Hear he may get reappointed after the session ends.

That would not surprise me, it would give him at least two more years to serve on the board before his confirmation is rejected again in 2015. :?

 

[hokeyfine]

What was the right thing to do? Keep PW or throw him out? I think we agree it was to throw him out. Yet the Dems didn't do the right thing. Why? The only explaination is that PW is a high profile Dem who thought he was beyond reproach and the Dems fell in line. No I don't live under a rock. Maybe you do, but you probably shouldn't try to throw that rock in your house.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I never said not confirming him wasn't the right thing to do because IMO it was. All I'm saying is that a lot of the R's likely voted against him because he is a high profile Dem. Some of them ended up on the "right thing to do" side just merely for that reason. That's politics.

:clap: repubs and dems could have cared less about what pw said about the griz football team. it was classic montana politics.

The board of regents has always worked together to do what's best for all entities in the university system. A hyper partisan like PW could have poisoned that group, which is a bigger issue than his comments.

For someone who claims to be independent, your liberal blinders are pretty thick here.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

You're right, my independent blinders are on. my comments were neither liberal or conservative. i said both parties didn't care about the comments, they voted the way they did because pw was a dem. pure montana politics, neither party has the guts to think outside their party box.

 

[Ursa Major]

Hear he may get reappointed after the session ends.

If your Steve Bullock, the only way you renominate PW is if he has pictures of you with a dead woman or a live boy. Why would you want that walking controversy anywhere near you or your administration?

 

[Grizzlies1982]

Hear he may get reappointed after the session ends.

If your Steve Bullock, the only way you renominate PW is if he has pictures of you with a dead woman or a live boy. Why would you want that walking controversy anywhere near you or your administration?

You make a good point. However, that doesn't mean he won't do it... :ugeek:

 

[Ursa Major]

Hear he may get reappointed after the session ends.

If your Steve Bullock, the only way you renominate PW is if he has pictures of you with a dead woman or a live boy. Why would you want that walking controversy anywhere near you or your administration?

You make a good point. However, that doesn't mean he won't do it... :ugeek:

That's true 82, I'm old enough that nothing surprises me anymore about politics...