Notes from the Kiddie Corner
about some outfit called the Committee for Justice
, which allegedly "debunks" Tom Daschle's statement, “The use of the filibuster is not unprecedented; there have been numerous votes on cloture on judges in recent years.” And how do they do this? I'm glad you asked. They define the filibusters by Republicans as temporary filibusters
(try and find that
one in your copy of Senate Rules for Dummies
), and claim that since Johnson withdrew the nomination of Abe Fortas after the cloture vote on him failed, that he was "not blocked by the minority".
The proper term for this would seem to be somewhere on a line between "baldfaced lie" and "bullshit".