SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (276)5/2/2003 6:32:19 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793964
 
Most of Soft Money Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional
AP story by way of the NYT

Well, first off, the decision is 1700 pages long, so I am not going to read the damn thing. Couple of key points.

>>>Appeals Court Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, part of a special three-judge panel that issued the ruling, called the law ``unconstitutional in virtually all of its particulars.''

``It breaks faith with the fundamental principle -- understood by our nation's Founding Generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court -- that `debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open,''' the Republican-appointed Henderson, who found virtually all major aspects of the law unconstitutional, wrote in a separate document explaining her approach to the ruling.<<<<<

>>>>>``It's a huge victory for free speech,'' said Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, who supported less-restrictive legislation that would have limited soft money but not banned it. ``We knew these parts just wouldn't be constitutional, no matter how you looked at it. The bans they put in there were nothing but incumbent-protection tools.''
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (276)5/2/2003 6:47:24 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793964
 
Don't Say You Weren't Warned: Sid Blumenthal's forthcoming book, "The Clinton Wars" contains a number of juicy anecdotes, but one of the most telling takes place on Inauguration Day 1997.

President Clinton had finished his speech with a quote from the late Chicago Cardinal Bernadin saying "It is hard to waste the precious gift of time on acrimony and division." People on the podium warmly shook the president's hand, Blumenthal reports, but Chief Justice Rehnquist had been "chilly and expressionless toward the president throughout the morning."

Following the speech, Rehnquist turned to speak to Mr. Clinton. "Good luck," he said. "You'll need it."

Hillary figured it out. "They are going to screw you on the Paula Jones case," she said while the president waved to the crowd. cbsnews.com



To: JohnM who wrote (276)5/2/2003 11:26:29 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793964
 
Here are just a few examples of the hypocrisy that exists. Their comments are equally or more egregious that Trent Lott's, but none of them paid a price, not one of them......
____________________________________________________________

We have Congressman James Moran (Democrat) March 3, 2003

"The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should," Congressman James Moran said.

What did Moran pay for that comment? How many democrats spoke out against this comment?
___________________________________________________________

Then there's Senator John Kerry (Democrat) - April 3, 2003

Despite pledging two weeks earlier to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.

On April 3rd, Senator John F. Kerry said, that President Bush committed a "breach of trust" in the eyes of many United Nations members by going to war with Iraq, creating a diplomatic chasm that will not be bridged as long as Bush remains in office.

"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States," Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.

Kerry said that he had spoken with foreign diplomats and several world leaders as recently as Monday while fund-raising in New York and that they told him they felt betrayed when Bush resorted to war in Iraq before they believed diplomacy had run its course.

He said the leaders, whom he did not identify, believed that Bush wanted to "end-run around the UN."

"I don't think they're going to trust this president, no matter what," Kerry said. "I believe it deeply, that it will take a new president of the United States, declaring a new day for our relationship with the world, to clear the air and turn a new page on American history."

With a dig at Bush's previous lack of foreign policy experience, Kerry said he would usher in a new US foreign policy if he stood before the United Nations as president.

"I believe we can have a golden age of American diplomacy," he said, outlining his own foreign policy credentials in the speech. "But it will take a new president who is prepared to lead, and who has, frankly, a little more experience than visiting the sum total of two countries" before taking office.

The criticism appeared to contradict statements Kerry made on March 18, just a day before Bush authorized military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Kerry, who previously had been critical of Bush's efforts to reach out to the international community, was reluctant that day to answer when a television crew asked him whether the administration had handled its diplomatic efforts poorly.

"You know, we're beyond that now," the senator said after addressing the International Association of Fire Fighters. "We have to come together as a country to get this done and heal the wounds."

What did Kerry pay for these treacherous comments? How many democrats spoke out against these treacherous comments?
____________________________________________________________

How about President Bill Clinton (Democrat) June 5, 1996 in praising ardent segregationist J. William Fulbright:

“Hillary and I have looked forward for some time …to honor the dream and legacy of a great American, a citizen of the world, a native of my home state and my mentor and friend, Senator Fulbright.”

Fulbright was known as one of the most notorious segregationist of the Jim Crow South and was one of 19 senators who issued the "Southern Manifesto" condemning the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, and declaring their intention "to resist forced integration".

What did Clinton pay for that comment? How many democrats spoke out against this comment?

When asked to comment on the differing standards being applied to Lott and Clinton on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, member of the Black Congressional Caucus Greg Meeks, D-NY, evaded by declaring "this is not about Bill Clinton, it's about Trent Lott".

This seems to be the consensus.

Undoubtedly, the same holds for Clinton's relationship with Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who once approved a law that closed the state's public schools rather than allowing them to be integrated, as well as with a lifetime of anti-Black and anti-Semitic statements by both Bill and Hillary as confirmed by former bodyguards, polygraphs and advisor Dick Morris.

If Clinton could bestow honors on racist Senator Fulbright, why can’t Senator Lott praise Strom Thurmond on his one-hundredth birthday? Does the letter D after a Democratic politician stand for Double Standard? The Democratic politicians only get a slap on their wrists (Jesse Jackson is another example), whereas Republicans are held to a higher standard.

There is blatant hypocrisy here.
____________________________________________________________

Next up - Reverend Jesse Jackson (Democrat) 1984 referring to New York City as - “Hymietown”

What did Jackson pay for that comment? How many democrats spoke out against this comment?

In the rush for input on the Trent Lott flap the press sought out any available civil rights leader. Jesse Jackson, always in search of an issue and a camera was eager to comment, and not surprisingly was excused from confronting his own anti-Semitic remarks and admission to having enjoyed spitting in the food of "white people". Though Jackson was visibly infuriated by Lott's insinuated longing for the segregation of the past, he is evidently less so when considering the ongoing slave trade in Mauritania and the Sudan. When asked to comment, both he and his organization declined to comment for fear of sounding "anti-Arab".
____________________________________________________________

Another noteworthy recipient of deference for bigotry is Senator Ernest Hollings, D-SC. As an allegedly "former" segregationist he has been known to refer to Hispanics as "wetbacks" and to African American's as "darkies". He criticized California's powerful Latino lobby as "a bunch of wetbacks" in 1984. He once called Senator Howard Metzenbaum "the Senator from B'nai B'rith". At an international trade conference in Geneva, Switzerland in 1993, and expressed amazement that African political leaders weren't cannibals. "Rather than eating each other, they actually enjoy a good, square meal," he said. He labeled Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition "the blackbow coalition"

As governor of South Carolina from 1959 to 1963 he raised the confederate flag over the state capitol as a show of defiance in the face of the civil rights movement. Though the flag has become symbolic of slavery and segregation, Hollings has remained noticeably absent from the controversy.

What did Hollings pay for those comments & actions? How many democrats spoke out against these comments & actions?
____________________________________________________________

Finally Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat), a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate" March 5, 2001 in a televised Fox News interview:

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time …it you want to use that word. We all…we all just need to work together to make our country a better country."

Published reports say that the top Senate Democrat left the racist organization in 1943.

But as late as 1946, Byrd was still recommending appointments to then-Imperial Grand Wizard Samuel Green, according to a source quoted by the Washington Post last year. A quote from that letter, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

In another letter, Byrd outlined his opposition to integrating the Armed Forces in the late 1940s. In that missive, the future Senate leader was quoted describing blacks as "race mongrels" and vowing "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

One of the most famous filibusters in recent history was a 75-day filibuster against to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second-to-last speaker in this filibuster was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who also voted against the Act.

What did he pay for his "nigger" comments? How many democrats spoke out against these comments?

Well, he was elected as president pro tempore a few months after making these comments. Some price he paid, 'eh?



To: JohnM who wrote (276)5/2/2003 11:43:36 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793964
 
What hyperbole? The only thing I didn't include in my posts
to you was Lott's record. The rest was fact & reality. I
will admit you like to obfuscate when facts & reality mount
against your POV.

Byrd's horrific racist record & his outrageous comments on
Fox News resulted in absolutely nothing happening to him.
In fact, Byrd was elected president pro tempore a few
months later. It didn't hurt him at all. He simply
continued to waste untold tens of millions in pork projects
to WV.

Despite the disquieting ease in which the dreaded "N" word
rolled off his tongue, with the exception of the scattered
conservatives in the press, media reaction was tepid. The
reaction from the political left was unnoticeable.

Lott paid a steep price for his attempt to be nice to a
centenarian at a birthday party. However, to get to the
egregiousness of this comment, one had to take his comment
& extrapolate it to Strom Thurmond's segregationist
presidential campaign in 1948. Thurmond had later renounced
these views as wrong. Lott's comments were idiotic &
insensitive, there is no doubt. Perhaps they were even
racist if you feel Lott's record supports such a belief.

But where's the hype in my post?

How about the silence from the left on the matter?

How about their silence on most instances when democrats
make outrageous statements?

Why do they line up in droves when a republican makes a
comment that is taken out of context (Like Santorum's),
twisted, spun & hyped. Then the democrats refuse to let go
until they extract their pound of flesh.

By now you've already seen my other post. Those aren't the
only examples. However, the pattern of double standards,
even hypocrisy seems clear IMO.