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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Rick who wrote (49337)5/20/2005 6:17:02 AM
From: JDN  Respond to of 59480
 
Regardless of the polls (and I am happy that the polls indicate that at least a majority of people UNDERSTAND what is at stake here ie our CONSTITUTION) we must do the right thing. Any politician that doesnt stand firm with Frist in this matter is weak kneed and not worthy of my vote in the future. jdn



To: Rick who wrote (49337)5/20/2005 10:28:30 AM
From: sandintoes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
The American Eagle is awakening and the democrats may not like the results.
amos.shop.com

Democrats Nuke
Party Beliefs
To Stop Women
The battle over Bolton and judges started with Bush v. Gore.


BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, May 20, 2005 12:01 a.m.

Surveying the Senate's nuclear-missile silos, Court TV's Fred Graham said that of course the Republican majority had the power to change the filibuster rule, and the Democrats would have to lump it: "What are they going to do," he asked, "appeal to the Supreme Court?" They didn't much enjoy their last visit to the high court after the 2000 election. But the nightmare lingers on.
The death-struggle in the Senate over the Bush judges is best understood as a re-fighting of the post-2000 Florida election challenge. Democratic logic, premised on the famous 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision, runs like this: Bush stole the 2000 election with a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. The resulting presidency, as they've often said, is "illegitimate." Because "justice" failed in 2000, Karl Rove got four years to brilliantly manufacture a bare, popular-vote majority of social conservatives in 2004, extending the illegitimate Bush presidency another four years. Ergo, obstruction is justified.

Judicial nominations, the Bolton nomination, Social Security reform--Just Say No. But will the voters buy it?

I think the Democrats have as much chance of winning the public with obstruction politics as they did of winning the past two presidential elections: close but not close enough.
If the nation's most popular sport now is poker, then the Democrats have become the party of the constant inside straight. They hold a politically competitive hand, but not a winning hand. They've got public-sector labor unions and a re-energized left that is young, willing and wealthy. But as luck would have it, we've entered the post-public era.

The public-sector ascendancy ran from the New Deal to 1981, when Ronald Reagan fired the striking flight controllers to popular applause. The workaday world for most people now is defined by markets without borders. This unstoppable reality is the Republican margin of victory, and it leaves the Democrats leaderless in a strange land. Bill Clinton is now a sainted Democratic figure, but no one seems to quite recall what he stood for. The party knows that any future victory lies with the wagon train of voters moving to the outer suburbs, but so far it has no competitive message for these folks other than, call home.

After two close but losing elections (and serious Democrats know the 2004 trendline was grim and real), the party has to play the hand it's been dealt. But this is politics. You can't fold an inside straight, and you can't walk away from the table. You're in, permanently. So you bluff. Both the judicial filibusters and the Bolton suppression are mammoth, high-stakes bluffs.

A bluff is an attempt to divert and delay reality. But if you look long enough at the Democratic opposition to Priscilla Owen, Janice Brown and John Bolton, it is impossible not to notice contradictions that undermine the Democratic Party's most basic sense of self.

On the Owen and Brown nominations especially, the Democratic faith system falters badly. Yes, we know Priscilla Owen has ruled "in favor of corporations" and Judge Brown went the wrong way in a lead-paint decision and both are a threat to "privacy" concerns. And for latter-day Democrats all this matters. But I don't see how the Democrats get around at least some voters noticing that obliterating both Priscilla Owen and Janice Brown bears false witness to the party's foundational achievements.

Above all else, from FDR onward, the Democratic Party leveled the American playing fields. We can argue the details and methods for getting there, but it's a done deal. Whether Title IX, women in the professions or blacks in formerly all-white industrial unions, this is the party's legacy, its crown jewel.

But if a smart white woman from good-ole'-boy Texas and a smart conservative black woman from California pose an unacceptable threat to national equilibrium, then years of Democratic moral claims on behalf of "all" women and minorities were hooey. There never was any intention to let conservative women or blacks advance into positions of public authority, not then or now.

Harvard's left-wing faculty tried to blow up Larry Summers for no more than raising the subject. With that event still warm, the non-activist American voters who pay attention to this stuff--and who the Democrats need to win in 2008--are asked to watch the religious left send Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown to the stake--as an act of moral principle. Well, some voters may believe women should advance on merit and others with the aid of affirmative action. But female Republicans can't achieve the nation's second-highest bench on either basis. What route is left for women other than prehistoric political obeisance? Voters have a lot of reason to be cynical these days, but there may be a limit.


The Bolton case is simpler. If George Bush had given up on the U.N., he'd have nominated a place-holder, not this linebacker. Talk to reformers inside the U.N., and they will tell you that its lifer bureaucracy is hopeless and destructive of the U.N.'s purposes. Mark Malloch Brown, Kofi Annan's chief of staff, said in our offices that rather than a nice, placid soul from the Upper East Side, he preferred a John Bolton who had the ear of the U.S. President, without which the U.N. cannot succeed in its reforms, notably stiffening its peacekeeping function. So what is the Bolton crucible about?

In part it is about the lack of a program-based opposition strategy to which all the party's factions agree. Absent that, all that binds them is anger--over 2000 and 2004, but especially Florida. As described almost daily in print or pixels, the Bush wins were somehow false--a function of "social conservatives," "the extreme right," "the religious right" and sketchy voter machinations.

If the Democratic argument takes root, then elections themselves have lost legitimacy in the American system. They no longer have relevance to a President's ability or right to govern. We won't let you govern because we do not admit the legitimacy of your victory. This is a radical position. But so is drawing to an inside straight. I'd raise them through 2008. Start with a throw-down of the nuclear option.

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

opinionjournal.com



To: Rick who wrote (49337)5/20/2005 10:36:23 PM
From: sandintoes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
Any wonder they hate the military?

Moran: Media Have "Anti-Military Bias,"
70% at WH Voted for Kerry


ABC's Terry Moran, who at Tuesday's press briefing snapped at White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, "Who made you the editor of Newsweek?", on Wednesday told Los Angeles-based national radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt that "I, in fact, agree with the substance of what Scott McClellan was saying, that it would be a good thing for Newsweek to come out try to undo some of the damage that was done by its report." Moran also conceded: "There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong." Moran revealed that some "big fish" in the White House press corps "hate" President Bush and, pressed about what percent of the White House press corps voted for John Kerry, Moran pegged it as "upwards of 70, maybe higher."

As recounted in the May 18 CyberAlert, at the May 17 briefing Moran asked McClellan: "What else does the President want this American magazine to do?" When McClellan answered, Moran scolded him: "With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?"

For more, see the May 18 CyberAlert: www.mediaresearch.org

Moran's estimate of journalistic support for John Kerry matches a just-released nationwide survey of members of the media. As recounted in the May 16 CyberAlert:
Journalists -- surprise, surprise -- voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry over George W. Bush last year, a new survey by the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy discovered, yet twice as many self-identified themselves as "moderate" over "liberal." Editor & Publisher's Joe Strupp reported Sunday: "Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68 percent to 25 percent. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1 -- but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53 percent) called their political orientation 'moderate,' versus 28 percent liberal and 10 percent conservative." For more: www.mediaresearch.org

The RadioBlogger site, James Taranto noted in his "Best of the Web" column on Thursday, posted a transcript of Hewitt's interview with Moran. An excerpt:
Newsweek vs. the White House, according to ABC News' Terry Moran.

We've talked about the bogus Newsweek desecration story for several days now, and so has the White House press corps. Yesterday, in the White House Press Room, Scott McClellan took a question about Newsweek, and said, in essence, that Newsweek ought to do all it can to correct some of the damage they did with their bogus story. Terry Moran, White House correspondent for ABC News, replied, saying that it sounded to him like Scott was trying to be the editor of Newsweek. Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times later quipped, very sarcastically, that maybe Scott wanted her to do a story that said how great the military was. Hugh was pretty exercised, played the audio on the show, and asked me to try to reach both Moran and Bumiller. Terry, to his credit, returned the call, and agreed to come on for a segment. It was a heated exchange, and it turned into almost three segments. Without further adieu, here's the interview:

HH: We played the tape of your exchange with Scott McClellan yesterday in the White House. Are you anti-military, Terry?

TM: Not at all, no. Not at all.

HH: The interpretation I give to that end, and the one that followed, Elizabeth Bumiller, is that you were astounded that the White House might expect the American media to cover the American military in a favorable light.

TM: I disagree with that interpretation. What I, in fact, agree with the substance of what Scott McClellan was saying, that it would be a good thing for Newsweek to come out try to undo some of the damage that was done by its report. If you notice what I said was, do you think it's appropriate, from that podium, speaking for the president of the United States, to instruct an American magazine as to how to go about its business. And what I was trying to do was draw a line that Scott McClellan agreed with. If you notice later on that you're absolutely right. It's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report. I was just trying to draw that line, that there may be things which are right for the media to do, but that I think that whether you are liberal or conservative, you don't want the government telling the media to do.

HH: Now, Terry, that's just silly. I teach Constitutional law, and I've been a professor doing this for ten years. And when the president's spokesperson suggests something, he's not instructing. He's not commanding. He's using the bully pulpit. And for you to react like he was is silly.

TM: And maybe, being a professor, you're teaching the law. I'm living it. I'm living the First Amendment, and let me explain to you that there is a difference between instructing someone to do someone, or telling somebody to do someone, and someone using the bully pulpit to essentially rally the president's political supporters to pressure the media to do something.

HH: Absolutely, and it's completely legitimate. Why should the media, about whom there is great contempt and distrust, and who just caused the death of sixteen innocent people, as well as the destruction of American interest abroad, be immune from criticism from the elected leader of the United States?

TM: I don't think the media should be immune from criticism. I think the elected leader of the United States has his or her hands full, and plenty of things for the elected leader of the United States to do. I think media criticism is a great thing. I think what you do is a great thing. I do not think it's a great thing for the president's spokesperson to begin instructing the media how to go about its business.

HH: He did not. Terry, he did not. That's trying to play a victim card here. You're not the victim. The victim's the American military. The victims are the dead people in Afghanistan.

TM: Agreed.

HH: The victim are the American people generally.

TM: Agreed. I'm trying...what I'm trying to do is establish a principle here, and let me read you the transcript. We would encourage Newsweek to do all they can to help repair the damage. Pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are. And today, the president's spokesman said Newsweek should go on Al Jazeera, and other Arab television networks.

HH: Yes, they should. And there's nothing wrong...

TM: As a matter of fact, I agree with you.

HH: But there's nothing wrong with the president saying that. I'd like you to explain for me what is wrong with the president himself, not his spokesperson, but if the president came down to the press room and said, I think Newsweek ought to get on their knees in front of the American people and beg their forgiveness for causing deaths of innocent people, and injuring our position in the world. What would be wrong with that?

TM: That, in my judgment, would be demagoguery. ....

HH: Let me ask you something. Major K, a major in the Army who is reporting from Iraq on his blog all the time says, all this being said, it is no small wonder that a gulf has opened between journalists and the general public. I think even the most John Q. Sixpacks know when they are being fed a line of blank blank blank. My brother called me a journalist once during a conversation about this blog. I was offended. That is a general impression among the American military about the media, Terry. Where does that come from?

TM: It comes from, I think, a huge gulf of misunderstanding, for which I lay plenty of blame on the media itself. There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing it's job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor. ....

HH: Are there members of the White House Press Corps, Terry, who actually hate Bush?

TM: I would say the answer to that is yes.

HH: And what percentage of them, do you think that amounts to?

TM: Uh, small, I would say, but some big fish.

HH: What's your guess about the percentage of the White House Press Corps that voted for Kerry?

TM: Oh, very high. Very, very high.

HH: 95%?

TM: Huh?

HH: 95%?

TM: No, I don't think that high. But I would certainly say, you know, it's hard for me, but I'd guess it's in...upwards of 70, maybe higher. You know, it's hard for me to say, but I would say very, very high....

END of Excerpt

For the transcript in full: www.radioblogger.com

For Hugh Hewitt's Web site: www.hughhewitt.com

For a picture of Hewitt, on Salem Radio Network's site: www.srnonline.com

For a picture and bio of Moran: www.abcmedianet.com