Bin Laden's Death: Reaction

NBC News/MSNBC provides reaction to Osama bin Laden's death.

President George W. Bush

President Barack Obama called Bush in Dallas at 9:04 p.m. central time to inform him that bin Laden was dead and they spoke for four minutes, a Bush spokesman said.

The Sept. 11 attacks were a defining moment of Bush's presidency. He launched the war in Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden spanned the rest of his presidency. His statement:

"Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001. I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude. This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done."

Bonnie McEneaney, 57, wife of Eamon McEneaney, who died in the 9/11 attacks

"It doesn't bring back all the wonderful people who were killed 10 years ago. It's long overdue."

"I'm completely numb. I'm stunned," she told msnbc.com.

Jack Lynch, 75, who lost his son, New York City firefighter Michael Francis Lynch

"The first thought I had in my mind was that it didn't bring my son back. You cut the head off a snake, you'd think it would kill the snake. But someone will take his place. People like him still exist. The fact that he's gone is not going to stop terrorism."

"I understand that bin Laden was an evil person. He may have believed in what he was doing. I'm not going to judge him. I'm sure some people will look at this and they'll be gratified that he's dead, but me personally, I'm going to leave his fate in God's hands."

Lee Hanson, 78, of Easton, Conn., who lost his son, Peter, daughter-in-law, Sue, and 2 1/2 year-old granddaughter, Christine — the youngest victim of the 9/11 attacks.

They were aboard the second plane that hit the World Trade Center
"It's taken a while to do it, but we've done it. It's a really good thing to get out there — if you fool around with the U.S., you will be caught."

"Many segments wil try to avenge this ... There's still a great danger there."

Still, he said: "There's no such thing as closure."

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg

"After September 11, 2001, we gave our word as Americans that we would stop at nothing to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. After the contribution of millions, including so many who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, we have kept that word.

"The killing of Osama bin Laden does not lessen the suffering that New Yorkers and Americans experienced at his hands, but it is a critically important victory for our nation - and a tribute to the millions of men and women in our armed forces and elsewhere who have fought so hard for our nation.

"New Yorkers have waited nearly ten years for this news. It is my hope that it will bring some closure and comfort to all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001."

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo

"The death of Osama Bin Laden is a historic moment that represents a major step in our country's efforts to defeat terrorism around the world and should bring a sense of justice to the victims of 9/11 and his other attacks.

"We will never forget those who were lost, their families and those who risked their lives to save others.

"New Yorkers endured Bin Laden's most devastating and destructive attack, and his death brings back the horrific images and emotions of that terrible day. However, his death also reminds us of our strength, courage, and unity as a people in our response to his actions.

"The Administration's vigilance and dedication to hunt down Osama Bin Laden has never wavered and I applaud their commitment to this cause. I also applaud our men and women in uniform who have fought tirelessly against terrorism and to defend freedom.

"The threat to our state and our nation unfortunately does not die with Osama Bin Laden. We must remain vigilant in preventing terror acts and continue to do everything to keep our state and nation safe and secure."

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio

"This is great news for the security of the American people and a victory in our continued fight against al Qaeda and radical extremism around the world. We continue to face a complex and evolving terrorist threat, and it is important that we remain vigilant in our efforts to confront and defeat the terrorist enemy and protect the American people. I want to congratulate — and thank — the hard-working men and women of our Armed Forces and intelligence community for their tireless efforts and perseverance that led to this success. I also want to commend President Obama and his team, as well as President Bush, for all of their efforts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor

"Nearly a decade ago, in the days after 9/11, President Bush said, 'Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.' Tonight, we've learned that justice has been done. The man with the blood of more than 3,000 Americans on his hands, the man who forced us to begin to think the unthinkable - is now dead.

"Families who lost loved ones at the hands of Bin Laden and his terrorist organization have grieved for far too long and this sends a signal that America will not tolerate terrorism in any form. The men and women of our armed forces and intelligence community have fought valiantly for the last decade and this is a major victory and testament to their dedication. I commend President Obama who has followed the vigilance of President Bush in bringing Bin Laden to justice. While this is no doubt a major event in our battle against terrorism, we will not relent in our fight against terror and our efforts to keep America safe and secure."

Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security

"I commend President Obama on the announcement of the killing of Osama bin Laden.

"Today, the American people have seen justice. The leader of the United States' top enemy has gotten what he deserves for orchestrating the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans on September 11, 2001.

"In 2001, President Bush said 'we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.' President Bush deserves great credit for putting action behind those words. President Obama deserves equal credit for his resolve in this long war against al-Qaeda.

"This great success would not have been possible without the tireless work of countless brave men and women who have served around the world in this War on Terror."

Sen.Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y.

"This is a thunderous strike for justice for the thousands of my fellow New Yorkers — and citizens from all over the world — who were murdered on 9/11. It took close to ten years, but the world's most wanted terrorist has finally met his deserved fate. New York's heart is still broken from the tragedy of 9/11, but this at least brings some measure of closure and consolation to the victims and their families.

"This is a massive accomplishment for the countless military and intelligence personnel who have been urgently dedicated to this task for the past decade. Because Bin Laden's evil dogma has poisoned the minds of so many others, we cannot let up in the war on terror. This successful mission sends a definitive message to those who would test the resolve of the people of the United States of America: do not doubt our resolve; if you do us harm, we will find you, we will mete out justice, and we will prevail."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

"I am overjoyed that we finally got the world's top terrorist. The world is a better and more just place now that Osama bin Laden is no longer in it. I hope the families of the victims of the September 11th attacks will sleep easier tonight and every night hence knowing that justice has been done. I commend the President and his team, as well as our men and women in uniform and our intelligence professionals, for this superb achievement.

"But while we take heart in the news that Osama bin Laden is dead, we must be mindful that al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies are still lethal and determined enemies, and we must remain vigilant to defeat them."

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (she was national security adviser on 9/11)

"Absolutely thrilling. I am overwhelmed with gratitude and continue to be amazed at what our military has achieved."

British Prime Minister David Cameron

"Osama bin Laden was responsible for the worst terrorist atrocities the world has seen — for 9/11 and for so many attacks, which have cost thousands of lives, many of them British. It is a great success that he has been found and will no longer be able to pursue his campaign of global terror.

"The news that Osama bin Laden is dead will bring great relief to people across the world.

"But above all today, we should think of the victims of the poisonous extremism that this man has been responsible for. Of course, nothing will bring back those loved ones that families have lost to terror. But at least they know the man who was responsible for these appalling acts is no more."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

"This is a resounding triumph for justice, freedom and the values shared by all democratic nations fighting shoulder to shoulder in determination against terrorism."

Shifty Chuck Schumer

Are Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer Democrats or Americans first?

I think it's clear.

They put party before principle.

They put personal political opportunity ahead of the good of the nation.

There is no question that Dems hope to make political hay in Iraq.


This morning on FOX News Sunday, I caught the very end of a segment with Chuck Schumer and Arlen Specter.

Chris Wallace was asking Schumer to comment on Harry Reid's comment: "I believe ... that this war is lost."

Schumer was an absolute buffoon, trying to explain that Reid didn't really mean that the war is lost.

He tried to say that Dems aren't about throwing their hands up in surrender.

Schumer said that if the mission is redefined, if it becomes just a series of small operations targeting al Qaeda in Iraq, then the war is not lost.

He floundered around, insisting that Reid meant the war as it's now defined is lost, but he never meant to say that the war is lost.

Schumer did more dodging and lame rationalizing than Bill Clinton at his slickest.

Wallace challenged Schumer with his own words as well as Reid's. He questioned whether it was appropriate for Dems to be attempting to capitalize politically on the war in Iraq.

For instance:

Reid: We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.

Schumer: Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankles.

Schumer brushed it off.

Specter rather impotently called Schumer on his hypocrisy. It wasn't much of a rebuttal, but at least he didn't just sit there while Schumer played semantical games.

Schumer claimed that the Dems are pro-victory in Iraq.

That, of course, isn't the case.

Schumer has made the Dems' intentions very clear.

Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankles. They know that, and we've just been at this a couple of months and we're going to keep at it. It's not an accident that the ones who are squirming the most are the ones who are up in '08.

Defeat in Iraq is in the Dems' self-interest.

How can they be on the same page as America's enemies?

How can they live with themselves?

Seriously. It's nauseating.
______________________________

On another Sunday morning show note:

I want to watch the podcast of today's Meet the Press.

A number of guests were on the program to discuss the shootings on the Virginia Tech campus. University president Charles Steger was interviewed.

Did Tim Russert bring up the Cho "manifesto" and NBC's role in promoting it?

I'd like to know.

I only saw a little of the roundtable discussion, including panel members Doris Kearns Goodwin, David Gregory, Jon Meacham, and Pete Williams. Russert did launch the Virginia Tech topic. I heard a few bits about gun control and Seung-Hui Cho's "manifesto," but I didn't hear the NBC group talk about NBC's disgraceful glorification of the killer.

Perhaps I missed it.

I saw enough to notice that Doris Kearns Goodwin had work done on her eyes. She never struck me as the type that would do that.

Kenny Rogers, yes. Kearns Goodwin, no.

Shut Up, Chuckie!

Chuck Schumer continues to run his mouth. So what else is new?

Today's he's babbling about the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Obviously, Chuckie has been sent out to work the lib media and put Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on defense.

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales abruptly canceled travel plans Tuesday amid growing calls for his ouster over the firings of eight federal prosecutors during a White House-directed housecleaning of U.S. attorneys.

Gonzales also accepted the resignation of his top aide, Kyle Sampson, who authorities said failed to brief other senior Justice Department officials of his discussions about the firings with then-White House counsel Harriet Miers. Miers resigned in January.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, who is leading a Senate investigation of the firings, called for the second time in three days for Gonzales to step down. Additionally, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Gonzales "ought to be shown the door — he ought not to be in this administration. We have got to end corruption in our government. It is not OK to be corrupt."

Chuckie says, "It is not OK to be corrupt."

Really?

Then why is it OK for Dems to be corrupt?

Why does Chuckie give himself a pass when it comes to corruption?

Let's go back to a year ago and look at Chuckie's hypocrisy--

John Wagner of the Washington Post is incompetent as a journalist, or maybe he's just having a bad day.

Today, he writes about the charges Lauren B. Weiner will face because she allegedly "fraudulently [obtained] a credit report on Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele," Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Wagner writes:

The episode, which happened last July, came as both parties started digging into the backgrounds of opposing candidates for one of Maryland's marquee races this year, the contest to replace retiring Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D). Opposition research is typical in contested statewide races, but it is illegal under
federal law to obtain a credit report under false pretenses.

Notice that he says, "both parties started digging into the backgrounds of opposing candidates."

Hey, Wagner! That may be the case, but it was the Dem operatives that acted illegally. Weiner was not engaged in "typical" opposition research, unless such research is typically illegal.

Whitney C. Ellerman, an attorney for Weiner, said his client plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor under an agreement with prosecutors that could result in the charge being dismissed in a year.

"She basically made a mistake, and she is accepting responsibility for that mistake," Ellerman said. "She wants to get on with her life."

Ellerman said Steele's credit report was destroyed and not disseminated to anyone.

Republicans seized on the incident when it came to light in the fall as evidence of how seriously Democrats are taking Steele's candidacy, an idea they sought to further
yesterday.

"This sort of dumpster diving shows Marylanders that Democrats are willing to engage in this campaign from the gutter," said Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington, which was heavily involved in recruiting Steele to run. "It's unfortunate that the lieutenant governor and his family have had to endure it."

Oh, poor baby Lauren. She made a mistake and violated the privacy of Lt. Gov. Steele. Oops!

The big, bad Republicans, on the other hand, "seized on the incident" and continue to exploit it.

This is a textbook example of blaming the victim.

Do you detect any bias in Wagner's account?

Personal finances were considered fertile territory for researchers looking into Steele, who acknowledged financial difficulties when he ran for statewide office in 2002. Sources familiar with the episode said Steele's credit report was obtained with the use of his Social Security number, which was found on a public court document.

Weiner and Katie Barge, then the DSCC's director of research, resigned after their superiors learned of the incident, which drew the FBI's attention. The DSCC is the arm of the national Democratic Party that works to elect U.S. senators.

William Lawler, an attorney for Barge, said it is his understanding from prosecutors that neither his client nor the DSCC will be charged.

"We're pleased to see this matter come to a conclusion," DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said last night. "Our thoughts are with Lauren. She is a fine person who made a mistake."

Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, would not comment on the case or why the office is apparently not charging Barge, who was Weiner's boss at the DSCC.

The letter to Steele says Weiner "will be charged with accessing a computer without authorization and thereby obtaining information contained in a file from a consumer reporting agency on a consumer." The act is a violation of a section of the U.S. Code titled "Fraud in Connection With Computers." The penalty could range from probation to six months in prison.

I have a question for Wagner:

How can you possibly write about this incident and the DSCC without mentioning the chairman of that committee when the illegal activity took place?

It's Senator Chuck Schumer!

When this matter finally came to light, it was downplayed by lib media outlets. That's understandable, especially given that the Dems and their mouthpieces in the media had just launched their orchestrated "Culture of Corruption" campaign against Republicans.

In September 2005, Edward Morrissey wrote a great piece for the Weekly Standard. He revealed the hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer and the failure of the mainstream media to hold him accountable for the illegal activites of the DSCC.

Morrissey noted the irony in the fact that this corruption and illegal violation of Steele's privacy occurred under the watch of the co-author and sponsor of the "Schumer-Nelson ID Theft Prevention Bill, introduced in April of [2005] to discourage the kind of actions that Barge and Weiner took on Schumer's behalf."

He wrote what Schumer said then about possible privacy abuses:

[O]ur comprehensive measure focuses on making sure that your personal information isn't surfing the Internet without your permission and that companies handling your Social Security number and other sensitive information should come under the watchful eye of the Federal Trade Commission immediately.

Morrissey went on to ask, "Who knew that within weeks of uttering this statement, his staff at the DSCC would have provided such a compelling example of the problem?"

Morrissey concluded:

Keeping two staffers on paid leave of absence after breaking federal laws on privacy--especially when data privacy happens to be a specialty of Senator Schumer--does indicate a casual approach to practicing what Schumer preaches.

It certainly does.

The hypocrisy of Schumer should have been pounced on by the press. It wasn't.

The fact is the mainstream media fails to inform the public in a fair and balanced fashion. Again and again, we see examples of the lib media pushing the lib agenda rather than accurately and adequately reporting the news.

Wagner's March 16 article about Weiner's violation of Steele's privacy and the Schumer connection is a glaring case in point.

Read more here.

The bottom line:

Schumer should shut up about corruption and firings and resignations. He's a hypocrite.

He's dirty.

Walter Reed: Outrage du Jour

Every single American should be horrified by the terrible conditions and treatment that some of our military personnel receive at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and facilities around the country.

The problems must be rectified immediately. Anything less is simply unacceptable.

That said, I think it's disgusting that the Democrats are playing politics with the matter.

They are acting as if it's a Bush administration scandal.

The buck does stop with the current administration, but it also stops with every single elected official in Washington, as well as politicians at the state and local levels.

WASHINGTON -- Substandard living conditions found at the Army's flagship veterans hospital likely exist throughout the military health care system, the head of a House panel investigating Walter Reed Army Medical Center said Monday.

"We need a sustained focus here, and much more needs to be done," Rep. John Tierney said of a scandal enveloping Walter Reed. Charges of bureaucratic delays and poor treatment there have produced calls in Congress for quick reform.

Tierney said he is afraid "these problems go well beyond the walls of Walter Reed," adding that "as we send more and more troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, these problems are only going to get worse, not better."

A House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee hearing Monday at the hospital brought a wide range of apologies from top-level Army officers and the Army's No. civilian. "We have let some soldiers down," said Peter Geren, the undersecretary of the Army.

It's terrible.

WE have let them down.

WE = The U.S. Government

The U.S. Government is more than the Bush administration.

Senators and representatives need to take responsibility, too.

They need to be held accountable as well.

Tierney, D-Mass., chairman of the panel, questioned whether problems at the facility are "just another horrific consequence" of inadequate planning that went into war in Iraq; a problem created by contracting out work there to private business, or some other cause.

"This is absolutely the wrong way to treat our troops, and serious reforms need to happen... immediately," he said.

These are the sort of political games that I find nauseating. Tierney is exploiting the situation to score political points with the anti-war crowd.

He appears to care more about that then the sick and wounded.

Here's more.

From The Los Angeles Times:

Congressional Democrats on Sunday kept up their attacks on substandard care for injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as they prepared for hearings on the issue this week.

"If it's this bad at the outpatient facilities at Walter Reed, how is it in the rest of the country?" Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on ABC's "This Week." "Walter Reed is our crown jewel."

In a letter sent Sunday to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Schumer called for the creation of an independent commission to examine conditions at all medical facilities treating military personnel and veterans. He suggested that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a retired Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, lead the panel.

"To think that men and women are serving their country in the most honorable and courageous way possible and all we give them is a dilapidated, rat-infested, rundown building to recover is a disgrace," he wrote. "My fear is that Walter Reed is just the tip of the iceberg, and merely highlights the pervasive and systemic mistreatment of our service members."

Schumer's call for an independent panel follows a promise from President Bush last week to name a bipartisan commission for the same purpose.

...Members of Congress from both parties have expressed outrage at the substandard care. The revelations have also embarrassed the Bush administration as it has been laboring to build support for sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

The Bush administration should be embarrassed.

SCHUMER SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED, TOO.

No vets should be lingering in poor conditions. This didn't just start with Iraq.

It's a disgrace.

Many administrations owe vets an apology. U.S. senators and representatives from decades past owe vets an apology.

This is not a partisan matter to be exploited by the Democrat Party for political gain.

Their hands aren't clean.

Curb Your Enthusiasm, Tim Russert

Did you watch Meet the Press this morning?

Tim Russert was absolutely giddy.

He doesn't have the champagne chilling. He's already popped the cork.

Russert's guests were National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Sen. Chuck Schumer, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Rep. Tom Reynolds.

As usual, the partisan Russert would occasionally toss a jab at the Dems, but for the most part, he was attacking the Republicans.

While I watched most of the program, I didn't give it my undivided attention.

But to the best of my knowledge, Russert did not challenge Schumer on his DSCC's dirty and illegal use of Michael Steele's social security number to fraudulently obtain his credit report.

Read about the Schumer DSCC scandal that the lib media barely noticed here and here.

The AP quickly jumped on a comment made by Dole and splashed it.

WASHINGTON -- The head of the GOP Senate campaigns on Sunday sought to deflect growing criticism about the war in Iraq, saying her party will prevail in Tuesday's elections partly because "Democrats appear to be content with losing."

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., acknowledged that Republicans face a tight race to maintain control of the Senate, but that voters will focus more narrowly on local issues. Democrats need to take six seats to gain power in the 100-member Senate.

...On Iraq, she said: "We need to win the war, and it would be disastrous to lose."

"It's like they're content with losing. To pull out and withdraw is losing. The Democrats appear to be content with losing," she said.

The AP account doesn't give an adequate description of Dole's remarks.

Before Dole finished explaining her comment, the rude Russert interrupted her. She clearly hadn't concluded her statement.

He refused to let her speak, saying something to the effect that she had made a very strong comment and he had to let Emanuel respond immediately.

There was a lot of crosstalk, due to the fact that Russert was being so unfair in the way he was moderating the discussion.

Eventually, Russert raised his voice and said, "Time out, time out...," while playing ref and gesturing the time out hand signal.

Funny that Dems can make virtually any "strong" comment bashing Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld and Russert never interrupts to allow a Republican to counter.

Of course, Dem cheerleader Russert never really gave Dole the opportunity to expound on her statement. He attacked and moved on, pulling a hit and run on cut and run.

Naturally, Russert failed to consider the validity of Dole's remark.

In reality, the Dem plan to "redeploy" is a plan for defeat. Redeploy, as Cardin said on Meet the Press last weekend, means redeploy the troops in Iraq to the United States, bring them home.

FACT: There is no question that bringing the troops home at this stage would be viewed by our enemies as a loss for America.

If the Dems want to retreat now, they most certainly appear to be content with losing, as Dole said.

The Dems' short-sightedness may work for them politically this Tuesday, but it will be devastating for our country in the long run.
________________________________

Read about Russert's sleazy attempt to attribute a "Rumsfeld must go" editorial running in military newspapers to members of the military here.

Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters writes:

[RNCC Chairman Tom] Reynolds exposed those so-called "military newspapers" as nothing more than cogs in the Gannett chain, a member-in-good-standing of the MSM whose flagship paper is the reliably-liberal USA Today.

Russert flashed the panel of the editorial shown here, and asked Reynolds:



"Do you believe it would be helpful [to have] a change at the top of the Pentagon?"

That's when Reynolds unleashed this salvo:

"First of all, the Army Times editorial is written by its Gannett-owned newspaper, which is well-positioned [on the 'anti' side] in other editorial comment relative to the war. And so the editorial writers may be coming from Virginia rather from the military, particularly because it's owned by Gannett."

Russert really has lost it.

I think he's letting his loathing for Bush and especially Rumsfeld diminish his integrity as a journalist.

I doubt that he cares.

Weiner Cuts a Deal

Some news from the Dems' Culture of Corruption:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A former Democratic staffer pleaded guilty today to computer fraud for snooping on Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.

Under the plea agreement in U.S. District Court, Lauren B. Weiner, 25, avoids jail time, but she has a year to do 150 hours of community service.

Steele -- a Republican running for U.S. Senate -- was notified by Democrats in Washington that a staffer used Steele's Social Security number to obtain his credit report last year. Weiner was fired from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee after the breach was discovered.

Why is Chuck Schumer, the chairman of the DSCC, never mentioned in the Weiner story?

How can one possibly write about this incident without mentioning the chairman of that committee? The illegal activity took place on Schumer's watch.

Weiner sought the Social Security number of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele and U.S. Senate candidate and used it to access his credit report and personal financial records. That's not an "Oops, it was an honest mistake" sort of thing.

Read the statement of the offense.

You'll see just how egregious her actions were. She set up a fake email account and answered a series of questions to impersonate Steele, all to obtain his financial information.

I don't think community service, even 150 hours, is a severe enough punishment.


As far as the Schumer connection goes, I don't think there's some sort of coverup and he personally instructed Weiner to break the law.

HOWEVER, if a prominent Republican chaired a committee and a staffer was involved in such immoral, illegal tactics, that Republican would be crucified.

The Dems talked like President Bush personally put the Abu Ghraib prisoner on a leash; yet Chuckie's chairmanship isn't included in these Weiner updates.

This AP report is another example of its lib bias.

Read this partisan hit piece from the Associated Press. It's not an opinion column. It's the AP's idea of news. Unbelievable.

The Associated Press, ABC, Dick Gregory, Helen Thomas... Every day the lib media look worse and worse.

IT'S YOU, CHUCKIE!

John Wagner of the Washington Post is incompetent as a journalist, or maybe he's just having a bad day.

Today, he writes about the charges Lauren B. Weiner will face because she allegedly "fraudulently [obtained] a credit report on Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele," Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Wagner writes:

The episode, which happened last July, came as both parties started digging into the backgrounds of opposing candidates for one of Maryland's marquee races this year, the contest to replace retiring Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D). Opposition research is typical in contested statewide races, but it is illegal under federal law to obtain a credit report under false pretenses.

Notice that he says, "both parties started digging into the backgrounds of opposing candidates."

Hey, Wagner! That may be the case, but it was the Dem operatives that acted illegally. Weiner was not engaged in "typical" opposition research, unless such research is typically illegal.

Whitney C. Ellerman, an attorney for Weiner, said his client plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor under an agreement with prosecutors that could result in the charge being dismissed in a year.

"She basically made a mistake, and she is accepting responsibility for that mistake," Ellerman said. "She wants to get on with her life."

Ellerman said Steele's credit report was destroyed and not disseminated to anyone.

Republicans seized on the incident when it came to light in the fall as evidence of how seriously Democrats are taking Steele's candidacy, an idea they sought to further yesterday.

"This sort of dumpster diving shows Marylanders that Democrats are willing to engage in this campaign from the gutter," said Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington, which was heavily involved in recruiting Steele to run. "It's unfortunate that the lieutenant governor and his family have had to endure it."

Oh, poor baby Lauren. She made a mistake and violated the privacy of Lt. Gov. Steele. Oops!

The big, bad Republicans, on the other hand, "seized on the incident" and continue to exploit it.

This is a textbook example of blaming the victim.

Do you detect any bias in Wagner's account?

Personal finances were considered fertile territory for researchers looking into Steele, who acknowledged financial difficulties when he ran for statewide office in 2002. Sources familiar with the episode said Steele's credit report was obtained with the use of his Social Security number, which was found on a public court document.

Weiner and Katie Barge, then the DSCC's director of research, resigned after their superiors learned of the incident, which drew the FBI's attention. The DSCC is the arm of the national Democratic Party that works to elect U.S. senators.

William Lawler, an attorney for Barge, said it is his understanding from prosecutors that neither his client nor the DSCC will be charged.

"We're pleased to see this matter come to a conclusion," DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said last night. "Our thoughts are with Lauren. She is a fine person who made a mistake."

Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, would not comment on the case or why the office is apparently not charging Barge, who was Weiner's boss at the DSCC.

The letter to Steele says Weiner "will be charged with accessing a computer without authorization and thereby obtaining information contained in a file from a consumer reporting agency on a consumer." The act is a violation of a section of the U.S. Code titled "Fraud in Connection With Computers." The penalty could range from probation to six months in prison.

I have a question for Wagner:

How can you possibly write about this incident and the DSCC without mentioning the chairman of that committee when the illegal activity took place?

It's Senator Chuck Schumer!

When this matter finally came to light, it was downplayed by lib media outlets. That's understandable, especially given that the Dems and their mouthpieces in the media had just launched their orchestrated "Culture of Corruption" campaign against Republicans.

In September 2005, Edward Morrissey wrote a great piece for the Weekly Standard. He revealed the hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer and the failure of the mainstream media to hold him accountable for the illegal activites of the DSCC.

Morrissey noted the irony in the fact that this corruption and illegal violation of Steele's privacy occurred under the watch of the co-author and sponsor of the "Schumer-Nelson ID Theft Prevention Bill, introduced in April of [2005] to discourage the kind of actions that Barge and Weiner took on Schumer's behalf."

He wrote what Schumer said then about possible privacy abuses:

O]ur comprehensive measure focuses on making sure that your personal information isn't surfing the Internet without your permission and that companies handling your Social Security number and other sensitive information should come under the watchful eye of the Federal Trade Commission immediately.

Morrissey went on to ask, "Who knew that within weeks of uttering this statement, his staff at the DSCC would have provided such a compelling example of the problem?"

Morrissey concluded:

Keeping two staffers on paid leave of absence after breaking federal laws on privacy--especially when data privacy happens to be a specialty of Senator Schumer--does indicate a casual approach to practicing what Schumer preaches.

It certainly does.

The hypocrisy of Schumer should have been pounced on by the press. It wasn't.

The fact is the mainstream media fails to inform the public in a fair and balanced fashion. Again and again, we see examples of the lib media pushing the lib agenda rather than accurately and adequately reporting the news.

Wagner's March 16 article about Weiner's violation of Steele's privacy and the Schumer connection is a glaring case in point.

The List of Dangerous Senators

It was a done deal before this morning.

Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. is the 17th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Because it was a foregone conclusion, maybe that's why a remarkable number of Democrats, twenty-two, chose to vote AGAINST one of the most brilliant individuals to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. They felt safe in buckling under to the pressure of extremist groups.

Nevertheless, I suspect that this NAY vote will come back to bite anyone on this list hoping to win a national election.

Dianne Feinstein - California

Barbara Boxer - California

Joe Biden - Delaware

Daniel Akaka - Hawaii

Daniel Inouye - Hawaii

Dick Durbin - Illinois

Barrack Obama - Illinois

Evan Bayh - Indiana

Tom Harkin - Iowa

Barbara Mikulski - Maryland

Paul Sarbanes - Maryland

Ted Kennedy - Massachusetts

John Kerry - Massachusetts

Debbie Stabenow - Michigan

Mark Dayton - Minnesota

Harry Reid - Nevada

Frank Lautenberg - New Jersey

Jon Corzine - New Jersey

Chuck Schumer - New York

Hillary Clinton - New York

Jack Reed - Rhode Island

Maria Cantwell - Washington

Obviously, John Roberts is qualified. Nonetheless, these individuals disregarded that. They chose to play politics. They put politics ahead of principle.

Many on the list are known far Left-wingers. Their NAY votes, while unfounded, are par for their extreme liberal course.

Of particular concern to me, however, are those senators who claim to be moderate, yet voted NAY.

Barrack Obama is NOT a moderate.

Hillary Clinton is NOT a moderate.

Evan Bayh is NOT a moderate.

Has Bayh had a personality transplant? What was he thinking? Obviously, he wasn't. It had to be all politics, pure and simple.

Obama also wasn't thinking.

Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention was widely considered to be a breath of fresh air. He came off as a centrist, as actually speaking with the good of the country in mind rather than his political party. He was able to impress both Democrats and Republicans.

Apparently, that was a facade. Obama's vote against John Roberts reveals that he is an extremist, or at least willing to kow-tow to the radical Left extremists.

He blew it.

When it comes to Hillary, we know that she stands for nothing, besides the most recent poll numbers. She has painted herself into the far Left corner of the room. After her NAY vote, there is no way she can claim to be in the center. No way.

It's no secret that Bayh, Obama, and Clinton have their sights set on higher office.

Because the Roberts confirmation was a done deal and their votes would not alter the outcome, it amazes me that these senators made such an incredible blunder.

Katrina as Dem Political Fund-Raiser

This is one of the most sickening and most blatant examples yet of Democrats exploiting Hurricane Katrina for political purposes. This time they aren't just trying to score points; they're trying to score cash.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A new Democratic effort to whip up indignation about the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina also tried to raise money for Democratic candidates.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat and the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, issued an appeal Thursday urging people to sign an online petition to fire the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency over his handling of the Katrina response.

After an inquiry from the Associated Press, the DSCC quickly pulled down the page and said they would donate to charity any money raised by the anti-FEMA petition.

When recipients clicked on a link to the petition, the top center of the screen _ above the call to "Fire the FEMA director" _ had asked for a donation to the DSCC.

Other DSCC Web pages have the same appeal for contributions, but several do not.

Since Katrina, Democrats have charged Republicans badly botched the response, and some have called for the firing of FEMA chief Michael Brown.

In recent days, Republicans hit back by accusing Democrats of trying to use the human tragedy for political gain. The letter, the GOP said Thursday, was proof.

"It's a disgrace to exploit Hurricane Katrina to raise political funds," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

"They should halt this activity because it's way over the line," he said.

DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said: "While the content of the letter is totally valid, it should have never been linked to a Web site that asks people to contribute to political campaigns. We regret it, have removed the letter from our site and will donate any contributions raised as a result of this petition to the Red Cross."

The letter is the latest sign that more than a week after Hurricane Katrina struck, the political fight over what went wrong in the response continues to grow.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has called for an independent commission to probe government failures before and after Katrina, while House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called Bush "oblivious, in denial, dangerous" in his approach to relief efforts.

Rep. Thomas Reynolds, head of the House Republicans' fund-raising efforts, described Democratic criticism as "reprehensible," saying "this is a tragedy, not an opportunity."

Rep. Reynolds is right. The devastation left by Hurricane Katrina is a tragedy, not an opportunity. The rabid far Left don't see it that way. To them, everything is viewed as an opportunity.

The Democrats' strategy, under mad Dr. Howard Dean, is to exploit tragedies for their political gain. The Dems and their liberal media mouthpieces and the MoveOn/Democracy for America/True Majority axis of extremists all jump at the chance to use others' misery for their benefit.

Excluding that brief period of bipartisanship following 9/11, the behavior of the Democrats in the last three and a half years sank lower and turned uglier than I ever thought possible.

The sick minds of Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee decided an online petition against Michael Brown would be a great time to do a little fund-raising.

After being called on the activity by the AP, which is shocking in itself, DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said it was regrettable that a letter calling for Brown's head was linked to a plea for cash for Dem candidates.

Had AP not inquired about the appropriateness of the Dems' use of the Katrina tragedy to solicit funds, you know that money-making scheme would still be chugging away. I seriously doubt Singer's claim that all contributions raised from their repugnant appeal will be donated to the Red Cross.

Right. The check is in the mail.

While abhorrent, Schumer's scheme doesn't surprise me at all. This sort of thing is what I've come to expect from the Dems.

Whether it's the deaths of soldiers in Iraq or bad economic reports or the tragedy of a natural disaster, what's bad for news for America is pounced on as good news for the shameless, politically opportunistic Dems.

Leahy and Schumer Address the Press

After President Bush announced Judge John G. Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer gave the Democrats' response at a press conference.

Transcript excerpts

LEAHY: No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Someone confirmed today can be expected to serve on the court until the year 2030 or later.

How the nominee views precedent, whether he regards (inaudible) law, how he will exercise the incredible power of a Supreme Court justice to be the final arbiter of our rights and the meaning of the Constitution, all of these raise very different considerations than in the lower court.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom I voted for for the Supreme Court, is a model justice. She brought a fair and open mind to the bench; she decided cases without a political agenda; she's widely respected as a jurist of common sense and practical values. She didn't prejudge cases.

And I regret that the extreme right has been so critical of her and was so adamantly opposed to her successor sharing her judicial philosophy.

The Constitution calls on us in the Senate to examine nominations to the court, not to rubberstamp them.

I wonder if Leahy has any regrets about the extreme left being so critical of Thomas or Scalia.

Does it trouble Leahy that when President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the Supreme Court Ted Kennedy said, "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids..."?

I doubt it. Only the "extreme right" bothers Leahy. Hypocrite.

.....

SCHUMER: The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy.

I voted against Judge Roberts for the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions fully and openly when he appeared before the committee.

For instance, when I asked him a question that others have answered, to identify three Supreme Court cases of which he was critical, he refused.

But now it's a whole new ball game for those of us who voted against him, for those of us who voted for him and for Judge Roberts.

I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is — particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court — will decide to answer questions about his views.

Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it is even more important that he fully answers a broad range of questions.

I hope, for the sake of the country, that Judge Roberts understands this and opens questions — sorry, and answers questions — openly, honestly and thoroughly.

Chuckie is full of...threats.

.....

LEAHY: There's one Supreme Court. Only 101 people get a say in who's going to be there; first and foremost, primarily, the president, because he nominates.

But then the 100 members of the Supreme Court are supposed to stand in the shoes of all Americans to say: Is this person going to protect our rights? Is this person going to uphold the Constitution? Is this person going to give equal justice to everybody, no matter who you are, no matter what your political affiliation, no matter what your cause is?

Did Leahy really say that there are 100 members on the Supreme Court or is this a transcript error?

Of course, if he actually did say it, we know he meant to say "100 members of the Senate." It was a slip of the tongue. However, if Bush made a similar mistake, he would be blasted for his stupidity by every lib from here to eternity.

.....

SCHUMER: The one thing I would say is, to the best of my knowledge, at least no one on our side was offered names and asked to give an opinion. It would have moved the process forward more quickly, because if a few days ago someone said, "What do you think of Judge Roberts or this one or that one?" we could have done some initial research and given some preliminary views.

But be that as it may, consultation is over now. And we have a nominee and we have to begin the process.

So the fact that consultation wasn't as full as some of us would have liked, I don't think is going to jaundice any of our views in terms of judging Roberts as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

President Bush has been incredibly accommodating to the Dems, far more than he needed to be; yet Chuckie still is whining. Nothing Bush does will satisfy him. He's like a spoiled, ungrateful child.

.....

QUESTION: Has the word "filibuster" crossed your mind?

SCHUMER: It's much too early to cross any bridge like that.

What a load! He's not fooling anyone. Filibuster is part of the Dem game plan.

However, Schumer's right about it being too early to cross that bridge. That can't happen until the Roberts nomination goes to the full Senate. Then, the filibuster can begin.

.....

QUESTION: Senator, you pointed out the difference between appellate courts and the Supreme Court, but, still, just two years ago, this nominee — there wasn't even a roll call vote (OFF-MIKE).

Is it realistic to think that that nominee in just two years would be so controversial that there would be an honest-to-God, all- out fight over that nomination?

LEAHY: I'm not going to compare him — something I want to mention. Judge Bork got 99-0 vote for Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Oh, no. Bringing up Bork is not a good omen for Roberts.

.....

SCHUMER: This, the Supreme Court, is far different than the court of appeals. The Supreme Court makes law. We hope they do it by interpreting precedent and following the legislature.

But they make law.

And, therefore, you cannot extrapolate — someone who might make a good D.C. Court of Appeals judge might not make a good Supreme Court justice and vice versa.

Schumer thinks the Supreme Court MAKES law???

Chuckie is terribly confused. The Judicial Branch INTERPRETS law. It does not MAKE law. The Legislative Branch does.

Someone get a copy of the Constitution to Chuckie...Quickly!

Wilson and Schumer's Smear Campaign

WASHINGTON --
Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and former Amb. Joe Wilson on Thursday blasted opponents for drumming up a "smear campaign" against Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters.

..."I've said this repeatedly, that the smear campaign launched from the West Wing of the White House is just ethically unsupportable," said Wilson.

"This is an enormous distraction from that principled debate — a debate on war and peace," Wilson said, adding that any leak made to achieve a political end is "simply unacceptable."

"I am committed to seeing that justice is done," he added.

Schumer, of New York, blasted the Republican National Committee and other GOPers for what he said were attempts to paint Wilson as a partisan.

"Karl Rove and the RNC accusing Joe Wilson of playing politics is like Homer Simpson telling Lance Armstrong he's out of shape," Schumer said. "This man has served his country and his wife, as well ... it is they who had politics played on them, not the other way around. No comment is no solution. Mr. President, I urge you to take a stand and do the right thing."

Chuckie and Joey are like two-year-olds having tantrums. There is nothing reasonable about what they are doing. They're demanding attention like spoiled brats, and the MSM are giving it to them. The twosome are utterly irrational in their remarks.

I wish they'd hold their breath, like stubborn toddlers. At least then, they'd have to quit talking.

Since when does the press lend credence to individuals that have completely tossed out the facts in order to further their own political agenda?

I guess the MSM do that on a regular basis when they prop up the Dem party line drivel at every opportunity; but they shouldn't.

Chuckie and Joey have as little credibility left as CBS.

Wilson and Plame, Valerie Plame, have not been smeared. Wilson's own words prove that. He lied, repeatedly. That's been documented, repeatedly.

Wilson is a Dem hack. That's been established. This latest dance with Schumer is just another example of his blatant partisanship and anti-Bush stance.





Can't Dems like Schumer muster up the tiny bit of integrity it would take to stop the unjust slamming of Rove?

Don't any of them read the Wall Street Journal or USA Today?

They should follow President Bush's lead. Let the investigation play out and shut up in the meantime.

In the final analysis, Chuckie and Joey are out of touch with reality, just like the White House press corps. They live in a parallel universe, where the most pressing issue is not a pressing issue at all.

It has only been a week since the London bombings. The Chinese are threatening us with nukes. Terrorists targeted children in Iraq, slaughtering them while our troops were giving them candy.

And with all this, what gets their attention?

Karl Rove. They want us all to focus on Karl Rove and only Karl Rove.

Yes, Chuckie and Joey's crusade amounts to a shameless smear campaign.

Case closed.

Chuckie and Joey

Drudge reports:

MEDIA ADVISORY:
SCHUMER STANDS WITH AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON TO ASK FOR SUSPENSION OF ROVE'S SECURITY CLEARANCE

Thu Jul 14 2005 11:15:02 ET

White House Should Suspend Deputy Chief of Staff's Security Clearance Information While Investigation is Pending, Until Plame Leak Is Resolved

In Light Of Time Reporter Matt Cooper's Confirmation That Rove Was a Source In the Leak of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's Identity, Schumer and Wilson Call For Suspension of Rove's Security Clearance

U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer and Ambassador Joseph Wilson will hold a press conference at 3:00pm TODAY, July 14, 2005 in the Mansfield Room of the U.S. Capitol to call for the suspension of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove' security clearance until the investigation of the leak of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity is resolved.

Israel S. Klein
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer

Wilson is a partisan hack.

Chuckie and Wilson both have the same agenda--GET BUSH!

Read Ann Coulter's take on Wilson's partisanship and his propensity to lie.

Sunday Morning Shows: Terror and the Supreme Court

The London terror attacks took center stage on the Sunday morning news shows today.

Michael Chertoff appeared on NBC'c Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, and even CBS' lowly Face the Nation, while Fran Townsend went to FOX News Sunday.

It was the same old, same old from Chertoff and Townsend.

We're doing a lot, but we have to do more and do what we're already doing better.

In a discussion on FOX, Pat Roberts and Chris Dodd talked terror with Brit Hume.

Not surprisingly, Dodd used the opportunity to bash the Bush administration. He whined about there not being enough money to protect transportation.

Hume pointed out that money is being spent at the local level through grants, etc.

Dodd said that's not good enough since most of the states are in debt.

Hume asked Dodd, "How, specifically, would you make buses safe?" Dodd said that more federal funds being spent on dogs and personnel to monitor our mass transportation would do the job.

How lame! Yeah, it's that simple.

Roberts focused on the importance of good intelligence. He relayed some observations from his recent visit to Gitmo. He told stories of the great medical care detainees receive there. He spoke of watching them play ping-pong and soccer.

Roberts said we're getting great information from the interrogations going on at Gitmo and that we're using "carrots, not sticks" to do it.

Hume wanted to know if the London attacks would mean the end of the Dem movement to close Gitmo. When he asked Dodd if Dems are more worried about the treatment of prisoners or getting good intelligence, Dodd replied, "Well, both."

The renewal of the Patriot Act then came up. Will the amendment to soften it go away now?

Dodd said, "No."

Roberts said that libraries and bookstores should not be exempt from our efforts to root out terrorists.

Dodd says we need solidarity on the issue of terrorism, but not at the price of our civil liberties. He said we can't have this wholesale examination of books people read.

In response, Hume asked Roberts if there has been a "wholesale examination" as Dodd suggested.

Of course, Roberts replied, "No."

Dems love to distort the realities of the Patriot Act. They want to create doubt in people's minds and create fears that are unfounded in order to win support. They've done it for years with social security; and they do it whenever they bash the Patriot Act, legislation they voted to pass nearly unanimously in 2001.

The Supreme Court was also an issue on the shows this morning.

Orrin Hatch and Chuck Schumer discussed it on Meet the Press.

Tim Russert cut right to the chase and asked Chuckie about his phone call from the Amtrak train.

Russert directly asked if he said that the Dems were "going to war" over the Supreme Court vacancy.

Chuckie flatly denied it. He said the bottom line was that the President needed to choose a "consensus nominee." When Russert pressed him about the phone call, Chuckie danced around, looked embarrassed, and came off like a liar.

Chuckie admitted that he did say, "We won’t roll over if it's not a consensus nominee."

Russert said that it appears the Senate wants joint authority to choose the nominee. He questioned Chuckie about the appropriateness of this. Chuckie focused on the need for consultation. He threatened that Bush should nominate someone that everyone can back in order to avoid a divisive fight.

Hatch correctly shot back that when the Dems say "consultation," they mean "done their way." He pointed out that the Bush administration has done an incredible amount of consultation already, more than has ever been done by any administration.

Funny how that doesn't get reported by the mainstream media.

Chuckie talked about how when Clinton was choosing nominees for the Supreme Court, he consulted with Hatch.

Hatch clarified a dramatic difference between then and now.

Hatch said that he didn’t threaten to filibuster or make demands the way the Dems are doing today.

He noted that the Constitution does NOT require consultation. The President is offering it as a courtesy, but the Dems are demanding it as their right.

Chuckie said Hatch has that wrong. He asserted that the Dems know they can’t choose the nominee. Nonetheless, he made it known that they want a conservative like Sandra Day O’Connor to be nominated.

Will the Dems filibuster?

Schumer said that they won't rule it out. They want to avoid it by making sure that the President chooses someone they will support.

That's a threat, Chuckie.

Oops! Voices Carry!

Drudge is reporting the Dems' strategy to derail the President's Supreme Court nominee.

Overheard on an Amtrak train, in a long cell phone conversation with a political ally, Sen. Chuck Schumer said:

“It's not about an individual judge… It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court.”

“We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this.”

“Even William Rehnquist is more moderate than they expected. The only ones that resulted how they predicted were [Antonin] Scalia and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. So most of the time they've gotten their picks wrong, and that's what we want to do to them again.”

“A Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown style appointment may not have been extraordinary to the appellate court but may be extraordinary to the Supreme Court.”

He also claimed that the "Gang of 14" agreement didn't apply to the SCOTUS debate.

Oops!

Chuckie Schumer should be more careful when talking on his cell phone. Not everyone on the train is a flaming lib.

Read this letter that Chuckie penned in 2003 regarding the Supreme Court.

Poor little Chuckie seems confused about his role as a Senator. He seems to think he can strong arm the President into choosing a nominee that will make him happy.

Chuckie doesn't get it. According to the Constitution, the President nominates an individual and the Senate votes on that nominee. The Senate doesn't choose the nominee.

As Dennis Prager said yesterday, "[T]he Left's eggs are in the judicial basket. It knows: no liberal courts, no liberal agenda. When combined with moral contempt for conservatives and an inability to persuade the public, the Left must retain the Supreme Court at any price. And that price is the good name of good people."

Chuckie's cell phone conversation certainly supports Prager's assertions.

Out of the Mainstream

Wendy E. Long wrote a great piece,"Jurists: Fair and Mainstream," that appeared on May 22, in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

(Excerpts)

When it comes to judges, Democrat Sens. Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, John Kerry, John Edwards, Harry Reid and company just won't budge.

...The Democrats still refuse to vote on President Bush's most important and highly qualified nominees to the federal courts of appeal.

Why? They claim it's because these judges, such as Justice Priscilla Owen of Texas and Justice Janice Rogers Brown of California, are "extreme."

...Truth is, Democrats are hiding from a debate, and hiding from a vote, precisely because these highly qualified judges are the mainstream. They are intellectual stars on the courts where they now sit. They have the overwhelming bipartisan support of the citizens of their states, the American Bar Association, the bench and bar, and newspapers across the political spectrum. For example, even the Washington Post endorsed Judge Owen after President Bush nominated her to the Fifth Circuit, and the San Francisco Chronicle endorsed Judge Brown in her latest California Supreme Court election.

Most important, Justices Owen and Brown have demonstrated their inclination to "judicial restraint": They merely apply the rules that we, the people, make. They don't make the rules themselves. That's a job for Congress and the president, who must respond to the will of the citizens who elected them.

Judges, on the other hand, are supposed to be neutral: They take those rules that we make, in our representative democracy, and apply them to disputes. That's why our federal judges are appointed for life: so that they can be impartial and feel no pressure when applying the rules the people have made. Federal judges undermine the Constitution and subvert our representative democracy if they invent their own rules and essentially change the laws like politicians.

...The liberals have lost the presidency, lost the Senate, and will surely continue to lose ballot initiatives. That is why they are so desperate to retain a grip on the federal judiciary: so they can impose on the rest of us policies that are decidedly not "mainstream."

My dictionary defines "mainstream" as "a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence" - like the "prevailing direction of activity" reflected in the map of red states following the 2004 elections, and like the "prevailing current" that carried South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, who blocked the President's mainstream judicial nominees in the last Congress, out of Washington and swept in Sen. John Thune, who better represented their views.

Schumer and friends are certainly free to dislike mainstream judges, mainstream presidents, and mainstream voters. But these liberals are the ones who are "outside the mainstream."
______________________________

Democrats know they can't win at the ballot box, which explains their complete breakdown over Bush's judicial nominees.

They keep whining about "one-party rule." With all due respect, that is utterly lame. Did Dems complain about a power grab when they controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate? As Long points out, the only hope Dems have of imposing their out of the mainstream policies on the rest of America is through the process of legislating by judicial fiat.

Simply put, if Democrats believed they had concrete ideas and a direction for the country that would appeal to the majority of Americans, they would focus on winning elections. Instead, they rely on activist judges to make their out of the mainstream agenda a reality.

On the Senate floor on May 19, Ted Kennedy said, "There is a radical right out there that is loose in the country. They feel they won the presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate of the United States, and by God, they're going to take over the independent judiciary."

What Teddy doesn't seem to comprehend is that the American people elected a Republican President, House, and Senate. There's no conspiracy or power grab. The American people gave Republicans power, including the power of the Executive branch to nominate judges and the power of the Legislative branch to advise and consent and vote on the nominees.

The Dems would like to frame the issue as a power grab by Republicans.

They need to face the fact that the AMERICAN PEOPLE gave Republicans power.

Dem Filibuster Flip-Flop #2

SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER

THEN:

"The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees. … I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity – vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo." – Senator Schumer, Congressional Record, 7 March 2000

NOW:

"Whatever party is in charge always wants to control the whole thing, but that's not what America is all about, that’s not how the Founding Fathers set it up. The Democrats were wrong — I was not there when they wanted to get rid of the filibuster when they were in charge, and the Republicans are equally wrong. We believe in checks and balances; if you win 51 percent or 52 percent or 53 percent, that doesn't mean you run the whole show." – Interview, Fox and Friends, 25 April 2005

Source: Bruce Hausknecht

Preaching Politics

For days now, Democrats have been expressing their outrage at Senator Bill Frist for appearing in a tape to be aired in Louisville, Kentucky, at an event called Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), told ABC's This Week that "Justice Sunday" was "deeply un-American."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), on CNN's Late Edition said: "It's a very dangerous, extreme thing. There is no telling what it might launch."

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), said the stalled nominees have "radical views" on states' rights in areas such as air pollution and family leave. "It has nothing to do with the Bible," he said on Fox News Sunday.

Here's the text of Frist's dangerous, extreme, un-American remarks:

FRIST STATEMENT FOR FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL TELECAST

US Senator William H. Frist, M.D.
April 24th, 2005

The judicial nominations debate has created quite a bit of controversy. Emotions are running high on both sides, and it reveals once again, our country’s desperate need for more civility in political life.

All of us who are active in politics -- whether Republican or Democrat -- need to remember the lesson of Ronald Reagan -- that we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Now let me tell you about a disagreement that is going on in our nation’s capital.

Never in 214 years, never in the history of the United States Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote…until two years ago.

In the last Congress, however, a minority of senators denied ten of the president’s judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. They wouldn’t allow a vote, because they knew the nominations would be approved.

Now we are in a new Congress, and these same senators again threaten to obstruct the vote on judges. And, even worse, if they don’t get their way, they threaten to shut down the Senate – and obstruct government itself.

Americans elect their senators to vote on the people’s business. That is a senator’s job -- to vote. If these senators are not prepared to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities, then why are they here in the first place?

Right now, there are 46 vacancies on the federal bench. Four of the appeals court vacancies are in the region that serves my home state of Tennessee.

Those four nominees have been waiting a combined thirteen years for a vote on the Senate floor. Thirteen years!

Either confirm the nominees or reject them . . . but don’t leave them hanging. Don’t leave our courts hanging. Don’t leave our country hanging.

If the nominees are rejected . . . fine . . . that’s fair. At least, rejection is a vote.

Give those nominees the courtesy and the respect of a vote.

Let me tell you about Priscilla Owen. A Texas Supreme Court justice for the last ten years -- she has received praise from both parties.

Former Justice Raul Gonzalez, a Democrat, said: “I found her to be apolitical, extremely bright, diligent in her work, and of the highest integrity. I recommend her for confirmation without reservation.”

Justice Owen has also been a leader for providing free legal services to the poor. And she has worked to soften the impact of legal proceedings on children of divorcing parents.

On May 9, 2001, President Bush nominated Justice Owen to the fifth circuit court of appeals.

To this day, even though a majority of Senators support her, she has been denied an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate.

Ladies and gentlemen, Justice Owen deserves better. She deserves a vote.

To ensure Justice Owen and other judicial nominees get a vote, I’ve been trying to work out a compromise that would do just that.

It’s not easy. My Democratic counterpart, Senator Reid, calls me a radical Republican.

I don’t think it’s radical to ask senators to vote.

I don’t think it’s radical to expect senators to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.

I don’t think it’s radical to restore precedents that worked so well for 214 years.

Now if Senator Reid continues to obstruct the process, we will consider what opponents call the “nuclear option.” Only in the United States Senate could it be considered a devastating option to allow a vote. Most places call that democracy.

But let me make one important point – this option only addresses the delay of judicial nominees.

In no way will it curb delays on legislation, which is a time-honored senatorial practice. “Mr. Smith” will still be able to go to Washington and take a stand on the Senate floor.

Now some Republicans – even some conservatives – don’t think we should press the issue on requiring votes on judicial nominees.

They’re concerned that in the future Republicans won’t be able to use this same device to obstruct Democratic nominees.

Well, that may be true. But if what Democrats are doing is wrong today, it won’t be right for Republicans to do the same thing tomorrow.

Ladies and gentlemen, our judiciary must be independent, impartial and fair.

When we think judicial decisions are outside mainstream American values, we will say so. But we must also be clear that the balance of power among all three branches requires respect – not retaliation. I won’t go along with that.

Allow me to close with how you can help.

I hope you’ll call your senators and remind them -- whether they’re Republican or Democrat -- that they work for you.

Tell them to do what’s right. Tell them to do what’s fair. Tell them to do their job – give judicial nominees the up-or-down votes they deserve.

Thank you for coming together to study this issue, and thank you for inviting me to be a part of this evening's discussion.
_______________________________

Question: Where do the Democrats get off criticizing Frist for appealing to Christian groups? Democrats have a long history of addressing religious groups for political gain.

In 1999, Al Gore preached or pandered at a Salvation Army drug rehabilitation center in Atlanta, GA. Whatever it was he did, American Atheists weren't happy, though he certainly wasn't criticized by fellow Democrats.

Excerpts:

The 30-minute address drew a warm response from Gore's religious audience, and at times sounded more like a sermon than a whistle stop in his efforts to capture the White House in the 2000 elections. Although he paid lip service to "the founders' precious separation of church and state," Gore lambasted those who "have said for too long that religious values should play no role in addressing public needs," describing this as "hollow secularism."

"I believe strongly in the separation of church and state. But freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. There is a better way..."

The Vice President also challenged what he described as an "allergy to faith," and praised the work of his wife, noted censorcrat Tipper Gore, for her involvement in faith-based outreach groups. He also recounted the story of how Christ House, a Washington, D.C. social service agency provided both medical treatment and "a much deeper type of healing."

John Kerry morphed into a preacher at a campaign stop during the 2004 presidential race.

Excerpts of his remarks at the Annual Session of the National Baptist Convention:

"Through many dangers, toils and snares, I have already come; 'Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far, And grace will lead me home.

Thank you Reverend Shaw for that gracious introduction and thank you all for giving me this opportunity to speak to this great convention. I opened with a stanza from "Amazing Grace." It was my father's favorite hymn and probably many of yours, too. And I know that in the next seven weeks, as we seek the America of our dreams, we will need every voice and every vote in this room and all across this broad land to bring this election home. And I know, as you do, that we cannot finish that journey and reach the mountaintop without the blessings of amazing grace."

"I also know that George Bush has asked the question, "Does the Democratic Party take African American voters for granted?" Well, here is my answer. The Book of Matthew reminds us, "Beware of false profits which come to you in sheep's clothing." (Matthew 7:15). The president who in the last four years couldn't even find time to meet with NAACP... the Black Caucus ... or the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The president who turns away from African American needs...who scorns economic justice and affirmative action...who traffics in the politics of division -- and then claims he is a friend of Black America can not conceal his identity no matter what clothes he wears. And here is the other part of my answer: We will march with you every step of the way to full equality for all Americans. This November we're going to have a new march on Washington to bring your voice and our concerns right to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I'm ready to march with you. Will you march with me?"

"On issue after issue, the other side has been trying to muddy the waters to keep you from seeing the real differences and the real choices in this election. The Bible tells us that we must sometimes see through a glass darkly. But on every issue, from Iraq to health care, from jobs to education to America's role in the world, the choice is clear. If you believe that this country is heading in the right direction, you should support George Bush. But if you believe a vote for W is a vote for the wrong choices, wrong direction, and the wrong leadership for America, then join with us."
______________________________

Gore and Kerry are just two examples. Bill Clinton frequently hung out in churches in search of political support. Were the Democrats outraged then?

Where were all the complaints from liberals that the behavior of these men was dangerous, extreme, or un-American?

This double standard, promoted by the MSM, is SOP for the American left.

Tie-Breaker

Today, Dick Cheney clearly and concisely got to the heart of the matter of the filibuster issue.

Democrats are doing all they can to frame the Republicans' request, a simple up or down vote for judicial nominees, as an abuse of power. They have deemed the restoration of traditional practice as the nuclear option. In reality, it is anything but that. It is the constitutional option.

Vice President's Remarks to the Republican National Lawyers Association

To build a stronger, better America for the next generation, we must also uphold the values that sustain our society -- limited government, personal responsibility, free enterprise, reverence for life, and equal justice under the law. And in this second term, President Bush will also continue nominating federal judges who faithfully interpret the law, instead of legislating from the bench. (Applause.)

Staffing the federal courts is one of the most important responsibilities of any President, and is given to him directly by the Constitution. To fulfill that responsibility, President Bush has submitted the names of superbly qualified nominees for the federal district and circuit courts -- men and women of experience who meet the highest standards of legal training, temperament, and judgment.

The United States Senate has also the responsibility, under the Constitution, to advise and consent to judicial nominations. To win confirmation, a nominee needs only a simple majority of senators voting.

For more than 200 years, the Senate has exercised this responsibility by voting either to confirm or reject nominations sent up by the President. Recently, however, a minority of senators has turned away from two centuries of practice and begun filibustering judicial nominees. The filibuster, of course, is a procedural device used to kill legislation by insisting on unlimited debate. The only way to stop a filibuster is by a super-majority vote of 60 senators. Employed against a judicial nominee, the filibuster effectively prevents an up or down vote on the Senate floor, even if a majority of senators have indicated support for the nomination.

During the 108th Congress, 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees were filibustered. I see on one of them, retired Judge Charles Pickering, is here with us today. (Applause.) I want to thank Judge Pickering for his many years of service to the United States of America. His nomination, and the others that were filibustered, were not held up for a lack of support. On the contrary, each one of them had majority backing and would have been swiftly confirmed by the full Senate, if only given that chance.

These nominations were held up strictly for partisan political reasons, in an astounding departure from historical precedent. Until recently, not once in the history of the United States had a group of senators ever used the filibuster to block a judicial nominee having majority support in the Senate.

This year President Bush's judicial nominees include seven who were filibustered in the last Congress. Two of them, Terrence Boyle of North Carolina and Priscilla Owen, Texas, have been waiting almost four years for an up or down vote. And very soon the Senate will face an important decision. If a minority of members again chooses to filibuster judicial nominees, then the majority may choose to institute a rule change to ensure that the nominations go to the full Senate. Let me emphasize the decision about how to proceed will be made by the Republican leadership in the Senate.

But if the Senate majority decides to move forward, and if the issue is presented to me in my elected office as President of the Senate, and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up or down vote. (Applause.)

On the merits, this should not be a difficult call to make. First, the Senate has full authority to set its own rules, and it is perfectly legitimate for the leadership, backed by a majority, to restore traditional practice. And let me emphasize that -- to restore traditional practice.

Second, the Majority Leader, Senator Frist, has made clear that any action would be limited in scope, in no way altering the customs of debate or the availability of the filibuster where legislation is concerned.

Third, I believe there is an important principle at stake. When senators filibuster a nominee who has clear majority support, they are, in effect, trying to establish a 60-vote requirement for confirmation. A simple majority is what has been required for confirmation throughout our history. A filibuster of judicial nominees is, as a practical matter, an attempt to limit a President's ability to appoint judges who have majority support in the United States Senate.

In short, there is no justification for allowing the blocking of nominees who are well qualified and broadly supported. The tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable, particularly when you're dealing with men and women of the caliber of those nominated by George W. Bush. By any standard of judicial merit, they are fully qualified to serve. And by any standard of fairness, they deserve a vote in the United States Senate. (Applause.)

Now, let's look at how the AP twists Cheney's straightforward comments into a "warning" to Democrats.

The Vice President explained how the Dems are obstructing the business of the Senate, yet the liberal media depict the issue as a Republican abuse of power.

Remember, the constitutional option does not guarantee that a nominee will be confirmed. It means the Senate will be given the opportunity to vote on a nominee.

Note the threatening tone they attribute to Cheney's remarks.

Cheney Weighs in on Judicial Filibusters

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney warned Democrats Friday that he will cast the tie-breaking vote to ban filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees if the Senate deadlocks on the question.

Republicans are moving the Senate toward a final confrontation with Democrats over judicial nominations. Internal GOP polling shows that most Americans don't support Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's plan to ban judicial filibusters - a tactic in which opponents can prevent a vote on a nomination with just 41 votes in the 100-member Senate.

"There is no justification for allowing the blocking of nominees who are well qualified and broadly supported," Cheney told the Republican National Lawyers Association. "The tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable."

"Let me emphasize, the decision about how to proceed will be made by the Republican leadership in the Senate," Cheney said. "But if the Senate majority decides to move forward and if the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up or down vote."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the White House "has stepped over the line by interfering with the Senate to reduce checks and balances."

"The White House has always wanted to reduce the Senate's power and the fact that Vice President Cheney is encouraging this abuse of power should strengthen the Senate's resolve to resist," Schumer said.
_______________________________

Oh, Chuck!

Why are you trying to mischaracterize what the Vice President said he would do?

How is casting a tie-breaking vote interfering with the Senate or reducing checks and balances?

The Vice President said:

"If a minority of members again chooses to filibuster judicial nominees, then the majority may choose to institute a rule change to ensure that the nominations go to the full Senate. Let me emphasize the decision about how to proceed will be made by the Republican leadership in the Senate.

But if the Senate majority decides to move forward, and if the issue is presented to me in my elected office as President of the Senate, and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up or down vote."

Understand?

He emphasizes the decision about how to proceed will be made by the leadership in the Senate, not the White House.

Why does Chuck insist that the WH has been trying to reduce the Senate's power? Exactly how and when has the Bush administration done this?

The charge is utterly lame.

Cheney is not encouraging an abuse of power. He merely says he will fulfill his role as laid out in the Constitution.

When did abiding by the Constitution become so threatening and abusive?

Maybe Chuck and his colleagues could benefit by taking a remedial course on American government.

The Democrats are building on sand.