In my case, Bush is preaching to the choir. Nonetheless, trying to be as objective as possible, I think he did a great job.
He didn't trip up on any questions.
Hey, libs! Did you notice how he pronounced "nuclear"?
Funny that all the networks except ABC cut the President off at 8:00. Only ABC is still on, doing their best now to criticize him, citing polls that Americans are against his policies.
I thought it was interesting that border policy was not mentioned at all.
It was hilarious to hear some of the journalists almost clamoring for military action in North Korea. They didn't seem to be satisfied with going down the diplomatic road.
Overall, I think Bush seemed extremely comfortable, confident, and in command.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
"Democracy is not a spectator sport -- get in the game"
To: Conservative Activists
From: Townhall.com
RE: John Bolton nomination
Thanks to wavering Republicans, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote to confirm John Bolton as UN ambassador has been delayed until May 12. Liberals are taking advantage of the delay to smear Bolton, who’s a bit too pro-America to suit them. If they succeed in convincing Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee to vote against him, they will derail his nomination. You can read more about this fight in an editorial from the Townhall.com editors.
It's time for action. Here's how.
1. Phone and write to Senator George Voinovich's office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. Senator Voinovich is the primary reason we're in the position we're in right now but it’s extremely important that your communications remain polite and stick to the facts. His Capitol Hill Senate office phone number is 202-224-3353 and more contact information for his different offices is here. Those of you who live in Ohio should contact his district office closest to where you live.
Columbus
Phone: (614) 469-6697
Fax: (614) 469-7733
37 West Broad St., Ste. 310
Columbus, OH 43215
Cleveland
Phone: (216) 522-7095
Fax: (216) 522-7097
1240 East Ninth St., Room 2955
Cleveland, OH 44199
Cincinnati
Phone: (513) 684-3265
Fax: (513) 684-3269
36 East 7th St., Rm. 2615
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Toledo
Phone: (419) 259-3895
Fax: (419) 359-3899
420 Madison Ave., Rm. 1210
Toledo, OH 43604
Gallipolis
Phone: (740) 441-6410
Fax: (740) 441-6414
417 Second St.
Gallipolis, OH 45631
2. Contact Senator Lincoln Chafee’s office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. His Capitol office phone number is 202-224-2921 (fax: 202-228-2853). Those of you in Rhode Island should also call his district offices in the state. Contact information is here.
3. Contact Senator Chuck Hagel's office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. His Capitol office phone number is 202-224-4224 (fax: 202-224-5213). Those of you in Nebraska should also call his district offices in the state. Contact information is here.
4. Write a letter to the editor of the Washington Post (1150 15th St NW Washington, DC 20071-0070) and Washington Times (3600 New York ve NE Washington, DC 20002). Make sure to indicate from which state you’re from. They'd love to hear from citizens outside the beltway.
5. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Visit the Townhall media contact page, enter your zip code, find your local paper and find the "letters to the editor" link. Do you want your Senator to see your letter? Mention him/her by name.
6. Stay tuned over the next couple of weeks to help keep Washington DC accountable.
From: Townhall.com
RE: John Bolton nomination
Thanks to wavering Republicans, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote to confirm John Bolton as UN ambassador has been delayed until May 12. Liberals are taking advantage of the delay to smear Bolton, who’s a bit too pro-America to suit them. If they succeed in convincing Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee to vote against him, they will derail his nomination. You can read more about this fight in an editorial from the Townhall.com editors.
It's time for action. Here's how.
1. Phone and write to Senator George Voinovich's office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. Senator Voinovich is the primary reason we're in the position we're in right now but it’s extremely important that your communications remain polite and stick to the facts. His Capitol Hill Senate office phone number is 202-224-3353 and more contact information for his different offices is here. Those of you who live in Ohio should contact his district office closest to where you live.
Columbus
Phone: (614) 469-6697
Fax: (614) 469-7733
37 West Broad St., Ste. 310
Columbus, OH 43215
Cleveland
Phone: (216) 522-7095
Fax: (216) 522-7097
1240 East Ninth St., Room 2955
Cleveland, OH 44199
Cincinnati
Phone: (513) 684-3265
Fax: (513) 684-3269
36 East 7th St., Rm. 2615
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Toledo
Phone: (419) 259-3895
Fax: (419) 359-3899
420 Madison Ave., Rm. 1210
Toledo, OH 43604
Gallipolis
Phone: (740) 441-6410
Fax: (740) 441-6414
417 Second St.
Gallipolis, OH 45631
2. Contact Senator Lincoln Chafee’s office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. His Capitol office phone number is 202-224-2921 (fax: 202-228-2853). Those of you in Rhode Island should also call his district offices in the state. Contact information is here.
3. Contact Senator Chuck Hagel's office and tell them you support the John Bolton nomination. His Capitol office phone number is 202-224-4224 (fax: 202-224-5213). Those of you in Nebraska should also call his district offices in the state. Contact information is here.
4. Write a letter to the editor of the Washington Post (1150 15th St NW Washington, DC 20071-0070) and Washington Times (3600 New York ve NE Washington, DC 20002). Make sure to indicate from which state you’re from. They'd love to hear from citizens outside the beltway.
5. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Visit the Townhall media contact page, enter your zip code, find your local paper and find the "letters to the editor" link. Do you want your Senator to see your letter? Mention him/her by name.
6. Stay tuned over the next couple of weeks to help keep Washington DC accountable.
factcheck.org Debunks the Dems' Lies
Democrats harness false assumptions to generate projections that individual Social Security accounts would be losers.
Summary
Democrats have been using a web-based "calculator" to generate individualized answers to the question, "How much will you lose under Bush privatization plan?" For young, low-wage workers it projects cuts of up to 50% in benefits. And a $1-million TV advertising campaign is amplifying the claim, saying, "Look below the surface (of Bush's plan) and you'll find benefit checks cut almost in half."
In fact, the calculator is rigged. We find it is based on a number of false assumptions and deceptive comparisons. For one thing, it assumes that stocks will yield average returns of only 3 percent per year above inflation. The historical average is close to 7 percent.
The calculator's authors claim that they use the same assumption used by the
Congressional Budget Office. Actually, CBO projects a 6.8 percent gain.
________________________
Check out the RIGGED CALCULATOR here.
This is not a fringe loon group using this.
Find the calculator at democrats.senate.gov, official Democrat Senate site.
Summary
Democrats have been using a web-based "calculator" to generate individualized answers to the question, "How much will you lose under Bush privatization plan?" For young, low-wage workers it projects cuts of up to 50% in benefits. And a $1-million TV advertising campaign is amplifying the claim, saying, "Look below the surface (of Bush's plan) and you'll find benefit checks cut almost in half."
In fact, the calculator is rigged. We find it is based on a number of false assumptions and deceptive comparisons. For one thing, it assumes that stocks will yield average returns of only 3 percent per year above inflation. The historical average is close to 7 percent.
The calculator's authors claim that they use the same assumption used by the
Congressional Budget Office. Actually, CBO projects a 6.8 percent gain.
________________________
Check out the RIGGED CALCULATOR here.
This is not a fringe loon group using this.
Find the calculator at democrats.senate.gov, official Democrat Senate site.
Bush v. Dems on Social Security
Bush to Announce Social Security Plans
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is ready to begin talking with Congress and the public about specific steps he supports to ensure the future of Social Security and will announce his ideas during a prime-time news conference Thursday.
Bush was also using the formal question-and-answer session with reporters - his first in the evening in over a year - to talk about skyrocketing gas prices. The White House asked television networks to broadcast the news conference, scheduled for 8:30 p.m. EDT in the East Room of the White House.
The focus of the president's planned 10- to 12-minute opening statement was to be Social Security, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
...House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's cross-country sales job on Social Security has been "a dismal failure."
"What I'm hoping" is that he will say "Uncle" about his privatization plan, she said. The White House shot back that Democrats are behaving as the do-nothing party with no ideas to offer.
_______________________
I don't understand why the Dems want to ignore the Social Security crisis. They used to consider it an issue of utmost importance.
Now, Harry Reid (D-NV) says, "The so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans."
He didn't always feel that way.
From The Hill:
RNC finds Bush-Reid tit-for-tat
By Alexander Bolton
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has resurrected a bill Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sponsored when he was in the House more than 20 years ago that would have kept members of Congress out of the Social Security program.
RNC researchers contend that the 1983 bill belies Reid’s repeated claim that Social Security is the “most successful program in the history of the world.”
The Republican salvo is in response to Democrats’ frequent use of a statement President Bush made in 1978 during his unsuccessful campaign for Congress that Social Security will “go bust in 10 years unless there are some changes.”
...In a statement scheduled for release today, the RNC blasts Reid for the 1983 bill. He sponsored it a few months after Congress passed legislation that required all members and other federal employees to join Social Security. Previously, federal employees, including lawmakers, participated in a generous defined-benefit pension program that exempted them from Social Security taxes.
That action may seem embarrassing when contrasted with Reid’s recent ebullient praise of Social Security, praise he reiterated yesterday at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters.
“Senator Reid has asserted that Social Security is the ‘most successful program in the history of the world,’ yet he wrote legislation allowing himself and other members of Congress to stay out of Social Security,” said Brian Jones, the RNC’s communications director.
_______________________
Perhaps House minority leader Reid should clarify.
Is Social Security the "most successful program in the history of the world"?
Reid's position on personal accounts has shifted dramatically since he took on a leadership role for the Democrats.
Reid Then:
Reid: "[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The Private Sector." (Fox’s "Fox News Sunday," 2/14/99)
Fox’s Tony Snow: "Are You Opposed To Letting People Make The Investment Decisions? In Other Words, Having Some Component Where They Say, ‘I’ll Save The Money Rather Than Letting Uncle Sam Do It For Me.’" Reid: "I Think It’s Important That We Look And I’m Totally In Favor Of Do This And In Fact, There Are A Couple Of Programs Now That We’re Taking A Look At To See If It Will Work With Social Security." (Fox’s "News Sunday," 2/14/99)
Reid: "We’re Visiting Chile Because It Is Doing Interesting Things In Social Security And Other Parts Of Its Free Market System." (Tony Batt, "Reid To Embark On South America Trip," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/30/99)
Reid Now:
Reid: "We Won’t Hesitate To Tell America Why The President’s Plan On Social Security Is So Dangerous." (CBS’ "The Saturday Early Show," 2/12/05)
Reid: "I Am Especially Concerned By President Bush’s Proposal To Move Toward The Privatization Of Social Security." (Sen. Harry Reid, "Social Security And African Americans," Press Release, 2/4/05)
___________________________
EMBARRASSING
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is ready to begin talking with Congress and the public about specific steps he supports to ensure the future of Social Security and will announce his ideas during a prime-time news conference Thursday.
Bush was also using the formal question-and-answer session with reporters - his first in the evening in over a year - to talk about skyrocketing gas prices. The White House asked television networks to broadcast the news conference, scheduled for 8:30 p.m. EDT in the East Room of the White House.
The focus of the president's planned 10- to 12-minute opening statement was to be Social Security, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
...House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's cross-country sales job on Social Security has been "a dismal failure."
"What I'm hoping" is that he will say "Uncle" about his privatization plan, she said. The White House shot back that Democrats are behaving as the do-nothing party with no ideas to offer.
_______________________
I don't understand why the Dems want to ignore the Social Security crisis. They used to consider it an issue of utmost importance.
Now, Harry Reid (D-NV) says, "The so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans."
He didn't always feel that way.
From The Hill:
RNC finds Bush-Reid tit-for-tat
By Alexander Bolton
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has resurrected a bill Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sponsored when he was in the House more than 20 years ago that would have kept members of Congress out of the Social Security program.
RNC researchers contend that the 1983 bill belies Reid’s repeated claim that Social Security is the “most successful program in the history of the world.”
The Republican salvo is in response to Democrats’ frequent use of a statement President Bush made in 1978 during his unsuccessful campaign for Congress that Social Security will “go bust in 10 years unless there are some changes.”
...In a statement scheduled for release today, the RNC blasts Reid for the 1983 bill. He sponsored it a few months after Congress passed legislation that required all members and other federal employees to join Social Security. Previously, federal employees, including lawmakers, participated in a generous defined-benefit pension program that exempted them from Social Security taxes.
That action may seem embarrassing when contrasted with Reid’s recent ebullient praise of Social Security, praise he reiterated yesterday at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters.
“Senator Reid has asserted that Social Security is the ‘most successful program in the history of the world,’ yet he wrote legislation allowing himself and other members of Congress to stay out of Social Security,” said Brian Jones, the RNC’s communications director.
_______________________
Perhaps House minority leader Reid should clarify.
Is Social Security the "most successful program in the history of the world"?
Reid's position on personal accounts has shifted dramatically since he took on a leadership role for the Democrats.
Reid Then:
Reid: "[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The Private Sector." (Fox’s "Fox News Sunday," 2/14/99)
Fox’s Tony Snow: "Are You Opposed To Letting People Make The Investment Decisions? In Other Words, Having Some Component Where They Say, ‘I’ll Save The Money Rather Than Letting Uncle Sam Do It For Me.’" Reid: "I Think It’s Important That We Look And I’m Totally In Favor Of Do This And In Fact, There Are A Couple Of Programs Now That We’re Taking A Look At To See If It Will Work With Social Security." (Fox’s "News Sunday," 2/14/99)
Reid: "We’re Visiting Chile Because It Is Doing Interesting Things In Social Security And Other Parts Of Its Free Market System." (Tony Batt, "Reid To Embark On South America Trip," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/30/99)
Reid Now:
Reid: "We Won’t Hesitate To Tell America Why The President’s Plan On Social Security Is So Dangerous." (CBS’ "The Saturday Early Show," 2/12/05)
Reid: "I Am Especially Concerned By President Bush’s Proposal To Move Toward The Privatization Of Social Security." (Sen. Harry Reid, "Social Security And African Americans," Press Release, 2/4/05)
___________________________
EMBARRASSING
Huffington Report Preview
May 9th, the day the Huffington Report is set to launch, can't come soon enough for me.
From The Guardian:
With friends like these ...
US socialite and journalist Arianna Huffington is to launch a super blog featuring contributions by a host of her celebrity chums, from Gwyneth Paltrow to Norman Mailer. Tim Dowling got a preview
Wednesday April 27, 2005
The Guardian
Welcome!!!!! posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 2005 at 09:00 PDT
Hi everybody! Allow me to introduce my innovative new publishing venture, a groundbreaking "group blog", where over 250 creative minds from every corner of my Rolodex weigh in on topics ranging from the political to the personal, and anything in between! Well, that's enough from me - let's blog!
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Great New Experiment in Democracy, posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 at 09:02 PDT
The "blogosphere" is the biggest leap forward in journalism since the days of Tom Paine, a unique opportunity to tap directly into the cultural bloodstream. But I'm not here to put words in anyone's mouth, I'm just providing the megaphone!
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
A New Kind of Communication, posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 at 09:07 PDT
Instant, interactive, intelligent, informed; reaching out across the political spectrum. What? Did everybody forget their passwords already?
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
I can't think of anything to say, posted by G Paltrow on Mon May 9 at 09:21 PDT
Arianna: its rlly uncool whn my cell rings during pilates. i said id post whn & if i had something to say. rt now im just too busy. stop bugging me.
Gwynniex
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Another Cutting Edge Contribution, posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 at 09:23 PDT
Cantankerous, unafraid and always outspoken, that's Gwyneth (Paltrow) to a tee! You can expect to be hearing a lot more from her on Huffingtonpost.com, on a whole variety of subjects!
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Does anyone know how to get red wine stains out of a wool carpet? posted by NORMAN MAILER on Mon May 9 at 10:14 PDT
I'm screwed if my wife sees this. I'm not even supposed to drink in that room. I've been scrubbing but that just seems to spread the stain around. A quick answer would be most appreciated.
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
I think I'm going to run for president, posted by WarrenBeatty on Mon May 9 at 10:39 PDT
You heard it here first, people. The official announcement will be on Jay Leno on Wednesday. Most of you know that I've been actively interested in politics for many years, but recent events in our country have finally made me realise that someone has got to take a stand. I know I can count on your support. Oh hang on, I've got a fridge being delivered that day. Forget about it.
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
This is so blogciting, posted by Tina Brown on Mon May 9 at 11:04 PDT
Today we are entering a new paradigm: the energy and passion that I see on this mega-blog will ensure that it becomes not just the premiere electro-salon of the liberal elite, but the soul-search engine for the entire Alter-net. In today's fast-moving, cross-pollinating media perfect storm we don't always want considered essays or spelled-out arguments. Sometimes we just want to say "Bush sucks". Although his wife is really sweet.
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Re: Does anyone know how to get red wine stains out of a wool carpet? posted by BarryDillerCEO.IAC/InterActiveCrop on Mon May 9 at 11:17 PDT
pour white wine over it & then blot GENTLY with a clean cloth. Rinse with warm water & repeat until gone. Whatever you do, don't rub. Who's got a good sourdough bread recipe, btw? The last loaf I made was like a paving stone.
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
I know I'm just providing the megaphone but. posted by "Huff" on Mon May 9 2005 at 11:34 PDT
perhaps I could suggest a topic? The president's proposals for private investment accounts are aimed at improving the long-term solvency of social security, but does it come at too high a price, namely sacrificing the commitment to guarantied benefits?
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Dear hopeless liberals, Posted by David "Axis of Evil" Frum on Mon May 9 2005 at 11:45 PDT
Unless you got to that stain right away, white wine ain't gonna do jack. You need BLEACH and plenty of it, and you need to rub hard. Hope this doesn't shatter your cosy little worldview.
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
OH MY GOD ARIANNA Posted by G Paltrow on Mon May 9 2005 at 12:22 PDT
Did you just like take that text I sent you and post it on your stupid frigging blog? That was private! How dare you! Don't post this email either!
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Whoops! The fridge is coming today! Posted by WarrenBeatty on Mon May 9 2005 at 13:09 PDT
They just called. So I guess I can announce my candidacy on wed after all, but now I don't really feel like it. Hi Gwynnie! Hi Norman! What's everyone having for lunch?
comments 0 :: trackbacks 0 :: post a comment
Gore in MoveOn Mode
Yesterday, Al Gore switched gears again.
He dropped the congenial facade he trotted out to announce his cable TV channel, Current, and morphed into the fire-breathing Al. Addressing the fringe extremists that have hijacked the Democrat party, Gore delivered, offering lots of loony rhetoric to the radicals.
Complete transcript of Gore's remarks
(Excerpts)
As Aristotle once said of virtue, respect for the rule of law is "one thing."
It is indivisible.
And so long as it remains indivisible, so will our country.
But if either major political party is ever so beguiled by a lust for power that it abandons this unifying principle, then the fabric of our democracy will be torn.
The survival of freedom depends upon the rule of law.
Suddenly, Gore is opining about the rule of law. He had no problem standing by his man, Bill Clinton, during his dismissal of the law when he repeatedly lied under oath. Gore seems to have an odd, selective interpretation when it comes to "no controlling legal authority."
So, it is not as a Democrat but as an American, that I appeal today to the leadership of the majority in the Senate to halt their efforts to break the Senate's rules and instead protect a meaningful role in the confirmation of judges and justices for Senators of both parties. Remember that you will not always be in the majority, but much more importantly, remember what is best for our country regardless of which party is temporarily in power. Many of us know what it feels like to be disappointed with decisions made by the courts. But instead of attacking the judges with whose opinions we disagree, we live by the rule of law and maintain respect for the courts.
With all due respect, what a load!
The constitutional option has nothing to do with being in the majority. It has everything to do with fairness.
"For over 200 years, a majority vote is all that has been required to confirm judicial nominations. Now the Democrats are changing the rules and preventing the majority from confirming these nominees. The Senate majority should not be forced to choose between fulfilling their Constitutional obligation and conducting the people's business. "
I am genuinely dismayed and deeply concerned by the recent actions of some Republican leaders to undermine the rule of law by demanding the Senate be stripped of its right to unlimited debate where the confirmation of judges is concerned, and even to engage in outright threats and intimidation against federal judges with whom they philosophically disagree.
1) No one is advocating the use of physical violence or illegal means to threaten judges.
2) The reiteration of these false accusations suits the liberal agenda. However, Gore's perpetuation of this myth only serves to highlight the irresponsible rhetoric of desperate Dems.
This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place.
James Madison warned us in Federalist #10 that sometimes, "A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction."
Unfortunately the virulent faction now committed to changing the basic nature of democracy now wields enough political power within the Republican party to have a major influence over who secures the Republican nomination for president in the 2008 election. It appears painfully obvious that some of those who have their eyes on that nomination are falling all over themselves to curry favor with this faction.
...I think it is truly important to expose the fundamental flaw in the arguments of these zealots. The unifying theme now being pushed by this coalition is actually an American heresy -- a highly developed political philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with the founding principles of the United States of America.
Gore bashes Christians, people of faith, calling them dangerous zealots. This sort of mischaracterization only reinforces the resolve of these "zealots" to elect Republicans. Keep it up, Al.
This fight is not about responding to a crisis. It is about the desire of the administration and the Senate leadership to stifle debate in order to get what they want when they want it. What is involved here is a power grab -- pure and simple.
How is upholding the Constitution, by allowing judicial nominees an up or down vote in the Senate, stifling debate?
Power Grab?
Is Gore flashing back to the 2000 election again? The attempt to alter election law when liberal Florida judges legislated from the bench was most definitely a power grab--pure and simple.
And what makes it so dangerous for our country is their willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for total one-party domination of all three branches of government. They seek nothing less than absolute power. Their grand design is an all-powerful executive using a weakened legislature to fashion a compliant judiciary in its own image. They envision a total breakdown of the separation of powers. And in its place they want to establish a system in which power is unified in the service of a narrow ideology serving a narrow set of interests.
Their coalition of supporters includes both right-wing religious extremists and exceptionally greedy economic special interests. Both groups are seeking more and more power for their own separate purposes. If they were to achieve their ambition -- and exercise the power they seek -- America would face the twin dangers of an economic blueprint that eliminated most all of the safeguards and protections established for middle class families throughout the 20th century and a complete revision of the historic insulation of the rule of law from sectarian dogma. One of the first casualties would be the civil liberties that Americans have come to take for granted.
Gore really wanders into paranoiac territory here.
One-party domination? The American people CHOSE to give Republicans power in the executive and legislative branches. They voted them into office. They expect judicial nominees to reflect their voices. What lust!
Are American voters part of this diabolical "grand design" of one-party rule?
What's particularly ironic about Gore's ramblings on "right-wing religious extremists and exceptionally greedy economic special interests" seeking absolute power is that he delivered his speech to a room filled with MoveOn's left-wing extremists and special interests.
Regarding his fear-mongering skills, Gore shows he hasn't lost his touch. He claims that opposition to using the filibuster to block judicial nominees would somehow translate into a loss of civil liberties for Americans.
Gore is twisting support for judicial nominess to be granted an up or down vote into an effort to transform the U.S. government into a dictatorship.
Absolutely ridiculous!
Yet today's Republicans seem hell-bent on squelching the ability of the minority in this country to express dissent. This is in keeping with other Republican actions to undercut the legislative process.
And in the filibuster fight they are doing it with utter disregard for the rule of law so central to our democracy.
Explain to me how a vote squelches dissent. I would agrue that preventing a vote squelches the voice of the people.
The minority is seeking to undercut what the American people want. They are showing complete disregard for the fact that voters determined the makeup of the House, Senate, and Presidency.
And now, all of the new public opinion polls show an overwhelming majority of the American people are opposed to this current effort to cripple the United States Senate's position in our constitutional framework by destroying the principle of unlimited debate. But, the congressional Republican leadership and the White House are so beholden to the extremists that they feel like they have to do what they say.
Right. The push polls that phrase questions in a manner which nudges people to answer in accordance with the liberal agenda of the polls' creators are in agreement with the Dems.
When questions are posed to Americans without this bias, the results are not to the Dems' liking.
Moreover, Congressional Republicans and the WH should be beholden to the people that elected them. That's what representative government is about.
In effect, Gore is saying the majority that elected Bush and a Republican House and Senate are extremists. He really doesn't get it. The man and his party are out of touch with the American people and reality.
The proposal from the Senate majority leader to abolish the right of unlimited debate is a poison pill for America's democracy. It is the stalking horse for a dangerous American heresy that would substitute persuasion on the merits with bullying and an effort at partisan domination.
Granting judicial nominees their right to an up or down vote in the Senate is not a "poison pill."
It is upholding the U.S. Constitution.
For Gore and the out of touch Dems, that is a poison pill.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Who's Sorry Now?
From Drudge:
WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN MCCLELLAN CALLS AIR AMERICA SKIT "VERY INAPPROPRIATE AND OVER THE LINE."
AIR AMERICA President of Programming Jon Sinton: "We regret that a produced comedy bit that was in bad taste slipped through our normal vetting process. We do acknowledge that it was an internal error and internal discipline will be enforced..."
HOST RANDI RHODES APOLOGIZED WEDNESDAY FOR THE NETWORK'S AIRING OF A CLIP WHICH APPEARED TO TIE A GUNSHOT THREAT TO PRESIDENT BUSH... "IT WAS A LAME ATTEMPT AT HUMOR, I APOLOGIZE... IT WAS BAD..."
______________________________
You know when anyone at Air America makes an apology they must be up to their necks in it.
In addition to the disgraceful bit, I would apply the term "bad" to AIR AMERICA, overall.
Programming--BAD
Personalities--BAD
Substance--BAD
Entertainment value--BAD
Air America itself is a "lame attempt" at talk radio.
BAD!
WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN MCCLELLAN CALLS AIR AMERICA SKIT "VERY INAPPROPRIATE AND OVER THE LINE."
AIR AMERICA President of Programming Jon Sinton: "We regret that a produced comedy bit that was in bad taste slipped through our normal vetting process. We do acknowledge that it was an internal error and internal discipline will be enforced..."
HOST RANDI RHODES APOLOGIZED WEDNESDAY FOR THE NETWORK'S AIRING OF A CLIP WHICH APPEARED TO TIE A GUNSHOT THREAT TO PRESIDENT BUSH... "IT WAS A LAME ATTEMPT AT HUMOR, I APOLOGIZE... IT WAS BAD..."
______________________________
You know when anyone at Air America makes an apology they must be up to their necks in it.
In addition to the disgraceful bit, I would apply the term "bad" to AIR AMERICA, overall.
Programming--BAD
Personalities--BAD
Substance--BAD
Entertainment value--BAD
Air America itself is a "lame attempt" at talk radio.
BAD!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)