LAW & ORDER'S Anti-DeLay Crusade

NBC was not the least bit apologetic about their anti-DeLay political sniping.

In DeLay's letter to NBC Universal Television Group President Jeff Zucker, he said: "This manipulation of my name and trivialization of the sensitive issue of judicial security represents a reckless disregard for the suffering initiated by recent tragedies and a great disservice to public discourse."

DeLay cited this as a "slur," intended to take a swipe at him for his comments regarding "the need for Congress to closely monitor the federal judiciary."

The President of NBC Entertainment, Kevin Reilly, responded by claiming that the controversial dialogue "was neither a political comment nor an accusation."

According to Reilly, "The script line involved an exasperated detective bedeviled by a lack of clues, making a sarcastic comment about the futility of looking for a suspect when no specific description existed."

Reilly said, "It's not unusual for 'Law & Order' to mention real names in its fictional stories. We're confident in our viewers' ability to distinguish between the two."

Dick Wolf, creator of the various Law & Order shows, didn't only address the questionable dialogue, he took the opportunity to ratchet up the situation by saying:

"Up until today, it was my impression that all of our viewers understood that these shows are works of fiction, as is stated in each episode. But I do congratulate Congressman DeLay for switching the spotlight from his own problems to an episode of a TV show."

Well, Wolf certainly sounds snippy, doesn't he?

If there was any doubt that the slur wasn't inteneded to harm DeLay, that it was "not unusual for 'Law & Order' to mention real names in its fictional stories," Wolf eliminates it.

What a Difference a Day Makes

Why do Dems do so much flip-flopping? Maybe because they do it so well.

That was then--

Democrats threaten a filibuster on Bolton

By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 26, 2005

Democrats said they will try to filibuster John R. Bolton, the president's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations, if the Bush administration does not turn over two final sets of documents.

This is now--

Democrats Extend Debate On Bolton

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 27, 2005; Page A01

"We are not here to filibuster Bolton -- we are here to get information," Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said on the floor shortly after the vote was taken. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), who led the opposition to Bolton, said: "I have absolutely no intention of preventing an up-or-down vote on Mr. Bolton." He later said he did not know whether full disclosure of the information he is seeking would sink the nomination.

As Bill Frist said, "It quacks like a filibuster."

Bush's First Veto?

So many liberals/Democrats are completely bent out of shape about the threat of a Bush veto on the embryonic stem cell bill. They are saying the President is standing in the way of life-saving treatments and cures. Wrong.

IT'S ABOUT FEDERAL FUNDING.

Bush is not banning embryonic stem cell research. He is saying federal funds should not be used for it.

That sounds a lot like U.S. policy on abortion, doesn't it?

Do abortions occur in the U.S.? Lots. Everyday.

Are they paid for with tax dollars? No, at least not directly.

A number of states use tax dollars to destroy embryos. California and Wisconsin are two that are publically funding such research.

Moreover, there are no restrictions whatsoever on privately funding this research. ZERO.

If pharmaceutical companies believe embryonic stem cells are a potential gold mine, they should be pouring money into research and no bill would stop them.

The libs are trying to suggest that evil President Bush is keeping research from going forward. He's not. It's happening as we speak and in some cases with public funds.

That's the reality.

The CBS Poll

CBS was quick to report that "58% of Americans approve of medical research using embryonic stem cells, while 31% disapprove. Approval is higher now than it was last August; then, 50% approved and 31% disapproved, but 19% had no opinion."

Why didn't they mention these results from the same poll?

According to the poll, "Less than two in five Americans support extending federal funding for stem cell research to a larger number of lines; this has not changed since last year. 37% think the number of stem cell lines covered by government funds should be extended; 17% think the current level is sufficient. Those percentages are nearly identical to views last August."

EXTEND FEDERAL FUNDING OF STEM CELL RESEARCH TO MORE LINES?

Now
Yes
37%
No
17%
Disapprove of stem cell research
31%

8/2004
Yes
33%
No
13%
Disapprove of stem cell research
31%

These figures present a dramatically different picture than the ones touted by CBS on their broadcasts.

There have been a great number of mischaracterizations in the discussion of stem cell research--embryonic, adult, cord blood, etc. Many of the myths, as usual, are perpetuated by the liberal media and the Dems.

In the final analysis, the bill is about FEDERAL FUNDING.

The fact is no one is being kept from doing research that demands the destruction of human embryos. A significant number of Americans find this disregard for life abhorrent. Nonetheless, the research continues. The issue is whether or not federal tax dollars should be granted to studies that destroy human embryos.

Although there are many that wish he would push to ban the research altogether, Bush is not preventing states from funding embryonic stem cell research, nor is he stopping anyone in the private sector from doing it.

Dem Filibuster Fetish

The Democrats seem to have an abnormally obsessive preoccupation with the filibuster, in addition to suffering from a pathological degree of hypocrisy.

AP reports:

Democrats forced a delay Thursday in a confirmation vote for John R. Bolton, yet another setback for President Bush's tough-talking choice as U.N. ambassador and a renewal of intense partisanship in the Senate after a brief respite.

The vote to advance Bolton's nomination to an immediate confirmation vote was 56-42 - four short of the 60 votes that Bolton's Republican backers needed.

...Frist said the Bolton matter soured the air of cooperation the two parties' centrists forged just days ago after months of wrangling over judges.

"John Bolton, the very first issue we turned to, we got what looks to me like a filibuster," Frist said. "It certainly sounds like a filibuster ... it quacks like a filibuster."

Frist's comments were in response to Harry Reid's LIE, that it wasn't a filibuster.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration was pleased that Republicans would revisit the vote after the recess and criticized Democrats for the newest delay.

"Just 72 hours after all the goodwill and bipartisanship, it is a shame to see the Democratic Senate leadership resort back to such a partisan approach," McClellan said. "This is a nominee that enjoys majority support."

Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were the only Democrats to break ranks and support the move to have an immediate final vote. Frist was the only Republican to vote against ending the delays, but he only did so because that gave him the procedural right to force the Senate to vote again on the issue.

Sens. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., did not vote.

The crooks at the UN are happy tonight. The dictators and the tyrannts are celebrating the actions of the Democrats.

President Bush, his administration, and a majority of the members of Congress believe that the UN badly needs reform. The corruption of the oil-for-food program, the total impotence of the UN to deal with crises, and the incompetence and dishonesty of Secretary-General Kofi Annan are reasons for immediate and dramatic overhaul.

It is no wonder there is outrage at the sliming of John Bolton, a man the President and the Secretary of State consider perfectly suited to bring some desperately needed U.S. backbone and blunt evaluation to the depraved organization.

After the Senate denied the cloture motion on the nomination of John Bolton as United States Ambassador to the United Nations, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist made the following statement:

“Earlier today the Democratic Leader gave a speech denouncing the ‘crossfire of partisan sniping’ in Congress and pressed for comity and cooperation. But tonight, after the Democrats have launched into yet another filibuster of a presidential nomination – this time on John Bolton to serve as UN Ambassador – those words seem empty and hollow.

“Some 72 hours after hailing an agreement that sought to end partisan filibusters, the Democrats have launched yet another partisan filibuster.

“Actions speak volumes, and so does inaction. Given the chance to advance the cause of comity in the Senate, the Democrats have chosen partisan confrontation over cooperation. And rather than working to advance America’s agenda and act by voting on the floor, the Democrats keep stepping on the brake.

“This is a critical time for the United States and for the world. Because of the President’s vision and commitment, democracy is on the march around the globe. And with sensible reform, the United Nations can and should be vital in advancing these developments. But we need to get a UN ambassador in place.

“The cause of peace and international cooperation should not be held hostage to partisan sniping. I would urge my colleagues to end this partisan filibuster of John Bolton.”

Once again, the Dems obstruct.

No ideas, just obstruction.

No vision, just obstruction.

No principle and integrity, just obstruction.

The Dems have nothing on Bolton. They don't really want to see any new documents. They just want to string this out to hurt the President. To achieve their goal of handing Bush a defeat, the Dems are willing to keep mercilessly slashing away at Bolton. Meanwhile, the UN continues on its path of irrelevancy, and oppressed, brutalized people around the world suffer.

Will the Dems come back from the Memorial Day recess refreshed and ready to do business?

Will they conquer their filibuster fetish and get the legislative branch moving again?

Not a chance.

LAW & ORDER Demonizes DeLay

It is mind-boggling that some people still claim that the MSM and Hollywood are not biased.

Are these people stupid or are they deceptive? Perhaps both?

From Drudge:

'LAW & ORDER' TIES JUDGE KILLER TO DELAY FAN; CONGRESSMAN PLANS COMPLAINT

Hollywood once again jumps into bitter DC politics when an episode of NBC's LAW & ORDER: CRIMINAL INTENT suggests a judge killer would wear a 'Tom DeLay' T-Shirt!

MORE

The House Majority Leader plans a letter of protest later this afternoon, congressional sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Wednesday night's episode centered on the murder of a judge.

"Maybe we should put out and APB for somebody in a Tom DeLay T-Shirt," declares a character during the drama.

MORE

TRANSCRIPT OF EPISODE 'FALSE-HEARTED JUDGES'

In the season finale, Detectives Goren and Eames suspect an imprisoned white supremacist is behind the shootings of a judge's family, but their investigation widens when an appellate judge is later murdered...

ADA RON CARVER (COURTNEY B. VANCE): An african-american judge, an appellate court judge, no less.

MAN: Chief of DS is setting up a task force. People are talking about multiple assassination teams.

DET. ALEX EAMES (KATHRYN ERBE): Looks like the same shooters. CSU found the slug in a post, matched it to the one that killed Judge Barton. Maybe we should put out an APB for somebody in a Tom DeLay T-Shirt.

MORE

The Media Research Center lets you look and listen.
Posted May 26, 2005

Law & Order: Criminal Intent Portrays Rep. Tom DeLay as Hero of White Supremacists

Listen/download MP3 See CyberAlert Watch video: Real Player WMV format

Mark Levin just made a great point on his WABC show.

He asked, when there's a drowning on a crime drama, why doesn't a character say, "Maybe we should put out an APB for somebody in a Ted Kennedy T-Shirt"?

DON'T CRY FOR ME, VOINOVICH!

Democracy Now! writes:

Republican Senator Voinovich Pleads With Colleagues to Reject Bolton

And on Capitol Hill, the full Senate has opened debate on John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. During the most dramatic moment of the debate Republican George Voinovich choked back tears as he plead with his colleagues not to vote for Bolton. Voinovich said "I don't want to take the risk. I came back here and ran for a second term because I'm worried about my kids and my grandchildren. And I just hope my colleagues will take the time and... do some serious thinking about whether or not we should send John Bolton to the United Nations."

I think Voinovich may be buckling under the stress of being a U.S. Senator.

Calling Dr. Phil...

It's possible that the prospect of Bolton being confirmed as ambassador to the UN has touched him deeply and he truly fears for his family.

I think it's far more likely he's crying over the feedback he has received from constituents and Americans all over the country. Undercutting President Bush's nomination and delaying a committee vote, when he applied his "kitchen test" to Bolton, no doubt elicted some strong reaction.

He also could be crying because he has so many regrets. He didn't even bother to attend the Bolton hearings. That doesn't exactly sound like a man who cares about his family or his country.

Doddering Thomas

I think Scott McClellan deserves a raise. At yesterday's press briefing, he had to suffer through a classic Helen Thomas inanity.

Q (Thomas) The other day -- in fact, this week, you said that we, the United States, is in Afghanistan and Iraq by invitation. Would you like to correct that incredible distortion of American history --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we are -- that's where we currently --

Q -- in view of your credibility is already mired? How can you say that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I think everyone in this room knows that you're taking that comment out of context. There are two democratically-elected governments in Iraq and --

Q We're we invited into Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are two democratically-elected governments now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments, and we are there today --

Q You mean if they had asked us out, that we would have left?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, I'm talking about today. We are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments --

Q I'm talking about today, too.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are doing all we can to train and equip their security forces so that they can provide for their own security as they move forward on a free and democratic future.

Q Did we invade those countries?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve.

It's time for Thomas to retire. Actually, that time passed long ago.

She could write for the Huffington Post. I'm not sure. Maybe Arianna already has her on board.