What happened on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Elections — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday, January 15, 2006.
On Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, MTP host Tim Russert tried to create a fight between Paul Bremer and Don Rumsfeld. Lindsey Graham told FNS that the liberal special interests groups ruin the judicial hearings. Chuck Schumer countered that the right is just as bad, just look at what happened to Harriet.
Also on FNS, Roy Blunt told host Chris Wallace that he was willing to take the blame for what Republicans did wrong. John Boehner spoke of Reagan's "Shining City on a Hill." I wept. John Shadegg spoke from Arizona, so he won the short-format morning. Blunt and Boehner hunkered down in DC apologizing for past misdeeds and advocating reform does not match the new guy by satellite from his home State talking about real reform.
On FTN, John McCain declared the FEC to be "corrupt" and suggested nuclear power as the way to rid ourselves of the Greenhouse gases we must first admit are a problem. Same show, Diane Feinstein said that Judge Alito was qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Qualified candidates should not be kept off the court, she added, simply because Senators disagree with them. She did mention that she will vote against Alito's confirmation because she's sick of the Rehnquist Court.
Senators Lott and Bayh, on LE, defended the recent air strike as the only option we have to try to get rid of these Qaeda types. Blitzer asked why we haven't yet caught Osama bin Laden, HUH? Lott suggested that Pak knew the strike would occur. Lott wouldn't say yet whether or not he was retiring, and Bayh said that the country needs him but he won't announce his 2008 intentions until after the 2006 midterms.
On TW, Arlen Specter answered Steph's question about concerns he should have with Sam Alito by suggesting hopefully that Alito might be another Souter. In response to some goading by Steph, he acknowledged that impeachment was a remedy if the President has broken the law, but that no one serious is suggesting it in this case.
Mark Warner on TW told Steph that the President is spending the Iraq reconstruction money on "security for Halliburton." He made his pro-abortion speech, and he argued that Teddy Roosevelt would not be a Republican were he alive today.
(read the show-by-show summary beneath the fold)
GRAHAM AND SCHUMER ON FNS. Chris Wallace's first guests on FOX News Sunday were Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Chuckie Schumer (D-New York). On the matter of Martha-Ann Alito's tears, Senator Graham said that the Democrats had attacked Judge Alito relentlessly and it didn't sit well with him, but, he said, Schumer did not take part in this attack. Wallace turned to Schumer, pointing out that he did in fact take part in the bashing. He played a clip of Chuckie asking about the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, but Chuckie claimed that he wanted to know only why Alito had listed it on his job application.
Schumer: "The most important [issue] was judicial philosophy, far and away."
Graham posited that the hearings were useful, in that they gave the American people a look at Samuel Alito answering questions, an insight into the kind of Justice he'll be. He complained of the "left wing groups" turning it into more of a trial than a hearing. He argued that the hearings "serve a purpose," but that they've become political.
Schumer argued that the hearings "serve a useful purpose," and he insisted that "right wing groups" were just as bad as left wing groups and Senators should ignore them.
Schumer suggested that President Bush should consult Senators, like Bill Clinton consulted Orrin Hatch about Bruce Babbitt and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a book (Square Peg) Hatch wrote. He said that his only question about a nominee is: "Are they out of the judicial mainstream?" Host Wallace asked him if Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn't outside the judicial mainstream, and Chuckie conceded: "She might well be," but this is all the President's fault for not consulting.
Graham countered that it was the liberal special interest groups who were making the process so ugly. Schumer smugly asked about the right's demolition of Harriet Miers. (NOTE: The right did not smugly make the Miers hearings ugly. She wisely stepped aside.)
Graham said that if the Dems filibuster Alito's nomination, "there'll be a hug backlash."
PAUL BREMER ON MTP. Host Tim Russert seemed to spend the interview trying to force Bremer to assert that he and Don Rumsfeld were constantly at each other's throats and came to blows on several occasions. It never happened, though it probably wouldn't have hurt sales of his volume, My Year in Iraq, if it contained such stories.
Ambassador Bremer explained that the Iraqi fisticuffs and "fractures" about which we read aren't per se that: "What we're seeing in Iraq is what we see here [in America]." Democratic debate.
Russert asked him about troop levels, and Bremer said that it is "more complicated" than simple troop levels.
Bremer said that the Iraqis were "stepping up" to the task of securing their own country. He noted that he did not disband Saddam's army; rather, the conscripts disbanded themselves.
Russert got that gleam in his eye. He pointed out that Bremer had talked about needing more troops, JF Kerry quoted him in the '04 campaign, and Bremer retreated. Bremer said that he was just telling him what he saw.
Russert played a clip of Rumsfeld talking down the looting at a 2003 presser, asserting that the same footage of a guy with a vase was re-aired repeatedly. Rumsfeld had asserted that it was not anarchy and chaos, which is at odds with what Bremer wrote in his book. Bremer responded: "That's how it looked to me."
Of Rumsfeld, Bremer said: "He's a tough manager. So am I."
BLUNT, BOEHNER, AND SHADDEG ON FNS. Host Wallace spoke separately to Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boehner of Ohio, and John Shadegg of Arizona. He explained that Blunt is the front-runner in the race to be the next House Republican Leader, and as is the wont of most front-runners, Blunt wanted to be interviewed separately.
Wallace asked Roy Blunt about the press release from yesterday which asserted that the Congressman had the votes he needed to win. Blunt was less insistent this morning: "I'm confident that we're where we need to be to get this done."
He talked briefly of reform. Wallace asked if he could be as effective a leader as was Tom DeLay, and Blunt argued that he is "not in competition with Tom DeLay." He said that he would be a good majority leader because he is "willing to take the blame" for the caucuses future failures. (Is that really a selling point?)
Wallace asked him about his 2002 insertion of language into some bill which aided Phillip Morris. He said that he has set the highest standards for anti-nepotism in the House. He won't let his wife, a Kraft Foods/Phillip Morris lobbyist, lobby anyone in Congress.
John Boehner asked: "Which candidate can provide the real leadership," leading to reform and the renewal of confidence amongst the caucus? Wallace told him that Blunt says he has the votes. Will Boehner withdraw for the sake of "Republican unity"? Boehner said that he's all for Republican unity, but Blunt's count was "only a poll" of members. He's going to wait for the results of the actual secret ballot.
Wallace pointed out that Boehner had taken 31 trips paid for by lobbyists, attended a fundraising party thrown for him by the Sally Mae student loan company, and distributed tobacco checks to House members. Boehner countered that he "stopped the House Bank" and the House Post Office, two old scandals, and that he's the one wrote the rules against what he had done.
"I've got a long record of real reform in Congress."
Boehner spoke of what he called: "Common Vision." He spoke of Ronald Reagan and the Shining City on a Hill. I almost wept. He said that Ohio's Bob Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee with strong ties to Jack Abramoff, "has to make some serious decisions" and "consider stepping aside" for the good of the party.
Speaking from Arizona, while the other two were hunkered in FNC's DC studio, John Shadegg suggested that neither Blunt nor Boehner "understand the consequences" of the Abramoff scandal. He explained that they cannot get to their agenda of smaller and more accountable government until they clean-up their own mess. He blasted Duke Cunningham and his earmarks.
He thinks that "we need to send a message." The problem, as he sees it, is not just "bad apples"; rather, the problem his "bad procedures." He represents a "clean break with the past."
Wallace confronted him with a few ties he has to Abramoff. Shadegg explained that none of the money came directly from Abramoff, he returned the money remotely connected to Abramoff before the scandal broke, returning the money to the tribes in question and giving the rest to charity. So, he summed correctly, his "level of taint" was nowhere near that of Blunt and/or Boehner. Wallace observed the "level of taint" term and asked if Shadegg thinks the other two are tainted. Congressman Shadegg explained that the other two had a chance to clean this up but didn't.
He spoke of the corruption involved with earmarks and said "we have to bring sunshine back to the earmarks process."
JOHN MCCAIN AND SCHIEFFER. Bob Schieffer first spoke on CBS's Face the Nation to Senator John McCain, who explained that we have to find people like Zawahiri and "take them out." Casualties are unfortunate, but we would probably do it again.
McCain said that Iran was the most serious threat to this nation since the Cold War. (Newt Gingrich had told Schieffer a few weeks ago that Iran was the biggest threat since pre-war Hitler.)
Jan Crawford Greenburg asked him if we were going to invade Iran. McCain said we are going to try to go to the UN, but China and Russia might block it. The only thing worse than US action again Iran, McCain lamented, is a "nuclear-armed Iran."
Because of Putin in Georgia and Hugo Chavez, McCain insisted, we have to get off our dependence on foreign oil. Schieffer insisted that stopping Iran from selling oil would "send the prices sky high." McCain said that it might be one of the consequences we'd have to face in a situation where the President has no good choices.
Schieffer, looking for BushLied™ points, asked if Iran is more dangerous than Iraq. McCain said right now, it is, but that Saddam had everyone fooled about his WMD.
Schieffer asked McCain about the President's statement after signing the anti-terror legislation, when the President carved out an exemption for "extraordinary circumstances." But the President understands, McCain insisted, that there are no exemptions. He's talked to the Prez and to Hadley about it.
McCain thinks the lobbying scandal poses a danger to the GOP, "and that's why we're all reformers now." He then went off on earmarks and Duke Cunningham: "The system is broken, it must be fixed." Lobbying will be insidious until earmarks are corrected.
McCain said that the Federal Elections Commission is corrupt, because they keep trying to find loopholes in the McCain-Feingold Law.
Schieffer asked McCain, just back from the South Pole, about climate change. "We are doing a terrible thing to this globe," the Senator insisted, "and a terrible thing to future generations." We first have to admit that it's real, he said, and we have to reduce Greenhouse gases. For this, he stated flatly that nuclear power was our best option.
On that point, but not necessarily because of it, Schieffer immediately terminated the interview and cut to a commercial.
DIFI AND SCHIEFFER AND JAN. The next guest on FTN was Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California). She agreed with McCain that Iran was the most serious threat to this country since World War II. She argued that we have to use some harsh diplomacy. She said that this was at a "level of real potential threat." Okay…
Schieffer asked her in sanctions were a realistic option, as gas prices would hurt all and sundry. She said that she couldn't speak to sanctions, but we have to use diplomacy. She called on the UN Security Council to "stand up" and "take firm action." She doesn't know what that action is, she said.
On Alito, DiFi said "the process isn't finished." They sent out questions on Sunday, she noted. They have to re-read the transcripts of the hearings. She pledged to vote "in opposition" to Alito, because, she said, she is concerned with the Rehnquist Court. She thinks Alito would be another Scalia. He's qualified, she argued, but more conservative than Chief Justice Roberts.
She does not see the possibility of a filibuster, as there is nothing that "egregious" which "came to the surface." Although she disagrees with him, she said, that doesn't mean he should not sit on the Court. (But she is still voting no.)
She's voting against Alito. She disagrees with Alito, but he's qualified and disagreements are not a good reason to vote against a nominee. However, she is concerned about the Rehnquist Court. Perhaps somebody smart will explain this to me one day.
Schieffer asked her about the hearings concerning "eavesdropping on American citizens." She does not believe that the President has the authority "to simply avoid the law." She argued that the FISA Court does not reject requests for warrants. (Which begs the questions: Then why ask them? What purpose do they serve?)
TRENT LOTT AND EVAN BAYH ON LE. On CNN's Late Edition, host wolf Blitzer first talked to two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) and Evan Bayh (D-Indiana). Blitzer asked Lott about targeting al-Zawahiri. Lott said he did not know a lot about it, but it was a justified strike. We had information on it and this is the only way we can remove these people. Evan Bayh announced that he just "got back from that region." The information threshold before such a strike is "immense," he said, and there is no other way we can get to them. Pakistan won't control the region, people in the region harbor the terrorists, and "we're not left with anything else."
Lott praised Musharraf and indicated of the strike that "this was based on good intelligence." He further indicated that he thought the Pak government knew that this was going to happen.
Wolf played the Pakistani Information Minister condemning the attack and arguing that the have been trying to remove al Qaeda from the region. Bayh acknowledged that they're sending troops, but "they've got a domestic political problem… which could destabilize the government."
Bayh said that "these people have killed 3,000 Americans" and must be "brought to justice." Blitzer asked why we haven't yet caught Osama bin Laden, and Bayh said he's been quiet.
Wolf played a clip of President Bush condemning Iran for threatening Israel and developing weapons. Lott expressed gratification that the Europeans were talking tough on Iran. "This is serious stuff," he said. We have to deal with this seriously and methodically.
Blitzer played a clip of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declaring at a presser that there was a double-standard against Iran and that they wanted nuclear power for peaceful reasons. Bayh called Iran the top terrorist nation in the world, the top merchants of death. "Iran is a menace, Wolf," he said, and he accused President Bush of having ignored Iran for four years.
Blitzer asked Bayh if there were "a credible U.S. military action" available for use against Iran, and Bayh answered in the affirmative. Lott agreed, and they both also agreed that military force "has to be a last resort."
Blitzer quoted Ahmadinejad on the "myth of the Holocaust" from last December, and added that the Iranian government was now going to hold hearings on whether the Holocaust happened or not. Bayh said that he believes that Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany. He added that the Bush Administration has been in denial for four years.
Bayh sees "the next six to nine months" in Iraq as telling us stuff about the future course of the country.
Bayh said he does not yet know how he will vote on Alito, but the process indicates to him that "Washington is broken." The nominees aren't answering and the questioners are "playing gotcha," which does nothing for "people like me."
Lott will vote for Alito, and he insisted that this was not a party-line thing, pointing out that he had expressed concerns about Harriet Miers's qualifications.
Blitzer asked Lott if he were going to retire, and Lott said he wanted to help the people of Mississippi and he would make an announcement – yes or no – eventually. Bayh said that he will make his decision on a Presidential run "after the mid-term elections."
CHAIRMAN SPECTER VISITS WITH STEPH On ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos's first guest was Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. Steph shot: "You are pro-choice yet you are voting for Judge Alito…" Specter said that it is impossible to know for certain, but that Alito puts greater weight on "precedents which are embedded in our society" and believes in the "living Constitution." Steph argued that Alito left latitude and wouldn't call Roe "SUPER DUPER PRECEDENT," but Specter countered that Alito agrees with Ben Justice Cardozo that the Constitution is a "living document." He added that women rely on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, so Alito has indicated that he will give it more weight.
Steph suggested that the Court would shift to the right because of Roberts and Alito, and Specter disagreed. He cited the example of David Souter, pointing out that Souter was a nasty man when nominated but turned out to be an okay guy.
Specter said he might call that disgruntled ex-CIA guy who leaked to NSA information Risen, and he argued that the Administration was wrong when it insists that Bush received the surveillance power from the use of force resolution. Specter argued that the FISA act was Constitutional, but that the President might have plenary power to avoid it. Steph asked Specter what is the remedy if the President breaks the law. Specter answered, in theory, that Impeachment is a remedy and that could be followed by a criminal trial. He insisted that he was not arguing for that in this case; rather, he wants to exact a "political price."
Steph asked if Specter would "follow this as far as it has to go," even impeachment. Specter said that no one is seriously suggesting impeachment and that he has no doubt that the President acted in good faith. However, he's going to use his power as Judiciary Committee chairman to get to the bottom of matters.
MARK WARNER ON TW. Steph next spoke to outgoing Virginia Governor Mark Warner, went down to Richmond to do it. The big question Steph has: "Is he ready for the national stage?" Warner said he doesn't know if Alito should sit on the high Court, and although there have been privacy and presidential powers concerns, he owes Alito a hearing. He spoke of the "settled nature of "Roe v. Wade." Steph asked if he though President Bush were a lawbreaker, and Warner argued that we have to stop the terrorists in our midst. He said that the President should have consulted with Congress about this and that the matter of whether the President broke the law "will be decided in the courts." He then said Congress would decide "in the next few weeks."
Warner argued that the Congress might have preauthorized this. Steph countered that Tom Daschle said that they did not.
Steph talked to Warner about Iran, and Warner criticized the past "unilateralist approach." He thinks it is right that we are working with the Europeans. He wants to bring Iran before the IAEA and let Mohammed el Baradei show those mullahs whose boss.
Steph looked at all the Democrat opinions about Iraq, claiming for Murtha "out in six months," and asked Warner where he stood. Warner replied that he wants no "artificial timetable." He blamed the President for spending Iraqi reconstruction money on "just security for Halliburton."
Steph argued that the "reconstruction process is on hold because the political situation is stalemated." Warner wants to "engage more Iraqis in the actual reconstruction process."
Steph rebuked Warner for not condemning the invasion of Iraq, and Warner argued that fretting about the past is counterproductive for the Dems.
Steph argued that Warner has no national security experience, and Warner countered that neither did Clinton and that there are lots of military bases in Virginia.
Warner suggested that Teddy Roosevelt would not be a Republican if he were alive today.
----
Have at it!
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Invasion unacknowledged? — Comments (30) »
What happened on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows 42 Comments (0 topical, 42 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
for the Dems, we'd have a serious presidential debate, above all concerning foreign policy.
"She does not see the possibility of a filibuster, as there is nothing that 'egregious' which 'came to the surface.' Although she disagrees with him, she said, that doesn't mean he should not sit on the Court. (But she is still voting no.)"
I think you left out a few sentences here, because this makes no sense. It's completely incoherent. sound of dropping penny richocheting off skull Oh. Oh, I see.
I guess this is sort of a crude attempt at triangulation: "OK, so we can't actually lay a glove on him as far as legal competence. But I won't vote for anyone who won't pledge to keep the uterus unchained!"
Did Warner elaborate on why T.R. wouldn't be a "Republican"? I mean, technically speaking, he wasn't a Republican at the end of his political career, so that statement struggles to rise above the tautologous...
The House GOP is at a major crossroads right now. Will they go for the least common denominator and elect DeLay-lite Roy Blunt as majority leader? Will they throw a bone to real reform and elect Boehner? Or will they actually vote for the kind of leader who will be most true to conservative principles, John Shadegg.
Remember, when the GOP swept to power in 1994 it was because of a clearly articulated conservative vision. It was not because of promises to gerrymander districts, bend over for lobbyists, and grow government faster than Democrats. Yet this describes the GOP House majority. Of the three candidates, John Shadegg is the one most likely to put principles first. We saw that this morning on Fox.
Thanks for the summaries.
consider voting for, although a lot of it would depend on the GOP nominee-since abortion is an important issue for me, and while Bayh isn't an abortion at all costs politician, he is isn't in the pro life court either.
I caught McCain on FTN this morning and liked what he had to say on Iran - I wish people wouldn't be harping on a military option at this point yet, because it is and should be a last resort. I found this article here, and while the window for diplomacy is closing -- the point of no return could be creeping up in a matter of months once they figure out the cascades -- the window does exist. Check it out.
Specter answered, in theory, that Impeachment is a remedy and that could be followed by a criminal trial. He insisted that he was not arguing for that in this case; rather, he wants to exact a "political price."Steph asked if Specter would "follow this as far as it has to go," even impeachment. Specter said that no one is seriously suggesting impeachment and that he has no doubt that the President acted in good faith.
OK, Senator, why even bring it up if "no one is seriously suggesting" it? These kind of comments make the Bush-haters drool. Just look at this nice excerpt from today's NY Times home page:
Specter Expresses Doubts About Surveillance Program
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune 4:26 PM ET
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee even mentioned impeachment as a remedy should President Bush be found to have violated the law.
When I consider all of these candidates for Leader, I simply have to go with experience as the bottom line. all things considered, blunt has the most experience and knows how to get things done in dc. shadegg might be getting a lot of attention right now, but simply does not have the training or vocal support. i'd feel more comfortable with someone who has already garnered support.
One of the odder, to me, arguments that have been proposed - specifically by Specter above - is that the Constitution itself is an organic and evolving document that needs to be, to use the hoary cliche, kept up to the times. But at the same time, Specter is proposing that we have these super duper precedents that must not be challenged.
So we find ourselves actually permitting Justices to employ a lower standard when viewing the wording of the Constitution than when viewing the wording of Court rulings.
The Constitution changes but precedents must not be touched?
Odd.
According to this view, the liberty clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, for example, may "evolve". But Griswold/Roe, based, inter alia, on these very same liberty clauses may not change.
Very odd.
SMG
McCain hurt his chances of becoming president by talking like someone who was trying to win the Democratic nomination.
The FEC bit didn't help him at all.
And the bit about the hole in the ozone was a very poor choice.
McCain has to talk more about cutting taxes and giving the states more control over education.
That kind of talk will help him get the nomination.
The more he talks about global warming (making it seem like one of his top issues, even), the more he wastes the resources of those who want him to win.
Don't put any money on McCain.
Put money on Giuliani, Gingrich, and maybe George Allen. Those three are much closer to the presidency than McCain is.
It was refreshing to see Feinstein shoot down the filibuster.
I expect someone like Boxer to try to get her 15 minutes of fame by filibustering, but if the Dems try to uphold that filibuster, they're crazy.
should have been allowed to twist slowly in the wind for his reelection last year. Yes, we may have saved the seat on the right side of the aisle, but did we really accomplish anything? Would it have been any worse with a Dem? Specter is useless --- actually he's worse that useless.
Time for what?
side of his party, rather than reach out to the dems.
He is popular in a general election precisely because he is well liked among independants and right leaning dems. It is the conservatives in his own party who can't stand him, and who he has to reach out to. And it seems like every time he takes a step in that direction, he takes several steps backwards.
There are things about McCain that appeal to me, but then he gets on some talking head show, and makes me not like him.
Republican caucus. Were that the case it wouldn't matter. The problem, the reason for the election of a new ML, is two-fold. One, Congress is perceived to be a corrupt institution and the R's run it. Two, this election will either allow that perception to carry over into the election or not. Either of the B's are going to be perceived to be part of the "old guard", the "K Street Gang" and will inflame the issue throughout the campaign season. Shadegg will mute the issue (it ain't going away).
There is one other point to be made. Spending. In case you haven't noticed, the R Congress desperately needs to be checked into Betty Ford. They've got an addiction problem and they're worse than any D Congress I've seen. Shadegg is the only one of the three who has even an outside shot at staring down the elephant in the living room.
There is lots of talk about Blunt's "experience" as the #2 guy and the "great job" he did. I seem to recall the "mainstreet" reps running things for past months. That seems to bode poorly on his ability to control the caucus. Had they tried that with DeLay, there would have been burials at sea.
Shadegg is the guy. In this instance, experience is not a plus.
...in Bayh's organization. I wouldn't support this guy. I sincerely apologize for the tease but I can't say more.
...was pretty impressive throughout the Fox Sunday program, but Boehner has consistently failed to rise to the occasion over the last week. I would say that Boehner should drop out of the race at this point, especially after opening admitting Shadegg's abilities late last week.
Blunt has the majority of the support right now, and he is the strongest by far. If there is any race at all, it will be between he and Shadegg, Boehner might as well be out.
had allowed Specter to twist in the wind in '04, we had a candidate who just might have beaten him in Pat Toomey.
I'm not crying over spilt milk. That race is over, Toomey's doing his thaang at the neo-Club for Growth, and Specter, I'm afraid, is all talk.
He is popular in a general election precisely because he is well liked among independants and right leaning dems.
His prospects depend on support from the media; that's why he promoted campaign finance -- it strengthens the media's influence over elections. The torture statute and the global warming crapola is just more of the same. Guaranteed positive coverage.
When was the last time you saw all three episodes ridiculing Democrats?
What does it mean?
"Vote for me, I want to be President" Pretty much sums up the substance of the guy.
Specter's Press-Democrat interviewer brought it up, apparently (emphasis added):
In response to some goading by Steph, he acknowledged that impeachment was a remedy if the President has broken the law, but that no one serious is suggesting it in this case."
If you're on an interview program, and the absurdly biased interviewer repeatedly pushes you on a point, eventually you have to find some way to make him be quiet on that point.
that's why he promoted campaign finance -- it strengthens the media's influence over elections. The torture statute and the global warming crapola is just more of the same.
Is is possible that McCain, you know, actually believes in these issues - campaign finance reform, anti-torture statutes, global warming - as opposed to the more contrived notion that he selects issues to back based on giving the media more power?
Which seems more likely - that McCain's convictions lead him to believe in various issues or that he determines which issues to back based solely on appealing to and empowering the media?
Halliburton. Now that's an issue that should propel him into the White House. Why didn't other democrats think of that?
Schumer smugly asked about the right's demolition of Harriet Miers. (NOTE: The right did not smugly make the Miers hearings ugly. She wisely stepped aside.)
The Meirs thing is a club the Democrats will use from now on. We got lucky that the Democrats focused on CAP - and were dumb enough to look like character assassins.
It's not as if she got shot down in hearings, or something remotely comparable.
Lucked out there, huh?
Please.
There's no more reason for Boehner to drop out than Shadegg to drop out. If Blunt really had the votes to win, he'd also have the names public. Oh, I guess he's still workign on that...
Blunt's been an abysmal whip, his record is horrible, he's just lucky that DeLay was so competent that he still managed to whip bills while he was also Majority Leader. Blunt's citation of the victories at the end of the last session of Congress are directly attributable to the work of Hastert, DeLay, and committtee chairmen (Thomas, Barton, and Boehner) whose committees had to make the real budget cuts in the budget resolution.
Blunt is not anything other than in the right place at the right time.
Because our side no longer has clean hands on the issue. The only reason the "look what they did to Harriet" isn't sticking yetis because the Democrats managed to look like character assassination.
I'm just going to leave it at that. I'm in no mood for a fight.
and Boehner, as I alluded to earlier, is part of the problem. By that, I don't mean to imply that he or Blunt are "dirty", but they are both part of the insider leadership group. When someone who's been "inside" for a long time and all of a sudden becomes a "reformer" there is no credibility.
I would liken Blunt and Boehner call for reform to Ted Kennedy's editorial in the Times saying that the judicial nomination process is too politicized.
If you want a reason for Blunt and Boehner step aside, it's the 2006 election. I don't know that Shadegg will be able to successfully stem the blood, but the B's certainly won't. The media will beat them like a drum and they will be perceived to be corrupt politicians, tied to the evil DeLay, who took advantage of TD's problem to grab for power themselves. From my uninformed perspective, Shadegg's strongest ally is his distance from the insider leadership.
Is is possible that McCain, you know, actually believes in these issues - campaign finance reform, anti-torture statutes, global warming - as opposed to the more contrived notion that he selects issues to back based on giving the media more power?
No, I don't know.
I haven't seen any conviction of anything but self-aggrandisement and pandering to the press, but you are free to believe whatever you want. McCain-Feingold is a complete bust, except for the practical effect of stifling free (political) speech prior to general elections for everyone but incumbents and the press.
My point was that McCain has no future as a candidate for President absent major support from the media -- hence my conclusion that the MSM is his primary constituency. I don't think I'm alone.
McCain is a media whore. The most interesting event in politics would be the race between him and Schumer for an interview.
McCain is easily the most dangerous person in DC. He is a master manipulator in a world of manipulators. Suppose his position on torture is truly heartfelt. Please tell me exactly what he accomplished with his recent run at legislating "torture" since the US is a signatory to the international ban on torture and torture is forbidden by US law and the UCMJ. He got face time in media, the adoration of the BushHaters and more "proof" that he is the antithesis of Bush.
Same scenario on global warming. Same scenario on CFR. With respect to CFR, find me one rational person with any knowledge of the political system who thought CFR would "clean up" politics. No "reform" anywhere has put a dent in the ability of politicians to be influenced by money.
Once again, McCain is the worst alternative of any candidate on either side of the aisle.
comparing the nomination of Myers to Alito is like bringing an old, dull, rusty knife to a machinegun fight.
I'm not picking on Myers, just noting that there is no comparison between her qualifications and those of Alito (or any one of a couple of dozen others for that matter).
McCain is easily the most dangerous person in DC.
Jack Abramoff may have a thing or two about claims to that title. But anyways ...
Look, I'm not necessarily a huge fan of McCain, myself.
But I do respect his willingness (even if it's at least in part motivated by media exposure) to not walk the party line. And I have to believe that he believes passionately in what he argues for - even if it's politically unpopular in his own party.
Every politician - EVERY politician - is motivated in part by polls and grandstanding and media exposure. They wouldn't be politicians otherwise.
And that doesn't mean McCain's right. But I respect his willingness to take positions that aren't popular with his party. And I think a lot of Americans respect that as well.
He got face time in media, the adoration of the BushHaters and more "proof" that he is the antithesis of Bush.
McCain also has the most support of any potential candidate among Republicans at the moment. Thus far, when they run polls on leaders in 2008, McCain wins among Republicans - not "BushHaters" and Democrats.
I also do know that he's the one candidate the Democrats unquestionably fear. And the Dems are more than happy to see the GOP base dump McCain before he makes it to the general election.
But that's a conversation for another diary.
Because our side no longer has clean hands on the issue.
I'm afraid poor Harold is the only one left still clinging to a notion that anyone in Washington can be perceived as possessed of "clean hands."
What does that mean in this context anyway? That we believe in the pristine integrity of the Judiciary? That we are unwilling to "politicize" the selection and confirmation of judges?
I myself would be eager to see Congress really "dirtying" its hands by striking against the usurpations of the Judiciary with vigor and verve. The reason the Judiciary is politicized is because it has spent that last 30 or 40 years legislating illegitimately.
Everyone's hands were dirtied when that exclusive right of legislation, given to Congress by the Constitution (see Article I), was usurped by the courts.
Bayh will not get my vote. His voting record is nearly identical to Barbara Boxer or Ted Kennedy, and it will only grow worse as the Democratic primaries grow nearer. Senator Bayh has sold out the voters of Indiana. As far as I am concerned, he's just another worthless liberal.
If Blunt was all about being in right place at right time, then what was Denny Hastert??
Lets keep ourselves honest here...
Arguably Denny was the best compromise candidate who was able to keep his zipper in the appropriate position. Just because Hastert hasn't done a terrible job is not sufficient to suggest that Blunt should be an okay alternative to Boehner or Shadegg.
Blunt's failed in the past at his current job, the Republican conference should avoid the Peter Principle and not promote him to another position where he'll fail as well.
Hastert should leave after the 2006 elections, despite his promise to Bush, so we can prepare for the 08 campaign, not try to burnish the President's legacy.
come on dan, I mean seriously..."just b/c hastert hasnt done a terrible job..."
Blunt has a better record in his 1st two terms as majority whip as DeLay did. That is a fact.
if you dont like him for pushing forth the President's agenda, then call it for what it is. But to say Blunt "failed in his job" is a bit of a stretch. In fact, he has a better win / loss record than DeLay did at the same point in his whip career.
Same w Boehner...a lot to beat him up on, but with No Child Left Behind, he was doing his best to push through one of the President's top priorities.
Frusteration with folks who aren't stepping forward to support Shadegg is one thing. and I understand it. But shouldnt play too loosely with people's records (and that goes for both Blunt and Boehner). all are pretty conservative.
Old vs. New -- that's completely fair game.
Again, where is everyone? Where is the courage?
I wasn't praising Hastert, I was suggesting that we shouldn't follow the example of not bad leadership from the Speaker and combine that with not bad leadership from the Majority Leader by keeping Blunt there.
Blunt's record is not as pristine as all that. A simple comparison to his first two years versus DeLay's first two years is slightly disingenuous. DeLay had to work against a sitting Democrat president while Blunt has only had to deal with the Bush White House.
And the advent of 3-hour votes had been almost unheard of until Blunt became the whip. Not a coincidence.
His whip organization is less than stellar, which is why you've seen DeLay, Hastert, and so many others on the floor wheeling and dealing at the last minute to get bills passed. Yeah, we got the budget last month, but to attribute much of that to Blunt is to suggest that the sun rose this morning because he wanted it to be brighter. Hastert, DeLay, Joe Barton, John Boehner, and Bill Thomas had much more to do with that victory than did Blunt. (Hastert because he's Speaker, DeLay because he's effective, and the other three because their committees had all the heavy lifting in finding the miniscule budget cuts they actually came up with).
So, Arlen doesn't like the intercepts and wants to extract a 'political price' from the President. Unfortunately Redstate does not allow the kind of language that gets to the core of what is wrong with people like Specter. I guess I'll have to be satisfied with Specter makes my stomach turn. This man is more interested in his limelight than in the security of the country. A pox on all of them.