Wednesday, May 18, 2005
The Real Problem with The Compromise
“In the negotiations, one of the deals being worked on would have the Senate confirming Owen, California judge Janice Rogers Brown and former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, with Idaho lawyer William Myers's nomination scuttled. As part of that deal, two Michigan nominees, David McKeague and Richard Griffin, would be confirmed, while a third nominee — Henry Saad — would be jettisoned.
A fourth Michigan judge, Susan Neilson, also would be confirmed. She has not been filibustered by Democrats in the past.
Senators are still negotiating that part of the deal and it is subject to change, aides said.
Under the latest Republican-crafted proposal, both sides would have to operate on "good faith." Republicans would be bound not to ban judicial filibusters only if Democrats forswear judicial filibusters except for extraordinary situations, aides said.”
“Moderate Senators Seek Filibuster Deal,” May 18, 2005,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156991,00.html
OK, Class, what is the problem with this proposal? Aside from the obviously distasteful and unacceptable idea of throwing several good qualified nominees under the bus, which is bad enough, there is a much bigger problem and it involves that phrase “if Democrats forswear judicial filibusters except for extraordinary situations.” Speaking of the democrats, how exactly are they going to explain their sudden change of heart on nominees like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown? Yesterday they were dangerous extremists outside of the mainstream, and tomorrow they are suddenly acceptable? Oh, I forgot. They don’t have to explain anything. How else can Chuck Schumer admit on CNN that the dems don’t care about U.S. District court nominees, only the appellate and Supreme Court ones, but then continue to repeat that annoying and meaningless mantra about confirming 95% of President Bush’s nominees? That’s what it’s like to never have your lies and inconsistencies go unchallenged by those dedicated media watchdogs, not that conservatives would ever know that from first-hand experience.
The problem is not the fact that there is no objective standard for determining what “extraordinary situations” means. Yes, that’s a ridiculous basis for any deal, and a recipe for more democrat obstruction. To understand the real problem, speak to any one of those heroes of capitalism that we call salespeople.
Any successful salesperson will tell you that you need to make your deal with the decision maker, not some minion who, at best, can serve only as a conduit to those who call the shots. In the case of these judicial nominees, the democrats who concocted this unprecedented partisan attempt to undo the results of the last two presidential elections—we lost, but we get to decide who gets on the courts!—are nothing more than stooges for liberal activist groups like People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice (what a misnomer!) and NARAL. I found it quite interesting that Jill Zuckman concluded her story in the May 18, 2005, Chicago Tribune “Fuse lit on Senate's judicial fight” with the following paragraph:
“At the National Women's Law Center, co-president Marcia Greenberger said Frist's decision to try to prevent Democrats from using the filibuster is designed "to push through those very judges whose records show they are fundamentally hostile to some of the most important rights and protections that we as Americans rely on."
According to the New York Times, Ms. Greenberger was one of the three liberal activists who instructed democrat losers in the spring of 2001 at a retreat in Pennsylvania that they needed to get busy “changing the ground rules” on judicial confirmations. Perhaps instead of inviting Sen. Frist into a closed-door private discussion, as he did today on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Reid aka “the Mortician” should offer to arrange a meeting with Ralph Neas, Nan Aron and Ms. Greenberger for Sen. Frist. At least then he’d be talking to the decision makers.
“In the negotiations, one of the deals being worked on would have the Senate confirming Owen, California judge Janice Rogers Brown and former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, with Idaho lawyer William Myers's nomination scuttled. As part of that deal, two Michigan nominees, David McKeague and Richard Griffin, would be confirmed, while a third nominee — Henry Saad — would be jettisoned.
A fourth Michigan judge, Susan Neilson, also would be confirmed. She has not been filibustered by Democrats in the past.
Senators are still negotiating that part of the deal and it is subject to change, aides said.
Under the latest Republican-crafted proposal, both sides would have to operate on "good faith." Republicans would be bound not to ban judicial filibusters only if Democrats forswear judicial filibusters except for extraordinary situations, aides said.”
“Moderate Senators Seek Filibuster Deal,” May 18, 2005,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156991,00.html
OK, Class, what is the problem with this proposal? Aside from the obviously distasteful and unacceptable idea of throwing several good qualified nominees under the bus, which is bad enough, there is a much bigger problem and it involves that phrase “if Democrats forswear judicial filibusters except for extraordinary situations.” Speaking of the democrats, how exactly are they going to explain their sudden change of heart on nominees like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown? Yesterday they were dangerous extremists outside of the mainstream, and tomorrow they are suddenly acceptable? Oh, I forgot. They don’t have to explain anything. How else can Chuck Schumer admit on CNN that the dems don’t care about U.S. District court nominees, only the appellate and Supreme Court ones, but then continue to repeat that annoying and meaningless mantra about confirming 95% of President Bush’s nominees? That’s what it’s like to never have your lies and inconsistencies go unchallenged by those dedicated media watchdogs, not that conservatives would ever know that from first-hand experience.
The problem is not the fact that there is no objective standard for determining what “extraordinary situations” means. Yes, that’s a ridiculous basis for any deal, and a recipe for more democrat obstruction. To understand the real problem, speak to any one of those heroes of capitalism that we call salespeople.
Any successful salesperson will tell you that you need to make your deal with the decision maker, not some minion who, at best, can serve only as a conduit to those who call the shots. In the case of these judicial nominees, the democrats who concocted this unprecedented partisan attempt to undo the results of the last two presidential elections—we lost, but we get to decide who gets on the courts!—are nothing more than stooges for liberal activist groups like People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice (what a misnomer!) and NARAL. I found it quite interesting that Jill Zuckman concluded her story in the May 18, 2005, Chicago Tribune “Fuse lit on Senate's judicial fight” with the following paragraph:
“At the National Women's Law Center, co-president Marcia Greenberger said Frist's decision to try to prevent Democrats from using the filibuster is designed "to push through those very judges whose records show they are fundamentally hostile to some of the most important rights and protections that we as Americans rely on."
According to the New York Times, Ms. Greenberger was one of the three liberal activists who instructed democrat losers in the spring of 2001 at a retreat in Pennsylvania that they needed to get busy “changing the ground rules” on judicial confirmations. Perhaps instead of inviting Sen. Frist into a closed-door private discussion, as he did today on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Reid aka “the Mortician” should offer to arrange a meeting with Ralph Neas, Nan Aron and Ms. Greenberger for Sen. Frist. At least then he’d be talking to the decision makers.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Time for a shout out to my new friends at Fox Chicago
I had the best time yesterday appearing as a guest on Fox Chicago Perspective, which I’m sure most of you know, airs Sundays 8 am-9 am on Channel 32. The hosts, legendary Chicago broadcast journalist, Walter Jacobsen and Fox Political Editor Jack Conaty, were charming and delightful, on and off the air. I was thrilled to learn that Walter—yes, Walter—is a frequent listener to my show! Producer Tracy is that rare combination of vivacious personality and unparalleled professionalism. Meteorologist Mark Strehl gave me a big hello and told me that he also listens regularly to my show. Alina, Maureen and all the friendly folks there made me feel right at home. (Of course, I knew I was right at home when I walked right past Bart Simpson at the door.) In short, it was the greatest and I hope to be invited back. If you saw the show (and if you didn’t, shame on you!), you may remember that we began the segment with the following exchange:
Walter: Why, Teri, is conservative radio so overwhelming or should I say talk radio is so overwhelmingly conservative?
Me: Well, there’s a lot of reasons. We can talk about the infamous liberal bias in the mainstream media---I do want to talk about that---
Walter: Well, go ahead
Me: Definitely.
Walter: Oh, but, is that what’s causing conservative talk radio to be so popular?
Me: That’s a big part of it. That’s a really big part of it, but I think the overall umbrella reason I would say is that we don’t insult the intelligence of our listeners. We have respect for the intelligence of the listener.
That is the bottom line answer, but here without the time pressure inherent in television (and radio for that matter), let me elaborate. When I say that we on what is sometimes called “conservative” talk radio—if I had to label it, I’d call it “information radio”--do not insult the intelligence of the viewer, I mean we make a sincere effort to tell the truth. Yes, we have a clearly stated point of view, and unlike many of our friends in MSM (mainstream media) we don’t pretend to be “objective,” as if any thinking human being can ever be truly objective. On my show, we focus on the issues of the day, and like all broadcasters, we choose what stories to discuss. Then, and here’s the important part, did I mention that we tell the truth?
Consider the following example: Dick Durbin goes on television day after day and repeats his mantra about the democrats unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary, obstructionist filibuster of Pres. Bush appellate court nominees like some sort of fleshy-faced partisan cyborg. He says that the filibuster of these judges is about “checks and balances,” that to change the filibuster rule is a “constitutional change,” and that “Republicans are trying to change rules in the middle of the game.” These statements are blatantly and demonstrably false. Only those who are completely uninformed or who aren’t paying attention, or both, would buy into them. Certainly most WLS listeners don’t. They know better. Eventually thinking listeners start to wonder whether our own Eddie Haskell is unaware that the things he is saying are untrue or whether he is deliberately and premeditatedly lying. I’m not sure which is worse, a senator who is a proud, loquacious ignoramus, or one who is cynical partisan hack who willfully misleads the public to advance his personal and political objectives. No, I take that back. I do know which one is worse, and it’s the one that Dick Durbin is: the latter, of course.
Despite some evidence to the contrary (like Durbin getting elected senator not once but twice), the American people are smart. Someone who understood them very well was the late film director Frank Capra. In his great movies like “Meet John Doe,” and the one that the democrats have discovered of late and are using as part of their disinformation campaign, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” initially the public is hoodwinked by demagoguery and spin, but by the end, their common sense takes over and they send the lying weasels who tried to fool them in the first place running like for the tall grass, or wherever they can hide and save their sorry hides. They are outraged at being lied to.
Apparently Senator Durbin needs to watch these movies a couple more times because he doesn’t seen to understand that when the American people discover the depth of his dishonesty, they will turn away in revulsion. That’s what we in talk radio do understand. We respect the intelligence and common sense of the American people and of our listeners, so we don’t deliberately lie to them or even try to mislead them. We don’t have to. Our world view doesn’t suffer from liberalism’s major flaw, which is that it relies on stealth for its continued existence. It’s a secular religion, a matter of faith, but unlike genuine religions, its tenets are subject to earthly analysis. When that analysis is done, liberalism falls like a house of cards. America is not always wrong, government doesn’t have the moral authority to confiscate the fruits of one citizens labor and give it to another and a free people shouldn’t be governed by a cadre of arrogant, unaccountable judges. As that great MSM journalist (and admitted liberal) Walter Cronkite used to say, that’s the way it is, and that’s why people love conservative talk radio. Plus where else are you going to hear an exchange like this one:
Jack Conaty: When there are people on the radio launching attack after attack after attack on people, much of it personal, much of it personal, how can that increase civility in American politics?”
Me: Now, you mean like the attack like when a couple of months ago the Republicans put out a memo that described Harry Reid’s voting record and all the democrats went on tv and said “They’re attacking him! They’re attacking him!”
Jack: No, I mean an attack like Rush Limbaugh talking about Chris Dodd’s personal life because Chris Dodd opposes John Bolton. That’s what I’m talking about.
Me: “ I don’t talk about his personal life. Christopher Dodd is an apologist for Castro and he hasn’t had an original idea since he had only one chin.”
As it turns out, you can hear it on Fox Chicago Perspective. Thanks again, guys, it was the greatest.
As far as civility goes, at least I resisted saying what first popped into my head, which was “Personal life? You mean that waitress sandwich thing with Ted Kennedy?” Speaking of Harry I-wish-you-could-see-the-evil-things-in-those-confidential-FBI-files Reid, he could learn a little about impulse control, no?
I had the best time yesterday appearing as a guest on Fox Chicago Perspective, which I’m sure most of you know, airs Sundays 8 am-9 am on Channel 32. The hosts, legendary Chicago broadcast journalist, Walter Jacobsen and Fox Political Editor Jack Conaty, were charming and delightful, on and off the air. I was thrilled to learn that Walter—yes, Walter—is a frequent listener to my show! Producer Tracy is that rare combination of vivacious personality and unparalleled professionalism. Meteorologist Mark Strehl gave me a big hello and told me that he also listens regularly to my show. Alina, Maureen and all the friendly folks there made me feel right at home. (Of course, I knew I was right at home when I walked right past Bart Simpson at the door.) In short, it was the greatest and I hope to be invited back. If you saw the show (and if you didn’t, shame on you!), you may remember that we began the segment with the following exchange:
Walter: Why, Teri, is conservative radio so overwhelming or should I say talk radio is so overwhelmingly conservative?
Me: Well, there’s a lot of reasons. We can talk about the infamous liberal bias in the mainstream media---I do want to talk about that---
Walter: Well, go ahead
Me: Definitely.
Walter: Oh, but, is that what’s causing conservative talk radio to be so popular?
Me: That’s a big part of it. That’s a really big part of it, but I think the overall umbrella reason I would say is that we don’t insult the intelligence of our listeners. We have respect for the intelligence of the listener.
That is the bottom line answer, but here without the time pressure inherent in television (and radio for that matter), let me elaborate. When I say that we on what is sometimes called “conservative” talk radio—if I had to label it, I’d call it “information radio”--do not insult the intelligence of the viewer, I mean we make a sincere effort to tell the truth. Yes, we have a clearly stated point of view, and unlike many of our friends in MSM (mainstream media) we don’t pretend to be “objective,” as if any thinking human being can ever be truly objective. On my show, we focus on the issues of the day, and like all broadcasters, we choose what stories to discuss. Then, and here’s the important part, did I mention that we tell the truth?
Consider the following example: Dick Durbin goes on television day after day and repeats his mantra about the democrats unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary, obstructionist filibuster of Pres. Bush appellate court nominees like some sort of fleshy-faced partisan cyborg. He says that the filibuster of these judges is about “checks and balances,” that to change the filibuster rule is a “constitutional change,” and that “Republicans are trying to change rules in the middle of the game.” These statements are blatantly and demonstrably false. Only those who are completely uninformed or who aren’t paying attention, or both, would buy into them. Certainly most WLS listeners don’t. They know better. Eventually thinking listeners start to wonder whether our own Eddie Haskell is unaware that the things he is saying are untrue or whether he is deliberately and premeditatedly lying. I’m not sure which is worse, a senator who is a proud, loquacious ignoramus, or one who is cynical partisan hack who willfully misleads the public to advance his personal and political objectives. No, I take that back. I do know which one is worse, and it’s the one that Dick Durbin is: the latter, of course.
Despite some evidence to the contrary (like Durbin getting elected senator not once but twice), the American people are smart. Someone who understood them very well was the late film director Frank Capra. In his great movies like “Meet John Doe,” and the one that the democrats have discovered of late and are using as part of their disinformation campaign, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” initially the public is hoodwinked by demagoguery and spin, but by the end, their common sense takes over and they send the lying weasels who tried to fool them in the first place running like for the tall grass, or wherever they can hide and save their sorry hides. They are outraged at being lied to.
Apparently Senator Durbin needs to watch these movies a couple more times because he doesn’t seen to understand that when the American people discover the depth of his dishonesty, they will turn away in revulsion. That’s what we in talk radio do understand. We respect the intelligence and common sense of the American people and of our listeners, so we don’t deliberately lie to them or even try to mislead them. We don’t have to. Our world view doesn’t suffer from liberalism’s major flaw, which is that it relies on stealth for its continued existence. It’s a secular religion, a matter of faith, but unlike genuine religions, its tenets are subject to earthly analysis. When that analysis is done, liberalism falls like a house of cards. America is not always wrong, government doesn’t have the moral authority to confiscate the fruits of one citizens labor and give it to another and a free people shouldn’t be governed by a cadre of arrogant, unaccountable judges. As that great MSM journalist (and admitted liberal) Walter Cronkite used to say, that’s the way it is, and that’s why people love conservative talk radio. Plus where else are you going to hear an exchange like this one:
Jack Conaty: When there are people on the radio launching attack after attack after attack on people, much of it personal, much of it personal, how can that increase civility in American politics?”
Me: Now, you mean like the attack like when a couple of months ago the Republicans put out a memo that described Harry Reid’s voting record and all the democrats went on tv and said “They’re attacking him! They’re attacking him!”
Jack: No, I mean an attack like Rush Limbaugh talking about Chris Dodd’s personal life because Chris Dodd opposes John Bolton. That’s what I’m talking about.
Me: “ I don’t talk about his personal life. Christopher Dodd is an apologist for Castro and he hasn’t had an original idea since he had only one chin.”
As it turns out, you can hear it on Fox Chicago Perspective. Thanks again, guys, it was the greatest.
As far as civility goes, at least I resisted saying what first popped into my head, which was “Personal life? You mean that waitress sandwich thing with Ted Kennedy?” Speaking of Harry I-wish-you-could-see-the-evil-things-in-those-confidential-FBI-files Reid, he could learn a little about impulse control, no?
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Still more questions that Dick Durbin will not answer (not that anyone but me has ever asked him)
Over the last couple of weeks, in their pathetic attempts to defend their unprecedented, unfair, unconstitutional, not to mention, extremely annoying, judicial filibuster, a series of democrats have shown up on talking head shows, bleating like sheep, endlessly repeating their mantra: we’ve confirmed 95% of the judges, the Republicans filibustered our judges, and we are protecting checks and balances. I address those deceitful statements in my column “Happy International Press Freedom Day! Some Questions for Democrats,” on Illinois Leader. (http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=25189)
Please check it out.
There’s one more talking point that is critical to this malignant scheme, the claim that it is the Republicans are “changing the rules” about the judicial filibuster, stunning and is easily refuted by reflecting on the fact that Clarence Thomas was confirmed by 52 votes. Had the filibuster been in regular use against controversial nominees, does anyone who has seriously considered this issue think that Ted Kennedy wouldn’t have been in there bloviating and obstructing this fine jurist?
Why then, did the democrats decide to suddenly employ this tactic that had previously been reserved exclusively for legislation? The answer is available in none other than the Liberal Death Star aka The New York Times. In an article,they described how liberal activists Professor Lawrence Tribe, Professor Cass Sunstein and Marcia Greenberger advised the democrats, now that they were out power, on how to block nominees by “changing the ground rules.”
(Neil A. Lewis, Democrats Readying for a Judicial Fight , N.Y. Times, May 1, 2001, at A19.)
• Did Senator Durbin attend this retreat?
• If not, was he advised of the strategy that the democrats cooked up?
• As a member of the leadership, was he ever advised of this plan? Since it was the democrats who came up with the idea of “changing the ground rules,” why does he keep saying that it was the Republicans who are changing the rules?
Perhaps these misstatements about the rules are lapses of memory, and maybe that’s not the only area where the senator is having some difficulty staying in touch with reality. Last month, both on the Senate floor and on television, Sen. Durbin claimed he didn’t know the religion of any of President Bush’s judicial nominees. Yet back in 2003 at Bill Pryor’s confirmation hearing, he became very huffy and self-righteous at the suggestion that “anyone who opposes William Pryor is guilty of discrimination against him because he is a Catholic.”
Will someone, ANYONE, in the media please ask him about these lies? There’s got to be one honest reporter who is sick of being a toady for the democrats!
Click here for pictures of our trip to Pepe’s!
Over the last couple of weeks, in their pathetic attempts to defend their unprecedented, unfair, unconstitutional, not to mention, extremely annoying, judicial filibuster, a series of democrats have shown up on talking head shows, bleating like sheep, endlessly repeating their mantra: we’ve confirmed 95% of the judges, the Republicans filibustered our judges, and we are protecting checks and balances. I address those deceitful statements in my column “Happy International Press Freedom Day! Some Questions for Democrats,” on Illinois Leader. (http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=25189)
Please check it out.
There’s one more talking point that is critical to this malignant scheme, the claim that it is the Republicans are “changing the rules” about the judicial filibuster, stunning and is easily refuted by reflecting on the fact that Clarence Thomas was confirmed by 52 votes. Had the filibuster been in regular use against controversial nominees, does anyone who has seriously considered this issue think that Ted Kennedy wouldn’t have been in there bloviating and obstructing this fine jurist?
Why then, did the democrats decide to suddenly employ this tactic that had previously been reserved exclusively for legislation? The answer is available in none other than the Liberal Death Star aka The New York Times. In an article,they described how liberal activists Professor Lawrence Tribe, Professor Cass Sunstein and Marcia Greenberger advised the democrats, now that they were out power, on how to block nominees by “changing the ground rules.”
(Neil A. Lewis, Democrats Readying for a Judicial Fight , N.Y. Times, May 1, 2001, at A19.)
• Did Senator Durbin attend this retreat?
• If not, was he advised of the strategy that the democrats cooked up?
• As a member of the leadership, was he ever advised of this plan? Since it was the democrats who came up with the idea of “changing the ground rules,” why does he keep saying that it was the Republicans who are changing the rules?
Perhaps these misstatements about the rules are lapses of memory, and maybe that’s not the only area where the senator is having some difficulty staying in touch with reality. Last month, both on the Senate floor and on television, Sen. Durbin claimed he didn’t know the religion of any of President Bush’s judicial nominees. Yet back in 2003 at Bill Pryor’s confirmation hearing, he became very huffy and self-righteous at the suggestion that “anyone who opposes William Pryor is guilty of discrimination against him because he is a Catholic.”
Will someone, ANYONE, in the media please ask him about these lies? There’s got to be one honest reporter who is sick of being a toady for the democrats!
Click here for pictures of our trip to Pepe’s!