Monday, October 31, 2005
That didn't take long.
What did I tell you about the two senators from the State of Norman Lear, Durbin and Obama? Here's the statement Obama just issued:
“Though I will reserve judgment on how I will vote on Judge Alito’s nomination until after the hearings, I am concerned that President Bush has wasted an opportunity to appoint a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor and has instead made a selection to appease the far right-wing of the Republican Party.”
Show of hands--is ANYONE buying that he will wait for the hearings? PULEEZE!
Speaking of Man-God Barack, thanks for all the great suggestions for theme songs for him. Unfortunately we didn't have a chance to the play them all yesterday, but I will post a list here and make the choices the subject of this week's poll at teriobrien.com
Have a terrific Halloween Monday!
What did I tell you about the two senators from the State of Norman Lear, Durbin and Obama? Here's the statement Obama just issued:
“Though I will reserve judgment on how I will vote on Judge Alito’s nomination until after the hearings, I am concerned that President Bush has wasted an opportunity to appoint a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor and has instead made a selection to appease the far right-wing of the Republican Party.”
Show of hands--is ANYONE buying that he will wait for the hearings? PULEEZE!
Speaking of Man-God Barack, thanks for all the great suggestions for theme songs for him. Unfortunately we didn't have a chance to the play them all yesterday, but I will post a list here and make the choices the subject of this week's poll at teriobrien.com
Have a terrific Halloween Monday!
People for the American Way has spoken, so we know how Dick Durbin will be voting (no surprise)
Recall that before the Roberts vote, our supposed senator wasn’t meeting with constituents. He was on the Left coast (and I do mean left), meeting with Norman Lear. So we know that we are mere minutes away from one of his phony statements containing phrases like “out of the mainstream” and “radical right wing,” but also promising to wait for the hearings to make a final decision. Yeah right.
Yes, as most of you know, I wanted the nominee to be Janice Rogers Brown, but I am very pleased with this choice. Sam Alito aka “Scalito” (you’ve got to love that!) is an excellent judge with a sterling record. Not only that, but in some ways this nomination is a real in your face to the Left. He’s—GASP—a white male, demonstrating the president’s lack of concern for their precious and irrelevant “diversity” tests. In addition, one of his most notable opinions was in the Casey case, which ended up going all the way up the Supreme Court, where it affirmed Roe v. Wade. Judge Alito would have upheld a provision of the Pennsylvania law required a woman under certain circumstances to notify her husband before having an abortion. Imagine those pinheads on the Pennsylvania legislature thinking they could get away with that!
Now let’s get him confirmed.
Recall that before the Roberts vote, our supposed senator wasn’t meeting with constituents. He was on the Left coast (and I do mean left), meeting with Norman Lear. So we know that we are mere minutes away from one of his phony statements containing phrases like “out of the mainstream” and “radical right wing,” but also promising to wait for the hearings to make a final decision. Yeah right.
Yes, as most of you know, I wanted the nominee to be Janice Rogers Brown, but I am very pleased with this choice. Sam Alito aka “Scalito” (you’ve got to love that!) is an excellent judge with a sterling record. Not only that, but in some ways this nomination is a real in your face to the Left. He’s—GASP—a white male, demonstrating the president’s lack of concern for their precious and irrelevant “diversity” tests. In addition, one of his most notable opinions was in the Casey case, which ended up going all the way up the Supreme Court, where it affirmed Roe v. Wade. Judge Alito would have upheld a provision of the Pennsylvania law required a woman under certain circumstances to notify her husband before having an abortion. Imagine those pinheads on the Pennsylvania legislature thinking they could get away with that!
Now let’s get him confirmed.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
A Brainstorm
I just saw Sen. John Cornyn on with Wolf Blitzer (about 2:50 pm CDT, 10/27/05) and something occurred to me: why not choose him to replace Sandra Day O'Connor? Yes, I know he's not a woman, and worst of all, he's not Janice Rogers Brown, BUT he is a former justice of the Texas Supreme Court, and if memory serves, he did sponsor, Judge Brown when she went through the meat grinder in 2003. He shares her philosophy, and based on what I know, he gets it just as she does.
Your thoughts? Please drop me an e-mail and let me know.
I just saw Sen. John Cornyn on with Wolf Blitzer (about 2:50 pm CDT, 10/27/05) and something occurred to me: why not choose him to replace Sandra Day O'Connor? Yes, I know he's not a woman, and worst of all, he's not Janice Rogers Brown, BUT he is a former justice of the Texas Supreme Court, and if memory serves, he did sponsor, Judge Brown when she went through the meat grinder in 2003. He shares her philosophy, and based on what I know, he gets it just as she does.
Your thoughts? Please drop me an e-mail and let me know.
A Second-Chance
I was in the middle of my cardio workout this morning, at about 7:55 am CDT, watching Lawrence “the guys who are elected are a cabal” Wilkerson on C-SPAN (yes, watching it so you don’t have to), the news broke that Harriet Miers had made the wise decision to withdraw her nomination. We’ve been calling for this move, praying for it, in fact, for several weeks, and I, like many of you, have predicted that she would step down once it became apparent that Republicans like Sam Brownback would request internal White House documents. That was their way of saying “Mr. President, we love you, but this just isn’t flying, and the “trust me” thing only goes so far.”
Now that we have this chance, we need to take full advantage of it. Now is not the time for timidity or to try to make nice with people who are never going to be satisfied no matter what we do. I say go full metal, balls to the wall and nominate the woman I have been fantasizing about---settle down—I mean as a Supreme Court Justice, Janice Rogers Brown, a brilliant legal mind who really gets it.
Don’t go wobbly on us, George. (When in doubt, quote Margaret Thatcher). Make it happen.
I was in the middle of my cardio workout this morning, at about 7:55 am CDT, watching Lawrence “the guys who are elected are a cabal” Wilkerson on C-SPAN (yes, watching it so you don’t have to), the news broke that Harriet Miers had made the wise decision to withdraw her nomination. We’ve been calling for this move, praying for it, in fact, for several weeks, and I, like many of you, have predicted that she would step down once it became apparent that Republicans like Sam Brownback would request internal White House documents. That was their way of saying “Mr. President, we love you, but this just isn’t flying, and the “trust me” thing only goes so far.”
Now that we have this chance, we need to take full advantage of it. Now is not the time for timidity or to try to make nice with people who are never going to be satisfied no matter what we do. I say go full metal, balls to the wall and nominate the woman I have been fantasizing about---settle down—I mean as a Supreme Court Justice, Janice Rogers Brown, a brilliant legal mind who really gets it.
Don’t go wobbly on us, George. (When in doubt, quote Margaret Thatcher). Make it happen.
Monday, October 24, 2005
What Do I Always Say? Never Doubt Me.
On the show yesterday (10/23/05), we put out the call for citizen reporters who saw Crazy Howard Dean on George Stephanopolis’ show while I was watching “Fox News Sunday” and “Meet the Press.” You’d think they wouldn’t put all of these talking head shows on at the same time, wouldn’t you? When I put out the call, I said that I don’t know what he said, but it had to be something crazy. He is, after all, Howard Dean, right?
So today I got around to watching it for myself, and it did not disappoint. Some highlights:
Howard Dean claims that he saw a report on ABC News in which an Iraqi man voted 6 times in the recent referendum on the constitution. Dean claimed to be outraged, but no doubt the DNC has requested a copy of the tape so they can figure out how their voters can pull that off in 2006 and 2008.
Howard says that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans picked up 50 seats in 1994 by pointing out how corrupt the democrat-controlled Congress was for 40 years, and that he and the dems can do the same thing with the Republicans “culture of corruption,” once again proving that the dems haven’t learned that voters don’t like to have their intelligence insulted. Doc, I think we can tell the difference between democrat Congress operating a check-kiting scheme for its members for 40 years and that farce that is the Tom DeLay investigation. Oh yeah, that’ll turn the election right around, Howie. Don’t you worry about it.
The most interesting and revealing exchange occurred when George asked Howard about a speech he made in September in Manhattan. According to a summary prepared by someone who attended the meeting, Dean identified four critical segments of the U.S. electorate, including—this is really precious—“merlot democrats: we are the base.” (“Democrats Sample the Merlot, But Find It's Not for Everyone,” Washington Post, October 16, 2005, p. A05) In fact, it was Dean’s desperation to avoid answering the question about what he meant that started him babbling about corruption again. He never did answer. I guess I can’t blame him. Not only did he admit that the dems’ base is a bunch of phony, upper-income, guilty liberals—there’s a surprise—but he gave them a moniker that contains a French word! Isn’t that something they’d want to avoid? Maybe not: only if they want to win elections. Once again, the dems can’t tell us who they really are, so we find out they are one thing in public and another behind closed doors. Sort of like John Kerry and Te-re-ZAH pretending to eat at Wendy’s, then high-tailing it back to their bus to eat their real lunch, catered from a yacht club. I wonder if they had any merlot with that?
Finally, proving he has a real stranglehold on reality, Howard said the following: “What got [Karl] Rove and [Lewis] Libby in trouble is that they were attacking, which the Republicans always do, attacking somebody who criticizes and disagrees with them."
He raved on about it being "a fundamental flaw in the Bush administration - the personal attacks on people for meritorious arguments. They never make the argument - they always make the personal attack."
Right. You mean like Ronnie Earle’s indicting Tom DeLay? Or like you responding to George in this very interview that even if Patrick Fitzgerald doesn’t indict anyone, that won’t be the end of this matter. Why? "Because I fundamentally don't think these are honest people running the government." Way to go, Howard. There’s a real meritorious, issue-oriented argument.
On the show yesterday (10/23/05), we put out the call for citizen reporters who saw Crazy Howard Dean on George Stephanopolis’ show while I was watching “Fox News Sunday” and “Meet the Press.” You’d think they wouldn’t put all of these talking head shows on at the same time, wouldn’t you? When I put out the call, I said that I don’t know what he said, but it had to be something crazy. He is, after all, Howard Dean, right?
So today I got around to watching it for myself, and it did not disappoint. Some highlights:
Howard Dean claims that he saw a report on ABC News in which an Iraqi man voted 6 times in the recent referendum on the constitution. Dean claimed to be outraged, but no doubt the DNC has requested a copy of the tape so they can figure out how their voters can pull that off in 2006 and 2008.
Howard says that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans picked up 50 seats in 1994 by pointing out how corrupt the democrat-controlled Congress was for 40 years, and that he and the dems can do the same thing with the Republicans “culture of corruption,” once again proving that the dems haven’t learned that voters don’t like to have their intelligence insulted. Doc, I think we can tell the difference between democrat Congress operating a check-kiting scheme for its members for 40 years and that farce that is the Tom DeLay investigation. Oh yeah, that’ll turn the election right around, Howie. Don’t you worry about it.
The most interesting and revealing exchange occurred when George asked Howard about a speech he made in September in Manhattan. According to a summary prepared by someone who attended the meeting, Dean identified four critical segments of the U.S. electorate, including—this is really precious—“merlot democrats: we are the base.” (“Democrats Sample the Merlot, But Find It's Not for Everyone,” Washington Post, October 16, 2005, p. A05) In fact, it was Dean’s desperation to avoid answering the question about what he meant that started him babbling about corruption again. He never did answer. I guess I can’t blame him. Not only did he admit that the dems’ base is a bunch of phony, upper-income, guilty liberals—there’s a surprise—but he gave them a moniker that contains a French word! Isn’t that something they’d want to avoid? Maybe not: only if they want to win elections. Once again, the dems can’t tell us who they really are, so we find out they are one thing in public and another behind closed doors. Sort of like John Kerry and Te-re-ZAH pretending to eat at Wendy’s, then high-tailing it back to their bus to eat their real lunch, catered from a yacht club. I wonder if they had any merlot with that?
Finally, proving he has a real stranglehold on reality, Howard said the following: “What got [Karl] Rove and [Lewis] Libby in trouble is that they were attacking, which the Republicans always do, attacking somebody who criticizes and disagrees with them."
He raved on about it being "a fundamental flaw in the Bush administration - the personal attacks on people for meritorious arguments. They never make the argument - they always make the personal attack."
Right. You mean like Ronnie Earle’s indicting Tom DeLay? Or like you responding to George in this very interview that even if Patrick Fitzgerald doesn’t indict anyone, that won’t be the end of this matter. Why? "Because I fundamentally don't think these are honest people running the government." Way to go, Howard. There’s a real meritorious, issue-oriented argument.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
As I told you on the air on Sunday, 10/16/05, a received a tip from one of my smart listeners, advising me that anti-American, terrorist cheerleader wacko Ward Churchill is scheduled to speak at De Paul University on October 20 and 21. That's interesting in itself; that is, the fact that instead of having his insane ravings greeted with the laughter and mockery they deserve, he is embraced and paid a handsome speaking fee. Not that the amount of the fee has been disclosed, nor will it be, according to my listener. Given that his honorarium is no doubt being paid from student activity fees, how is that ok? That's not the worst part, though. The worst part is that my listener reports that the DePaul Republicans have been banned from the Friday event and are being denied representation on a panel of student organizations. This listener says that the DePaul Republicans are not considered an "approved" organization by the the "cultural center" at DePaul.
If this account is true--and I don't mean to doubt a listner, but of course, we must remember that anyone can send an anonymous note stating things that turn out to be untrue--this is a Stalinist approach to on-campus events is that is disgraceful and should not stand. If you agree, or if you have questions, you can contact Dr. Harvette Grey, assistant director of the cultural center at DePaul, who according to this listener invited wackjob Churchill to the school at culturalcenter@depaul.edu
If indeed the DePaul Republicans are not welcome at this event, I have to ask why not? What are supporters of Ward Churchill so afraid of? Did he demand that only his enthusiastic supporters be in the audience? If so, why would a university, which is supposed to be a place for the free exchange of ideas go along with that?
If you contact DePaul and get more info, please keep me in the loop, and thanks to my smart listener for this tip.
If this account is true--and I don't mean to doubt a listner, but of course, we must remember that anyone can send an anonymous note stating things that turn out to be untrue--this is a Stalinist approach to on-campus events is that is disgraceful and should not stand. If you agree, or if you have questions, you can contact Dr. Harvette Grey, assistant director of the cultural center at DePaul, who according to this listener invited wackjob Churchill to the school at culturalcenter@depaul.edu
If indeed the DePaul Republicans are not welcome at this event, I have to ask why not? What are supporters of Ward Churchill so afraid of? Did he demand that only his enthusiastic supporters be in the audience? If so, why would a university, which is supposed to be a place for the free exchange of ideas go along with that?
If you contact DePaul and get more info, please keep me in the loop, and thanks to my smart listener for this tip.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
It’s gone from bad to worse
Listeners to Sunday’s show heard me describe my emotional stages during after the Miers nomination on Monday, October 3: stunned, disappointed, questioning and optimistically resigned. On Sunday, several callers tried to make me feel better about my nagging doubts: the fear that she doesn’t have the intellectual heft to rebut the idiocy that we see from guys like Steven “Let’s find out how the do it in France” Breyer, and that she might not understand the reason why Roe v. Wade is bad law, even to some who agree with the result. That’s the whole problem. Judges shouldn’t be about the result. Justice Breyer admits that his view of a justice is some sort of unaccountable benevolent dictator, who in deciding how he will impose his personal policy preferences on the entire country, can pick and choose among the laws of the entire world, or the universe, either consulting them or not, depending on whether they fit the result he wants. As I am fond of saying, the Founding Fathers’ corpses are spinning so fast you could cut meat on them.
Since Sunday, things have gone from bad to worse. First we’ve got Laura Bush agreeing with Matt Lauer (or should I say taking the bait) that sexism may be part of the opposition to the Miers nomination. Then we’ve got this whole waiving of her religion in our faces, to which I say AS IF! As if principled conservatives will be persuaded by that! Now I’m not just concerned, I’m insulted! This is the best they can do to support this nomination? Attacking those who have questioned this nomination?
Is it too late to implement the suggestion I made on the air Sunday and appoint Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court and Harriet Miers to the D.C. Circuit?
Listeners to Sunday’s show heard me describe my emotional stages during after the Miers nomination on Monday, October 3: stunned, disappointed, questioning and optimistically resigned. On Sunday, several callers tried to make me feel better about my nagging doubts: the fear that she doesn’t have the intellectual heft to rebut the idiocy that we see from guys like Steven “Let’s find out how the do it in France” Breyer, and that she might not understand the reason why Roe v. Wade is bad law, even to some who agree with the result. That’s the whole problem. Judges shouldn’t be about the result. Justice Breyer admits that his view of a justice is some sort of unaccountable benevolent dictator, who in deciding how he will impose his personal policy preferences on the entire country, can pick and choose among the laws of the entire world, or the universe, either consulting them or not, depending on whether they fit the result he wants. As I am fond of saying, the Founding Fathers’ corpses are spinning so fast you could cut meat on them.
Since Sunday, things have gone from bad to worse. First we’ve got Laura Bush agreeing with Matt Lauer (or should I say taking the bait) that sexism may be part of the opposition to the Miers nomination. Then we’ve got this whole waiving of her religion in our faces, to which I say AS IF! As if principled conservatives will be persuaded by that! Now I’m not just concerned, I’m insulted! This is the best they can do to support this nomination? Attacking those who have questioned this nomination?
Is it too late to implement the suggestion I made on the air Sunday and appoint Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court and Harriet Miers to the D.C. Circuit?
Monday, October 03, 2005
Disappointed!
As regular listeners to my show know, I was hoping and praying that President Bush would nominate Janice Rogers Brown, a brilliant, principled conservative in her fifties, to fill Sandra Day O’Connor’s vacancy on the Supreme Court. Instead, we get someone in her 60’s, so even if she is a genuine judicial conservative, she’ll have fewer years to serve, and someone about whom we know nothing. I just saw Chuckie Schumer’s reaction and he was almost crowing over the fact that the president didn’t cave in to the “extreme right wing of his party.” I think he’s talking about me, and if Chuckie is happy, I’m not. Our own Eddie Haskell aka Dick Durbin hasn't commented yet. I'm sure he's waiting to get his talking points from his boss Ralph Neas.
I think the reasons for the choice are obvious: no paper trail, no husband (who could also have baggage that the libs could use to attack her), lots of recent interaction with the members of the Senate, who therefore have no excuse to claim that they haven’t been consulted. All of these add up to quick confirmation, which is what the White House wants.
Expect the uninformed numbskulls to try to attack her as a Bush crony, or even because she isn’t a wife and mother (recall Di Fi’s criticism of John Roberts for not revealing his qualities as a husband and father), but both of those are non-starters.
At this point, I guess we keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.
As regular listeners to my show know, I was hoping and praying that President Bush would nominate Janice Rogers Brown, a brilliant, principled conservative in her fifties, to fill Sandra Day O’Connor’s vacancy on the Supreme Court. Instead, we get someone in her 60’s, so even if she is a genuine judicial conservative, she’ll have fewer years to serve, and someone about whom we know nothing. I just saw Chuckie Schumer’s reaction and he was almost crowing over the fact that the president didn’t cave in to the “extreme right wing of his party.” I think he’s talking about me, and if Chuckie is happy, I’m not. Our own Eddie Haskell aka Dick Durbin hasn't commented yet. I'm sure he's waiting to get his talking points from his boss Ralph Neas.
I think the reasons for the choice are obvious: no paper trail, no husband (who could also have baggage that the libs could use to attack her), lots of recent interaction with the members of the Senate, who therefore have no excuse to claim that they haven’t been consulted. All of these add up to quick confirmation, which is what the White House wants.
Expect the uninformed numbskulls to try to attack her as a Bush crony, or even because she isn’t a wife and mother (recall Di Fi’s criticism of John Roberts for not revealing his qualities as a husband and father), but both of those are non-starters.
At this point, I guess we keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.