Monday, May 23, 2005

Senate's sham debate

The real issue is illuminated here. Never in over 200 years has the filibuster been employed to block judicial nominees. Never in 70 years have the liberals been in danger of losing the courts. They are in such danger now, which has lead us to this sad point.................T
"Disagreement came over treatment of imminent Supreme Court nominees. One Republican senator, considered a party-line man, told me he would agree to throw overboard three designated appellate nominees if granted a major concession: a promise never to filibuster the president's Supreme Court choices. But that is a concession not even six Democrats have been willing to make."

Wednesday, May 18, 2005


She's Baaaccckkkkkkk!!!............T
"(Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do.) But then I wouldn't have sat on the story of the decade because of the empty threats of a drama queen gas-bagging with her friend on the telephone between spoonfuls of Haagen-Dazs.
No matter how I look at it, I can't grasp the editorial judgment that kills Isikoff's stories about a sitting president molesting the help and obstructing justice, while running Isikoff's not particularly newsworthy (or well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo."

"Credible or Not"

Sloppy? Or just left-wing, vitriolic, "get Bush" gotcha journalism?...............T
"No one is quoted in this account. It is not clear if a Newsweek correspondent spoke directly to Bader. There is no evidence that Newsweek even tried to check this story with military authorities or others conversant with what happened at the Kandahar airfield. Is this alleged incident, significant enough to have allegedly caused an apology by the U.S. commander, attested to by anyone else? Did Newsweek make any effort to corroborate Bader's account?"

Newsweek is biased like the rest of the media elite

Speaking of Media bias, now that people have lost their lives, will the left-wing press admit what everyone knows to be true? Naw! This article is written by Clinton's former Chief of Staff, for pities sake.....................T
"Each of those (fraudulent press reports) "mistakes" was biased in favor of the left and was committed in the haste of liberal journalists to get some ammunition to discredit Bush and the Iraq war. But when the same reporter who wrote the current story filed the first disclosure of the Monica Lewinsky affair with his editors at Newsweek, the magazine piously refused to run the story.

In fact, in all the years of the Clinton presidency, I cannot recall a single instance of a similarly inaccurate high-profile story attacking the Democratic president."

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Newsweek's explosive allegation was no "honest mistake."

The AMMP strikes back. The beat goes on. Same old story, "Dan Rather, CBS News!"..............T
"Newsweek no longer stands by its story. 'Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay,' editor Mark Whitaker said in a statement yesterday. Sen. John McCain, a moderate Republican, was among those who 'applauded the retraction, but suggested Newsweek must go further,' CNN reports.
To put this in some context, it's worth recalling that essay Howard Fineman wrote in January, on the occasion of CBS's releasing its report on the fraudulent '60 Minutes' hit piece on President Bush. Fineman, Newsweek's chief political correspondent, argued that the what he infelicitously called 'the American Mainstream Media Party' was 'dying.' The 'AAMP,' he said, had formed when the media abandoned their old ideals of neutrality and nonpartisanship to take sides--first against the Vietnam War, then against President Nixon in the Watergate scandal:
The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.
It's not just that the media are biased against conservatives and Republicans, though they certainly are. It is that they see every war as another Vietnam and every supposed scandal as another Watergate--at least when Republicans are in the White House, which they usually are.
The obsession with Vietnam and Watergate is central to the alienation between the press and the people. After all, these were triumphs for the crusading press but tragedies for America. And the press's quest for more such triumphs--futile, so far, after more than 30 years--is what is behind the scandals at both Newsweek and CBS.
It's also behind the Valerie Plame kerfuffle, which hasn't been properly recognized as a journalistic scandal. The mainstream media accepted uncritically a Democratic partisan's unfounded allegations of criminal conduct within the Bush administration, suddenly discovering that there was no crime only when the ensuing special prosecutor investigation threatened to put two reporters behind bars.
In response to the Koran-flushing debacle, Newsweek has acknowledged only technical problems with its reporting. This follows the pattern of CBS, which commissioned an "independent" report that allowed the network to claim it was free of political bias. In the Plame case, we don't know of any journalistic outfit that's admitted an error; the Times, for instance, still insists baselessly that Plame's "outing" was "an abuse of power."
The problem in all three cases is that news organizations were so zealous in their pursuit of the next quagmire or scandal that they forgot their first obligation, which is to tell the truth. Until those in the mainstream media are willing to acknowledge that it is this crusading impulse that has led them astray, we are unlikely to see the end of such journalistic scandals.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Was World War II worth it?

the author is a provocateur, sometimes reckless, yet a "big picture" thinker. I don't necessarily agree with all the points he makes here, but some of them I have strongly felt for 25 years........T
"Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.
Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century. "

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

An awkward GOP spring

This will leave you feeling better than you have since the election, and send the Libs back to their poisoned grape drink. I've been searching for an article that expressed my feelings lately, and this is it. The best piece I've seen in months, by the man who was once Newt's right hand man ( things fell apart for the Newtster once Tony left town)................T
" It was a sorry picture indeed: A city full of large, ivory tusked, bull battle elephants driven to fear, distraction and goring each other by the braying of a pack of mangy jack asses.
Slowly, the Republicans have come to notice that the only thing they have to fear is fear itself. As FDR explained: 'nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.' Finally, the advance has begun."

Why the Libs are so Angry all the Time!

No Wonder they are so P.O.'d all the time! Posted by Hello

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Break the Filibuster

The American press is entirely without historical perspective, and blind to it's own biases. As the author clearly states, the democracts didn't even dream of filibustering Bork or Clarence Thomas. Time for the Senate to invoke majority rule on judicial nominations.....................T
"There is no rationale for a filibuster, however, when the Senate is acting under Article 2 in advising and consenting to presidential nominations. This is why the filibuster has historically not been used on nominations. This is the constitutional logic underlying 200-plus years of American political practice. This is why as recently as 14 years ago the possibility of filibustering Clarence Thomas, for example, was not entertained even by a hostile Democratic Senate that was able to muster 48 votes against him. The American people seem to grasp this logic. In one recent poll, 82 percent said the president's nominees deserve an up or down vote on the Senate floor."

Monday, May 09, 2005

The REAL revolutionary! Posted by Hello
This and other shirts, hilarious!, at:

Saturday, May 07, 2005


Heh heh...Ann's at it again. I like the part about the "Libs pretending to be republicans" ...I run into them all the time. Very funny stuff!............T
DeLay's own constituents seem to like him, unless you include Democrats claiming to be Republicans. Liberals never tire of this trick or imagine that it could ever become any less believable. Turn on talk radio right now and you'll hear some liberal caller claiming to be a lifelong Republican scandalized by the Bush tax cuts — or some other policy that has been a mainstay of the Republican Party for at least a century. The callers are always teachers. (No wonder our kids aren't learning — their teachers are always on the phone with talk-radio shows pretending to be Republicans.)