Archive for January, 2006

31
Jan

Filibusters

The New York Times report today on yesterday’s 72-25 cloture vote on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court contains the term: “filibuster.” We have the Times filibuster definition courtesy of editorial page editor Gail Collins.

When a cloture motion was made to move the nomination to a vote, Senator Frist voted against it.

Now today’s Times news article (the editorial page still has yet to mention the failed filibuster they called for last week):

Forcing the vote to close debate was a final, symbolic effort by a handful of liberals to derail the nomination through a filibuster.

Among them were the senators of New York and New Jersey and one of Connecticut’s, Christopher J. Dodd. The outcome in many ways reflected the resolution last spring of a battle over the Democrats’ use of filibusters to block some of Mr. Bush’s appeals court nominees.

The Republicans agreed to prevent the rule change. In exchange, the Democrats agreed to withhold their votes from filibusters except in “extraordinary circumstances.”

Several members of the group, along with other moderate senators of both parties, had already said as much publicly, and by early last week more than the requisite 60 senators had committed to opposing a filibuster.

Many conservatives were disappointed by his failure to force the rule change and thus disarm the Democratic filibuster, but Mr. Frist can now argue that his threats have effectively cowed the Democrats into refraining from such tactics.

Mr. Kennedy and Senator John Kerry, both of Massachusetts, argued for an effort at a filibuster during a Democratic caucus meeting last Wednesday, provoking a passionate debate. Many Democrats have grumbled privately since then that mounting a doomed filibuster would only expose senators from conservative states to political heat.

There’s lots of equivocating, but not once does the Times news pages suggest what happened yesterday was a filibuster, because it wasn’t. For a filibuster to occur, a cloture motion must fail.

Not even the Times own news pages seem willing to use Gail Collins’ dictionary.

31
Jan

No talent, expertise required

John Hinderaker over at Powerline took a swing at Sunday’s jumbo-sized New York Times editorial and smashed it to smithereens.

A casual observer would be forgiven for wondering what the fuss is about. If the Times is happy with what the administration is doing, but just wants it to follow a procedure that will yield exactly the same result with virtually no inconvenience, why is the paper so hysterical?

The answer is that the Times purports to be making a technical legal argument. Its point is that following an easy, foolproof procedure will make the necessary surveillance legal instead of illegal.

As a lawyer, I can relate to technical legal arguments. But, if you’re going to rely on a legal argument, isn’t it necessary to actually…make a legal argument? One would think so, but the Times can’t be bothered. Instead, it simply denounces the administration’s program because it “violates the law as currently written.” But does it? When lawyers make technical legal arguments, we generally cite case law. Like, for example, United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), in which the court held that federal statutes prohibiting wiretapping do not “[forbid] he President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest.” That seems obviously pertinent; what does the Times have to say about the Clay case? Nothing. It doesn’t mention it.

Hinderaker then lists and provides a short primer on all of the case law that the Times assiduously ignores.

The tragedy is that — through its print edition, wire service and the influence it has on the broadcast news shows — more people get their information from the Times.

30
Jan

Angry partisanship

David Broder had an interesting article in Sunday’s Washington Post that recounted Tip O’Neill’s visit to Ronald Reagan’s hospital room after he was shot by John Hinckley.

When I reached [Max] Friedersdorf [, Reagan White House congressional liaison,] last week at his retirement home in Florida, I asked him how it happened that Reagan’s first guest was the leading Democrat on Capitol Hill. “Well,” he said, “Tip was third in line of succession [after the vice president] and the fact he was a Democrat didn’t bother anybody. We didn’t even think about it. Tip had been calling constantly to see how the president was doing. And there was a bond there.

“I remember,” Friedersdorf continued, “the first dinner the Reagans had in the private residence was for Tip and his wife, and my wife and I were there. Tip and the president had a drink or two and started swapping Irish stories.

“Often, after that, Tip would say pretty harsh things about some of our legislative proposals, and the staff would want Reagan to answer him. But they trusted each other, and the president would say, ‘That’s just Tip,’ and let it go.”

I concur with Broder and Friedersdorf’s analysis that the sort of relationship political opponents like O’Neill and Reagan had is probably not possible in today’s hyperpartisan climate. But the question that Broder doesn’t really get to answering is: How did this come to be?

One person I talked to suggested that it was the rise of talk radio that fed the animosity, but I’m not so sure that’s true. I would often listen to Rush Limbaugh in the mornings when I was in college working at the San Luis Obispo Hertz washing cars. Limbaugh certainly wasn’t lauding the Clintons, but I don’t think the animosity coming from Limbaugh poisoned the wells in Washington. The Supreme Court nominations provide perhaps the best evidence of that.
Judge Samuel Alito will be confirmed to the Supreme Court tomorrow. He is undoubtedly
the most well-qualified Supreme Court nominee in decades. He has spent 15 years on the federal appellate bench, graduated from top law schools and is universally praised by those who know him and work with him.

And he’ll be lucky to get 60 votes.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg got 96 votes. Stephen Breyer got 87 votes.

Is it right-wing talk radio that started the animosity? The kind of vicious, personal politics we see today didn’t start with Limbaugh.

If I had to guess, I’d place the tipping point somewhere between the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the Al Gore loss of Florida in the 2000 election. I don’t think talk radio had much to do with it.

Is there a way to lower the tone? I don’t know.

30
Jan

Welcome to my new home

Congratulations on making it over here from blogspot. All the posts are here. Comments, unfortunately are not. I understand that WordPress could’ve brought many of them over, but I didn’t start out the process correctly … well it’s a long story.

I’ve also fixed the titles of most of January’s posts, the importer brought them over as their blogger postID number. I was on blogspot before they came up with a separate post title field and never switched over. I’ll try to spend a little time going through the archives and fixing things, but if you still find something missing or out of place, give me a little time — I’ve only got north of 3,300 posts to fix.

I encourage you to check out JuiceCaster if you so desire. It’s got some pretty impressive features and I anticipate using it as a kind of quasi-myspace/community forum.

If you’ve got any questions, feel free to shoot me an e-mail @ hoystory -at- cox -dot- net.

30
Jan

Well, the reporter had to have it explained to him

So, it should come as little surprise that he felt the need to explain it to you.

The latest Census Bureau report shows median prices for new residences sold in December fell 1.5 percent from the previous month to $221,800. Half of the homes sold for more than the median, the rest for less.

Well, duh.

29
Jan

Uninformed or a liar?

I watched “Fox News Watch” last night. The program is the Fox News Channel’s media watchdog program and is unfortunately only 30 minutes long. If it were longer, I’d probably have even more ammunition proving media critic Neal Gabler, an Eric Alterman acolyte, to be at the very least hopelessly misinformed and at worse a liar.

On yesterday’s show, Gabler claimed that there was no doubt that President Bush’s NSA terrorist surveillance program was illegal. Let’s call that ignorance. Next Gabler claimed — as evidence of the New York Times’ conservative bias — that an article in the Times buried the fact that “every constitutional scholar” had determined the program was illegal. Gabler argued that that should’ve been the story’s lede.

Indeed it should have. But a cursory search of the Times archives (I don’t have accesss to TimesSelect and so can’t access complete articles) doesn’t turn up the phrase “every constitutional scholar” and in fact doesn’t appear to reference “constitutional scholar” either.

But let’s assume that Gabler’s memory is accurate and there is such a Times news story that indeed does make such a claim.

In that case, Gabler has also indicted the Times for false and inaccurate reporting.

You see, it’s pretty easy to find a constitutional scholar who believes the NSA program is probably legal. In fact, if you’re looking for it, it’s pretty easy, even if all you’re looking for is liberals. I give to you University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein. The guy wrote a law book on constitutional law, so that must qualify him as a scholar.

Gabler is at best dishonest and at worst a fool.

If you haven’t read this over at Powerline, I encourage you to take a look. It exposes the Times reporting on this issue not as a balanced and thoughtful look at the program, but as propaganada and advocacy.

Then there is the New York Times, which rarely lets a day go by without front-page Bush bashing. Today, Eric Lichtblau and Adam Liptak led the charge with an article headlined “Bush Presses On in Legal Defense for Wiretapping.” The article purports to be an even-handed treatment of the debate over the legality of the NSA international surveillance program, but it conveys no hint of the strength of the administration’s legal arguments, or the extent to which they are accepted within the legal community.

Is it any wonder that Gabler would get the wrong idea about the legality of the surveillance program? His source is the New York Times.

28
Jan

Money for terrorists

There should be no doubt that the Palestinian Authority is a corrupt terrorist organization. It was when Yasser Arafat (condition stable after dying in a Paris hospital) was running things. It was when his Fatah party continued holding power after his death. And it will continue to be now that Hamas — an organization that has as its primary goal the complete destruction of Israel.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the guy who was once lauded as the epitome of what an ex-president should be, has his “endangered values” kick in over common sense.

Former US President Jimmy Carter said Friday that the United States would have to cut off direct funding to the Palestinian Authority as soon as Hamas takes control, but it should look for other ways to give money to the Palestinians.

“United States law would require that the money would be cut off if Hamas is in the government, so that’s a foregone conclusion,” Carter told The Associated Press.

Instead, the United States should increase its donations to UN and other aid groups earmarked for the Palestinians to make up for the cut in direct aid “so that the people can still continue to have food and shelter and health care and education,” Carter said.

Oh yeah, the “education” that has been funded by the UN for decades and has produced a level of Jew-hatred not seen since Hitler’s Germany. An education system that glorifies martyrdom and the murder of innocent civilians. Yeah, we need to keep funding that.

Israel has done a smart thing by not waiting for a “partner” for peace — because they’ll be waiting until the end of time — for their security fence.

I don’t know what the solution is, but it certainly isn’t continuing to fund and prop up an evil society. Yes, it’s not politically correct to describe a society as evil, but that’s the most accurate description of that society.

What the international community has been doing for the last 50-plus years has not been working — that much is obvious to anyone who isn’t an ex-president named Jimmy. Something else needs to be done. Maybe that something else is to allow Palestinian “society” the opportunity to destroy itself beyond repair. Maybe then something will emerge from the ashes that isn’t based on irrational hatred of the Jews.

27
Jan

Crazy old lady in the attic

Helen Thomas, a left-wing opinion columnist, didn’t get called on again in yesterday’s press conference.

Turns out Bush made a good call, because the moonbat was going to ask a dumb question.

27
Jan

The gift that just keeps on giving

Massachusetts’ junior senator, John Kerry, has come out urging a filibuster of Judge Samuel Alito.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the New York Times editorial page characterizes Kerry’s move, since by their definition a filibuster is occuring right now.

And if the Times changes their definition to fit the political calculus of the moment, I’ll be firing off another letter to editorial page editor Gail Collins.

26
Jan

"Debating" Alito

The Senate isn’t really debating the qualifications of Sam Alito to sit on the Supreme Court so much as they are speechifying. I watched a couple hours of the Senate yesterday and have C-SPAN2 on now and I think everything that can be said about Alito has been said — it’s just that everyone hasn’t yet had a chance to say it.

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s speech yesterday was particularly amusing as she decried Alito’s supposed views on presidential authority — surmising that Alito would somehow “OK” President Bush’s allegedly illegal acts. I just kept thinking back to her husband’s repeated claims of “privilege” when defending himself from sexual harassment allegations. Everything she decried about Bush’s use of presidential powers she seemed perfectly OK with when her husband was using the same powers — even in more seedy and self-serving ways.

Thus far, Democrat senators Robert C. Byrd (W.V.), Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) have broken with party lines and come out in support of Alito’s confirmation. If all Republicans vote to confirm Alito, and Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee has still not announced his intentions, then Alito would have only 58 “Yeas.”

The possibility of a loony left blog explosion is still a very real possibility.





Follow Hoystory on Twitter


January 2006
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Themes


  • Support the Cause




  • Hoystory's advertisers


Your Ad Here








Close
E-mail It