A "Fuming" John Kerry

Incidentally, I have a pretty close friend who is a big, big Limbaugh fan. He didn't really get into other talk show hosts, mostly concentrated on Rush. Listens as often as he could, subscribed to the newsletter of course. When he first started buying Limbaugh's books, he paid for them with a fresh $100 bill just to make the purchases seem more.....something.

During the Vince Foster era, oh Lordy, you should hear the stuff he was reporting back to me coming from Rush The Forensic Genius. The bullet could not come from the hand that was holding the gun and enter the head at that angle, the hand would have had to let the gun go, blah blah blah, on and on and on. This went on for well over a year.

Sorry, Foxfyre, I remember the era too well, have heard too many statements from Limbaugh myself and heard too many Limbaugh listeners-my friend was not the only one-talk in terms of Foster not being a suicide to really buy into what you are trying to claim.

And like I said, those two quotes, for starters, only make sense if the listener assumes that Clinton had a hand in Foster's death.

0 Replies

Well I no doubt won't change your mind KW, and I'll defend to the death your right to have one. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

Also,why are you and others so quick to applaud when the court ruled against him?
The prosecutor wants to examine his medicalmrecords to see if he MIGHT have committed a crime.
The govt wants to be able to look at library and banking and medical records (its called the Patriot Act),and all of you oppose that.

That seems hypocritical to me.

You people are absolutely correct about this hypocritical accusation, but then,, you see, we have decided, we have made a decision, and what is that decision you might ask? You might. We have decided to be as hypocritical as our opponents are. Sort of levels the ground you see, so from now on if we hear a false accusation being made against one of our opponents, whereas in the past we would have demurred, we would have perhaps even chided the accuser, but from now on we will shrug. It won't be honest, but it seems to have become the path to political success.

Joe(Back after these important words)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation writes

Quote:

It won't be honest, but it seems to have become the path to political success.

But some of us don't shrug. Some of us think looking for a better way to do anything is not inappropriate. Some of us think hypocrisy and intentional disinformation to further political success is harmful and destructive to the democratic process. And some of us think it ALL should be acknowledged and condemned evenly and consistently.

0 Replies

I would expect no shrugging at the following.

When Tom DeLay was asked in a recent interview in the Washington Times who is to blame for "activist judges" he replied

"I blame Congress over the last fifty years to a hundred years for not standing up and taking it's responsiblity given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state is the Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judical review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them."

At least Mr. Delay is not being hypocritical, he is merely trying to undo the Constitution. His agenda, and that of those who defend the current conservative administration, is laid bare: no separation of church and state, no judicial review, no right to privacy. You throw in the President's efforts to repeal the New Deal's social contract and you have a set of values that this American finds difficult to shrug off.

If we agree to condemn hypocrisy, evenly and consistently, can we also agree to stand against those who, even while looking for a better way,
would dismantle our Republic because they had a peculiarly myopic view of history, justice and the US Constitution?

Joe(This is the guy who gets to fly with the President last week?)Nation

0 Replies

Are you sure he said it just that way Joe? I have heard Tom Delay speak of these issues on more than one occasion and I don't recall him phrasing things quite the way he is quoted here. Do you have a link or the particular occasion at which Delay was speaking?

0 Replies

Well, Foxfyre . . . regardless how it is stated, isn't that Delay's agenda? No separation of church and state, no judicial review, and no right to privacy? Isn't that your agenda too?

0 Replies

No, I don't think that is Delay's agenda, and I kniow it isn't my agenda.

I just like to have verification before I or anybody is accused. The law is sort of based on that, wouldn't you agree?

0 Replies

The quote is from a Hertzberg column in the April 25, 2005 New Yorker. You want I should call Hendrik and ask him what page?

Sigh...

I'll go look for the Washington Post article, how's that?

And yes, it is his agenda. You just haven't evenly and consistently listened.

Joe(we're going back to the wonderful days of 1928)Nation

Here's the whole interview...

Washington Times Interview / Tom DeLay

Here's the pertinent quote, which (w0w) was reported accurately by the New Yorker.

Quote:

Mr. Dinan: You've been talking about going after activist judges since at least 1997. The [Terri] Schiavo case gives you a chance to do that, but you've recently said you blame Congress for not being zealous in oversight.
Mr. DeLay: Not zealous. I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.
Mr. Dinan: How can Congress stop them?
Mr. DeLay: There's all kinds of ways available to them.
Mr. Dinan: You tried two last year on the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Senate didn't go along with those.
Mr. DeLay: We're having to change a whole culture in this - a culture created by law schools. People really believe that these are nine gods, and that all wisdom is vested in them. This means it's a slow, long-term process. I mean, we passed six bills out of the House limiting jurisdiction. We passed an amendment last September breaking up the Ninth Circuit. These are all things that have passed the House of Representatives.
Mr. Dinan: Are you going to pursue impeaching judges?
Mr. DeLay: I'm not going to answer that. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at this. They're going to start holding hearings on different issues. They are more capable than me to look at this issue and take responsibility, given the, whatever, the Constitution.

I recommend you read the whole interview. This is a guy scrambling for his political life while actively trying to reverse eighty years of progressive gains. What I don't fully understand is whether he acts out of ignorance or arrogance..

Joe(Okay? Now what? I gotta get him on the phone?)Nation

0 Replies

Actually, DeLay seems to wants to reverse not the last 100, but the last 200 years of the Republic.

Judicial Review-established in Marbury v Madison, 1803.

Separation of Church and State?

Thomas Jefferson on Jan 1, 1801, (boldface mine):
"..... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

0 Replies

Joe quoted

Quote:

When Tom DeLay was asked in a recent interview in the Washington Times who is to blame for "activist judges" he replied

"I blame Congress over the last fifty years to a hundred years for not standing up and taking it's responsiblity given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state is the Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judical review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them."

From the transcript in context:

Quote:

DeLay: Look, I'm for an independent judiciary. I don't know where they get this. When you attack the left's legislative body, they get really upset. But I'm for an independent judiciary. I'm for an independent Congress. I'm for an independent executive. But the Constitution of the United States gives us responsibility for oversight and checks and balances over the executive as well as the judiciary. And we all know that this judiciary is extremely active. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at it and give recommendations as to what we ought to do. Read the book Men in Black.
Mr. Dinan: You've been talking about going after activist judges since at least 1997. The [Terri] Schiavo case gives you a chance to do that, but you've recently said you blame Congress for not being zealous in oversight.
Mr. DeLay: Not zealous. I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.

0 Replies

This is so sad. Tom would be well advised to actually read the First Amendment, he might find the Establishment Clause, meanwhile using the phrase "that is nowhere in the Constitution" doesn't impart a very different impression, it reveals his lack of understanding of the processes by which this Republic has operated for the past two hundred years.

Even an originalist (that is the word he uses for it) like Scalia wouldn't agree that the lack of specific words obviates against the principles of the right of privacy, (essential in a free country wouldn't you think?), judicial review (what does DeLay think judges do anyway?) and the most obvious, a clearly defined set of separate roles for private (religious) and public officialdom.

Tom DeLay needs to speak less and read more.

Joe(What does he think judges do?)Nation

0 Replies

Of course that assumes that his intent was as you interpret it. Unless you ask him specifically what he means, or read a number of his speeches and interviews over a period of time, you probably can't guess very accurately what his intent was. Again, the interviewers, I believe deliberately, moved right on to the next topic so he would have no opportunity to elaborate because they had their sound bite they could use as fodder for the left who would interpret it exactly as you have.

0 Replies

Uh, Foxy, it was in the Washington Times, not the Washington POST. The Times, correct me if I am wrong, is not known for collecting fodder for the left. No, DeLay was speaking on the record to the regular readers of the Washington Times, but I can see that you are going to do your usual dance around the baldfaced facts, so much for evenness and consistency..
(Well, I guess it IS consistent, just not with reality.) Meanwhile, trying to portray this statement as perhaps an aberration that must be seen in the context of much time made me laugh. It reads and sounds like something he's said many times in order to give his own followers something to say, but without understanding what "Congress didn't stop them." means.

Meantime, you wrote:

Quote:

I'm no apologist for Tom Delay, but I like to get it right if a person's character or reputation are to be impuned. The Democrats have no such scruples.

You may not have noticed, but on this issue it's not Mr. DeLay's character or reputation but his ideas that are the subject of my concern. His ethics, or lack thereof, or maybe it's just another example of his lack of understanding of a complex world, are being examined by a Committee of the House in which he stands as the Majority Leader of the political party to which you align yourself.

If he was a professor would you stay in his class?

Joe(Luke, I am your fodder)Nation

0 Replies

Joe writes

Quote:

If he was a professor would you stay in his class?

If he was a professor, I would ask him to clarify his point before drawing a judgment. I very much appreciate having that courtesy extended to me.

You can revert to ad hominem with the 'typical sidestep' thing, but when did you give up responsible journalism? When did you decide it's okay to put accuracy before truth? That he said the phrases you find 'so sad' is apparently reported quite accurately if we can trust the transcript. But without knowing whether he intended the "not found in the constitution" part to cover all three statements or what he specifically meant by that, his intent/meaning cannot be reported as truth. It would be acceptable to say that his remarks have created a firestorm of condemnation from the left in both the media and on the BLOGS.

I will backtrack and agree that I was thinking LA Times, and you are right that the Washington Times would be far less likely to be intentionally baiting him for a juicy soundbite. All I am saying is that the remark in the transcript, taken absolutely literally as spoken, do not mesh with his other recent rhetoric on these subjects.

Can we be fair about it though? You have blood in the water and the sharks circling around Tom Delay. No single person in the media right now is receiving more attention, including the president, and he is being regularly hounded, quoted, interviewed, and analyzed by the media. Among thousands of words, there is no politician alive that is not going to unintentionally provide one or more juicy sound bites for the opposition.

Disagree with him sure. I disagree with him on some issues. Think he is completely off base on his views re judges, the Constitution, etc. and that is fine. I might or might not agree but could see that as an honest difference of opinion.

Just don't put intent that isn't there into his mind and heart. That isn't right to do to anybody.

0 Replies

Foxfyre:

I don't see where those additional statements you dug up change the context of DeLay's comments at all. Just because he said he was for an independent judiciary does not mean that he hasn't come out against jusidicial review. It does not mean that he he hasn't come out against the wall of separation between church and state, or the right to privacy.

We're getting into arguments about which source, (Washington Times, Washington Post, LA Times), and missing the fact that the additional statements you dug up do not change anything.

0 Replies

What additional statements? Joe misquoted him and then provided the link where we got the full, complete quote which did change the implication in what it is said that Tom Delay said.

For all I know, Tom Delay means everything those on the left seem to want him to mean. I just haven't seen the evidence to support that when you look at what he is saying on a regular basis. I just think it is wrong to take a sound bite out of context and put it out there is 'evidence' of what Tom Delay means.

He may need to be hanged, but hang him for the right crime.

0 Replies

So in the midst of all those houndings (Poor Tommy), quotes, interviews and write-ups we are to be bound absolutely literally by his exact wording before we can make some inference from what it being said? Who else gets this kind of privilege? Me? You? Anybody? Are we to be like the Martian judges of Stranger in a Strange Land who when asked "What color is that house?" answer that it is white on the side they can see?

My computer is obtuse in that way, humans are not.

Of course, he can always fall back on:

"I said something in an inartful way and I shouldn't have said in that way, and I apologize for saying in that way." April 20th. Nice, huh, regrets for HOW he said it not the content. See? The ideas, as bad as they are remain, despite your pleas for clarity.

That way he can continue to speak, but not, at least according to you, speak his mind or say something clear enough for anyone to understand except literally and in the context of whatever vast quantities of history is deemed acceptable.

While we wait for him and his ilk to be clearer, they are unscrewing the bolts holding the Bill of Rights in place.

Joe(If we slice it any thinner we'll be able to see through it)Nation

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Of course that assumes that his intent was as you interpret it. Unless you ask him specifically what he means, or read a number of his speeches and interviews over a period of time, you probably can't guess very accurately what his intent was. Again, the interviewers, I believe deliberately, moved right on to the next topic so he would have no opportunity to elaborate because they had their sound bite they could use as fodder for the left who would interpret it exactly as you have.

Check your closet and under your bed. There may be liberals. Plotting Laughing

0 Replies

Joe writes

Quote:

So in the midst of all those houndings (Poor Tommy), quotes, interviews and write-ups we are to be bound absolutely literally by his exact wording before we can make some inference from what it being said?

Did you intentionally misquote Tom Delay up there or did you copy and paste somebody else's misquote? Because you posted a misquote, would you like for others to draw an inference that this is your normal practice and accuracy be damned so long as you get in your licks? Or would you like to be extended benefit of the doubt if you say the error was unintentional?

At some point, decent people have to stand up and declare the politics of personal destruction to be evil and unacceptable even when they are utilized against a Tom Delay. If they're guilty so be it. But let's at least use honest criteria to convict them and not what is simply useful.

0 Replies

A "Fuming" John Kerry

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know