The Democrats Gloat Thread

I thought democrats would enjoy this article from the NYT more than the conservatives.

September 15, 2005
Ready? Cue the Sun...
By DAVID BROOKS

Arlen Specter Welcome to Day 3 of the confirmation hearings of John Roberts. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the nation of what a wonderful job I'm doing chairing this committee, and I'd like to let the ranking member tell me so.

Patrick Leahy Absolutely, Mr. Chairman! And let me kick off this morning's platitudes about the grandeur of our Constitution by quoting its first three words, "We the People." That means that here in America the people rule - except on issues like abortion, where their opinions don't mean spit.

Specter Very well put, Senator Leahy! And welcome Judge Roberts back before our committee.

John Roberts Jr. Aw, shucks. This has been a humbling experience, Mr. Chairman. To think that a boy from an exclusive prep school and Harvard Law could grow up and be nominated for the Supreme Court - it shows how in America it's possible to rise from privilege to power! That's the hallmark of our great nation.

So while, of course, I can't talk about specific cases, or any emotions, weather patterns or sandwich meats that may come before the Supreme Court at any time between now and my death in 2048, I do want to reiterate that I feel humbled by this experience. I feel humbled that my wife is dozing off behind me. I feel humbled by this committee's inability to lay a glove on me. And I feel modest. You see this suit? I skinny-dip in this suit. That's how modest I feel.

Tom Coburn Well put, Judge Roberts. Yet when I think of the polarization that still divides this great nation ... waaaahhhh ... waaaahhhh. (Senator Coburn breaks down weeping.)

Jeff Sessions This may be a good moment to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that in this country unelected judges don't write the laws. We have unelected lobbyists to do that. Under our system, judges merely interpret the law and decide presidential elections.

Specter Senator Sessions, let me interrupt you right there. We're not here to argue among ourselves and ignore the nominee. We're here to deliver 30-minute speeches disguised as questions and ignore the nominee. So let me turn to Senator Bid - -

Coburn And when I think of the flaws in the reconciliation process! And the gerrymandering! Oh, the suffering! Oh, the humanity! Waaaahhhh ... waaaahhhh. (Senator Coburn collapses and is taken back to his office on a stretcher.)

Specter As I was saying, Senator Biden, you have the floor.

Joseph Biden Jr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought this might be a good moment to give the committee a complete history of my heroic sponsorship of the Violence Against Women Act, but before I do that I'd like to interrupt myself by mentioning that I ride the train every day, often speaking with regular Americans, but before I do that I'd like to interrupt my interruption of myself by asking the chairman to restrain the nominee. During my first round of questioning, the nominee continually interrupted my questions by trying to give answers. I could barely keep up my train of thought on stare decisis.

Edward Kennedy Starry De Cysis? Didn't she do a fan dance down at that old burlesque house in Providence?

Roberts Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't mean to draw attention to myself, for, as I have said, judges are like umpires - not home plate umpires, but those umpires stuck way out by the right-field foul pole. Nobody ever went to a game to watch the umpires.

But as you know, Judge Ginsburg, during her confirmation hearing, had herself wrapped in duct tape for fear that any involuntary reflex gestures she might make would mar her impartiality in deciding cases later on. Following her example, I have decided to spend the rest of these hearings in a soundproof booth, sunk in a tank of ravenous sharks and accompanied only by the illusionist David Copperfield. But before I go into isolation, I would like to mention the intense modesty I feel at this moment, notwithstanding the fact that not a single one of you slobs could have charged $700 an hour the way I did in private practice.

Richard Durbin Judge Roberts, before you go, one of the ways we in the Senate prove our superior souls is by emoting mawkish sentimentality on cue. Would you please emote sadness and pain on behalf of politically powerful but downtrodden groups?

Roberts I am emoting, senator.

E-mail: [email protected]

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

dlowan wrote:
She may be biased now, as I said.

Or not.

"Or not"?

Did you read this part of the article:

Writing for [i]Slate.com[/i], Jack Shafer wrote:
Her loathing for Bush is palpable. "This is the worst president ever," she told the Torrance, Calif., Daily Breeze in January. "He is the worst president in all of American history." Though Thomas never masked her crush on Democrats when she worked as a news writer, she comes completely out of the closet in her columns, ripping "Bush's headlong drive into war, his favor-the-rich economic policy and his campaign to put right-wing ideologues on the Supreme Court."

If you're not going to be honest with me, why am I being honest with you?

I see no problem with her stating her views in columns.

If you are correct, that she lectures in press conferences, that is silly, and unfortunate tactically, as well, as the article points out, and she has, indeed, declined from her previous professional status.

Sadly, this presidency seems to have made a goodly portion of your countryfolk go nuts, after a prodromal state under Clinton involving a truly bizarre witch hunt.

Shrugs.

Or maybe that is just an impression one gets here.

You still have not answered my question about what you think of the Bush White House's tactics re press scrutiny.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I thought democrats would enjoy this article from the NYT more than the conservatives.

I'm trying to figure out why you haven't posted it in the Bush Supporters thread where most of the democrats hang out.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

You still have not answered my question about what you think of the Bush White House's tactics re press scrutiny.

Please be more specific. What do you think are the WH "tactics" re press scrutiny?

0 Replies

Read the article you posted.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Read the article you posted.

<sigh> I did, Deb. Now will you answer my question?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
I thought democrats would enjoy this article from the NYT more than the conservatives.

I'm trying to figure out why you haven't posted it in the Bush Supporters thread where most of the democrats hang out.

I'm trying to figure out why democrats would enjoy the column more than republicans.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I thought democrats would enjoy this article from the NYT more than the conservatives.

I'm trying to figure out why you haven't posted it in the Bush Supporters thread where most of the democrats hang out.

I'm trying to figure out why democrats would enjoy the column more than republicans.

Because it purports to be humorous, Finn. Conservatives are humorless automatons, incapable of appreciating anything farcical. Didn't you get the memo?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I thought democrats would enjoy this article from the NYT more than the conservatives.

I'm trying to figure out why you haven't posted it in the Bush Supporters thread where most of the democrats hang out.

I'm trying to figure out why democrats would enjoy the column more than republicans.

Because it purports to be humorous, Finn. Conservatives are humorless automatons, incapable of appreciating anything farcical. Didn't you get the memo?

Oh...I thought CI might have simply missed all of the jabs taken at the Democrats. Now I get it.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Read the article you posted.

<sigh> I did, Deb. Now will you answer my question?

Sigh. This is fiddly.

Quote:

Screw You, Mr. President
Helen Thomas used to ask questions in press briefings. Now she makes speeches.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 2:34 PM PT

..........Bush's slaps at Thomas are consistent with the psy-ops his information wranglers conduct day-in and day-out on the White House press corps. Bush's news conferences have become increasingly scripted, with the president calling on reporters from a preset list and refusing the follow-up questions that might trick him into saying something substantive. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer has lobotomized the White House press corps in official briefings by jawing more and more and saying less and less. (The smarter reporters play hooky these days rather than endure Fleischer obfuscations.)

...........Not that Fleischer would give a useful answer to a direct question in any case. The same goes for his boss. White House briefings and presidential news conferences have become so ritualized and substanceless that many of the beat reporters have begun exhibiting all the classic symptoms of depression: guilt, worthlessness, pessimism, restlessness, and irritability.

0 Replies

"Fiddly," huh?

The President and the Press Secretary need to answer the questions asked of them. The press conference doesn't need to be an interrogation or a deposition. But if they provide an answer, the reporters may need to live with the answer, and write their story accordingly. They might not like the answer, but I don't think the WH is required to give answers that reporters like. They just need to answer the questions.

0 Replies

Tico writes

Quote:

The President and the Press Secretary need to answer the questions asked of them. The press conference doesn't need to be an interrogation or a deposition. But if they provide an answer, the reporters may need to live with the answer, and write their story accordingly. They might not like the answer, but I don't think the WH is required to give answers that reporters like. They just need to answer the questions.

And further, the President and the Press Secretary need to answer ONLY the questions asked of them related to government, the Executive branch, and matters of governance and state that do not jeopardize national security. They are under no obligation to answer personal questions, especially those akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Of all the times I heard Bush the elder speak, the two instances I remember with any specificity include the speech in which he said "No new taxes" (and that one only because it was played non stop after he broke that promise.) I am convinced it cost him the next election.

The other instance I remember was during the campaign when Hillary Clinton cited one obscure reference from an obscure book by an obscure writer who was then dead hinting that George Bush the elder had an affair. (This was after the Gennifer Flowers story had broken in the press.) The White House Press Corps dutifully asked the President what he had to say about it during a Press Conference and he flashed back, "I'm not going to dignify that with a response!" With that one firm response he shut down an obvious attempt to dredge up a scandal where none existed. And the President looked a bit taller at that moment.

Now and then I think they need to do more of that.

(edited to correct awkward syntax)

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

"Fiddly," huh?

The President and the Press Secretary need to answer the questions asked of them. The press conference doesn't need to be an interrogation or a deposition. But if they provide an answer, the reporters may need to live with the answer, and write their story accordingly. They might not like the answer, but I don't think the WH is required to give answers that reporters like. They just need to answer the questions.

You are ignoring totally the import of what I excerpted from your own article and have not addressed it at all.

Shrugs.

Whatever.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
"Fiddly," huh?

The President and the Press Secretary need to answer the questions asked of them. The press conference doesn't need to be an interrogation or a deposition. But if they provide an answer, the reporters may need to live with the answer, and write their story accordingly. They might not like the answer, but I don't think the WH is required to give answers that reporters like. They just need to answer the questions.

You are ignoring totally the import of what I excerpted from your own article and have not addressed it at all.

Shrugs.

Whatever.

I do not think so. But perhaps you didn't fiddly the import to me.

<shrugs>

Your excerpted portions describe a press secretary who calls on reporters, but does not allow follow-up questions in all cases. (We know he does allow follow-up questions at times, so the author must be referring to some particular case? Who's to say.) The author doesn't like the answers provided by Mr. Fleischer, because he doesn't find them "substantive." The author accuses Mr. Fleischer of having talked more, but said less. He accuses the President of conducting "substanceless" news conferences.

That is what I gleaned from your exerpted portions. What import you attached to the words, I can't say. But I addressed, in my response, what I thought was important. So if I ignored what you thought was important in what you excerpted, I did not do so knowingly.

0 Replies

So, you have no concern that your fella does not expose himself to any robust examination by the press who are not his people?

" calling on reporters from a preset list and refusing the follow-up questions that might trick him into saying something substantive."

No concern that he might have to be "tricked" into saying something substantive, with no script to work from, actually have to express his OWN ideas with no safety net, and have to defend them without the carefully crafted words of others?

The most powerful political leader in the world?

Oh well.

As I said, whatever.

I think it very disturbing. And before you squawk partisanship, I don't give a brass razoo which side of politics such a thing comes from. It is just wrong, in my view.

(Sorry, I accept that that seems not to be the import you gleaned. But I am a bit stunned by that. I can see we shall never get anywhere with this discussion.)

0 Replies

His speech from NO in front of the church in Jackson Square was all planned in advance without an audience to question his statements. He reads pretty good, but he can stumble on that once-in-awhile too! LOL

0 Replies

Probably cause his shirt was buttoned wrong and kinda choking him, ci.

0 Replies

Aargh.

I think this is more important than Bush bashing, though, as far as I can see, of current western leaders, Bush carries a trend to its most disturbing depths.

For people who have power to kill thousands or millions, to affect the lives of people in their own countries, and, in America's case, all over the world, to hold themselves aloof from any meaningful questioning and to be able to stage manage ALL their appearances and utterances to the extent that Bush does (and I am not relying on Tico's article for this) is quite frightening, I believe. Especially in Bush's case, because your system also allows him to escape questioning from his fellow elected representatives, and I think there is good evidence that he has surrounded himself with people who no longer dare to challenge his thinking and decisions much.

This is not peculiar to Bush, it has been happening increasingly in your system for 40 years at least, and in ours for less time.

I get to watch politicians close up. Even unimportant little ones like my lot live in a cocooned world of minders and fluffers, and can get very isolated from the meaning of their actions. But they get grilled by the press constantly (and don't like it, and moan, but hey, suck it up boys and girls) and they get grilled in the house and they go to big meetings and get verbally roughed up. They get challenged fiercely and constantly.

Your boy, and his extreme protection from any decent questioning, scares the hell out of me.

0 Replies

What do you suppose they did 40 years ago? Open televised press gaggles where the prez took on all comers?

0 Replies

If he doesn't like a question he just flips them off.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002261.html

0 Replies

The Democrats Gloat Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know