From The Loonatic Left

Supreme Court Nominee has an Acerbic Wit!

I have begun to find in the press some very funny quotes attributed to Judge Roberts.  How about this one (from Media Notes):

"This NYT sidebar has Roberts dismissing a proposal by then-Democratic congressman Elliott Levitas for a conference on power-sharing between the WH and the Hill: "There already has, of course, been a 'Conference on Power Sharing.' It took place in Philadelphia's Constitution Hall in 1787, and someone should tell Levitas about it and the 'report' it issued."

Excellent!  I just might like this guy as a justice...at least someone besides Justice Scalia will respond to stupidity with sarcasm.

The New McCarthyism

Senator McCarthy was infamous for his chairmanship of the Permanent Investigations Subcommittee of the Senate Government Operations Committee.  He would use this committee and the Senate as a means of launching personal attacks against citizens and politicians whom he claimed were members of the Communist Party or communist sympathizers.  Sometime there was even a little tiny bit of evidence to back up his allegations, but often they were merely attention grabbing ploys to keep his name before the public.  Basically McCarthy destroyed people's lives, reputations and careers for his personal political gain.  McCarthy depended upon the ignorance of the public to make these attacks effective.

McCarthyism has become a bit of a buzz word for the media to decry tactics which when employed seek to silence critics.  I am hard pressed to distinguish the media attempting to make an issue out of a lawyer or law student's membership in the Federalist Society.  If that same law student attended meetings of the Communist Party while in Undergraduate school, would that be considered relevant?  The slimey new McCarthyism of todays liberals seeks to smear out of ignorance, just like the original McCarthy.  The public has no idea who or what the Federalist Society is or believes.  But who cares?  If liberals and their media toadies think that mere membership in the Federalist Society disqualifies a person for the Supreme Court, they are as bad as McCarthy.

I was never a member of the Federalist Society, I am too libertarian and frankly was too busy working to bother with law school clubs and organizations but I assure anyone who cares that the Federalist Society is hardly out of the mainstream of legal thinking.  One could describe it as the mainstream and most of the other organizations as being on the fringes when I was in law school...but what liberal or media outlet ever cared about facts!

Being a liberal today looks like an excercise in practicing deliberate ignorance and partisan zeal.  Having no actual knowledge or appreciation of history may also be required.

Roberts? A Milquetoast for Justice!

Do you remember the Souter nomination process?  No?  Hmmm.  He will be forever the guy whom no one expected to be a Supreme Court nominee.  He hailed from New Hampshire if I remember correctly and had about zero accomplsihments of any note.  As a Supreme Court Justice Souter has not added substantially to his list of stand out decisions.

Can anyone name a Souter court decision?

I am constantly hearing about how Justice Clarence Thomas is not in the same league as his peers...hog wash!  He has stood on his principles and authored some remarkable opinions and dissents.  When you compare the legacy he is building to that of Justice Souter, Souter dwindles to the insignificant appointment he truly has been.

Why is all of this significant?  Because George W. Bush just repeated the tactic of his father, he has appointed Roberts who is another David Souter in so many ways it is rather obvious.  In the legal profession, as in businesses of every kind, leadership is done by the bold, the innovative and the courageous.  The moderate and mediocre?  They tend to be in middle management...destined never to rise above the level of their incompetence.  That is...unless you get appointed to the Supreme Court!  Where apparently the new standard is 'non-controversial'.

When I see the word non-controversial used to describe someone in my business, I know that we are talking about a person who will take few risks, make no innovations and would be better off in a Government agency pushing paper.  A non-controversial person is never a leader. 

That is who we get now for our legal and constitutional leadership...mediocre thinkers who are not leaders...

...and this is good for the country?

Last Word on Karl Rove/Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson

You can be forgiven if you think the mainstream media and Democratic operatives are absolutely dumb as a rock.  They might not really be that dumb...they are just hoping the public is that dumb.

• Valerie Plame used her position in the CIA to arrange her husband’s assignment as the investigator of the Iraq/Niger uranium purchase attempt.
• Joe Wilson went to Niger but did not conduct a proper investigation; he only took the Nigerian official’s word at face value.  He came back and wrote a report which said that Iraq officials had been seeking Uranium from Niger.
• He then wrote an article denouncing the Bush administration for using that phrase.  He lied about reading documents that he claimed he told them were phony.
• The identity of the person who sent Joe Wilson to Niger thus becomes relevant in the subsequent investigation.
• Identifying Valerie Plame as Joe Wilson’s wife as well as the CIA employee (we have no evidence that anyone in the administration knew she was an “agent”, covert or otherwise) who sent him is thus relevant. If it was not relevant to the issue of Joe Wilsons performance as an investigator, Novak would not have used it.
• The identity of Valerie Plame as Joe Wilson’s wife is readily available information in Joe Wilson’s “Who’s Who in America” entry, and it was common knowledge in Washington that she worked for CIA.
• The Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires that a violator intentionally reveal a CIA operatives name and that the accused also knew that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

Every one of these bulleted points is a fact.  Every member of the media knows these are facts.  Facts matter.

Case closed.

Howard Kurtz - Democratic Toady Today

Howard needs to re-learn what has been happening for the past two years...Is this MORE evidence that the media is liberally biased or was Howard just being lazy?

After recognizing that Rove probably committed no crime...here is the toady at work:

"But politically, this is a bombshell. Rove, who has insisted he did not leak Plame's name, had something to do with this effort, even if he didn't "name" her. ( The defense: It all depends on the meaning of the word "leak?") He was attempting to undercut Wilson when he told Cooper that wifey had helped set up Wilson's fact-finding trip to Niger (where Wilson didn't find the facts the administration wanted on Saddam seeking uranium) and that the uranium business could still be true (it wasn't). And didn't the White House promise to fire anyone involved in the leak?"

Now I could care less about Karl Rove.  I'm sure he isn't all that important a player now that the re-election is over, but isn't Howard missing some important facts here?  First off...Wilson, contrary to what he said and contrary to what Howard writes here...DID find evidence that Saddam was seeking Uranium in Niger.  Howard only has to research his own paper's archives to find that fact.

Question:  What is Howard doing here?  Answer:  Deliberately misleading his readers and writing down Democratic Party talking points.

This shameful display of either ignorance, laziness or deliberate bias should not go unanswered.  Sadly none of the more active blogs have either the desire or ambition to respond to this type blather from a member of the mainstream media.  Maybe these bloggers are just tired of the constant inaccuracies and poorly written material, but it is frustrating to see this continuous crap spouted by folks who are supposed to be professionals and have no audience to counter it with the truth.

If people have to rely only on the mainstream media for their news, they have got to be completely ignorant.

UPDATE:

WMD has the link from the Washington Post that I reference above:

"Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him."

Compare this news report containing actual facts to Kurtz's opinion piece containing his made up facts:

"But politically, this is a bombshell. Rove, who has insisted he did not leak Plame's name, had something to do with this effort, even if he didn't "name" her. ( The defense: It all depends on the meaning of the word "leak?") He was attempting to undercut Wilson when he told Cooper that wifey had helped set up Wilson's fact-finding trip to Niger (where Wilson didn't find the facts the administration wanted on Saddam seeking uranium) and that the uranium business could still be true (it wasn't). And didn't the White House promise to fire anyone involved in the leak?"

Today Howard Kurtz (or his editor) tried to roll back his error in an article rather than correct it:

"So the response is that 1) the Dems are playing politics (and Rove wasn't, in dragging in Mrs. Joe Wilson?). And 2) Rove was just performing a public service by steering a reporter away from a false story. (Actually, Wilson was right about the bogus Niger uranium tale, and the White House was wrong, although his credibility did take a hit from a critical Senate intelligence committee report.)"

Compare this version of Howard Kurtz with the version of the same column on his blog:

"So the response is that 1) the Dems are playing politics (and Rove wasn't, in dragging in Mrs. Joe Wilson?). And 2) Rove was just performing a public service by steering a reporter away from a false story (actually, Wilson was right about the bogus Niger uranium tale, and the White House was wrong)."

So readers of Howards blog, would get one version of facts and the readers of his column which uses the exact same words...except for the missing qualifier regarding the Senate Intelligence Committee Report...they get a totally different set of facts.

How is this possible?  Perhaps Howard has more editing for one column and we get him more raw and unfiltered for another.  Either way this is very damaging to the credibility of a journalist...at the very least you should be researching facts from your own paper.

I am embarassed for him.

Democratic Nominee Strategy

The Washington Post accidently lets the mask slip:

"Democrats signaled that whoever the nominee is, their three likely lines of attack will be to assert the White House did not consult them sufficiently, then paint the nominee as ideologically extreme and finally assert that the Senate had not received sufficient documents about the candidate. But Senate Democratic aides said they will focus for now on bipartisan consultation and not publicly prejudge the nominee."

Whoever the nominee is...the Democrats will assert that the White House did not consult them, then paint the nominee as ideologically extreme, and finally assert that the Senate had not received sufficient documentation.  To me this means that it matters not at all what the qualifications are, what the nominee believes, nothing matters...whoever the nominee is...they intend to implement this strategy.

Notice that someone had to rush in the follow up...but they will "focus on bi-partisan cooperation for now and not publicly pre-judge the nominee."  This is utter nonsense.  All those who see a spirit of bi-partisan cooperation in all of the veiled warnings from the Democratic Congressional dopes about what the 'perfect' nominee would be, need to have the frequency of their analyst visits increased.  We are talking about Democrats laying the ground work for a major smear campaign...regardless of who the nominee is.

Look at the strategy that has been laid out here...the Democrats will assert that the White House did not consult them, then paint the nominee as ideologically extreme, and finally assert that the Senate had not received sufficient documentation...Wow!  That is exactly what the Democrats did to Bolton and every other nominee that Bush has ever nominated for any position.  Why should any voter believe that the Democrats aren't just engaging in routine obstruction for no other purpose than spite?  I would acknowledge a political advantage if I thought there was one, but I think the public is getting just the ooposite view of Democrats in Congress.

I can see the typical voter concluding, "I guess we know how fundamentally corrupt the Democratic party is!"  The polls keep showing the President struggling, but they have also shown the Congressional Democrat's approval at its lowest level ever.  This stat has been 'under-reported' to say the least.  Whether this obstructionism is going to translate into a anti-incumbent election is hard to say, but it is sure looking plausible.

A savy Democratic Party leader...someone besides Howard Dean...would be sounding a warning about the lack of credibility the party is developing.  I think that Democrats are going to be badly wishing for Terry McCauliffe after this next election.  He had far more credibility in the red states than Howard Dean is ever going to have.  Appealing the way they are to a small fringe of voters has got to be a political disaster in the works.

I think a fair warning is appropriate...

Get ready Democrats, it looks like a 2006 election fiasco awaits!

There, I've done my part.

In many ways this has some similarities with the 1996 election cycle, not one that Republicans cherish.  However, the difference between Newt's Congressional implosion and the current Pelosi/Reid/Dean led debacle is that Democrats can not afford to lose any more seats.  They are only a marginal party now.  If they get any more marginal, they will cease to be a national party and will only contend for State elections and an occaisional Congressional seat.

Sandra Day O'Connor Retires

The Supreme Court now has a vacancy to be filed.  The fight is going to be nasty, dirty and the liberal Democrats feel like they are about to lose the only branch of government that they have had any control over.  They are probably right.  The only question is whether the Republicans do it in such a way that it will cost them the other two branches of government.

The media, liberal to the core, are already out spinning and repeating the Democrat's talking points.  Fortunately the public right now could care less, this is likely initially to be primarily a special interest battle royale.  Once the confirmation hearings get into full swing and the public is engaged, Democratic obstructionism will not be treated lightly by voters. 

I would look for the conservative special interest groups to push either Brown or Owen.  In many respects this is a good strategy because it would be very hard for a judicial filibuster to be supported for justices that were just confirmed.  This has to be a political nightmare scenario for Democrats.

Media reports indicate that Bush would like to appoint Alberto Gonzales.  If this were done he would be the first Hispanic appointed to the Supreme Court.  Conservatives are not wild about Gonzales given his positions on abortion, and liberals are not wild about him given his positions on torture.  In that respect he may be the perfect consensus pick, nobody likes him!

Kidding aside, Republicans had better be very careful with this pick, the last election was won based upon the promise of conservative justices being appointed.  If that promise is not kept...watch out!  The Republican margin of victory was almost entirely based upon these conservative voters.  If this base is unhappy, we will swing back to a predominantly liberal controlled government.  That filibuster compromise looms large now...those Republicans responsible should be squirming.  If this turns into a big loss, McCain might have just guaranteed that he will forever be an also ran and never ascend to the Office of the Presidency.  On the other hand, if he strongly comes out in favor of making the filibuster illegal for the purposes of appointing a real conservative...he will not be able to count fast enough the campaign donations he will receive.

Sandra Day O'Connor has been a key vote on a number of issues, including abortion legalization.  Her retirement announcement just lit a fuse.  This will be quite an explosion!

Brian Williams is Dumb as a Rock!

This is what passes for a well informed member of the mainstream media (you may need to scroll down to the June 30th post):

"Many Americans woke up to a curious story this morning: several of the former Iran Hostages have decided there is a strong resemblance between Iran's new president and one of their captors more than 25 years ago. The White House and most official branches of government are ducking any substantive comment on this story, and photo analysis is going on at this and other news organizations. It is a story that will be at or near the top of our broadcast and certainly made for a robust debate in our afternoon editorial meeting, when several of us raised the point (I'll leave it to others to decide germaneness) that several U.S. presidents were at minimum revolutionaries, and probably were considered terrorists of their time by the Crown in England."

Just a couple of minor little points that Mr. Williams and his collegues are too stupid to have understood:

1. The American Revolutionaries wore uniforms and did not pretend to surrender and then fire at the British, or pretend to be injured and then fire at the British, or use churches to store weapons and as bases to fight from.
2. The American Revolutionaries did not target civilians.
3. The American Revolutionaries were fighting for freedom, not to enslave others.
4. The American Revolutionaries did not behead their captors.
5. The American Revolutionaries were lucky that the public was better educated than todays media elites who would no doubt have favored the British.  After all everyone knows liberal ass wipes like Brian Williams would have supported the higher taxes on tea.

The reprehensible morons in the media like Brian Williams deserve the irrelevance they are quickly winning for themselves.

This Needs to be More Widely Disseminated

Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Compare this quote to any current MSM news organization or liberal politician when discussing Iraq's connection to al Qaeda...

...then tell me the liberals aren't lying.

Here is the full quote:

"There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," he said at a press conference on July 22, 2004. "Relationship" is also the word used to describe Iraq-al Qaeda contacts in an internal Iraqi Intelligence document, authenticated by U.S. intelligence and first disclosed on June 25, 2004, in the New York Times. When bin Laden left the Sudan in 1996, according to the document, his Iraqi Intelligence contacts began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." The document makes no mention of any formal arrangement between Iraq and al Qaeda, but instructs that ''cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

If you aren't disgusted with liberal Democrats at this point, you have a stronger stomach than I do.

UPDATE:

I'm getting more and more irritated by these kinds of headlines.  They are false, misleading, wrong, factually incorrect and the subject matter could not be any less serious!

I believe it is time to confront the media and liberal politicians with this question:

"Is it your lack of intelligence or integrity?"

Here is the transcript of CNN's Carol Costello:

"COSTELLO: But there is no...

HAYES: We have to do a good job explaining...

COSTELLO: ... evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda.

HAYES: Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get access to it, unfortunately others don't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: Among those disagreeing is Republican Senator John McCain. He says there is no direct link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, but warns of possible international terror connections in the future if the United States leaves Iraq now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I haven't seen compelling evidence of that. I do believe that the sanctions were eroding and if Saddam Hussein had remained in power, he would have continued to have attempted to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. I don't think there's any doubt that he's been involved in some very bad activities. But I hadn't -- the point is now, if we fail in Iraq and the terrorists are there now, then clearly there would be all kinds of international terrorist connections. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: A commission appointed by President Bush presented its final report last year, finding no evidence of a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

I say it is her intelligence AND her integrity!  This is a repeat of the quote from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission:

"There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

That quote as well as the huge lists of links/evidence are everywhere.  The reporter needs to be fired for lack of integrity, lack of intelligence and failing to do even basic research. 

I guess liberals can come and tell me again about the lack of liberal media bias...but...Is this media bias or media incompetence?  A fair question.

Whether CNN corrects this misinformation will answer that question.

UPDATE II:

It is fair to question those who would point to Fox News and the conservative bias...you might remember the remarkable poll which purported to show that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe WMDs had been found in Iraq, etc...

The truth is that some were found (about two dozen shells with chemical weapons).

Another truth is, I suspect in terms of being misinformed, viwers who get their news from traditional liberally slanted media outlets, like CNN, are far less well informed and believe all kinds of inaccurate liberal talking points.  I'd be interested in seeing a poll which looked into that!

How can they not be, apparently even the CNN reporters are misinformed!