ABC Denounces Bush’s Recess Appointment, But Trumpeted Clinton’s

Media Research Center ^ | 1-19-04 | Medial Reseach Center

[FlyLow]

ABC’s inconsistency on recess judicial appointments. On Friday night, Peter Jennings, without uttering a syllable about how Senate Democrats have used unprecedented tactics to block Bush judicial nominees or conveying anything positive about Charles Pickering’s qualifications, highlighted how “Democrats accuse Pickering of opposing civil rights” while Senator Kennedy claimed “'the President’s appointment serves only to emphasize again this administration’s shameful opposition to civil rights.’” But back in December of 2000 when President Clinton made a recess judicial appointment, anchor Aaron Brown treated Clinton as the one fully justified in his actions in the face of Senate Republicans opposed to black nominees. Brown trumpeted how Roger Gregory “will be the first African-American on the court. The President has nominated four African-Americans to the 4th Circuit but Republicans in Congress would not hold confirmation hearings.”

[SandRat]

If ever there was question in even the slightest amount of ABCs liberal bias, this posting puts that to rest forever.

[FormerACLUmember]

ABC lying through its teeth with complete dishonesty and presenting DNC faxxed press release propoganda as breaking news. Who'd a guessed?

[BenLurkin]

Figures.

[Batrachian]

Media bias aside, which is axiomatic, I think (as others have suggested) that this is a weak attempt to mollify conservatives who are outraged at Bush's insane pandering to Mexico. Otherwise, he could have given Pickering a recess appointment a year ago. Why now, and why didn't he appoint the other blocked candidates as well (or did he)? I guess he didn't want to anger Ted Kennedy too much.

Throw the conservatives a bone, just to keep them quiet in an election year.

[stands2reason]

The others did not wish to be appointed by recess. Try to keep up.

[zook]

he could have given Pickering a recess appointment a year ago

And Pickering would be out on his ear today. This way the Dems are challenged to make an issue of it.

Moreover, I'm a conservative and I don't consider this to be a "bone." I call it in your face leadership.

[SunStar]

"Dean is God's reward to Mr. Bush for doing the right thing in the war on terror." Dick Morris

I like your tagline. A statement like this from Dick Morris isn't always helpful, as tonight's caucus number show. LOL

[Vineyard]

Many of the proposed judges DON'T WANT a temporary appointment. It would mean quitting the job that they have for a job that might go away. It means leaving a job that probably has better pay and benefits ...

Now ... Judge Pickering is already a judge, and will be "elevated" ... and at age 66, he will probably retire in a year or two, so this gives him a significant honor - and he might be formally confirmed later, or not ... and the honor won't go away.

Bottom line ... the only way for the Republicans to get the judges confirmed is to use the nuclear option ...to appeal to the Senate that the Democrat interpretation is a violation of the Constitution - and MAYBE all Republican Senators will vote "AYE" ... and 51 votes would carry, and thence forevermore it would not be possible to filibuster judical appointments.

But a few Republicans actually want to preserve the ability to filibuster nominations of a Democrat President ... so there is no guarantee that the motion would get 51 votes!

Mike

[theyibby]

I don't even mind a liberal bias OR a conservative bias (ala Rush). But call it for what it is (as Rush is willing to do).

But I simply hate Double Standards.

[VMI70]

Bump!

[wi jd]

Bottom line ... the only way for the Republicans to get the judges confirmed is to use the nuclear option ...to appeal to the Senate that the Democrat interpretation is a violation of the Constitution - and MAYBE all Republican Senators will vote "AYE" ... and 51 votes would carry, and thence forevermore it would not be possible to filibuster judical appointments.

Re the "nuk-u-lar" option: Couldn't the Rats filibuster that as well and prevent a vote from being taken?

[Bullish]

Jennings calls himself a "journalist".

Guffaw!

[Common Tator]

Media bias aside, which is axiomatic, I think (as others have suggested) that this is a weak attempt to mollify conservatives who are outraged at Bush's insane pandering to Mexico.

I'm a conservative and I'm not outraged by Bush's Mexican policy. You are in the minority. Anti- emigration people have been in the minority for 150 years.

You think the choice is Mexicans or no Mexicans. That is not the choice. Unless you think that the Democrats will not win the house, Senate and the Presidency again. Only an idiot could believe that.

There have been people like you fighting emigration to this country since the influx of the Irish during the potato famine of the 1840s. When every new influx of emigrants from poorer and poorer nations, the Germans, Italians, Polish, balkans natives, and other nationalities were all opposed for the same reason. It was said they all would take jobs from good Americans and give them to those damn foreigners. But never has the body politic ended emigration for long.

Get a clue. The party that fought emigration of any nationality has never has been able to prevent it. All they accomplished was to lose that and every other issue they favored. They lost to the majority party that favored emigration. The politics of every major population center has been controlled by emigrants for 150 years. The party that opposes emigration has always lost. And the party that accepted emigrants has always won.

The problem for you is YOUR SIDE DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES to prevent Mexican emigration. Bush knows that and so does every Democrat. If all those Mexicans become and stay Democrats, bend over and give your a$$ to Hillary Clinton because she is going to own it.

You have to be a total idiot to make an enemy of those who can and will defeat you if you try to stop them.

That is what you appear to be for..... being a loser. And you are out to prove it with all your might.

People like you have been trying to stop emigration for 160 years... No one has gotten it done yet. You won't either.

To remain in power a party must change what it can change and accept what it cannot.

[Vineyard]

The Republicans submit a request to the Parlimentarian, who makes the ruling (probably would favor the desired Republican position, since the Parlimentarian is appointed to the job by the Senate Majority Leader).

This would provoke a need to vote, which could not be filibustered!

Mike

[RobbyS]

I think they don't have the 51 votes. Maybe they have the 50.
For some reason they are worried about the precedent, as if that mattered anymore. I suppose they are waiting for the election, hoping to get a couple more Republican votes.

[ladyinred]

The media are not the only ones persecuting the President. Have you checked out FR lately? All of this vitriol is going to help bring about the defeat of the President, the end to the war on terror, and our Republic as we know it. Then I hope they are all happy here, as they whine about Bush not being conservative enough for them. Let them see a real Marxist in the White House! /rant not off.

[Proud2BAmerican]

You need to learn to distinguish between those who are anti-ILLEGAL immigration, and those who are anti-IMMIGRATION.

I don't think there are many conservatives who are anti-IMMIGRATIOn. But I believe many conservatives are indeed anti-ILLEGAL immigration, because conservatives generally believe in upholding the rule of law.

That said, I don't believe there was a big issue of ILLEGAL Irish immigrants flooding the country. As far as I know, they legally immigrated here. Didn't they?

But first I think you need to bone up on the difference between the two positions -- anti-illegal immigration, and anti-immigration. There's a big difference, and it affects meaningful discourse and debate over the subject.

[Joe_October]

What's an ABC?

[SandRat]

If I told you, JR would ban me.