Anyone have a good Graphic for this quote?
I have not seen this posted yet..
It'd be sort of nice if the party with 55 out of 100 votes in the Senate could simply enforce a longstanding Senate rule.
Anyone have a good Graphic for this quote?
Frist withdrew this offer.
What a wimp. Just do it.
100 hours seems like a reasonable time to debate the merits of officials being appointed to these very important positions.
When is someone going to have the cajones [balls] to stand up and say something to the effect that:
HEY, CITIZENS--THE DIMRATS ARE SPOILED BRATS FURIOUS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE MORE POWER THAN THEY DO. So, they are pulling out all the stops manipulating every shred of power they can every way they can and rationalizing it to hell and back.
They don't deserve power. They are selfish brats only interested in their own power instead of the people's good. The people voted GOP last time. The DIMRATS have held monopolistic power over congress and the nation numerous times. They never give much less in a fair give and take. They only take and take and take.
They take your tax money and spend it like water. They take all the power they can manipulate out of the electorate then whine and scream for more.
Citizens--let them know--their socialist/communist screaming and wining belongs in Cuba with Castro and no longer on American soil.
Enough already yet!
excerpt...
A small example:
RUSH: ...Can you give us a sneak preview, and your thoughts on the melding of the editorial page and the front page that happened in the 60s?
SCHWEIKART: Okay, but let me preface this by saying I already have a contract for my next book with sentinel, which is: A Patriot's History of the American Soilder: Why Americans Win Wars.
RUSH: You just gave us a preview.
SCHWEIKART:Right. And it is going to be, in essence, applying Victor Hanson to the United States. I think he is right, but he doesn't go far enough. I have a lot of contacts in the military who feed me information. It is really remarkable what are armed forces are doing.
But regarding this other book that you are referring to, let me give you a brief history of the media up to the 50s. In the 1820s as a result of the Missouri Compromise, Martin Van Buren -- and you're going to love this, Rush -- founded a political party. The sole goal of this political party was to gain and hold power. It was not interested in any principles.
Van Buren's focus for this political party was to avert civil war, an altruistic motive. The party's purpose was not to talk about slavery, so we wouldn't have a war. They were going to reward people who would run for office and hold office who would not talk about slavery. So if you think about it, the foundation for this party was essentially very base. It was, ideas don't count, ideology doesn't count; only money counts. And if we wave enough money in front of you, you will forget about your principles. Guess which party that was?
RUSH: The Democratic Party!
SCHWEIKART: Exactly.
RUSH: I would gat an "A" in your class.
SCHWEIKART: Yes. This party went on to found dozens and dozens of newspapers for the specific purpose of getting candidates elected. They were very honest. They called themselves names like The Arkansas Democrat. Guess which party it supported? The Richmond Whig. Guess which party it supported? They only carried news about their own candadates. They weren't interested at all in objective news. It was strictly to advance the party's propaganda.
RUSH: It doesn't sound like anything has changed.
SCHWEIKART: No, it hasn't. But what did change was in the Civil War, people were desperate for facts. I have a quotation from one editor in the 1860s: "Facts, facts, facts -- that is all people care about anymore." They needed to know information on the war. Was Johnny killed? What is the 14 Pennsylvania regiment doing? Where is Robert E. Lee? And this created a style you may recognize. We used to call it the "who, what, when, where, why" reporters' questions. It created what is called the inverted pyramid style of reporting, where you begin with the most important facts, and then you get down to the drivel. I challenge you to read any paper today, whether it is USA Today or The Washington Post -- what do they always start with? A human interest story: "Twenty years ago, Marge Schott had her little dog on the sidewalk until it was hit by a car, and then blah, blah, blah." Three or four paragraphs down you will get to the key information. You are always mentioning this on your show. You will say, "The nut of this is buried 20 paragraphs down."
RUSH: They bury the lead.
WEIKART: Right. Well, in the Civil War they didn't bury the lead. They started moving the lead to the very front. All they would report is facts. From about 1860 to about 1900, this became entrenched in almost all the major papers. For a lot of reasons, some it having to do with business, most of them became objective. They viewed reporting the news as separate from the editorial content. They tried to get both sides of the story and they tried to be fair and balanced.
Were there exceptions? Of course. You had the yellow press. But basically this model held until about 1960. Now currently I am doing some research with a conservative journalism professor at Dartmonth -- I won't give his name away in case he gets blackballed -- and a guy from the American Enterprise Institute named John Lott. We are working on the question, Can we pin down exactly what caused this change?
My theory is that it was not Vietnam or Watergate that caused the change. I think you see clear indications of this change happening earlier. My gut feeling is it involves John Kennedy. That the press, especially the males in the press, so identified with Kennedy that they started to throw fairness out the window and became terribly attached to his Administration, creating the whole Camelot myth. So by the time Kennedy was assassinated and Johnson came in, and the Vietnam War, they were already moving in the other direction. Vietnam just accelerated something that had already happened, in my view, but I can't prove that just yet.
....
When the RATS are the majority again, which they will be sooner or later, they'll change the rules as they see fit and the MSM will be silent or cheering like hell in approval. Simple eh?
WOW!!!
Only 100 hours!!!
What a TOUGH guy Frist is!!!
A simpering wimp.
I hope he has plans to run for President. He;s in the Giuliani-Chaffee-McCain-Snowe club in my book.
I wonder if that is 100 hours per nominee, or 100 hours for all of them?
This is a smart move by Frist, it exposes the charade that the Dems are trying to preserve an instutition and "cool the saucer"...they just don't want a vote!
These are the Senators to call to help President Bush get a vote on his embattled judicial nominees:
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Washington, DC: (202) 224-2235
Phoenix, AZ: (602) 952-2410
Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Washington, DC: (202) 224-2921
Providence, RI: (401) 453-5294
Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Washington, DC: (202) 224-5344
Augusta, ME: (207) 622-8292
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Washington, DC: (202) 224-4224
Omaha, NE: (402) 758-8981
Senator John Warner (R-VA)
Washington, DC: (202) 224-2023
Roanoke, VA: (540) 857-2676
Yeah, and the hundred hours is counted on the 24 hour day, 4 days of debate, Democrats talk your hearts out, for the 4 days, get it all on the record, and on the morning of the 5th day we're voting.