John Kerry supports patronizing old people. 
Posted on 06/04/2005 9:55:19 AM PDT by Fruit of the Spirit
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that he intends to confront Congress with a document touted by critics of President Bush as evidence that he committed impeachable crimes by falsifying evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"When I go back [to Washington] on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," Kerry said, referring to the Downing Street Memo in an interview with Massachusetts' Standard Times newspaper.
"I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home," the top Democrat added.
The Downing Street Memo, first reported on May 1 by the London Times, was drafted by a Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair. It is said to be minutes of a July 2002 meeting where Blair allegedly admitted that the Bush administration "fixed" Iraq intelligence to manufacture a rationale for war.
Citing the Downing Street Memo, former presidential candidate Ralph Nader called for an impeachment investigation on Tuesday in an op-ed piece published by the Boston Globe.
"It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists," wrote Nader with co-author Kevin Zeese. "A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step."
The British memo, however, contains no quotes from either Bush or Blair, and is notably slim on evidence implicating Bush in a WMD cover-up.
Though largely ignored in the U.S. outside of rabid anti-Bush Web sites like MichaelMoore.com, the Downing Street Memo won Sen. Kerry's endorsement in the Standard Times interview: "It's amazing to me," the top Democrat said, "the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."
O'Reilly can usually be bearable on tv because it is a medium and format that demands focus although he can still come across as a blowhard. Now his radio show I can not take because it is O'Reilly rambling in an improvisational style. During his timeslot here in NH I'd rather (and do) listen to Larry Elder.
Kerry is stunning and unbelievably simple. And I like now how the loser is a "top Democrat" again.
I could be wrong but it seems that the photos of Theresa on post 131 shows her wearing the same outfit, minus the jacket as your pic of Theresa with the beer threefer. Yup, Theresa needed to pound three real quick after dealing with, aghast, children of the little people.
I've been in politics long enough to know "political winds" can shift on a dime. The "Republican Revolution" of 1994 seemed to blindside most folks, and while things look great now, another shift is inevitable. This probably won't happen next year, or four years from now, but it WILL happen. This is simply the way things work.
For me, other than the fact that they never filibustered Clarence Thomas, the argument is over when you look at the fact that Robert Byrd changed the filibuster rules five times during his tenure as majority leader including a change that made rules changes to be proposed by the majority leader and verified by a simple majority. Coupled with the fact that dems wanted to eliminate the filibuster rules starting in Jan. 1995 up until 2000.
A few quotes:
Barbara Boxer - 5/14/97: "It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor."
Ted Kennedy - 3/7/00
"The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.' Which is exactly what I would like."
Pat Leahy - 6/18/98
"If we don’t like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don’t hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators."
Ted Kennedy: "Again and again in recent years, the filibuster has been the shame of the Senate and the last resort of special-interest groups. Too often, it has enabled a small minority of the Senate to prevent a strong majority from working its will and serving the public interest."
As the Senate moves closer to a vote on the Constitutional Option – a vote to end the filibusters against President Bush’s judicial nominees – Senate Democrats have ramped up their rhetoric in an effort to defeat the measure. But it was these very same filibustering Senators who once argued that judicial nominees deserved up-or-down votes on the Senate floor. Don’t take our word for it. Here they are, in their own words…
Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
"What I am saying to my friend is that in addition to what I have just said, we now have 30 nominations pending. Once they get out of committee, let's bring them here and vote up or down on them." [Congressional Record, March 7, 2000]
“I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, this is not a legacy of which one should be proud. My colleagues need to move these nominations. If there are some nominees whom they do not like, vote them down or do not bring them forward, but let's get these numbers up this year…” [Congressional Record, March 07, 2000]
“We’re going to have hearings [on President Clinton’s judicial nominees]. We’re going to have the process vetted as soon as possible. And I think we should have votes in committee and on the floor.” [Senator Harry Reid, CNN’s Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields, June 9, 2001]
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee
“I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down.” [Congressional Record, June 16, 1998]
"I have been calling for the Senate to work to ensure that all nominees are given fair treatment, including a fair vote for the many minority and women candidates who remain pending." [Congressional Record, July 21, 2000]
"To delay judicial nominations for months and years and to deny them a vote is wrong." [Congressional Record, October 14, 1998]
"I cannot recall a judicial nomination being successfully filibustered. I do recall earlier this year when the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination." [Congressional Record, October 14, 1998]
”I think the Senate is entitled to a vote in this matter, and I think the President is entitled for the Senate to vote, and I think the country is entitled for the Senate to vote. I would hope it’d be sent to the Senate, let the full Senate Act.” [Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, November 6, 1997]
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
“We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” [Congressional Record, February 3, 1998]
“It is true that some Senators have voiced ‘concerns’ about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’” [Congressional Record, September 21, 1999]
“[D]elays can only be described as an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to work with the President and ensure the integrity of our federal courts.” [Congressional Record, September 21, 1999]
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)
“The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of the judges, which we can always debate. …It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees.” [Congressional Record, March 7, 2000]
“I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity – vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo.” [Congressional Record, March 7, 2000]
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)
“Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are not.” [Congressional Record, September 28, 1998]
“…it is sad, and it borders on tragic, that men and women who are prepared to give their lives to public service, who have gone through a withering process of investigation, by the FBI, by the Judiciary Committee, by the White House, by the American Bar Association, and so many others, still must wait over a year, in many cases, for their nominations to be considered … by this Chamber. …It does a great disservice to this country and to the judiciary for us to create a process that is so demanding that ordinary people would be discouraged from trying.” [Congressional Record, March 19, 1997]
“I am suggesting that we would give our consent to all of these nominees. I am basically saying that this process should come to a close. The Senate should vote. It should make its decision.” [Congressional Record, September 28, 1998, in support of his Amendment to force a vote on delayed nominees]
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
“I think, whether these delays are on the Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have a debate, let us vote.” [ Congressional Record, January 28, 1998]
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
“Why should we have to trade progress for partisanship? I mean, this is our duty. This is something we should be doing. We’re not asking them to vote for these nominees, we’re just asking them to vote.” [Congressional Record, September 14, 2004]
“And the way that we’re handling these confirmations is irresponsible, it’s unacceptable, and it’s rude, to think that we are asking these people to put their lives on hold, to not even be heard … to not even be voted up or down.” [Press Conference, September 14, 2000]
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
“I respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and to have a vote on the floor.” [Congressional Record, March 19, 1997]
“It is totally appropriate for Republicans to reject every single nominee if they want to. That is within their right. But it is not … appropriate not to have hearings on them, not to bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote.” [Congressional Record, March 19, 1997]
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
“I’ll just close by saying that Governor Bush had the right idea. He said the candidate should get an up or down vote within 60 days of their nomination.” [Press Conference, September 14, 2000]
“If they want to vote against them, let them vote against them. That’s their prerogative. But at least have a vote.” [Press Conference, September 14, 2000]
Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
“This politicization, Mr. President, has been extended to include the practice of denying nominees an up or down vote on the Senate floor. …If the majority of the Senate opposes a judicial nominee enough to derail a nomination by an up or down vote, then at least the process has been served. Instead, however, the President’s nominees are not even receiving that courtesy from this Senate.” [Congressional Record, December 15, 1997]
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
“The truth of the matter is that the leadership of the Senate has a responsibility to do what the Constitution says we should do, which is to advise and at lease vote on whether or not to consent to the nomination of nominees for these courts.” [Press Conference, September 14, 2000]
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)
“A nomination delayed is justice delayed. As we know, justice delayed is justice denied. A vacancy unfilled is justice unfilled.” [Judiciary Committee hearing, June 10, 1999]
So please don't tell me, or others, that McCain and Co were right. They are being just a tad less honest than the dems and that says alot about them and therefore you newby.
"The "Republican Revolution" of 1994 seemed to blindside most folks, and while things look great now, another shift is inevitable."
The 1994 "Revolution" was a fifty year process under the constraints of liberal politicians and their liberal MSM cohorts. The difference is the new media and instant communication on a variety of levels. You show me one bit of history that would show the dems turning the other cheek for the good of the country and to the deferrence of the Pubbies in the last 20 years. You give me some grand insight of how their lack of honest debate, constant viscious verbal assaults and outright lies will earn them a majority, let alone a presidency.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The hostility is noted.
This is not a question of two wrongs don't make a right - it is about intellectual honesty. As the quotes show the Dems were quite ready to jettison filibuster rules for their own expediency. All the rule changes done by Byrd and the dems were completely legal. They also created senate rule precedences that the dems and the liberal mainstream media have COMPLETELY ignored in regards to the current debate. To take said precedence and act on it is not something that should be deferred because the tables may be turned in the future. If the roles were reversed the lib MSM would be trumpeting every quote previously "made" by the Pubbies. The libs defense that their stonewalling is not unprecedented is the case of Abe Fortas who was already a Supreme Court justice and was opposed by a coalition of Dems and Pubbies when the fact that Fortas had been consulting Lyndon Johnson on court info was revealed. He lost a straight-up vote.
As to hostility. As a four-day-old Freeper you should be made aware that if you want to toe a wishy-washy middling line both politically and intellectually you are going to get criticized in a proportional manner. Yes Free Republic allows reasonable dissent from the sites majority views (this is a conservative board) but if you are going to tow a Neville Chamberlain-like defense of the likes of McCain and Dems then you should expect to get spanked.
How can agree with a plan that at its BEST kicks the can down the road---and at its WORST--does what it has done...
keep some very fine judges off the list...and let the dems off the hook re:the use of the filibuster...
which Reid took less than five minutes to take adavantage of when his speech right after the agreement announcement included the announcement that they intend to filibuster some of the judges not included in the three agreed on...
Then, he went ahead to filibuster Bolton, WHO isn't even a lifetime appointment!!! He is Bush's appointed Ambassodor to the UN---a position that can be changed at any time...
The dems and rinos that took part in that bogus committee are just fence sitters that want to go along to get along...not good enough!
The Democrats- sore losers all,
spiteful, petty, malicious, small.
Their only love is absolute power,
power lost, has turned them sour.
Go away Kerry, you Clintons too,
your agenda sucks and so do you.
Leave us Gore and Howard Dean,
both relective of that defective,
liberal gene.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Fixing intelligence around a policy is not the same as fixing intelligence. This is truly funny.
Yes, you are correct, It is about intellectual honesty, but also consistency. I opposed the elimination of the filibuster then, as I oppose it now. It is not enough for me to say "they tried to do it, so we should." This can of worms may, as you suggest, be forever opened. Instead of stooping to their level we should take the high road, we are supposed to be the "values" party, after all.
I do have an idealistic view of the sanctity of our government institutions, and want to see them preserved. Yes, this may be a naive POV, and may run against my interests from time to time. But in the end things are best when traditions are upheld.
I am a Republican, and conservative on many issues, but most of all I am an American, and want the very best for our country. I am not a hard core ideologue, and feel no need to apologize for that.
The violinists may stop now, thanks for the accompaniment.
John Kerry supports patronizing old people.
Actually, it kind of is. I think they fixed the policy around available intelligence. Let's hope this bears true.
"Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said..."
YESSSSS !!! Indeed!
"LOSER whines" would have been just as appropriate to start this article.
John "FAILURE" Kerry still cannot GET OVER IT!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.