John Kerry on Roberts Nomination

Press Release ^ | 7/19/05

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the pings!

[texianyankee]

Has kerry reminded us that the President did not work with the world community on his choice?

[stocksthatgoup]

John Kerry was in Vietnam.

[timpad]

Who's John Kerry?

He served in Vietnam or somewhere.

On which side?

Both, naturally...

[timpad]

He served in Vietnam or somewhere.

Served?

How dare you. It's my understanding he served the Communists quite effectively. ;-)

[Redleg Duke]

Yeah, the same one he hasn't been doing for four years!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

he Dim's whole exercise of dragging these appointees through the briar patch is to create a slip-up. To badger the witness, so to speak, into making a less than eloquent statement that can be turned into a sound bite for the media enablers.

Yup . . . same as the purpose of the "Great Debates" is to get the Republican presidential candidate to committ a "gaffe."

Now that the journalists are out of the closet, so to speak, as members of the same party as the Democratic politicians, it makes absolutely zero sense to allow journalists to "moderate" the debates.

[international american]

"The American people expect the Senate to fulfill its duty to conduct a thorough, independent review of any nominee, and I intend to do exactly that."....Kerry



Translation: blah blah blah blah......

[1Old Pro]

Has ANYONE asked any of these Demwits if they consider the Roberts nomination an extraordinary circumstance?????

[johnb838]

I think it is of utmost importance that we get a chance to review the records of the cases he argued before the court when he was Assistant Solicitor General of the USA. Until that time I don't see how he can be confirmed.

[537cant be wrong]

some war hero..........

for north V.N. only. a cowardly traitor in the U.S.A.
i wish he would take a lot of oldsmobile rides with fat a$$ kennedy.

[ForGod'sSake]

...it makes absolutely zero sense to allow journalists to "moderate" the debates.

Heh, the fox guarding the hen house? To add to your thought, the questions themselves should not be picked by journalists either. You've heard some of the leftist slanted foolishness that's come out of that, huh? Maybe the participants should pick each other's questions. THAT might be a hoot.

FGS

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Maybe the participants should pick each other's questions. THAT might be a hoot.

Just give the participants a chess timer to control the equal time of the microphone, and let them have at it. Because the journalists' questions are inevitably influenced by the journalists' perspective, which is the same as the perspective of the Democrat.

I even argue that the debates should be done on radio, and done over the the telephone so that they impose minimum constraints on the campaigning of the candidates. That way the debates could be frequent, and long - putting less pressure on the candidate with a settled philosophy, and gradually destroying the candidate who has things to hide.

Of course the candidate with something to hide ain't gonna go for that format (and that will never be the Republican, because the journalists would go for the jugular anyway). But perhaps that is the ideal format for the primary election; if you aren't the frontrunner and need the exposure you could do a debate with a similarly situated candidate in the other party - a win-win situation for ideologically based candidates.

Maybe that would have been the way for Reagan to have campaigned for the 1976 Republican nomination, for example. But then, usually one party has an heir-apparent. That's not the case for '08, unless Hillary walks away with it - and maybe my proposal would be the main chance of the Democratic governor who wants to keep her from doing that.