Apparently the NY Times wants to get some of that good attention from left-wing bloggers that Debbie Howell and the WaPo got last week, because two stories today have some good snark aimed at the Democrats. First up, the Times taunts John Kerrys for calling for a filibuster from the ski slopes of Davos:
But late Thursday afternoon, Mr. Kerry began calling fellow Democratic senators in a quixotic, last-minute effort for a filibuster to stop the nomination.
Democrats cringed and Republicans jeered at the awkwardness of his gesture, which almost no one in the Senate expects to succeed.
“God bless John Kerry,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “He just cinched this whole nomination. With Senator Kerry, it is Christmas every day.”
Heh. If Kerry were a Republican, Brent Bozell would be pitching a fit. Even more amusing is that Kerry is simply doing the bidding of the NY Times op-ed page, who called for a filibuster yesterday. Double Heh.
Next up, the NY Times provides a caustic preview of the Democrats SOTU pre-buttal:
Democrats Outline Agenda, Mostly Sparing the Specifics By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — It has become fashionable in Washington to portray Democrats as the party without a compelling message. Congressional Democrats, eager to pick up seats in November but so far unable to capitalize on Republicans’ vulnerability, fired back on Thursday, offering a sweeping agenda that was long on vision and short on specifics.
Heh. Sheryl Gay Stolberg might wake up with a horse (donkey?) head in her bed, courtesy of Digby.
The Disenfranchised Voter
The WaPo issue and this are not nearly the same.
I’d have to say that I basically agree with both of these Times articles. Especially the one pointing out that Kerry is a dumbass.
The WaPo issue was about the ombudsman getting her facts wrong and then getting all fascist about dissent.
DEV- I don’t disagree that the WaPo situation is different- in fact, I agree. I just don’t remember the NY Times openly taunting Democrats like this in a long while.
The Goldberg thing is kind of unfair, but Kerry deserves his lumps.
The Stolberg article is truly a piece of crap. She admits there were plenty of specific proposals from the Democrats, but she still criticize them for not including EVERY conceivable detail – as if they’re supposed to stand there reading some 10-page think tank proposal into the record.
Okay, let’s be clear about what it means to propose “specifics.” Doubling the nation’s budget for basic research in the physical sciences is a “specific” proposal. Proposing affordable access to broadband within five years is a “specific” idea. Suggesting that small-business owners be given access to Congress’ health plan is a “specific” proposal.
Of course it’s legitimate to wonder how much something will cost, how long it will take, etc. But the fact is, no matter how much detail is provided, you can always ask for even more detail. That doesn’t mean the proposals weren’t “specific.”
This reporter clearly started off with an agenda to write about the Democrats’ lack of specific ideas, and she did her best to twist the facts to fit that. Yes, those “media bashers” sure do have a point about all the liberal bias.
I also have to admit — as a guy who thinks the left is generally much less batshit crazy than the right — that I don’t quite get the explosion of anger over the Alito thing. I think he’ll be a lousy justice, but I doubt he’ll be much worse than Roberts (who just seemed more “moderate” because he had no paper trail), let alone Clarence Thomas. The court will now have four right-wingers on it, which is bad but about the same balance that there was in 1992 (Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy-appointed Roe-hatin’ Byron White). And the sudden explosion of liberal nostalgia for O’Connor — whose supposed “moderation” mostly consists of increasing her own power, and who voted for Bush in 2000 — is just sad.
“He just cinched this whole nomination?” So that means it was uncertain before? Way to project strength, Senator Cornyn.
From the Disassociated Press:
“Good citizen John cole, seeing that his country is being run into a deep ditch by dunderheads and incompetants intent on running the ship of state onto the rocks, joins with the opposition and lends his formidable talents to helping them pull together and turn out the worst government in history.”
Now, back to our regularly scheduled high school boy’s bathroom.
Yes! What better reason to confirm a justice to the Supreme Court than to stick it to a French-lovin’ Demorat from Tax-achussets! Fucking idiot.
Steve- Agreed. I thought it was a pretty loaded piece, too, but I am used to having the Republicans as the target of crap like that.
PPGAZ- Hunh? I am trying to figure out how you are taking my pointing out hack like activity in the press and turning it into yet another one of your constipated laments about how awful a person I am for not having the exact same politics you have.
Everyone is celebrating my birthday today.
Of course, I’m no Mozart, but John Kerry has already given me a Birthday gift. Have a good weekend.
Wow, that was quick. If you could troll lefties the way we can troll you, you could double your page views in one day, John.
I called you a person with “formidable talents.” Now there’s an insult to get outraged about!
And I pulled your leg for your endless capacity to sit around and throw rocks at the ONLY OPPOSITION PARTY YOU’VE GOT RIGHT NOW in the face of the worst government in history, which, uh, happens to be controlled by the OTHER PARTY.
But by all means, don’t listen to me. If I were you, I’d just tune out everything from now on except for stuff coming out of the Government Printing Office. Never mind whether Alito is going to be good for the country, the important thing is that JOHN KERRY LOOKED FUNNY!!!!!
Not to mention he was able to mention “God” and “Christmas” in one sentence — too bad he couldn’t squeeze in “Nascar” too and it would have been the whole hillbilly trinity.
The Other Steve
The Stolberg article is a clear example of institutional bias and why the media is the enemy of truth.
The Kirkpatrick thing… Whatever.
Why would Democrats cringe? If Kerry feels that this is worth the political capital and is capable of getting enough Democrats to filibuster with him, then its the minority party in action, not just John Kerry.
Evidently, something about Alito worried Kerry enough that this would be a good time to be active… Too bad he couldn’t have been a little more active before, but all that Valium must have been too much for him.
Who cares about this crap?
Here’s some real news:
Sly Stone may perform at the Grammies.
Thank you for letting me be myself again.
Good news, DougJ!
I myself might go into seclusion for twenty years or so and just let the blog world eat its liver the whole time, wondering where I am, and what I am doing.
Then, I’d leak news of an appearance on Balloon-Juice, which by then will have become a house organ for Frito Lay, and then all hell will break loose …..
Doug, that should read “Fallattinme be mice elf”
So, incredibly naive question but…how does a filibuster increase confirmation chances? I mean are there 6 GOPers who were going to vote against? Plus Pat Buchanan said it was dumb to filibuster, and when asked why, responded “BOOGA-BOOGA-BOOGA” or something like that. Chris Matthews found it very witty.
And John Kerry has French features, which bring tears to mama Alito’s eyes.
The theory would have to be that some people were inclined to filibuster, but now that that icky John Kerry is behind it, there’s no way they will filibuster now. It’s obviously silly.
What Cornyn’s spokesman is doing is the same thing Stormy always does around here – acting like he loves it when Democrats fight back, because it just inspires the Republicans. Thing is, Stormy really believes it, because she is a dedicated GOP cheerleader and thus loves a good fight (when her team wins). As for Republican politicians, I feel pretty confident that they prefer the Democrats to be sedate and neutered, which is why they employ every trick in the book to try and discourage them from fighting.
alito is going to be the enabling vote for a string of court rulings with ruinous consequences for this country.
when that happens, people will look back to this nomination battle. if the democrats refuse to fight alito using every weapon at their disposal, they will be conclude (rightly) that the party is no different, and just as culpable, for this disaster as the gop.
That’s exactly right. All this stuff about how domestic spying is a big political plus for the president is bullshit to scare the Dems off from attacking him on it. Then Russert, Vandehei, and the rest repeat it (it’s not fair to lump a good journalist in with Russert, but Vandehei did repeat the talking points in this case), and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yeah, I’m sure thats why he did it. Boy I be the media bashers will love this one huh?
Democrats just can’t win. If they get specific and lay out detailed policy ideas, they’re accused of being wonkish and boring. If they speak in generalities to simplify their message (ala Republican’s “lower taxes, traditional values, strong national defense”), they’re accused of being short on specifics. If they roll over and let the extreme right do whatever they want, they’re wimps, if they put up any sort of even token opposition, they’re radical commie partisans. “How dare they field a candidate, AND in an election year!”
The Republicans have a Wurlitzer. The Democrats have a goddamn bagpipe.
Look, a Jacqueloupe!
Why is Kerry taking orders from the NYT editorial page? Can’t he be his own man for once?
After 2004, he is reduced to playing catsup. But even now, he just can’t seem to cut the mustard. His salad days are over.
( Oh fuck, did I actually write that? Somebody, shoot me )
Well let’s see. The pre-State of the Union polls are coming in at a fast clip, and Gallup, Bloomberg, Zogby, ARG, Rasmussen, CBS/NYT, and LA Times polls all show the Fibbing Nitwit to not only be a very unpopular president, but also a person that most find to be neither ethical or honest as well.
Oh yes, let us fear this mighty man and the consequences that will befall us should we dare to stand in the way of his designs upon the Supreme Star Chamber.
You know, that isn’t how I meant it, but it sure is how it reads. Sorry.
I did not mean that he was simply doing as the NY Times told him, I meant he was doing what the NY Times op-ed page wanted.
Well, you know what they say, great minds think alike.
Everyone else looks for signs of conspiracy.
This thread will now appear as a regular feature on the PBS show, Teletubbies.
If I was nearby….and had a gun…I would…then I’d steal your car.
WTH! You can’t say sorry. You’re supposed to come back with something snarky. You must be cheating on your no food or wine diet.
Oww! Shoot me, but leave the car! My beloved Mustang!
I take it all back. Mea culpa!
“Republicans Run Country and Start War, Mostly Sparing the Specifics.”
Film at 11.
Ah, that’s lovely reading. No wonder Repubs are retreating into their fantasy world of Sheehan-&-Moore-haunted political porn.
The question, of course, is whether Kerry is RIGHT. You’ll recall that exactly two senators voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, on the grounds that it was faudulent — and the reward for both of them was to be thrown out of office at the next election. Now virtually everyone agrees it was fraudulent — including, in his recent op-ed, Melvin Laird.
In the case of Alito, we will have — as Cole himself said a few threads back, agreeing with Matt Welch — a Justice who (unlike O’Connor) will agree with three other existing justices that the President has virtually unlimited powers in wartime. Now all we need to do is replace Stevens with another believer in the same philosophy and we’ll have a perfectly Constitutional borderline dictatorship — one of indefinite duration, since this war (as the Administration sys) has no foreseeable end — and one which will certainly legitimate torture of detainees into the bargain.
I think maybe John had better get off that diet. It’s seriously affecting his mental processes.
Is Justice Scalia in favor of unlimited executive power? His strong dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where he argued that the President has no power to imprison a citizen without trial as an enemy combatant, suggests otherwise. Indeed, he went to the left of Justices Breyer and O’Connor on that issue.
I think, for example, if the current NSA wiretapping issue were to somehow get before the Supreme Court, Bush would lose 7-2 at best. Alito wouldn’t change that result, even assuming he would support the administration.
I am no fan of Alito, but I think some people think of Bush v. Gore and assume there is this solid bloc of votes for anything Bush wants to do, which really isn’t the whole truth.
Uhhhh, hellooooo? Then why did they make homosexuality and abortion illegal?
What are you talking about?
I hope you’re correct, Steve — I need to take a look at the specific opinions delivered in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld in much better detail than I have. What’s clear is that Roberts and Alito are solid votes in favor of such massive Presidential power — which is precisely why they were nominated (forget Roe vs. Wade). And, if I remember correctly, so is Thomas (who disagrees with Scalia a surpisingly high percentage of the time, contrary to the cliche).
Note also that Scalia’s belief that the president cannot imprison a US CITIZEN without trial as an enemy combatant says very little about whether he thinks the President has Constitutional power to wiretap in unlimited fashion without a warrant, or to imprison and/or torture NON-citizens.
Democrats just can’t win. If they get specific and lay out detailed policy ideas, they’re accused of being wonkish and boring. If they speak in generalities to simplify their message (ala Republican’s “lower taxes, traditional values, strong national defense”), they’re accused of being short on specifics. If they roll over and let the extreme right do whatever they want, they’re wimps, if they put up any sort of even token opposition, they’re radical commie partisans.”
Fair enough. And very true it must be said.
these are the products of media-narratives that get embedded into the public psyche. The Group Think of the MSM does this often. They create narratives that then become conventional wisdom. AND THEN, they act as if the “CW” had been there all along and report in the frame of those narratives.
Well sure, Bruce, the legal issues are quite different. But still, the legal justifications for the NSA program are just so weak, there’s no way I can see a majority of the Court stretching to get there. It’s just not a colorable argument.
True enough. But what percentage of the population actually pays attention to their narrative?
If I had to guess, and I do at the moment, I would say it is around 15% or less. That’s the political class and its roadies, and a few shut-ins. Seriously. Have you seen the ratings for both cable and network news shows lately?
I disagree. Much more than 15% pays attention to the narrative. That’s part of my point.
Media Narratives and Storylines are what spreads into the general population’s subconscience. The details and conflicting facts of the stories within these narratives are domain of the 15% that you speak of.
Seepage, I call it. The stuff gets into the groundwater of public consciousness. But ….
I think at the end of the day, people will choose in favor of what they perceive as being in their interests, and while it may take time … and pain … for these things to become clear, eventually the outcomes are what matter. Right now we are seeing the crappy outcomes of bad governance overcome the feelgood effects of Republican narratives. It’s a slow and infuriating process, but it works. It has to …. or we’re doomed.