posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 02:36 PM
Alito had no sensible credentials to hold this position.....but you wouldn't know that since the media failed to mention it.....and slandered
those who did:
Kerry, who unsuccessfully challenged Bush for the White House in 2004, made his pitch for a filibuster against Alito while overseas for a world
economic forum. This is how the White House covered it through the McClellan press conference:
Q Can I also ask you, on Senator Kerry's comments, what is your reaction to the filibuster call by Senator Kerry, on Judge Alito?
MR. McCLELLAN: On his call yesterday? It was a pretty historic day. This was the first time ever that a Senator has called for a filibuster from the
slopes of Davos, Switzerland. I think even for a Senator, it takes some pretty serious yodeling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort
in the Swiss Alps. (Laughter.)
Q But you know he's not there skiing.
MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I didn't ask you to yodel. I can hear you. (Laughter.)
Kerry was attending a world economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, along with other U.S. Congressmen. Simultaneous to the McClellan White House
press conference, Kerry was on the capitol grounds, and by the time Reuters posted its report of the press conference at 1:39, deleting the last
interchange between the reporter and McClellan, Kerry was giving an anti-Alito speech on the floor of the Senate.
Nevertheless, the Kerry smear continued
on PBS's Newshour with Lehrer. The last interchange between the reporter and McClellan was deleted
from the PBS tape
, and Lehrer, Brooks, and Shields chose to portray Kerry as a loser by making such a proposal from a ski resort, when, in
reality, he was making the proposal from the site of a world economic forum. Brooks went on to castigate the Dems for destroying a "precedent" of no
filibuster, a "precedent" that only resides in his mind. Actually, the filibuster is part of this country's Constitutional traditions, having been
used used by Republicans as well as Democrats in the past with respect to judicial nominations by a President. Shields did not disagree with Brooks.
Brooks went on to contend that liberals are "the most vehement" in their efforts to prove they "are the most pure," standing a half-century of
U.S. political history on its head. Again, Shields did not disagree with Brooks:
JIM LEHRER: Mark, how do you read the John Kerry sudden push for a filibuster, what is that about?
MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think there an unfortunate call for it, the venue is not ideal --
JIM LEHRER: The ski slopes.
MARK SHIELDS: Yeah, the Swiss connection....
IM LEHRER [to Brooks]: How do you read this filibuster thing?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, thought he should have done it while wind surfing; it would have been a more popular --
JIM LEHRER [to Shields]: I knew he was going to say something. Didn't you know he was going to say something like that?
DAVID BROOKS: We were looking at Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, it is the first time he's looked happy in years. One-liners, one week of
happiness -- don't ruin it for him.
JIM LEHRER: That's right.
DAVID BROOKS: And it is a week of happiness for Republicans. But as for what John Kerry did, vote no. Just -- you want to register your opposition,
vote no. You do not screw up the process. And you know, I think the Republicans make a good point when you say we were against Ginsburg but we voted
for her. But if you are against the person, vote no. Don't screw up the precedent that says, you know, we're not going to filibuster. I think that
is a valuable precedent.
I think if you are opposed to somebody you vote no, you don't take the option, which is always there in the Senate, of totally wrecking the process.
And so, you know, I thought what Kerry did and what Kennedy did was, you know, it endangered the institutions of the Senate.
But there is now a habit in this town, especially among liberals in opposition that you got to be the most vehement. And that's the way that you
prove you are the most pure.
MARK SHIELDS: It isn't really a filibuster because there aren't any enough votes -
JIM LEHRER: You've got to have 41 votes to have a filibuster.
MARK SHIELDS: So, I mean, probably shouldn't have said that. But I mean, I think there is a purpose to be made in making the case. And let's be very
blunt about this
WHite House transcript
But your opinions are your own,
Wake the &%^# up