If White House Press Briefings Had Bullpens
I apologize for the interruption, ladies and {snerk} gentlemen of the press. Mr. McClellan's sudden indisposition is nothing serious or, unfortunately, communicable. Frankly, if it was, he would probably become indisposed considerably less often.
I'll be happy - well, I'm willing, anyway {chuckle} to pick up where my colleague left off.
Jim/let/this/has/to/idea/function/what-
One at a time, people, one at a time. You may be skilled at talking out three sides of your mouth, but it's a skill I've never had the inclination to master.
You first.
Mr. Sondergeld, the Senate has managed to function - or not function, as the case may be - for more than 200 years without a ban on judicial filibusters. Is the President concerned about the historic nature of what's being talked about up on the Hill?
The Senate managed to function more than two centuries without a ban on judicial filibusters because until two years ago neither party - particularly a minority - had ever unilaterally mounted any. It's a shame that the current minority party is so unheedful and disrespectful of both that long tradition of civility and restraint and the wishes of the voters in the past three elections. If the President is concerned about the historic nature of anything on the Hill, this is where that concern would be focused.
Well, let me ask two questions about what you just said. Where in the Constitution are judicial nominees guaranteed an up or down vote? And what about the impact of this whole so-called "nuclear option" on this idea of equal representation in the Senate?
Where in the Constitution are supermajorities required for judicial confirmations? "Don't think yer gonna find any" (Now you know why I'm not Dana Carvey's understudy). There are a few other stipulated items that do - such as treaty ratifications - and the very fact that they refer to voting answers your first question rather nicely, dontcha think?
As to the second, you're confusing the Senate with the House. The House is based on proportional representation; the Senate is based on state representation, which is why senators used to be elected by state legislatures before the Seventeenth Amendment came along. And the Founding Fathers, God bless their cynical little hearts, alloted the advice and consent function to the Senate so that a tiny pompous-ass elite in a handful of bicoastal enclaves wouldn't have carte blanche to remake our federal system by remote control.
Any time you want further civics tutoring, just lemme know.
Let me just go back to the constitutional idea here. You said it again today, and you've said it many times in the past, that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to give these nominees an up or down vote. Can we agree that the constitutional requirement of the Senate is for advice and consent, but nowhere in the Constitution does it -
I've already covered this. Feel free to glom some of your colleagues' notes after we're done.
Right, and he's made that clear. You made clear just a moment ago that he opposes judicial activists. And, yet, if you take a look, as I'm sure you have, at the records of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, both records reveal, according to conservatives - not me, but according to some conservatives - judicial activism, number one; and, number two, a judicial temperament which is, at times, very sharp, very acerbic in their opinions, and not consistent with what some people consider the kind of judicial temperament that would be appropriate for the kind of circuit court positions that they're being nominated to. Is there - is the President sort of violating, in these nominees, his own principle for what he wants to see -
One, there's no such thing as "conservative judicial activism." The very phrase is an oxymoron. Second, you wouldn't cite any "conservative" who was measurably less confused on this issue than you obviously are, so don't bother hiding behind that dodge. And third, John Bolton isn't being nominated to the federal bench.
This isn't a popularity contest, these are -
-nominees every last one of which has enjoyed majority support in the Senate from the day they were respectively appointed. Evidently they're "popular" enough to get confirmed, but a minority of senators - all, strangely enough, with the same letter after their names - seems to have stopped valuing popularity in direct proportion to the rapidity with which they themselves have hemorrhaged it.
Didn't think I could say "rapidity," didja? The President's been coaching me.
Jim-
That's Mr. Sondergeld to you.
Mr. Sondergeld, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?
Well, it would be nice if they would help clean up the mess that they've made. And that would go far beyond just the "Holy Flush" fraud. Time was when the media were just as scoop-happy and just as muckraking as they are now, but in time of war put patriotism above partisanship and profession. That time is long gone, and those right priorities have become completely inverted, to where a great many Americans are coming to the conclusion that you and your colleagues are, as it were, "fighting a different war" than the rest of us. And you're so rabidly engaged in this war that bringing down your enemy takes precedence over the interests of your own country and its fighting men and women in the real war that you people scarcely even recognize.
No need, I think, to be explicit about who that alternative "enemy" is. Not for "sophisticates" such as yourselves, anyway.
With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?
Well, the editors of Newsweek are criticizing the Pentagon for, in effect, not serving as their editors on this bogus "story." Maybe you should ask Mr. Whitaker whom he wants to fulfill that responsibility.
And do not, by the way, think that a two-word preface with "respect" in it covers such smart-assedness that is its diametric antithesis.
Like that? "Rapidity" and "antithesis" in the same briefing. My tongue is getting quite a workout, even without the lashing part.
Back on Newsweek. Richard Myers, last Thursday - I'm going to read you a quote from him. He said, "It's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran." He said it was "more tied up in the political process and reconciliation that President Karzai and his cabinet were conducting." And he said that that was from an after-action report he got that day.
So what has changed between last Thursday and today, five days later, to make you now think that those - that that violence was a result of Newsweek?
"Not necessarily" is an awfully skimpy clausal fig leaf for an entire "news" magazine to hide behind, wouldn't you agree?
But, to indulge your fratriphilia (next time bring your thesauruses, boys and girls), you must be familiar with the "spark igniting dry tinder" metaphor, right? Other factors may have had things simmering in Jalalabad, but this Newsweek blurb was either a random spark or a spark that was exploited and directed toward violent ends. In either case, the end result was the same: seventeen dead and over a hundred injured - so far.
Plus, as usual, you're not thinking big enough. Arab culture is largely predicated upon assuaging wounded religioethnic pride with soothing fictions that scapegoat outsiders ("infidels") and wallow in victimization. Bundle that with an already well-stoked hatred of "the Great Satan" in Islamist hotbeds, and throw the "Holy Flush" into the mix and you've got a rallying point our enemies can flog for years to come.
This is what made Newsweek's actions so irresponsible. It's the media that tells the rest of us incessantly how "parochial" the American people are, how "ignorant" they are of other cultures and pretty much anything beyond our borders, and yet it took a "story" that a trainee and two chimpanzees would know was a propaganda IED and in its eagerness to score another domestic political "gotcha" galloped ahead of any semblance of professionalism and played right into the terrorists' hands.
Their actions have damaged the goodwill the President has painstakingly built in Afghanistan over the past few years and increased the danger to Afghans and American service personnel.
We feel that they should be held to some sort of account for what they've done.
We're not their editors, to be sure, but what does it say about Newsweek that the editors they have are so woefully inadequate to the job?
Let me follow up on that. What - you said that - what specifically are you asking Newsweek to do? I mean, to follow up on Terry's question, are you saying they should write a story? Are you going that far? How else can Newsweek, you know, satisfy you here?
It's not a question of "satisfying" us. It's a question of doing what is right. It's a question of realizing that there are bigger, more important things than playing public relations whack-a-mole.
Frankly, it's a question of growing up.
Are you asking them to write a story?
That's up to them. Though I have to wonder of what value it would be if they did, given how little credibility they have left.
Again, you're missing the big picture. One more story won't make much of a difference at this point, however sincere and offered in good faith it might be. It would be, at best, a token gesture. It's the attitude that gave rise to this fiasco that needs to change. And we don't feel that conflicts at all with the Framers' intent of an independent media to keep the government on its toes.
If y'all would ever get that figured out, maybe the "new tone" the President tried to bring to this town could actually become a two-way street.
As far as the Newsweek article is concerned, first, how and where the story came from? And do you think somebody can investigate if it really happened at the base, and who told Newsweek? Because somebody wrote a story.
So you don't think we should be Newsweek's editors, but you do think we should be their fact-finders? Would that constitute a vicarious demotion?
The military keeps close tabs on all this sort of thing, in point of fact. Remember, the Abu Ghraib abuses were under investigation for a full six months before Mary Mapes ever got wind of them. Perhaps you might want to start granting the armed services the same benefit of the doubt that you do institutions against which you're less "adversarial," hmm?
And second thing is that it's not only Newsweek story.
Oh, goody, here comes the tangential segue!
In the past, well-known people who can make and break a society, they make statements against other religions, like Mr. Pat Robertson against Hinduism in the past. How can we prepare for the future all these stories, it doesn't happen again in the future? Do you think the President can come out and make sure, because that's what the Muslims are calling on the President to come out -
One, don't elect Revrund Pat president. Two, don't let Hindus convert en masse to Islam. As to the rest, you'd need to take that up with the editors of Newsweek, which, as you've so helpfully pointed out, do not include us.
If that's all the {snicker} questions, I think I need to indispose myself now.
[HT: Powerline]
I'll be happy - well, I'm willing, anyway {chuckle} to pick up where my colleague left off.
Jim/let/this/has/to/idea/function/what-
One at a time, people, one at a time. You may be skilled at talking out three sides of your mouth, but it's a skill I've never had the inclination to master.
You first.
Mr. Sondergeld, the Senate has managed to function - or not function, as the case may be - for more than 200 years without a ban on judicial filibusters. Is the President concerned about the historic nature of what's being talked about up on the Hill?
The Senate managed to function more than two centuries without a ban on judicial filibusters because until two years ago neither party - particularly a minority - had ever unilaterally mounted any. It's a shame that the current minority party is so unheedful and disrespectful of both that long tradition of civility and restraint and the wishes of the voters in the past three elections. If the President is concerned about the historic nature of anything on the Hill, this is where that concern would be focused.
Well, let me ask two questions about what you just said. Where in the Constitution are judicial nominees guaranteed an up or down vote? And what about the impact of this whole so-called "nuclear option" on this idea of equal representation in the Senate?
Where in the Constitution are supermajorities required for judicial confirmations? "Don't think yer gonna find any" (Now you know why I'm not Dana Carvey's understudy). There are a few other stipulated items that do - such as treaty ratifications - and the very fact that they refer to voting answers your first question rather nicely, dontcha think?
As to the second, you're confusing the Senate with the House. The House is based on proportional representation; the Senate is based on state representation, which is why senators used to be elected by state legislatures before the Seventeenth Amendment came along. And the Founding Fathers, God bless their cynical little hearts, alloted the advice and consent function to the Senate so that a tiny pompous-ass elite in a handful of bicoastal enclaves wouldn't have carte blanche to remake our federal system by remote control.
Any time you want further civics tutoring, just lemme know.
Let me just go back to the constitutional idea here. You said it again today, and you've said it many times in the past, that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to give these nominees an up or down vote. Can we agree that the constitutional requirement of the Senate is for advice and consent, but nowhere in the Constitution does it -
I've already covered this. Feel free to glom some of your colleagues' notes after we're done.
Right, and he's made that clear. You made clear just a moment ago that he opposes judicial activists. And, yet, if you take a look, as I'm sure you have, at the records of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, both records reveal, according to conservatives - not me, but according to some conservatives - judicial activism, number one; and, number two, a judicial temperament which is, at times, very sharp, very acerbic in their opinions, and not consistent with what some people consider the kind of judicial temperament that would be appropriate for the kind of circuit court positions that they're being nominated to. Is there - is the President sort of violating, in these nominees, his own principle for what he wants to see -
One, there's no such thing as "conservative judicial activism." The very phrase is an oxymoron. Second, you wouldn't cite any "conservative" who was measurably less confused on this issue than you obviously are, so don't bother hiding behind that dodge. And third, John Bolton isn't being nominated to the federal bench.
This isn't a popularity contest, these are -
-nominees every last one of which has enjoyed majority support in the Senate from the day they were respectively appointed. Evidently they're "popular" enough to get confirmed, but a minority of senators - all, strangely enough, with the same letter after their names - seems to have stopped valuing popularity in direct proportion to the rapidity with which they themselves have hemorrhaged it.
Didn't think I could say "rapidity," didja? The President's been coaching me.
Jim-
That's Mr. Sondergeld to you.
Mr. Sondergeld, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?
Well, it would be nice if they would help clean up the mess that they've made. And that would go far beyond just the "Holy Flush" fraud. Time was when the media were just as scoop-happy and just as muckraking as they are now, but in time of war put patriotism above partisanship and profession. That time is long gone, and those right priorities have become completely inverted, to where a great many Americans are coming to the conclusion that you and your colleagues are, as it were, "fighting a different war" than the rest of us. And you're so rabidly engaged in this war that bringing down your enemy takes precedence over the interests of your own country and its fighting men and women in the real war that you people scarcely even recognize.
No need, I think, to be explicit about who that alternative "enemy" is. Not for "sophisticates" such as yourselves, anyway.
With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?
Well, the editors of Newsweek are criticizing the Pentagon for, in effect, not serving as their editors on this bogus "story." Maybe you should ask Mr. Whitaker whom he wants to fulfill that responsibility.
And do not, by the way, think that a two-word preface with "respect" in it covers such smart-assedness that is its diametric antithesis.
Like that? "Rapidity" and "antithesis" in the same briefing. My tongue is getting quite a workout, even without the lashing part.
Back on Newsweek. Richard Myers, last Thursday - I'm going to read you a quote from him. He said, "It's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran." He said it was "more tied up in the political process and reconciliation that President Karzai and his cabinet were conducting." And he said that that was from an after-action report he got that day.
So what has changed between last Thursday and today, five days later, to make you now think that those - that that violence was a result of Newsweek?
"Not necessarily" is an awfully skimpy clausal fig leaf for an entire "news" magazine to hide behind, wouldn't you agree?
But, to indulge your fratriphilia (next time bring your thesauruses, boys and girls), you must be familiar with the "spark igniting dry tinder" metaphor, right? Other factors may have had things simmering in Jalalabad, but this Newsweek blurb was either a random spark or a spark that was exploited and directed toward violent ends. In either case, the end result was the same: seventeen dead and over a hundred injured - so far.
Plus, as usual, you're not thinking big enough. Arab culture is largely predicated upon assuaging wounded religioethnic pride with soothing fictions that scapegoat outsiders ("infidels") and wallow in victimization. Bundle that with an already well-stoked hatred of "the Great Satan" in Islamist hotbeds, and throw the "Holy Flush" into the mix and you've got a rallying point our enemies can flog for years to come.
This is what made Newsweek's actions so irresponsible. It's the media that tells the rest of us incessantly how "parochial" the American people are, how "ignorant" they are of other cultures and pretty much anything beyond our borders, and yet it took a "story" that a trainee and two chimpanzees would know was a propaganda IED and in its eagerness to score another domestic political "gotcha" galloped ahead of any semblance of professionalism and played right into the terrorists' hands.
Their actions have damaged the goodwill the President has painstakingly built in Afghanistan over the past few years and increased the danger to Afghans and American service personnel.
We feel that they should be held to some sort of account for what they've done.
We're not their editors, to be sure, but what does it say about Newsweek that the editors they have are so woefully inadequate to the job?
Let me follow up on that. What - you said that - what specifically are you asking Newsweek to do? I mean, to follow up on Terry's question, are you saying they should write a story? Are you going that far? How else can Newsweek, you know, satisfy you here?
It's not a question of "satisfying" us. It's a question of doing what is right. It's a question of realizing that there are bigger, more important things than playing public relations whack-a-mole.
Frankly, it's a question of growing up.
Are you asking them to write a story?
That's up to them. Though I have to wonder of what value it would be if they did, given how little credibility they have left.
Again, you're missing the big picture. One more story won't make much of a difference at this point, however sincere and offered in good faith it might be. It would be, at best, a token gesture. It's the attitude that gave rise to this fiasco that needs to change. And we don't feel that conflicts at all with the Framers' intent of an independent media to keep the government on its toes.
If y'all would ever get that figured out, maybe the "new tone" the President tried to bring to this town could actually become a two-way street.
As far as the Newsweek article is concerned, first, how and where the story came from? And do you think somebody can investigate if it really happened at the base, and who told Newsweek? Because somebody wrote a story.
So you don't think we should be Newsweek's editors, but you do think we should be their fact-finders? Would that constitute a vicarious demotion?
The military keeps close tabs on all this sort of thing, in point of fact. Remember, the Abu Ghraib abuses were under investigation for a full six months before Mary Mapes ever got wind of them. Perhaps you might want to start granting the armed services the same benefit of the doubt that you do institutions against which you're less "adversarial," hmm?
And second thing is that it's not only Newsweek story.
Oh, goody, here comes the tangential segue!
In the past, well-known people who can make and break a society, they make statements against other religions, like Mr. Pat Robertson against Hinduism in the past. How can we prepare for the future all these stories, it doesn't happen again in the future? Do you think the President can come out and make sure, because that's what the Muslims are calling on the President to come out -
One, don't elect Revrund Pat president. Two, don't let Hindus convert en masse to Islam. As to the rest, you'd need to take that up with the editors of Newsweek, which, as you've so helpfully pointed out, do not include us.
If that's all the {snicker} questions, I think I need to indispose myself now.
[HT: Powerline]
posted by JASmius at 8:42 PM
<<< Home