Rep. Pelosi, Sen. Kerry, confront BushCo and media machine.. sort of...
THANK YOU, Rep. Conyers!
We went to the MSNBC web site, looking for some recap of Dem. House Minority Leader (i.e. Dem. congressional leader) Nancy Pelosi's appearance on "Meet the Press," but couldn't find more than a mention that, yes, Ms. Pelosi was on today - but no transcript or review.
Sorry, Rep. Pelosi.. you don't rate that high.
But in his op-ed posted on HuffingtonPost.com this Sunday afternoon, Rep. Conyers does indeed recap Rep. Pelosi's meeting on Meet the Press.
IN THE FIRST FOUR PARAGRAPHS, Rep. Conyers gets to heart of the matter, something that senate Democrats have studiously FAILED to notice for at least 5 years now:
When "meeting" Democrats, Tim Russert GRILLS THEM MERCILESSLY, over style, agenda, personalities, as well as particulars, but when Russert interviews Republicans, especially those close to the administration, he is all deferential, and NEVER, EVER, EVER asks tough follow-up questions.
Democrats SHOULD NEVER GO ON 'MEET THE WHORE' (er.."Meet the Press") if they are NOT PREPARED TO CONFRONT TIM RUSSERT and TURN THE TABLES on the (former Democrat) turncoat.
The all-time text-book example of Russert's DEFERENTIAL AIR for Republicans, and cold-edged stare and biting questions for Democrats, would be when he "MODERATED" the 2002 Florida gubanatorial debates between incumbent Gov. Jeb Bush, and Democratic challenger Bill McBride. Russert STARED INTO McBride and grilled him: "You, Mr. McBride, support the limited classroom-size amendment. Yet, WITH FLORIDA ALREADY IN DEFICT, HOW WOULD YOU PAY FOR THE AMENDMENT **WITHOUT RAISING TAXES**?
Unfortunately, McBride sputtered and tried to sound academic and reasonable. WRONG!
Moments later, Russert asked Jeb the SAME question - except it was not the same question, a slight difference in wording made AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT QUESTION:
"Gov. Bush, given that Florida already has huge deficits, how would you handle the classroom size amendment?"
NOTICE: In the question to Democrat McBride RUSSERT IS ACCUSATORY, and when asking 'the identical' question to the Republican, Russert IS DEFERENTIAL AND 'REASONABLE.'
WHAT BILL McBride SHOULD have done is simplicity itself: TURN THE QUESTION BACK, not only on Jeb Bush, BUT ON TIM RUSSERT!
>> "Mr. Russert, you just asked me how I would pay for the class size amendment given Florida's current deficits. WHY **DON'T YOU,** Mr. Russert, ask Governor Bush, 'Mr. Bush, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT BUDGET SURPLUS Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles handed you in 1998, and WHY DOES FLORIDA NOW HAVE HUGE DEFICITS with a REPUBLICAN House, REPUBLICAN state senate, and REPUBLICAN - yourself! in the governor's mansion?'"
SEE HOW EASY THAT IS?? WITH **ONE PARAGRAPH**, Bill McBride could have TURNED THE TABLES on BOTH Jeb Bush AND Tim Russert, and possibly won the FL governor's election in 2002.
Representative Conyers "GETS IT" - a quick review of his op-ed, shows that he REBUTS Russert's misleading commentary from the get-go.
*****************************
Meanwhile, Senator Kerry is up to his usual confusing tricks, "DEFENDING THE RIGHT OF DISSENT," without LEADING that dissent in a forceful and unambiguous manner.
Well, that's nice, Senator Kerry... BUT OUT OF THE 3-DOZEN ISSUES where George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney are either clearly breaking the law, clearly corrupt, clearly incompetent, or just plain cruel, WHY DON'T YOU lead the PR battle??
Senator Kerry, HAVE YOU NOTHING TO SHOUT about the BOTCHED Katrina disaster response, and ongoing New Orleans rebuilding fiasco?
Senator Kerry, HAVE YOU NOTHING to shout about TORTURE, with Americans now using SOVIET era KGB PRISONS?
Senator Kerry, HAVE YOU NOTHING TO SAY about SPYING on American homes and citizens, WITH NO WARRANTS or oversight to anyone but the imperious president?
Senator Kerry, HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE Sen. MURRAY AMENDMENT?
The one to fund $2.7 billion for our Iraq combat-war VETERANS? To pay for their neglected rehabilitation, salary shortfalls (from their civilian paychecks lost when activated for Iraq duty), and above all PTSD pyschological care and rehab and easing the transition to civilian life.
Mr. Kerry, this (Murray Amendment/neglected veterans) IS ONLY ONE ISSUE where the Repuglicans will DISRESPECT Americans, DISRESPECT voters, DISRESPECT constituents, even veterans, UNLESS SOMEONE PUTS UP ENOUGH OF A FIGHT to SHIFT the battleground, and FORCE the MEDIA to pay attention!
And, as with your urging college students to "SPEAK OUT," WITHOUT DOING SO YOURSELF, you are once again REPEATING YOUR FATAL MISTAKE FROM THE 2004 election: IF there isn't ONE ISSUE for you that is worth calling George W. Bush a liar or deceiver, THEN THERE IS NOT ONE ISSUE THAT YOU CARE ABOUT greatly.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Next: we come to the aid of the embattled "DC Democrats," and try to rebut the almost famous Markos Moulitsas of "the Daily Kos."
We greatly admire Daily Kos, and agree completely that the "DC Democrats" have been wishy-washy and enabling of the BushCo abuses, corruptions (and worse). But... check back tomorrow, Markos' "Jesse Jackson" agenda is even more unpopular than Joe Lieberman in "Daily Kos" circles!
And once again, THANK YOU, Rep. Conyers, for showing that "guts" and "democrats" are not mutually exclusive.
It's Checks and Balances, Mr. Russert
Rep. John Conyers
05.07.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-conyers/its-checks-and-balances_b_20549.html
It's not every day a Congressman from Detroit has his name mentioned on, not one, but two Sunday morning news shows.
First, on ABC's This Week, I was taken to task by none other than the soon-to-be-ex-Congressman Tom DeLay. Democrats should not be allowed to take back the House, he said. Why? Because, he claimed, "John Conyers will be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee if the Democrats take over.
John Conyers is to the left of your next guest, Howard Dean and he's already participated in mock impeachment hearings." Funny, I don't remember that hearing. I did organize a Democratic forum on the Downing Street Minutes, but that was not about impeachment, and the Republicans wouldn't even let us have a room for it.
Next, none other than Tim Russert launched an attack. While interviewing my Leader, Nancy Pelosi, Russert intoned ominously "The chair of the Judiciary cmte would be someone named John Conyers, I went to his website and this is what was on his website." He then showed the headline of my website where I call for the creation of a Sam Ervin-style bipartisan Committee, equally composed of Democrats and Republicans, to investigate pre-war manipulation of intelligence and other matters and, if warranted, to make recommendations to the Judiciary Committee on possible grounds for impeachment.
"That's the man who would be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee," Russert ominously declared. He then asked if "John Conyers should take down his website."
Perhaps Mr. Russert has forgotten, but I have been a Chairman before. For five years, from 1989 to 1994, I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, now called the Government Reform Committee. I have a record of trying to expose government waste, fraud and abuse.
That was back when Congress did something called "oversight." You know, in our tri-partite system of government, when Congress actually acted like a co-equal branch. The Republican Congress decided to be a rubber stamp for President Bush instead.
Perhaps, if we had a little oversight, we wouldn't be mired in a war based on false pretenses in which we have lost thousands of our brave men and women in uniform and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Perhaps we would not have had an energy policy drawn up in secret with oil company executives that has led to gas prices of more than three dollars per gallon.
Perhaps, if we had a little oversight, we wouldn't have a prescription drug plan written by the pharmaceutical companies, that prohibits the government from negotiating for lower prices with the same drug companies, and that no one really understands.
Perhaps, if we had a little oversight, we would know the extent to which our own government is spying on our phone calls, emails and other communications, contrary to the law of the land.
Oversight should not be a partisan undertaking. As we saw in the late 90's, when oversight is used out of anger or spite, or to gain partisan advantage, the American people express their strong disapproval.
Personally, I have had enough partisanship for the last six years to last a lifetime and I think we need to bring the American people back together.
But we also need to serve their interests. Congressional oversight is part of that. It is a check and balance, designed to protect the American people from too much power being concentrated in too few hands.
If I become a Chairman again, I intend to push for oversight of this Administration. Our Constitutional system of government requires no less.
We went to the MSNBC web site, looking for some recap of Dem. House Minority Leader (i.e. Dem. congressional leader) Nancy Pelosi's appearance on "Meet the Press," but couldn't find more than a mention that, yes, Ms. Pelosi was on today - but no transcript or review.
Sorry, Rep. Pelosi.. you don't rate that high.
But in his op-ed posted on HuffingtonPost.com this Sunday afternoon, Rep. Conyers does indeed recap Rep. Pelosi's meeting on Meet the Press.
IN THE FIRST FOUR PARAGRAPHS, Rep. Conyers gets to heart of the matter, something that senate Democrats have studiously FAILED to notice for at least 5 years now:
When "meeting" Democrats, Tim Russert GRILLS THEM MERCILESSLY, over style, agenda, personalities, as well as particulars, but when Russert interviews Republicans, especially those close to the administration, he is all deferential, and NEVER, EVER, EVER asks tough follow-up questions.
Democrats SHOULD NEVER GO ON 'MEET THE WHORE' (er.."Meet the Press") if they are NOT PREPARED TO CONFRONT TIM RUSSERT and TURN THE TABLES on the (former Democrat) turncoat.
The all-time text-book example of Russert's DEFERENTIAL AIR for Republicans, and cold-edged stare and biting questions for Democrats, would be when he "MODERATED" the 2002 Florida gubanatorial debates between incumbent Gov. Jeb Bush, and Democratic challenger Bill McBride. Russert STARED INTO McBride and grilled him: "You, Mr. McBride, support the limited classroom-size amendment. Yet, WITH FLORIDA ALREADY IN DEFICT, HOW WOULD YOU PAY FOR THE AMENDMENT **WITHOUT RAISING TAXES**?
Unfortunately, McBride sputtered and tried to sound academic and reasonable. WRONG!
Moments later, Russert asked Jeb the SAME question - except it was not the same question, a slight difference in wording made AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT QUESTION:
"Gov. Bush, given that Florida already has huge deficits, how would you handle the classroom size amendment?"
NOTICE: In the question to Democrat McBride RUSSERT IS ACCUSATORY, and when asking 'the identical' question to the Republican, Russert IS DEFERENTIAL AND 'REASONABLE.'
WHAT BILL McBride SHOULD have done is simplicity itself: TURN THE QUESTION BACK, not only on Jeb Bush, BUT ON TIM RUSSERT!
>> "Mr. Russert, you just asked me how I would pay for the class size amendment given Florida's current deficits. WHY **DON'T YOU,** Mr. Russert, ask Governor Bush, 'Mr. Bush, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT BUDGET SURPLUS Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles handed you in 1998, and WHY DOES FLORIDA NOW HAVE HUGE DEFICITS with a REPUBLICAN House, REPUBLICAN state senate, and REPUBLICAN - yourself! in the governor's mansion?'"
SEE HOW EASY THAT IS?? WITH **ONE PARAGRAPH**, Bill McBride could have TURNED THE TABLES on BOTH Jeb Bush AND Tim Russert, and possibly won the FL governor's election in 2002.
Representative Conyers "GETS IT" - a quick review of his op-ed, shows that he REBUTS Russert's misleading commentary from the get-go.
*****************************
Meanwhile, Senator Kerry is up to his usual confusing tricks, "DEFENDING THE RIGHT OF DISSENT," without LEADING that dissent in a forceful and unambiguous manner.
Well, that's nice, Senator Kerry... BUT OUT OF THE 3-DOZEN ISSUES where George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney are either clearly breaking the law, clearly corrupt, clearly incompetent, or just plain cruel, WHY DON'T YOU lead the PR battle??
Senator Kerry, HAVE YOU NOTHING TO SHOUT about the BOTCHED Katrina disaster response, and ongoing New Orleans rebuilding fiasco?
Senator Kerry, HAVE YOU NOTHING to shout about TORTURE, with Americans now using SOVIET era KGB PRISONS?
Senator Kerry, HAVE YOU NOTHING TO SAY about SPYING on American homes and citizens, WITH NO WARRANTS or oversight to anyone but the imperious president?
Senator Kerry, HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE Sen. MURRAY AMENDMENT?
The one to fund $2.7 billion for our Iraq combat-war VETERANS? To pay for their neglected rehabilitation, salary shortfalls (from their civilian paychecks lost when activated for Iraq duty), and above all PTSD pyschological care and rehab and easing the transition to civilian life.
Mr. Kerry, this (Murray Amendment/neglected veterans) IS ONLY ONE ISSUE where the Repuglicans will DISRESPECT Americans, DISRESPECT voters, DISRESPECT constituents, even veterans, UNLESS SOMEONE PUTS UP ENOUGH OF A FIGHT to SHIFT the battleground, and FORCE the MEDIA to pay attention!
And, as with your urging college students to "SPEAK OUT," WITHOUT DOING SO YOURSELF, you are once again REPEATING YOUR FATAL MISTAKE FROM THE 2004 election: IF there isn't ONE ISSUE for you that is worth calling George W. Bush a liar or deceiver, THEN THERE IS NOT ONE ISSUE THAT YOU CARE ABOUT greatly.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Next: we come to the aid of the embattled "DC Democrats," and try to rebut the almost famous Markos Moulitsas of "the Daily Kos."
We greatly admire Daily Kos, and agree completely that the "DC Democrats" have been wishy-washy and enabling of the BushCo abuses, corruptions (and worse). But... check back tomorrow, Markos' "Jesse Jackson" agenda is even more unpopular than Joe Lieberman in "Daily Kos" circles!
And once again, THANK YOU, Rep. Conyers, for showing that "guts" and "democrats" are not mutually exclusive.
It's Checks and Balances, Mr. Russert
Rep. John Conyers
05.07.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-conyers/its-checks-and-balances_b_20549.html
It's not every day a Congressman from Detroit has his name mentioned on, not one, but two Sunday morning news shows.
First, on ABC's This Week, I was taken to task by none other than the soon-to-be-ex-Congressman Tom DeLay. Democrats should not be allowed to take back the House, he said. Why? Because, he claimed, "John Conyers will be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee if the Democrats take over.
John Conyers is to the left of your next guest, Howard Dean and he's already participated in mock impeachment hearings." Funny, I don't remember that hearing. I did organize a Democratic forum on the Downing Street Minutes, but that was not about impeachment, and the Republicans wouldn't even let us have a room for it.
Next, none other than Tim Russert launched an attack. While interviewing my Leader, Nancy Pelosi, Russert intoned ominously "The chair of the Judiciary cmte would be someone named John Conyers, I went to his website and this is what was on his website." He then showed the headline of my website where I call for the creation of a Sam Ervin-style bipartisan Committee, equally composed of Democrats and Republicans, to investigate pre-war manipulation of intelligence and other matters and, if warranted, to make recommendations to the Judiciary Committee on possible grounds for impeachment.
"That's the man who would be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee," Russert ominously declared. He then asked if "John Conyers should take down his website."
Perhaps Mr. Russert has forgotten, but I have been a Chairman before. For five years, from 1989 to 1994, I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, now called the Government Reform Committee. I have a record of trying to expose government waste, fraud and abuse.
That was back when Congress did something called "oversight." You know, in our tri-partite system of government, when Congress actually acted like a co-equal branch. The Republican Congress decided to be a rubber stamp for President Bush instead.
Perhaps, if we had a little oversight, we wouldn't be mired in a war based on false pretenses in which we have lost thousands of our brave men and women in uniform and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Perhaps we would not have had an energy policy drawn up in secret with oil company executives that has led to gas prices of more than three dollars per gallon.
Perhaps, if we had a little oversight, we wouldn't have a prescription drug plan written by the pharmaceutical companies, that prohibits the government from negotiating for lower prices with the same drug companies, and that no one really understands.
Perhaps, if we had a little oversight, we would know the extent to which our own government is spying on our phone calls, emails and other communications, contrary to the law of the land.
Oversight should not be a partisan undertaking. As we saw in the late 90's, when oversight is used out of anger or spite, or to gain partisan advantage, the American people express their strong disapproval.
Personally, I have had enough partisanship for the last six years to last a lifetime and I think we need to bring the American people back together.
But we also need to serve their interests. Congressional oversight is part of that. It is a check and balance, designed to protect the American people from too much power being concentrated in too few hands.
If I become a Chairman again, I intend to push for oversight of this Administration. Our Constitutional system of government requires no less.
posted by verifi at 12:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home