Posts Tagged ‘Conservatives & Republicans’
« Older Entries

Bob Schieffer, CBS

In his end-of-the-show commentary on Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer cited a Saturday New York Times article celebrating retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "that Justice Stevens 'may be the last justice from a time when ability and independence, rather than perceived ideology, were viewed as the crucial qualifications for a seat on the court.'"

Schieffer agreed with that assessment and declared that for President Gerald Ford "sending John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court is not a bad legacy." He concluded: "As Justice Stevens's fine service was being rightly celebrated last week, I couldn't help but think of that as well."

Prior to his commentary, Schieffer spoke with CBS legal analyst Jan Crawford about possible nominees to replace Stevens. Crawford argued that President Obama and Democrats would attempt to "counter" Republican efforts to "beat up on their candidate," "by continuing to portray the Supreme Court as out of touch with everyday Americans."

As an example of that strategy, Crawford pointed to Obama berating the court over its recent campaign finance decision: "We saw the President take that unprecedented swipe at the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address back in January, when he talked about their recent campaign finance ruling that allowed unlimited spending by corporations and unions. That decision is enormously unpopular with the American people. Polls show 70 to 80% of people oppose that."

Crawford later noted: "You're going to see the White House continue to beat that drum through this nomination process and into these confirmation hearings. They're going to have a nominee that they think can prove that Democrats, not Republicans, understand everyday Americans."

Schieffer wondered about the "leading contenders" for the nomination and Crawford listed the top three, claiming all would have some conservative support:

Jan Crawford, CBS

Merrick Garland, who's a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., considered probably the easiest to confirm, more moderate than some of the other candidates. And someone that Republicans probably would accept. So that would disappoint the base.

And there's a lot of call inside the White House and inside the administration for another woman. Remember, out of nine justices, only two are women. So that points to Elena Kagan. She's the solicitor general. She argues the United States' position in the Supreme Court. She was the former dean of Harvard Law School. And she's got some support among conservatives because she hired a lot of those conservative law professors at Harvard and really brought that school together, could maybe also could build some alliances once on the Supreme Court.

And then finally, there's Diane Wood, she's a federal appeals court judge in Chicago. Very highly regarded. Works well. Very highly regarded by her conservative colleagues on that court. You know, Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner, also a professor from the University of Chicago, taught antitrust law. But she's been sitting out there on that appeals court and has had some controversial decisions on things like abortion. So I think she might be a fight.

Schieffer went on to claim that any Republican strategy to oppose a nominee would be "tricky." Crawford described circumstances in which Republicans may seek a filibuster: "A lot people on the left would like to see someone who's very, very progressive to lead the liberal wing and go toe-to-toe with John Roberts. Kind of the equivalent legal liberal. But he would be filibustered. Republicans would block that nomination." That implies that Chief Justice Roberts is "very, very" conservative and in need of being balanced.

Crawford concluded that Obama and the Democrats: "don't want that kind of fight. They want someone that they're going to get confirmed at the end of the day....you take who is the most progressive liberal that can affect the court in a strategic way versus who can you get confirmed."

Here is a full transcript of Schieffer's discussion with Crawford:

10:47AM TEASE:

BOB SCHIEFFER: And we're joined now by our chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford, who's here to talk about the other big story of the week, the retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

10:48AM SEGMENT:

SCHIEFFER: Well, Jan, let's get to your – your big story. When do we expect the White House to act on this? My sense is that they're going to move as quickly as they can, and the nominee is going to be someone as non-controversial as possible, because the one thing they don't need right now is a big fight going into the mid- term elections.

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, the President said on Friday that he'd be looking to nominate a candidate within the weeks to come. I think we'll definitely have a nominee by Memorial Day.
They don't want to do it too soon because that gives the Republicans a chance to beat up on their candidate in advance of the hearings, which can't take place until July. Justice Stevens is not officially retiring until the end of the court's term in June.

And this comes, I think, at a tricky time for the White House and for Democrats in general, because every second that they spend not talking about jobs and trying to sell an unpopular health care plan are, in many ways, a boon to Republicans. And one way I think they're going to counter that, my sources say, is by continuing to portray the Supreme Court as out of touch with everyday Americans.

We saw the President take that unprecedented swipe at the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address back in January, when he talked about their recent campaign finance ruling that allowed unlimited spending by corporations and unions. That decision is enormously unpopular with the American people. Polls show 70 to 80% of people oppose that. And the key thing that he said on Friday – that the President said, when he was talking about Justice Stevens's retirement, was about that ruling. Let's take a listen to that clip.

BARACK OBAMA: It will also be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in a democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.

CRAWFORD: Now just like you said earlier, things don't happen by accident in Washington. That statement was calculated and deliberate. You're going to see the White House continue to beat that drum through this nomination process and into these confirmation hearings. They're going to have a nominee that they think can prove that Democrats, not Republicans, understand everyday Americans.

SCHIEFFER: So let's talk about who. Who would you say are the leading contenders right now?

CRAWFORD: Well, they're – my sources say that there's a kind of fluid list right now of 10 candidates. But already intense vetting is under way. Some of those people are there really as a courtesy. Intense vetting is under way. And they're focusing on three candidates at this point. Not ruling people out at this point, but I think three people are really emerging as ones that we really need to focus on.

Merrick Garland, who's a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., considered probably the easiest to confirm, more moderate than some of the other candidates. And someone that Republicans probably would accept. So that would disappoint the base.

And there's a lot of call inside the White House and inside the administration for another woman. Remember, out of nine justices, only two are women. So that points to Elena Kagan. She's the solicitor general. She argues the United States' position in the Supreme Court. She was the former dean of Harvard Law School. And she's got some support among conservatives because she hired a lot of those conservative law professors at Harvard and really brought that school together, could maybe also could build some alliances once on the Supreme Court.

And then finally, there's Diane Wood, she's a federal appeals court judge in Chicago. Very highly regarded. Works well. Very highly regarded by her conservative colleagues on that court. You know, Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner, also a professor from the University of Chicago, taught antitrust law. But she's been sitting out there on that appeals court and has had some controversial decisions on things like abortion. So I think she might be a fight.

SCHIEFFER: This is going to be a tricky thing for Republicans too, the strategy here. Do you expect them to put up a huge fight? Is there any chance that they would try to filibuster this?

CRAWFORD: Well, sure. I mean, they could filibuster a really controversial nominee. Let's say someone like Harold Koh, who's the head of the – the chief lawyer in the State Department, former dean of Harvard Law School. A lot people on the left would like to see someone who's very, very progressive to lead the liberal wing and go toe-to-toe with John Roberts. Kind of the equivalent legal liberal. But he would be filibustered. Republicans would block that nomination.

And I don't think there's any indication at all the White House would nominate him. They don't want that kind of fight. They want someone that they're going to get confirmed at the end of the day. And when they start gaming this out, they're going to try to get the best, most – it's almost like charting it out on a graph. You know, you take who is the most progressive liberal that can affect the court in a strategic way versus who can you get confirmed. And they'll plot that out when they make that decision.

SCHIEFFER: Is it your sense they can get this done before the congressional recess in August?

CRAWFORD: Oh, yes, and that's what they want to do. And in his note to the White House, Justice Stevens made clear that he was giving them the heads up so that that could happen, they could have this process get started and have someone confirmed before August.

SCHIEFFER: Alright. Jan Crawford, thank you so much.

RSS General No Comments »

On Wednesday's The O'Reilly Factor on FNC, substitute host Laura Ingraham and FNC analyst Bernard Goldberg discussed the mainstream media's double standard in highlighting bad behavior by extreme and atypical members of the Tea Party movement while ignoring bad behavior by left-wing protesters. After showing a clip of anti-war protesters burning an American flag and shouting incendiary accusations about the CIA and the war on terrorism, Ingraham observed: "That video was striking. And the sentiment expressed, the vile comments. But you've got to search for the coverage of that. I mean, you had to, you had to hunt, with those little metal detectors, to find that coverage anywhere."

Goldberg complained about media treatment of Tea Party activists: "These fringe events at Tea Party rallies, whether they're nasty signs or these alleged shouting of racial slurs, which I am convinced at this point never happened, this fits into the narrative of most mainstream news reporters, that the Tea Party people are not too smart, they're bigots. So when you see a nasty sign, which I'm against and you're against, but when you see one of these signs, they report it as, if not typical, certainly not unusual."

Goldberg soon highlighted charges of racism by conservative activists recently made by Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen, and noted the irony that Cohen himself has been the target of racist and anti-Semitic attacks by fellow Democrats who want his predominantly black congressional district in Tennessee to elect a black candidate in his place. Goldberg:

Steve Cohen is a white Jewish guy representing a predominantly black district in Tennessee, in Memphis. Two years ago, he ran in the Democratic primary against a black woman, and a black minister sent out fliers, saying, "Don't vote for Steve Cohen" -- are you ready for this? -- "Because Steve Cohen and the Jews" -- that's a quote -- "hate Jesus." Wonderful. This year, he's running against a black former mayor of Memphis who -- in the Democratic primary, and that person says we need a black person in this seat. And his campaign manager, another black person, says this seat was set aside, this seat was set aside for black people. Now, Steve Cohen, what does he do when, when he's confronted with this kind of racism aimed at him? He turns it around and calls racist names to the Tea Party people.

Below is a complete transcript of the relevant segment from the Wednesday, April 7, The O'Reilly Factor on FNC: 

LAURA INGRAHAM: In the "Weekdays with Bernie" segment tonight, the Factor's been looking at the coverage of the Tea Party movement, with many outlets making a big deal out of the alleged racial incidents at the Capitol Hill protests during the health care vote. But around the same time, this vile anti-war demonstration took place near the White House.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE, HOLDING AMERICAN FLAG: We're going to show what you this flag means to us right now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: George Bush and Dick Cheney are still at large. They are fugitives from justice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They capture goat herders in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they send them to Gitmo where the CIA comes in and has them raped, has them raped. They bring in prostitutes to rape these deeply religious men.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, HOLDING BURNING FLAG: We are done being servants to an unrighteous cause, and this flag is no longer my master.

INGRAHAM: Didn't hear much about that now, did we? Joining us now from Miami is Fox News media analyst Bernie Goldberg, whose column on the Tea Party coverage can be found on BernardGoldberg.com. Now, Bernie, that video was striking. And the sentiment-

BERNIE GOLDBERG, FOX NEWS ANALYST: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: -expressed, the vile comments. But you've got to search for the coverage of that. I mean, you had to, you had to hunt, with those little metal detectors, to find that coverage anywhere. What gives?

GOLDBERG: Right. Let me see if I understand this. Every fringe event at a Tea Party rally, real or imagined -- real or imagined -- is covered by the "lamestream media," but flag burning at an anti-war rally isn't covered. And, you know, I've been thinking about, well, why is this? Well, because these fringe events at Tea Party rallies, whether they're nasty signs or these alleged shouting of racial slurs, which I am convinced at this point never happened, this fits into the narrative of most mainstream news reporters, that the Tea Party people are not too smart, they're bigots. So when you see a nasty sign, which I'm against and you're against, but when you see one of these signs, they report it as, if not typical, certainly not unusual. But when you see the flag burning, and just so you know my take on this, while I'm against flag burning, I think it is protected speech by the First Amendment. That's not the point, though. When you see flag burning, they ignore it because-

INGRAHAM: Makes the left look bad. It makes the left look bad. That's why they ignore it, Bernie. It makes those, makes those people in the media who support the left look bad, too, by association, right?

GOLDBERG: And I'll give you a specific person that it makes look bad. After the election, after the inauguration, rather, my book, A Slobbering Love Affair came out. The theme of the book is that the mainstream media early on went into the tank for Barack Obama. So now you have Tea Party people, who are not only against big government, but they're against Barack Obama. So anything you could do to make them look bad, and make their fringe events look typical, you'll do it. And this is why Bill O'Reilly and you know, you know Bill. He sits in for you on this show every now and then.

INGRAHAM: I'm in trouble now.

GOLDBERG: That's why Bill O'Reilly and I say, say it has moved from near bias to corruption. That's a big leap. But they made the leap.

INGRAHAM: Bernie, I love some of the headlines, and I'm going to get into this Steve Cohen issue. I love some of the headlines here. "Black Congressmen Run Gauntlet of Racial Slurs," "Tea Party Turns Into Klan Rally," "Racism Simmers Below the Surface on Health Care." It's always the worst motive. And you see that, the famous shouting video that somehow turned into a spitting video. And just to, just to refocus on what you said earlier, Bernie, you think that these allegations made by John Lewis and other things that were said never happened. Now, why do you think that?

GOLDBERG: Well, I'm not sure John Lewis ever said they happened, as a matter of fact. One congressman from Nevada, I think, a black congressman, said he heard the "N" word shouted 15 times. Well, you know what? That's a lot of times for somebody to be shouting a nasty thing like that. You think somebody would have heard it. John Lewis, whose politics I have said I don't buy, but I've known him for a long time. I used to work in the South for CBS News. I think he's a man of integrity. Let him come on your radio show, this television show. Let him go on CNN, anyplace.

INGRAHAM: And hear about it.

GOLDBERG: Yes, because he hasn't said that yet. The spitting incident, when you hear that a white guy spit at a black congressman, then you have a certain image. But that's not what happened. That's not, even if the guy got some saliva on the congressman, which is rude, that isn't racist.

INGRAHAM: That's Barney Frank on any given interview, so I wouldn't worry about that. Congressman Steve Cohen, though, you want to get into this because he gave a radio interview yesterday, getting a lot of heat for it. Tell us about it, the Democrat from Tennessee.

GOLDBERG: While we're looking at him, let me read you what he said. He said, "The Tea Party people are kind of without robes and hoods. They have really shown a really hard-core, angry side of America that is against any type of diversity. We saw opposition to African-Americans, hostility towards gays, hostility to anybody who wasn't, you know, a clone of George Wallace's fan club." Okay, so the Tea Party people to Congressman Cohen are a bunch of Ku Klux Klansmen.

INGRAHAM: Have the water cannons out, yes.

GOLDBERG: Yes, except this is obviously liberal hate speech. And since liberals are so concerned about civility, it would be nice if at least one of them came out and denounced this. But here's the really interesting part. This is the interesting part. Steve Cohen is a white Jewish guy representing a predominantly black district in Tennessee, in Memphis. Two years ago, he ran in the Democratic primary against a black woman, and a black minister sent out fliers, saying, "Don't vote for Steve Cohen" -- are you ready for this? -- "Because Steve Cohen and the Jews" -- that's a quote -- "hate Jesus." Wonderful. This year, he's running against a black former mayor of Memphis who -- in the Democratic primary, and that person says we need a black person in this seat. And his campaign manager, another black person, says this seat was set aside, this seat was set aside for black people. Now, Steve Cohen, what does he do when, when he's confronted with this kind of racism aimed at him? He turns it around and calls racist names to the Tea Party people.

INGRAHAM: Classic.

GOLDBERG: And he does it just to win a stinking election. That is really disgraceful.

INGRAHAM: No, it's classic. But this is the last desperate card that is always thrown down in these types of incidents. And Bernie, we appreciate it as always.

GOLDBERG: Thanks, Laura.

RSS General No Comments »

« Older Entries