I'm not finding any differences. The vitriol is the same.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Posted on 09/23/2005 11:31:41 AM PDT by smoothsailing
September 23, 2005, 10:55 a.m.
The Roberts Disruption
A few years ago, checking in with the office, I was told I had a telephone call from Norman Lear. I immediately returned it, and probably my voice quavered.
The very thought of being in personal touch with the producer of All in the Family! My all-time favorite television program. "What," I asked unctuously, "can I do for you?" "Well," he said, "I would like you to be the keynote speaker at the annual banquet of People for the American Way."
I wondered how Archie Bunker would have responded to such a request, mutatis mutandis. If I had the powers of Carroll O'Connor to register bewilderment/surprise/stupefaction, the expression on my face would have flowed, coast to coast, over the telephone line.
"Mr. Lear — "
"Norman."
"Well, Norman, it wouldn't be right for me to address People for the American Way."
Why not? he asked. All I had to do was give a speech about free speech.
It was with difficulty that I explained to him that his organization was devoted in almost all matters to promoting the opposite of what I have spent my life championing.
He seemed genuinely surprised. And in this morning's papers I read that he called together his circle in Hollywood to register his dismay at the nomination of John Roberts to serve on the Supreme Court. After Senator Leahy announced that he would vote to confirm Roberts, Mr. Lear's — Norman's — organization described that decision as "inexplicable." The news story recounting the event went on to report that "some Democratic activists are already warning that these votes could affect turnout in the 2006 midterm elections."
"It's not right," as Archie would say, to engage in tu quoque argumentation, but I break the rule to say that, talking of inexplicability, it is very close to that to suggest that any vote against Judge Roberts is motivated by anything at all except rank and mindless opposition to anything proposed by President Bush. The qualifications of Judge Roberts are clear beyond any reasonable question. Short of repealing that clause in the Constitution that gives the president authority to nominate members of the Supreme Court, how else deny Roberts?
What is in the political wings is something like an early polarization among Democrats. Senator Edward Kennedy is pretty steadfast as an undeviating leftist, and although Judge Roberts was tender as a lamb in replying to his questions during the hearings, Roberts, speaking extemporaneously, did everything this side of taking Senator Kennedy's written text and correcting its historical errors, to treat him as an informed interrogator. But there were a half dozen Democratic senators waiting to follow Kennedy's lead.
It is too early to know whether the effort at consolidating the Democratic Party in its left-lurch is going to succeed. It is a polarization without, at this moment, hard resistance from the center. Senator Leahy said he would support Roberts, but managed to appease the left by saying unpleasant things about the judge's record. Several senators are being courted by the left, among them Durbin and Schumer and Lautenberg, and there will be a substantial vote in opposition.
It has the dawning feel of the separatism of 1947-48. The hard left back then pressed for either appeasement of the Soviet Union, or else submission to it. They had a candidate then — Henry Wallace — and don't have one now.
Senator Kerry's ungoverned hostility to President Bush edges him toward supremacy among the Bush haters, but it is not clear that these are definitely en route to governing the Democratic Party. What cause would the left seek out, in a bid for national control first of the Democratic Party, then of the nation?
Norman Lear is not, for all his affability and innocence, the stuff of which grand secessions are made. He is more in the school of Kerensky than of Lenin. And it is too early to discern what will be the vote of Democrats at large on the matter of John Roberts's nomination. If Roberts were to fail of confirmation, then a political front would have opened up.
But Roberts, inexplicable as it may be, isn't going to fail, so the Democrats will not be able to use him as the great cause for dissension from the American way.
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200509231055.asp
"Wha-wha-what?!?!?"
- Howard Dean
It is a little astonishing. Lear is one of those libs who dissociate ideals from practical consequences and as a result hold themselves blameless when their policies cause more harm than good. Children do that a lot.
Hey, be fair - you throw Kucinich in there and you have to normalize for species as well.
You don't feel that Kucinich groundswell.
How could I possibly feel the Kucinich groudswell, when I’m being swept up in Lieberman’s “Joementum”?
Besides, I don't think Dennis scored with any chicks the last time he ran. The poor guy deserves another chance.
Sowell's "Vision of the Anointed" in a nutshell.
The Democrats already have someone they can get behind. He has been there right under their noses.
RALPH NADER IN 2008!!!
Wow, I hadn't thought of that element of "strategery" - the hardcore dems, having been whipped into an anti-Roberts frenzy, stay away from the voting booths in disgust at Senators who cast a principled and correct vote in favor of Roberts' confirmation.
I wonder if the Pubbies will pick up a seat or two in the Senate in '06?
Ralph Nader/Phil Donahue '08
Lear's idea of free speech is to protect the speech he likes and to bar that which he doesn't.
"Ralph Nader/Phil Donahue '08"
Gore/Boxer 08
Gore/Clinton 08
Clinton/Boxer
Clinton/Feinstein
Biden/Nader
Clinton/Rishardson (this will be the ticket)
Biden/Richardson
Kerry/Richardson
Gore/Edwards
I don't know. Anyway you slice it, you still have crap on both sides.
ROTFLMAO!
Good call, WFB!
A: I always feel smarter after reading WFB
B: WFB is one of those rare individuals who, when I read their work, I hear their voice in my head.
Searching my mind, what there is left.. didnt he used to be a big republican mucky muck.. back when the republican party was right of center.. You know; back when TAXES was a bad word.. and communism was socialism.. and John Birch was saying America would become what it is NOW..
seek help
I'm not finding any differences. The vitriol is the same.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.