Scalia: "Get over" 2000 election decision

The insipid Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears Sunday night on 60 Minutes, and Leslie Stahl asks him about Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decision that effectively stopped the Florida recount in 2000. His response: "Get over it," and he also gives a similar answer to a small group, and afterward, says, "So there."

What a clown. Scalia represents another of the disastrous legacies of President Reagan that we all should be so grateful for. It's too bad that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, because if they weren't, he probably would've been bounced from the bench a long time ago.

I'm amused by Scalia's disingenuous retort that "Gore brought it [the 2000 election] into the courts. What were we supposed to do?" I obviously haven't seen the whole interview yet, but I hope that Stahl pressed him on this point - the reason that Al Gore did just that is because he was getting royally screwed in Florida by faulty voting machines, and many, many voting irregularities.

It almost is too obvious to mention that if the Supreme Court case in 2000 involved Bush's supporters being disenfranchised, as Gore's supporters actually were, you can bet that recount would have happened.

Another side note about judges - it will never cease to amaze me how Dubya puts down lawyers and judges - especially judges. Any judge who renders a decision he doesn't like is an "activist judge," but when a judge rules in a way Bush approves of, his mouth is taped shut. I wish someone would have pointed out to Our National Embarrassment a long time ago that it was judges and lawyers who put him into office in the first place, so before he goes putting them down, he should consider that. (A great time to do this would have been in '04, when Bush mocked John Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, as a "trial lawyer" in just about every debate, especially during questions about tort and medical malpractice reform. Another missed opportunity by Kerry. Sadly, there were more than a few of those.)

Despite the smug Scalia's dismissive comments, we aren't getting over it, and the biggest reason, at least for me, is because I can't help but wonder what kind of a country we would be living in had Gore become president in 2000. Some things very well may have happened, including 9/11, but the War in Iraq almost certainly would not have, along with a laundry list of other unfortunate events these last 7+ years.

Anyway, I bring up issues like this, because if McSame is elected, we are going to have a Supreme Court with plenty of more judges like Scalia.

And that's one scary thought.

Katie BOORic out of line with Edwardses

I haven't been this angry about a 60 Minutes piece since Leslie Stahl interviewed Nancy Pelosi about a week before the 2006 election and focused on her clothes and appearance with superficial, irrelevant and insulting questions and comments. However, Couric trumped that disgrace ten-fold with her interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards on Sunday night.

One of the things that annoyed me most about this interview was Couric's use of the Fersatz News Channel's well known tactic of beginning questions with "some would say" and "many are saying." That's just euphemism for "I think you should be home, Elizabeth" or "Are you sure you want to continue the campaign?" or "Should you be doing this?"

I guess I sound like a paranoid, whining Republican, many of whom have made calling the media "liberal" a cliché.

Before I take off on a serious rant, I understand that Katie Couric has a fair amount of expertise and personal experience with cancer. I'm certainly not without sympathy or empathy for all that she's endured as a wife and mother after her husband Jay Monahan passed away from colon cancer in 1998. She also lost her sister, Emily, to pancreatic cancer in 2001. And, from all that I've seen and read, she's been a wonderful mom to her children, especially in light of them losing their father at such a tragically young age.

Couric also deserves unequivocal praise for her work on behalf of cancer. She's had a mammogram and also a colonoscopy on the air while hosting NBC's Today Show. She's brought a lot of visibility, attention and awareness to cancer.

Aside from all of that, though, I still don't see how that gave her the right to be a bulldog to John and Elizabeth Edwards like she did on Sunday night.

Couric falls just short of openly criticizing Elizabeth Edwards for not being at home with her kids. From what I've read, Couric didn't leave her job for any length of time at The Today Show when her husband was diagnosed with cancer. It's a wonder what nannies can do, huh Katie? Why should the Edwardses be held to a different standard, because they both committed to public service? They shouldn't.

I wonder how Couric would have felt if a reporter asked her similar questions when her husband was diagnosed with colon cancer. Picture reporters sticking microphones in her face, asking her all sorts of questions about why she wasn't home with her husband and children. She would have resented it, and rightfully so.

What's more, John and Elizabeth Edwards are certainly setting out to do more by serving their country as opposed to doing a morning show with Matt Lauer for 15 years. I see footage like this, and it's little wonder Couric's CBS Evening News is tanking.

What irked me most was how Couric openly questioned whether Edwards could run the country while distracted [with Elizabeth's illness]. Couric might want to pick up a history book.

Here are just a few off the top of my head...

If Elizabeth Edwards' health is such a concern, how about Dick Cheney's? He was recently hospitalized for blood clots in his leg, and he has a history of heart attacks and coronary problems. Let's not forget that Cheney is without a doubt the most powerful vice president in modern times, maybe ever. And he's one tragedy away from the presidency.

Where's Couric with a question about Cheney's health? Keeping up with all of the scandals that are plaguing Dick's administration has got to be taking a toll on his health, so maybe it should be a concern.

President Reagan had three major operations while in office, including an operation for colon cancer. Yes, there were stories in the press about it, but not the kind of media attention that Elizabeth Edwards is getting. Funny how the press didn't question whether he should remain as president or not.

President Nixon had a very serious phlebitis that could have killed him while he was president, but admittedly those health problems occurred late in his presidency, when the nation's attention was on Watergate.

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson had a record of serious health problems before and during their presidencies, and none, save FDR, affected the presidency. In FDR's case, he was clearly dying even before the election of 1944, but the nation was reluctant to change leaders during World War II, and his health was hid from the nation during that election.

But, the cases above were pre-Watergate, after which just about anything has been fair game to report in the media.

Having said all of that, it's absurd and insulting to believe that John Edwards could not effectively function as a leader while dealing with his wife's illness if he were to win the 2008 election.

If anyone's health should be speculated on and raised as an issue in this campaign, it's John McCain's. He's been treated for recurrent skin cancer, including melanoma, in 1993, 2000, and 2002. What's more, he will turn 72 in 2009, the year he would take the oath of office if he wins the 2008 presidential election. I'm not saying McCain's health should be an issue in this campaign, but it most certainly should be more of an issue than Elizabeth Edwards'.

To his credit, since his interview with his wife on 60 Minutes, John Edwards has come out and publicly stated he didn't have a problem with the questions. But, keep in mind he's running for office, and he wants to demonstrate that he can handle the tough questions.

The Couric interview was inexcusable - CBS should have known better.

Leslie Stahl latest CBS disgrace

Above is Part I of a a 60 Minutes interview of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi by Leslie Stahl this past Sunday.

I can honestly say that I haven't been more appalled at a 60 Minutes interview in a long time. Stahl might just as well have been working for the Republican National Committee. Don't get me wrong, I've got no issue or problem with a tough interview or probing questions of a politician affiliated with any political party - that's what journalists are for. But, Stahl revealed her bias with idiotic and leading questions and comments that had me wheeling me around in my chair. (I was listening more than watching; Sunday is often a busy day of writing and planning.) First, take a look at part II:



I'll get to the specific questions and comments I found highly dubious in a minute. However, after watching the interview, I'm wondering why CBS would air such an interview with such an outrageous slant and bias. We'll probably never find out, but I'll suggest a two-word motive - Dan Rather. Ever since Rather aired an unflattering story before the '04 presidential election about President Bush's time in the Air National Guard based on questionable documents, the network has been dogged with accusations of liberal bias.

Perhaps CBS thinks it can placate the far right with interviews like this one?

In short, Stahl is embarrassing herself and CBS News. Stahl begins her interview with this whopper: "I mean, you're one of the reasons we have to restore civility in the first place". Correct me if I'm wrong, Leslie, but it's Republicans who have controlled the House since 1994, and it's the GOP that has been setting the partisan tone in the House. Sure, the Democrats can take part of the blame, too, but wasn't it the Republicans who led the witch hunt against Clinton? Isn't it the GOP who have been ramming bills though Congress, mostly without reaching across the aisle and even working with Democrats? Isn't it the GOP that has been rocked by scandals, be it Mark Foley, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, etc?

It looks like 60 Minutes should restore civility to its show by yanking Stahl from its line of traditionally respected correspondents. That's certainly an opinion she could have and should have kept to herself. Can you just imagine the cries of "liberal media" if Stahl led off an interview with, say, Vice President Dick Cheney with a comment that he's one of the reasons we have to restore civility in Washington? Rush Limbaugh would have wet his pants and popped 10 Oxycontin.

At the top of the interview, after Stahl makes the absurd "restore civility" comment, she just gets rolling. I love it when she asks Pelosi about the names she's called the president, Pelosi said, "Oh, I was being nice when I said those things." Stahl voices over, "Oh reeealllly?!?" Someone correct me - does Stahl now work for Karl Rove or the Republican National Convention?

It gets worse. Stahl then asks Pelosi, with a straight face, "How are you going to work with him [the president]?" I find this amusing, since this administration hasn't really given too much thought to working with Democrats since Bush took office. In short, it's because Bush hasn't had to; he's enjoyed an almost total domination of Congress by the GOP since he was appointed president. It sounds like Bush, if the Democrats take back one or both Houses of Congress, is the one who's gonna have to worry about working with Democrats. And it will be an uphill battle indeed, since Bush and Karl Rove has spent almost six years pissing in the eyes of political opponents whenever they've had the chance.

Hey, I've got no problem with Stahl being a conservative, if she is in fact one, but the entire tone of this interview and broadcast is sickening. Later, in the interview, Stahl comments that Pelosi was pregnant while she was working, and then almost forces Pelosi's daughter to defend her mother on camera that they were amazingly still “fed and clothed” while Pelosi worked. What the hell are we in, the 1950s again?

Oh, there's more that got me full hot about this interview. How about Stahl's comments about Pelosi's clothes and how much she eats? Is that relevant in any way tp this piece? (A few quick examples by Stahl: "Here's Pelosi in Armani" and "Here she is in Cowboy boots" and "She ate not one but two pork chops.") I ask you, if this interview were about a man, would ANY of these comments been made about clothes or eating habits? Without question, no. Stahl's comments do nothing to add to the piece; they merely add to the perception that this is a Pelosi hatchet job (oh CHRIST, I sound like Bill O'Lielly now).

One would think that in the 21st century, a woman journalist would not put such ridiculous questions and comments in a broadcast about a potential first female Speaker of the House in U.S. history. Pelosi, if she does get elected the next Speaker if the Democrats take back the House, would signify a significant leap forward for all women. What kind of message is Stahl sending by asking such misogynistic questions? Not a good one. Stahl might as well have been a man circa 1955 wearing a wife beater, bellowing from the couch, "Get me another beer, bitch! When's dinner gonna be ready?!?"

I'm curious if Stahl would have treated woman pioneers Sally Ride, Sandra Day O'Connor or Madeleine Albright this way? I seriously doubt it.

Stahl ought to be ashamed of herself. I bet Stahl's daugher is real proud of this interview.

However, the Pelosi hysteria on 60 Minutes if just a small snippet of the drumbeats of doom that are being pounded hourly about a potential Pelosi speakership. Who can we count on to keep the "liberal hysteria" going? Why Bill O'Lielly, of course! Take a listen, and I won't even comment - the piece speaks for itself. Caution, you're about to enter the Dipshit Zone...



Thanks for validating my every political belief, Bill.