CNN calls Mitch McConnell a LIYAH

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon May 16, 2005 8:13 am

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/16/ ... index.html

But Sen. Mitch McConnell, the GOP whip, said the nuclear option was the only way to "get back to the way the Senate operated quite comfortably for 214 years prior to the last Congress."

McConnell told "Fox News Sunday" that while judicial filibusters were possible, "it was never done."

In 1968, a Republican filibuster kept Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas from rising to the chief justice position and eventually forced him to resign from the court.

LOL PWN3D.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Mon May 16, 2005 8:14 am

In 1968, a Republican filibuster kept Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas from rising to the chief justice position and eventually forced him to resign from the court

I was under the impression that it was a bipartisan filibuster...Fortas never enjoyed majority support for his confirmation.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon May 16, 2005 8:16 am

Interestingly FOX News' version came from the AP wire, and lacked both McConnell's lie or its rebuttal:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156582,00.html

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon May 16, 2005 9:29 am

No different that Byrds' lie about the same issue.

Klast Brell · Post by **Klast Brell** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:13 am

I saw the collection of quotes you posted here http://www.brellrants.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6176 if this is what you were regering to It would be nice if you could point out the actual lie.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:45 am

BF = Bill Frist
RB = Robert Byrd

BF: Mr. President, just a very brief question. You mentioned, what you'd said in my presence, and the presence of other Senators yesterday. We were at the White House talking about important issues, foreign affairs, but you, and I think very appropriately, brought up this issue. And you did make the point that you just made about the importance of don't leave a legacy, as you describe it, my legacy would be very different. Because the principle of a fair up or down vote, after freedom of speech, extended debate for as long as is reasonable, in terms of getting all the issues out there, that's what the American people want. They want a nominee to come over, fully debate it, everything about them possible, counter-debate, back and forth, freedom of speech, freedom of speech. The Constitution, the wonderful history you just gave us...

RB: Praise God...

BF: Yes...

RB: There it is...

BF: Yes. Freedom of speech. Well, let's see it next week. Take somebody who's on the executive calendar now. Take them to the floor, and let's have freedom of speech. Let's have...somebody's waited four years for the appropriate freedom of speech in coming to the floor, and then do, this is my question. I don't want to go into a long speech, because I know that we all have other engagements we need to get to, but let me ask the question. Didn't you also say as the other part of that statement, to the president of the United States, being critical of the potential legacy I might have to leave in order to stand up for fairness and principle, didn't you also say that you would give all of these nominees an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate?

RB: I'm willing to give nominees, if there's a handful of them...

BF: And up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate? And isn't that what you said yesterday to the president of the United States?

RB: I said I'm willing to give them an up or down vote. It's just a handful. I don't mean it'd have to be six of them, or five of them, or four of them, or three of them. I've never attacked the Senator's desire to be looked upon as a leader who was fair. I've never attacked him.

BF: Another quick question, reserving the rights to the floor for the distinguished leader.

RB: Yes.

BF: Yesterday, in your statement to the president of the United States, it was to the seven nominees that he has delivered to us that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia said I want them. Or I'm willing to have, I don't know if you want or willing to have, an up or down vote on the seven nominees. Didn't the distinguished Senator from West Virginia tell the president of the United States and other Senators that, at the same time he addressed my legacy?

RB: Well, just as the Senator's had a little difficulty recalling whether I said this or that, I didn't have a written text before him, when I spoke to the president. I don't remember whether I said a few, or all, or three of four, I don't remember. But I'm willing to have some votes, up or down. Let's get around this Damocles sword that hangs over the Senate of the United States, and act as reasonable men and women, and vote some of them up or down. Whatever the leaders decide is fine. But let's don't talk about this nuclear option. Let's don't bring that down at this time. And I'm not referring to the legacy of the distinguished Senator in a disparaging way. I'm not doing that at all.

Klast Brell · Post by **Klast Brell** » Mon May 16, 2005 11:58 am

OK so you have Frist calling bird a liar? Can you present us with a transcript of Byrds words to the president in context so we don't have a he said she said baut this? Otherwise it's just Frist's word against Byrd's.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon May 16, 2005 12:03 pm

Don't you understand? If it came from Bill Frist it's like coming from the voice of God HImself, and His anointed saviour of America, Ronald Reagan!

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon May 16, 2005 12:21 pm

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050512 ... -4268r.htm

Republicans also argue that the filibuster was launched on Sept. 25 only after Fortas refused on Sept. 13 to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee following disclosures that his former law firm raised $15,000 to pay Justice Fortas for seminars conducted at American University. It later developed that Fortas had lied in his testimony during his July confirmation hearing about his relationship with jailed financier Louis Wolfson, who was later revealed to have contracted with Fortas -- after he had become a member of the Court -- to pay the justice (and his widow after his death) $20,000 a year. In May 1969, Fortas was forced to resign from the Supreme Court after the Wolfson arrangement became public.

Hardly evidence of a partizan effort to filibuster a judicial nominee.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon May 16, 2005 12:26 pm

Klast Brell wrote:OK so you have Frist calling bird a liar? Can you present us with a transcript of Byrds words to the president in context so we don't have a he said she said baut this? Otherwise it's just Frist's word against Byrd's.

Byrd is a sharp cookie. He is not dumb enough to lie on the Senate floor. Make no mistake that if Frist was lying......Byrd would have called him on it rather than invoking the....."I'm sorry Senator.....I don't recall" defense.

Klast Brell · Post by **Klast Brell** » Mon May 16, 2005 12:31 pm

You quote the moony times AND the quote shows that McConnell lied. Way to go!

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Mon May 16, 2005 12:37 pm

You quote the moony times AND the quote shows that McConnell lied. Way to go!

If you cannot see Byrd dissembling in that quote you have a serious problem with your partisan blinders.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon May 16, 2005 12:41 pm

Klast Brell wrote:You quote the moony times AND the quote shows that McConnell lied. Way to go!

I quoted an Op/Ed piece. If you think the facts presented in the section I quoted are not accurate feel free to post counter points.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Mon May 16, 2005 12:45 pm

It has become his standard fare to attack the source even though he cannot show counter points to refute the accuracy of said source.

The points Kulaf made are direct quotes Klast. Kinda hard to ridicule the source when they are the mans own words...

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon May 16, 2005 12:52 pm

I mean if we are going to excuse Byrds' memory on what hapened 1 day before......maybe we can cut a break to McConnell on a dubious filibuster that happened 37 years ago.

Klast Brell · Post by **Klast Brell** » Mon May 16, 2005 12:59 pm

Trollbait wrote:It has become his standard fare to attack the source even though he cannot show counter points to refute the accuracy of said source.

The points Kulaf made are direct quotes Klast. Kinda hard to ridicule the source when they are the mans own words...

Which man's own words? Frist's? Because we don't have any documentation of what Byrd said to the president or what context it was in.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Mon May 16, 2005 1:12 pm

Frist's? Because we don't have any documentation of what Byrd said to the president or what context it was in.

Please....You also do not see Byrd denying Frist's characterization of Byrd's conversation with the President either. So we can safely assume Frist was accurate in his characterization

Klast Brell · Post by **Klast Brell** » Mon May 16, 2005 3:34 pm

In case you are wondering about It, I am hammering the point because over the past 2 weeks a number of compromises have been proposed. All have been scuttled. The discussion of these compromises however would yield a wealth of out of context quotes for people to exploit.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon May 16, 2005 3:41 pm

I went further than what I linked to actually provide the raw conversation without any reporter bias. I hope you are not at all characterizing what I provided as an "out of context quote".

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue May 17, 2005 7:37 am

I believe he was referring to the topic of conversation - an earlier conversation - as lacking context.