FRC’s Hypocritical Attack on Schumer
FRC’s Hypocritical Attack on Schumer
The right-wing Family Research Council is outraged — they just put out a release denouncing Sen. Chuck Schumer’s so-called “Declaration of War.” They’re referring to this report by Matt Drudge that Schumer was overheard on a subway yesterday saying “We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this [Supreme Court nomination].” FRC head Tony Perkins called Shumer’s comment “against the process of judicial honor and shameful.”
Which is, to put it mildly, deeply ironic. After all, on the very day that Justice O’Connor announced her retirement, FRC put out a release claiming Americans (and, in particular, their grassroots activists) were “primed for the fight” over the next nominee. (The same release attacked Justice O’Connor as a “judicial activist.”)
The public is primed for the fight it will take to confirm a nominee. FRC can motivate significant grassroots support for the President’s nominees. We will wage an unprecedented effort for a fair and prompt up or down vote through the mobilization of 20,000 churches across the nation, weekly conference calls in targeted states, the strengthening of the FRC team and activation of grassroots through www.frc.org.
Feel free to call FRC’s press contact, Amber Hildebrand, and ask her to clarify FRC’s position: (202) 393-2100
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I hate to be such a ####, but maybe someone should let the FRC know that Drudge is as gay as the may day parade.
I wonder if that would change their view on such “great” breaking news that Matt so often provides to his conservative, GOP base of idiots who seem unable to google, let alone read.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:52 amHow come this site has no Dems on the fact vs fiction section?
July 7th, 2005 at 11:01 amI suppose as a general rule for liberals is that they can point a finger at those that they oppose but forget to count the fingers pointed back @ themselfs. You call people names when they disagree with your point of veiw, and you refuse to even take a step back and look at the world in a different light. The lies of the liberal elite would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. Example of a lie would be if Bush gets a conservative in the supreme court it will change the balance.
Fact is Bush is looking for a strict constituionlist, he is not looking for another legislator! If the supreme court were to overturn Roe-v-Wade today, the likely hood that a single state would ban abortion is highly unlikely. Remember the supreme courts function is to interpet the original intent (what is written, not what is felt), and not to make new laws.
Dennis, Dennis, Dennis.
It’s one thing to lie to us and hope that we believe you. But you seem to have convinced yourself of your obvious inaccuracies. tsk tsk tsk.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:14 amPresident George W. Bush should pack the United States Supreme Court with philosophical clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and defeated nominee Robert H. Bork. Multiple vacancies will inescapably arise in his second term. Senate Republicans should vote the Senate filibuster rule as applied to thwart a floor vote for judicial nominees unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Both measures are necessary to vindicate the Constitution according to its original meaning and to eclipse an airbrush artist interpretive approach embraced by a majority of sitting justices. Neither gambit would impair judicial independence, separation of powers, or appointment traditions.
Furthermore, President Bush would betray his popular mandate of last November if he neglects to nominate strong philosophical conservatives to the Supreme Court, such as Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or Judge Frank Easterbrook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:21 amThe lies of the liberal elite would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.
I don’t mean to burst your bubble there, Dennis, because you were on a roll, but this is a Progressive website. You don’t have any idea what that means, do you?
July 7th, 2005 at 11:21 amBush barely had a “popular mandate”. to push forward an extremist agenda based upon a slim majority would be the great folly.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:24 amHey Krazny,
Why do the democrats feel that they should be ones choosing the next justice for the bench when they are in the minority? Next time win the election and your party will get to be the one that gets to do the choosing.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:27 amits not about choosing a the next justice its about choosing a candidate who is not a right wing loon.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:31 amOh, so you approve the court’s latest decisions like the one that allows the government to take your personal property if it will result in more tax revenues? Where is that in the constitution?
July 7th, 2005 at 11:43 amNo I don’t agree with that ruling. And that is not what were debating so please do not change the subject.
The debate is over whether a minority party should have some say in who is appointed to the supreme court. I would imagine if the shoe were on the other foot that you would be all for the republicans “standing up for there right to be heard”
If you want to go by what is strictly in the constitution then we need to disband the airforce. I can assure you our founding fathers did not add that in anywhere.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:57 amLet’s see if “progressive” means we should pull out of Iraq like we did in Viet Nam and allow the insurgents to wreck havoc on the innocents like they did in Nam then ok I’m not progressive which is nothing more than libralisim. How you think that it is our (U.S.) fault that 9-11 happened or that it some giant conspiracy by either Bush, or the Jews or Haliburton, or whatever, just shows your ignorance. We did not kill or own people,(please don’t bring up the death penalty) the maniacs that did don’t like you or me.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:15 pmIt is not all about where we are in the world with our policys and our military. The people who are behind this would be doing this if we didn’t have a single policy or troop anywhere in the world. They don’t like our lifesyle.
To them we are the great satan and we need to be wiped from the face of the earth, which is what they want to control. If you fear one world goverment, than you should fear these people.
By the way Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote!
we need to ask ourselves why they consider us “the great Satan”. I doubt they hate us because were free.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:25 pmFor the love of God, Dennis, wake up. How long were we in Viet Man before we pulled out? We spun our wheels for years with little to no progress. Read about it. Rush’s historical revisionism is not an accurate source either. Sorry.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:40 pmAs far as Bush and 9/11, what did he do after given reports that Al’Queda was planning attacks using planes? Nothing, unless you count vacation and golf as a proper reaction to such information. Why don’t they like us? Religion and foreign policy, thats your answer. You don’t want the Chinese influencing our government and economy, the Middle Eastern countries don’t want us doing the same to them. Justifable or not, that is the crux of the problem. Mix in extremist, fundamental religious zealots, and we have the problem we have today. Again Dennis, read.
As far as the Bill Clinton claim, cite it because I’m interested to know what your point is and where you got the info.
And Randy, read the Constitution and Bill of Rights before talking of vindicating the Constitution. As for Suter’s decision of eminent domain, no I don’t agree with it. That’s America. That’s why you challenge it or deal with it. Its called democracy and freedom. Deal with it.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:56 pmWith reguard to the topic of the thread, Schummer has every right to voice his opinion. The idiots at the “Family Research Council” (which it is anything but) also have a right to voice theirs.
This progressive feels that since we live in a HUGELY pluralistic society (remember that whole melting pot thing?) that our Supreme Court Justices should also be able to see all sides and middle of the road. To suggest they should only reflect one narrow segment of political/philisophical thought greatly reduces the vibrancy we here in the US can show the rest of the world how to get along with one another. But, then I realise, that isn’t what conservatives want. They view it more as a game of King of the Hill.
I have to wonder, do you on the right really think you make this country stronger by doing the very same things the Taliban & the Ayatolla did to their countries?
Compromise is how it’s done. That is why we shouldn’t pack the bench with Scalia clones.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:09 pmSchumer, a member of the Senate who will have to consider any nominee, after disingenuously claiming on national media that we should avoid a fight and bring the country together, then says on his cell phone that he wants to go to war over whomever the president nominates. That’s hypocrisy.
The leader of a private outside interest group says he’s ready for the fight Schumer promised. Where’s the hypocrisy there? There is none.
Weak effort folks.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:31 pmnot that weak.
bush will nominate some extremest. Schumer is planning on going to war to appoint a candidate who is acceptable to the moderate majority of Americans, not the extreme left or right.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:37 pmSorry Thinkprogress. I see you #### my earlier comment. I will try to not be such a potty mouth. I should have shown a little more care in expressing myself.
Keep up the good work!! You are driving these neo-con, right-wing, we are better christians than thou crazy. They just can’t stand the truth when people like yourselves and many others now take the time to do the research and rebut some of their weak, mean spirited arguments for perpetuating poverty and war for the benefit of a few.
If these republicans are so gung-ho about this war, why aren’t they enlisting?
I’m waiting for an answer, and one that doesn’t involve I’m working hard here at home to help the war effort. That is such crap. War is brutal. Where are the good christians on Sunday morning telling their flock of young to enlist and fight the infidels? Where are they? I’m waiting. They weren’t at the CRNC last week. They were more concerned with cheating at the own elections. What losers. I’m young, I’m a democrat, but more importantly I am a progressive who believes in equality and openess in government affairs.
I just lick my chops at the thought of debating some of these pea brains who are so mantra based and yet have so little to offer when it comes to actual thought and debate about numerous subjects.
Mantra — “Mega dittos”— Interpretation, “I’m listening to you, but I’m not actually intelligent enough to go and look it up for myself”. I’m amazed at how many people are functionally illiterate in this country. It is truly sad.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:49 pm“Schumer is planning on going to war to appoint a candidate who is acceptable to the moderate majority of Americans, not the extreme left or right.”
So he opposed the extremist Ruth Bader Ginsburg? *L*
Bush will not nominate an extremist. He promised to nominate someone who will faithfully interpret the written words of the Constitution, like Scalia or Thomas.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:51 pmWhen are you enlisting Mark? Karl Rove said liberals like you don’t support the war on terror. Do you support the war on terror? Yes or no? If yes, when are you going to enlist?
July 7th, 2005 at 1:52 pmmark and I will enlist right after you do =P
July 7th, 2005 at 2:08 pmSkid
July 7th, 2005 at 2:18 pmWe had the insurgents on the run in Nam, and we could of defeated them if the libs would of stayed out of the policy making. You choose your own rendition of history! We pulled out and how many lost their lives to Pol Pot? What do you think would happen if we left Iraq right now? You fool yourself if think that the extremist are fighting just to keep another religion or foreign policy from polluting their land.
It’s a power thing they will not be happy until everybody is Muslim, or dead…
As far as the Clinton blurb it was in reference to an earlier post about how Bush had hardly gotten enough votes.
You can look back at past election stats for the #’s By the way talk about influenceing have you been to a public school lately or almost any college campus, talk about brain washing!! As far as the supreme courts rulling on how take your property, That’s what is wrong with the courts today when you put in people like Ginsburg who make law instead of interpeting the law as it was written. I guess it’s ok as long as they come after your property!!
Mark
July 7th, 2005 at 2:22 pmPlease don’t volunteer, we don’t want you!
Dennis you are a complete moron. You obviously didn’t live through the Vietnam years. I did. I didn’t know 1 veteran who came back from Nam supporting the war. Feeble.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:23 pmI didn’t say I wanted the war, but we were there for a reason (read real history) and we left. Yes I served in the army in the early 70’s and I have many friends and family who served and felt that we deserted those people! You sound as ignorant as Jane Fonda who helped the Pol Pot regime to overtake that country after we left. You are so blinded by your hatred for the freedoms that you enjoy, that you do not want anybody else in the world to suffer your fate.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:34 pmYou do realize you are being a blathering fool don’t you?
You are making up history and expecting us to take it as fact. With what you’ve put forth, you could say the sky was blue & I’d have to go out to see cause I sure don’t believe a word out of you.
Thanks for serving. The Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax. The domino theory was a hoax back during Vietnam. It is a hoax now in Iraq. WMD was a hoax. Saddam/al Quaeda was a hoax. We had 59,000 good kids die in Vietnam. How many are you willing to sacrifice for a lie now?
Back to thread. I hope Bush picks a moderate conservative. I don’t expect him to but I will always hope.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:44 pmSo “Editor” who am I speaking to? Are you man enough to identify yourself by name, just curious?
I won’t be enlisting, I don’t believe the war in Iraq is a just war, more just a waste of American lives for an unjust cause. This is just like a bad “70’s” reunion. All the same players except for Bush Jr.
It saddens my heart of all the troops who have died and the hurt that must exist in the lives of these families. I am sad today. I will be sad tomorrow and the next day and the day after that. I have not been to any soldiers funerals. Have you? I know the President has not also. How very sad for our country.
The Republican controlled congress had to be embarrassed into providing another $1.5 billion dollars to help fund the the VA for FY 2006. How very sad again. Tighten the belt buckle and suck it up for America.
By the way. Do you know where that missing $8.8 billion dollars that is unaccounted for since the Iraq war started? Just wondering. That might help to service some of our homeland services for it’s citizens.
You do remember that great picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand? It was that handshake that sold them chemical weapons.
Danger, danger, imminent danger. WMDs. Where are they? Mind you, I do believe there are all those parts floating around the world and the middle east and they do need to rounded up because we sold them. They are out there. Just not in Iraq. Remember that no fly zone? Iraq never posed any danger to attacking the U.S. directly.
Who was that guy who attacked the U.S. back in 2001? Oh yeah, Osama. Where are we on that front? How many days has he eluded us? Oh, about 1300 and some spare change in days. That’s a long time. Oh yeah, why didn’t we attack Saudia Arabia? In case you have forgot, 15 of the 19 hi-jackers came from that country. They are not our friends. They are just an oil pipeline. Remember, we nearly use 20 million barrels of oil a day out of a total of nearly 85 million barrels a day worldwide. That’s a whole lot of oil.
Karl Rove. What to say about such a fine christian like him. Wow, with christians like him, we don’t need enemies. He preaches hate. His laundry list is so large as to his tactics, it is just sickening. Christian. Now that’s funny!
Karl. Do you think he is a giver or a receiver? I wish Jeff would speak up and let us know.
Lastly, when you talk about morals, it is not right to lie and deceive in order to win for your party because you believe you are more right than the opposing party. The end does not justify the means to get there.
Everyone in America is an American. No one is less than another, but Karl spouts these kind of lines. Liberals want to comfort our enemies. Quite the opposite. I want to hunt them down and kill them. God loathes the wicked who hurt humanity.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:55 pmMark,
July 7th, 2005 at 3:01 pmI didn’t ask you about the war in Iraq, I asked you about the war on terror. Try to focus, and answer the question.
I as probably most Americans support the war on terror. I think the disconnect between us may be the definition of what we are talking about and who we are fighting and how we are going about this operation.
We are now into at least three generations of Islamic militants who are taught to hate and kill westerners within the confines of the Islamic religious sects like Wahabiasm. Granted this is a small sect of Muslims, but suppose that 1% of Muslims are terrorists, that is potentially 30 million people who hate and despise us. Most Muslims are like Christians, they are for the most part, decent people with the exception of the fanatics who have hi-jacked the Muslim religion to declare Jihad against the West. This “war” could span at least a generation and could go on even longer.
Defining the enemy is part of where we are failing. The fact that we allow despots to continue to stay in power is another problem. Contradiction runs abound in our Congress. People who are unwilling to tell the truth about the circumstances of our reality.
I am a patriot, just as you are a patriot. If I was not concerned about our country as you seem to also be, then I would not have run for public office. It takes balls to stand up and speak to the truth. Unfortunately the truth hurts. Thankfully were into the 21st century and the proliferation of information cannot be stopped. I look forward to enjoying greater audiences in the future.
I am always willing to talk and debate the issues. The problem today is that reasonable people are drowned out and that the extremes have taken over the stage. That is a sad state of affairs in our country and it needs to change. I will be there to fight for those changes.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:16 pmMark,
“I as probably most Americans support the war on terror.”
So then, are you going to enlist, or are you a “chickenhawk”?
July 7th, 2005 at 4:27 pmThe answer is still no. I must be a chickhawk like most of the current administration and neo-cons who have never fought in a war. The thought scares me. I don’t propose to be this tough kick-ass, take no prisoner kind of guy. I humbly admire those people who do enlist and defend our country from the likes of terrorists and rogue nations. I sleep well at night because of these fine soldiers, except when I wake up in a cold sweat because we still don’t equip our soldiers as well as they should be equipped. For example, the fact that nearly 60% of our humvees still are not fully armored as well as they could be. Who wants to sign up for an army that is asking soldiers and their families to buy body armor?
Sir, have you ever served? If you have, thank you for your service.
The launch of the war in Afghanistan was a calling that many Americans took to and decided to sign up for. Many today are looking at the war in Iraq that is being directed by an administration in which many of them did not serve.
President Bush’s time in the Air Force reserves still remain unanswered. To me it seems he was enjoying the lifestyle of the 60’s well into the early 70’s.
Because their are no clear goals for Iraq, it scares many people to not want to enlist. Think about all those weekend warriors who are over there now. What is the exact figure of reservists vs full time soldiers in Iraq right now? I think it is about 65% vs 35% right now, with enlistments dwindling. This is a definite problem for the future of our security.
What do you propose? What kind of person do you think wants to fight in this war? Could you please elaborate on the profile of a soldier who would enlist in our armed forces?
July 7th, 2005 at 4:48 pmWhich neo-cons? Bush served as a fighter pilot. Rumsfeld was in the navy. What exactly is a “neo-con” anyway?
July 7th, 2005 at 5:42 pmyea bush protected every keg that gave his frat boys harm.
bush the cokehound whose records we still don’t have. Editor, you sir are a cad. You are right up there with Senator McCarthy. Have you no honor at long last?
July 7th, 2005 at 5:52 pmkindness,
Right after you provide the evidence that Bush is a “cokehead” I’ll provide proof that you are. Deal? You first.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:55 pmSir,
You never answered my question. Have you ever served in any of the armed forces?
I have answered most of your questions. You have answered none of mine and leave little quid pro quo remarks.
Are you not willing to elaborate?
For Example, Dick Cheney did not serve. Nor did Karl Rove.
President Bush’s records from his service are still incomplete. He started, but did he finish his service?
July 7th, 2005 at 6:18 pmBack to the Supreme Court issue:
(1) Who actually allegedly evesdropped on Schumer’s cellphone conversations? Did they record the exact words. (2) How do we know it was actually Schumer that they overheard? I’d like to think members of Congress, et. al., wouldn’t be so stupid as to sit in public places plotting strategy of national importance on cellphones, but then … there’s Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff, Randy Cunningham, Governor Bob Taft, Karl Rove and a host of others. All seem to be doing things in public that would appear to be stupid, hey?
(3) Did they (the lurker(s)) hear the other end of the conversation as well? Without it, references assumed to be “as reported” by Drudge could have any one of a dozen meanings.
I could hear a man telling someone on the phone “Man, I’m not putting it off any more! When I get home, I’m gonna take care of that wife of mine!” Is he emphatic? Should I call 911, or warn his wife? Should I tell her to get armed, chill the champagne, get out of the house, get dressed up or get undressed? Or maybe mind my own business.
The Supreme Court should reflect the majority of Americans. Period. If President Bush nominates someone who does, I’d be happy. A qualified woman would be nice. Hey, how about Hillary? That might make both sides happy.
Any thoughts on the FRC threats to mobilize their 20,000 churches. Any thoughts on revoking the non-profit status of those 20,000 churches?
July 7th, 2005 at 6:45 pmMark
I find it amazing that 10 years ago the president’s service record was not a concern for most progressives. But then again neither was perjury to a grand jury, dissbarment and impeachment.
P.S. I guess the word liberal has become so distasteful that it is being replaced by “progressive”. Kind a like homosexuals being called gays.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:47 pmWhether Cheney or Rove served in the military or not is of zero relevance to me. Zero.
Military service is of no relvance to liberals either, except as a partisan cheap shot.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:29 pmkajamian,
“The Supreme Court should reflect the majority of Americans. Period.”
That is not the job of the courts. They are supposed to apply the law as written to cases that come before them. It is the job of legislative bodies to reflect the popular will, not the courts.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:34 pmI don’t get it. The American people have elected a Republican president, a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives. The solid majority of the nation has expressed itself at the ballot box in a convincing fashion. Why will there be a fight over the Supreme Court nominee?
The ideological left has determined that even though it has been defeated at every turn, its right to rule is uncontested.
Americans have spoken, and they desire a conservative president, a conservative congress and a conservative Supreme Court. Are liberals naive or are they just so desperate to have their own way that they will tread over the will of the people to get it?
July 8th, 2005 at 12:57 pmI thought the war in iraq is the war on terror.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:46 pmI thought the war in iraq is the war on terror. That’s the bill of goods we’ve been sold from day 1. Bush a fighter pilot or, a national guard awol?
July 12th, 2005 at 12:47 pmto insist that the amerioan people pick this president without thinking how many did not get a chance to vote nor had these elections voting machine rigged is silly. Dont you conservatives realize this? The founding fathers made rules to protect the rights of minorities so yes they should have a right to debate just like if the republicans were in the minority you would have the right to debate and fight also. The supreme court is for everyone not just for conservativces. Being a christian means being meek which is being likable and understanding not selfish and self centered. This country is divided and will probably stay that way. By the way did it ever occur to people that this gets down to the whole thing about corporations who have their own agenda. I wish everyone would consider everything before they start blaming others especially Republicans who cant seem to put their own in check but will talk about progressive. I am aproud progressive who feels that nothing can be done without being included just like you would want to be included.
July 12th, 2005 at 7:49 pmYo Cheryl, Being a Christian does not mean being meek,and I do not believe “the amerioan people pick this president without thinking.” and I can tell your “aproud progressive” by your submission. I hope your not a Christian because your obviously one of those uneducated,liberal, homosexual loveing, feel good, christ-accepts all people. Your probably a Unitarian, are’nt you? You should read the Bible, I don’t think David or any of the martyrs were meek. If you were Christian you would realize that beyond politics, the United States has made legal in Iraq what was once punishable with torture and death, namely possession of a Bible, and belief in Jesus. Have any “Progressives” ever spoken out against Muslim countries banning Christianity? Id Love to know the answer to that, maybe someday James Carville will make Muslim Regimes murdering Christians a popular progressive cause.
August 11th, 2005 at 12:25 pm