A friend of mine has been telling me I need to watch "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" I finally did last night.. I enjoyed the show. Anybody else have any feelings about that show ?? Last night they happened to be talking about the filibuster issue. Here is a transcript of their take on the issue. I highlighted the part about the stand taken by Family Research Council....when it servers their purpose.
Please forgive the length.
TRANSCRIPT FROM 4/25 COUNTDOWN ON MSNBC:
When the word first appeared in the Congressional Record, it was “filibusterer.” That was in 1853, when it meant simply prolonging debate. When it had first showed up in American English, it was “filibustier (ph),” and it meant someone from this country who aided uprisings in Latin America.
At one point, as the Dutch word, “rijbuyter (ph),” it referred to freelance boat captains. The English turned that into “flibitor (ph),” which meant pirate.
So when you hear about Senate majority leader Bill Frist appearing in a broadcast supposedly dedicated to stopping the filibuster against people of faith, now you are also stuck with images of pirates of the Caribbean with eye patches.
The setting for yesterday‘s gathering, this Louisville church. The event beamed to churches and Christian radio and TV stations nationwide and on the Internet. The task at hand, repainting Senate politics in black and white, no gray allowed. Any senator against the president‘s most conservative judicial nominees also being described as, quote, “against people of faith,” Republicans included.
Any senator who hopes to block those nominees now or in the future, unequivocally wrong.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: Because even some conservatives don‘t think we should press the issue on requiring votes on judicial nominees. They‘re concerned that in the future, Republicans won‘t be able to use this same device to obstruct Democratic nominees.
Well, that may be true. But if what the Democrats are doing is wrong today, it won‘t be right for Republicans to do the same thing tomorrow.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Ah, but what about yesterday? Of course, evidently it was still right when Frist filibustered Bill Clinton‘s nomination of a judge named Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit in 2000, Republicans blocking more than 60 of President Clinton‘s judicial nominees, Democrats having blocked just 10 during President Bush‘s first term.
Members on both sides of the aisle taking offense to Senator Frist‘s threats and tactics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: There seems to be this new attitude that if you oppose any of President Bush‘s judges, then that means that as a senator, you are against people of faith. Now, as a person of faith, I really resent that.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM ®, SOUTH CAROLINA: I would call on them not to go down the road of saying that the Democratic senators are not people of faith, or questioning their religious, that they‘re religious bigots. I don‘t think that helps the country, and I don‘t think that‘s fair.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
OLBERMANN: As mentioned, the filibuster stretches back not merely to Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” but to the presidential administration of Franklin Pierce 152 years ago. And, as a last measure of the defense of the minority, it has had many supporters over the years, like the very people of faith who sponsored yesterday‘s Justice Sunday, the group Family Research Council.
Yesterday it was opposed to filibusters. Seven years ago, it was in favor of them. That‘s when Clinton and a then-Democratic plurality in the Senate wanted a man named James Hormel to become the ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel, of the Spam and other meats Hormels, was gay, as the Senate minority bottled up Hormel‘s nomination with filibusters and threats of filibusters, minority relative to cloture, to breaking up a filibuster.
They did that for a year and a half. The Family Research Council‘s senior writer, Steven Schwartz, appeared on National Public Radio at the time and explained the value, even the necessity, of the filibuster.
“The Senate,” he said, “is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it‘s got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That‘s why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly.”
It‘s been said many times, many ways, that was then, and this is now.
To get us up to speed on the state of play in the filibuster filbusterer and rijbuyter is “Congressional Quarterly” senior columnist and NBC analyst Craig Crawford.
Good evening, Craig.
CRAIG CRAWFORD, “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY”: Hey, Keith. I like your Dutch version, the freelance boat captains. That‘s what Democrats will be if they lose this vote.
OLBERMANN: Yes, but once again, though, somebody has stepped out in front of stampeding horses here. And at first glance, I can‘t tell if it‘s Bill Frist who are in front of the horses, or the people who oppose him. Is there any sense which way this is going yet?
CRAWFORD: I, one way to gauge that, Keith, is, when are they going to hold this vote? Mitch McConnell, the majority whip, yesterday on Sunday news shows, said they had the votes. Today, we‘re hearing they haven‘t scheduled it. Well, maybe this week, maybe next week.
You know, my rule of thumb is, we, you know, they‘ll schedule the vote when they have the votes. And if they‘re not scheduling it, they may not have the votes.
OLBERMANN: Are there Republicans today, on the record or off, worried about what Frist did yesterday? He did appear in the middle of a broadcast in which this infamous Dr. James Dobson announced, as if he had just discovered this, by the way, that the Supreme Court is unelected and unaccountable, and it‘s also arrogant and imperious and out of control, which is great rhetoric, unless you are a Republican, and you remember that seven out of the nine justices on the court were appointed by Republican presidents.
CRAWFORD: Yes, there‘s some concern among Republicans about such a high-profile leader of the party associating with those kinds of views. But, you know, we get that on the Democratic side. They like to deal with labor unions and some other groups in the shadows.
And at the same time, these are the voters who get them elected. And if you look at the numbers, Keith, on white evangelical conservatives, four out of five voted for President Bush. They made up a third of his total vote in the last election.
You throw in conservative Catholics and other conservative religious groups, and it‘s the single biggest constituency in the Republican Party.
So I think it is not so politically wrong for Frist to try to reach out to them.
OLBERMANN: But are they not now mad at Tom DeLay over how the whole Schiavo thing turned out? And could not Frist be going way out on a limb in case he doesn‘t get this the way he wants it and the way they want it?
CRAWFORD: Many conservative Christian leaders are beginning to feel they‘ve just been part of a shell game, that these Republicans want them on election day, and then say, Gee, thanks, we‘ll call you again in four years.
And that‘s becoming the attitude. They don‘t really get that much in the way of legislation. Supreme Court nominations are key. They wanted more in the Schiavo case, and they got quite a lot. But at the end of the day, the politicians stepped aside and let the judicial decisions stand.
OLBERMANN: Lastly, the history part of our discussion. 1997, Family Research Council, pro filibuster. 2000, Senator Frist participates in a judicial filibuster. We have other examples in which Democrats, Senator Schumer, for instance, in 2000, blasted that particular filibuster, and said, let these votes come to the floor.
Does nobody in politics at all ever worry any longer about being called a flat-out hypocritical fraud?
CRAWFORD: Well, no, they‘re hypocrites. They just don‘t like to get caught. I mean, think about Washington. You know, if hypocrisy were a virus in Washington, we‘d all be dead. The problem here is, you know, for Democrats, is, they railed against the filibuster in the past, and going back to the civil rights movement. It was used by segregationists against civil rights, and liberals were against the filibuster then.
But I think, you know, the idea of religion, of the filibuster being a religious ideal, is quite odd, and it sort of reminds me of, you know, you got to wonder whether God really cares that much about filibustering.
You‘ve probably heard the old Bobby Knight story, when they asked he didn‘t lead his players in prayer before games, he says, “Because God doesn‘t give a damn about college basketball.” That may be how God views filibusters.
OLBERMANN: Or at least politicians.
CRAWFORD: Maybe so.
OLBERMANN: Craig Crawford of “Congressional Quarterly” and MSNBC, as always, sir, great thanks.
CRAWFORD: You bet.
