What’s the definition of bipartisanship? According to CNN’s Jack Cafferty, it’s completely supporting the Democratic agenda. On the Friday edition of "The Situation Room," the CNN host complained that President Bush, whose "arrogance" he decries, had the temerity to re-nominate John Bolton as UN Ambassador and still supports the terrorist surveillance program:
Jack Cafferty: "After the Republicans got the stuffing knocked out of them in the midterms last week, President Bush wanted to make nice. So he had these little sit-downs with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the new powers in Congress, and talked about how they were all just going to get along. That tired old phrase bipartisanship was heard over and over again, as it always is after somebody get’s dusted up at the ballot box....And as proof that [Bush's] arrogance was not lost in the election, he wants Congress to pass legislation legalizing the NSA spy program, the one that’s already been ruled illegal by a federal judge. That’s not going to happen either. Great idea though, right? You do something illegal, you just get your toadies in Congress to pass a law saying that it’s legal. Same thing they did with the violations of the Geneva Conventions."
So, in Cafferty’s world, It’s Bush that has to be bipartisan, not Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. Quite a convenient situation, for the Democrats, that is.
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 4:12p.m. on November 17, follows:
Jack Cafferty: "After the Republicans got the stuffing knocked out of them in the midterms last week, President Bush wanted to make nice. So he had these little sit-downs with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the new powers in Congress, and talked about how they were all just going to get along. That tired old phrase bipartisanship was heard over and over again, as it always is after somebody get’s dusted up at the ballot box. Well, here’s what’s happened since then: Bush wants John Bolton confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the UN by the lame duck session of Congress. Ain’t gonna happen. Bush has resubmitted six formally blocked judicial nominees to federal appeals courts and he wants those confirmed by the lame duck session. Ain’t gonna happen. And as proof that his arrogance was not lost in the election, he wants Congress to pass legislation legalizing the NSA spy program, the one that’s already been ruled illegal by a federal judge. That’s not going to happen either. Great idea, right? You do something illegal, you just get your toadies in Congress to pass a law saying it’s legal. Same thing they did with the violations of the Geneva Conventions. Here’s the question then: ‘Is there really such a thing as bipartisanship in Washington? E-mail your thoughts on that to Caffertyfile@cnn.com or go to Cnn.com/Caffertyfile.com. Wolf?"
Wolf Blitzer: "We’re going to find out very, very soon if there is, Jack. Thanks very much."
Cafferty: "Doesn’t exist."
Blitzer: "We’ll see in a few weeks. We’ll get some initial indications."
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Geeeesh! I purposely did not
November 17, 2006 - 18:37 ET by bigtimerGeeeesh! I purposely did not watch that man this afternoon....and poof here he is in my face again!
It is a crying shame we have to protect people like Cafferty and all his ilk....just what in the heck does he think the NSA program does? Unfortunately, much to the chagrin of the NYT's and creatures like Cafferty they have not won on this matter so far....like I said so far...
They will sow what they reap...
They will sow what they reap.
November 17, 2006 - 18:48 ET by Chris NormanThey will sow what they reap...
BT,
Unfortunately, so will we.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Depends on how you look at it
November 17, 2006 - 19:01 ET by bigtimerDepends on how you look at it Chris...IMHO.
Your point is well taken though...I see where you are coming from.
BT,I figured you knew that al
November 17, 2006 - 19:08 ET by Chris NormanBT,
I figured you knew that already - no correction intended - more of a follow up. Is Cafferty in some kind of sick contest with Olbermann?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
ChrisYou got me there, they a
November 17, 2006 - 19:15 ET by bigtimerChris
You got me there, they are sure cut from the same cloth, but then again, I think both of their networks are in competition with the other, as in who can be more leftist/communistic, the enemy within is what they have been for years and years...I refuse to watch any of them today...I am giving it a rest until Sunday talking head shows, then Football and some college basketball!
Another Leftist hypocrite who
November 17, 2006 - 18:51 ET by mattmAnother Leftist hypocrite who only objects to republican partisanship, but the dems can oppose, filibuster and obstruct all day long because we need "divided" government. What absolute SFB morons!
Seem to remember the NSA pro
November 17, 2006 - 19:03 ET by Dan The Man 2Seem to remember the NSA program being legal, hmm the judge musta been Hastings.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
CNN figured out Cafferty's best use is attack dog...
November 17, 2006 - 19:19 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasI do believe CNN realized Cafferty's best days are behind him and decided that they wanted their own version of Andy Rooney . I have observered that the MsM not only tolerates but deliberately select sand then subsidizes outlandish and unprofessional personalities like Cafferty, Barbara Walters, Rosie O'D, Dowd and so on...giving them the continued appearance of validity via air time and network association. They know that certain TH's have to keep their mouths shut for the most part (though as the Crybaby Boomers age they appear to have learned poorly the art of "the poker face" and their offspring are 2 generations clueless regarding objectivity) so in come the circus performers like Cafferty.
I am a member of LSCA (Lazy Spell Checkers Anonymous).
new word odor
November 17, 2006 - 19:22 ET by foolnomorethis just in!! ,inbreeding "is "what" is" alive and well at the new word order
The usual Cafferty double-speak
November 17, 2006 - 20:22 ET by nkviking75Funny, Jack, you weren't calling on the Dems to roll over when the Republicans had control. What Peter Jennings said about the '94 election when the GOP took over Congress would have been more apt for this election: "The American public had a temper tantrum." Republicans, as best you can, stand your ground on conservative principles, and only change the areas where you went off track.
OH please! first let us see i
November 17, 2006 - 20:42 ET by ucOH please! first let us see if Democrats legislative proposals are going to even attempt to reach for 2/3 majority vote and thus be veto proof. Anything less should be fighting words for a President's party that maybe lost by one percent.
Jackoff Cafferty
November 17, 2006 - 21:21 ET by richardCafferty needs to do us all a favor and push his chair away from the desk, stand up and scream "I'm not going to take it anymore," them go pull the trigger.
Won't happen - probably a gun
November 18, 2006 - 21:22 ET by FastEdWon't happen - probably a gun control nut, and if he did happen to have one, he'd need to be a marksman, in order to hit such a small target.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
12 gau.
November 19, 2006 - 05:08 ET by foolnomoreonly if is they give'm nerf dum-dum's & if he does
"is" thin'n it be like shooting jello ....*
*(no!!avocation of violence intended againist--)>chic&choke'n-jacker's)
I don't recall Clinton surren
November 17, 2006 - 21:38 ET by GalvanicI don't recall Clinton surrendering his agenda to the Republican Congress in '94. For six years, he was rather proud of stymie-ing the Republicans, protecting the vulnerable American public from the nasty policies the likes of Newt Gingrich had instore for them. Did that bother Cafferty?
It should come as no surprise that Bush still seeks Congressional action to conform the NSA program with the court's guidelines, since he takes his role as Commander in Chief seriously.
Y'all gotta remember - good o
November 18, 2006 - 21:24 ET by FastEdY'all gotta remember - good ole Jack started as a weatherman - still has his head in the clouds, with a cold front headed south, and a Bermuda high between the ears.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Jack Cafferty thinks Bush i
November 17, 2006 - 22:53 ET by Tom1969caJack Cafferty thinks Bush is arrogant? If that's what he believes, then I've got three words for him:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
~~~
"Government should only do what only government can do."
-- Prime Minister Kim Campbell, 1993
And as proof that [Bush's] a
November 18, 2006 - 09:34 ET by Dave RAnd as proof that [Bush's] arrogance was not lost in the election, he wants Congress to pass legislation legalizing the NSA spy program, the one that’s already been ruled illegal by a federal judge.
Excuse me, but unless I have been lost in a Peruvian rain storm for the last six years, I believe that the ruling was that it was, in fact, legal.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Question for Jack Cafferty: Would you have supported a law that forced the government to obtain a warrant every time the codebreakers wanted to tap into German and Japanese communications during WW II?
My guess is that you would, as that is exactly the sort of thing you are supporting now.
You, sir, are an ignoramus of the first order.
ruled illegal by a federal
November 18, 2006 - 09:54 ET by Jack Bauerruled illegal by a federal judge.
Since when are federal judges the final arbiters on the "legality" or not of any federal legislation? I assume the dope is actually referring to the "constitutionality" of the legislation, anyway.
And that, I believe, is the sole and final province of the Supreme Court, is it not?
Don't Judges progressing up the judicial chain merely give their OPINIONS on the cases before them, which may then be appealed to a higher court by the losing party, until it reaches the highest court in the land.
So while Judge Terrorist Enabler may give his opinion that certain legislation is unconstitutional, he has no authority to "rule" that it is. Or am I missing how this things works?
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
I assume the dope is actually
November 18, 2006 - 10:35 ET by Dave RI assume the dope is actually referring to the "constitutionality" of the legislation, anyway.
He most likely was. It is always interesting to watch the mental gymnastics of libs like Cafferty attempting to find something in our own Constitution that actually protects the enemies of this country, such as applying constitutional rights to non-citizens three thousand miles way and such. I am sure that somewhere in a dank basement in D.C. there are a group of libs trying desperately to find some language in the constitution to allow non-citizens to vote in our elections. After all, the libs have become somewhat expert over the years in finding constitutional rights that do not actually exist. They are also equally adept at ignoring rights that are clearly spelled out, such as "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Seems clear enough to me, but then I'm not a liberal.
Judge Terrorist Enabler
Great line! I had this mental picture of entering a federal courtroom and looking up at the Clinton or Carter appointed judicial activist seated there and seeing Judge Terrorist Enabler printed on the desk plaque. LMAO.
these cacklers
November 18, 2006 - 14:02 ET by tumblerThese mugs were waxing poetic when Bubba was in office over the potential they saw in Mario Cuomo as a coming Supreme Court Justice. Just imagine Cafferty's depressed state when no vacancies opened up, and then, under Bush -- he saw Cuomo relegated to oblivion as Roberts and Alito got their appointments. Ta-ta, Caffertino. --Sleazy bag of ulcers--
I assume the dope is actual
November 19, 2006 - 18:05 ET by Tom1969caYet another case of a liberal saying, "Never mind what I actually said, the point is what I meant to say!"
Does Cafferty compose these rants in advance and then read them off a teleprompter, or is he just winging it off the top of his head? If he's reading them, then the argument goes out the window; if he took the time to write (and rewrite) the rant, then the word he used is the word he meant to use.
Of course, unconstitutional is such a vague and esoteric term; illegal sounds so much more like what liberals picture when they think of Bush. He's not someone who misinterprets the Constitution - he's just a simple criminal!
~~~
"Government should only do what only government can do."
-- Prime Minister Kim Campbell, 1993
Since Korea the democrats hav
November 19, 2006 - 05:59 ET by Andrew H.Since Korea the democrats have been dismal failures and dangerous. If it had been up to them, we would not have started research on SDI nor would we have threatened to place missles along the German border--the very strategy that brought the wall down and ultimately USSR. I would never trust the defense of this country to democrats--they need informed supervision and thank God we've been there to keep the babies from destroying our defense. Oops--clinton almost did and we got a dose of 9-11.
Never relent.
Unbiased media my a$$.
November 19, 2006 - 18:13 ET by acumenEvery time someone like Cafferty takes the stage of the supposed "mainstream" media it just reinforces Rush's defense that Rush IS EQUAL TIME. Where is the conservative answer to Cafferty on CNN? Unbiased media my a$$.
Cafferty - big chip & a colossal bug up
November 19, 2006 - 19:25 ET by PlaceboThis, I’ve got a big chip on my shoulder and a colossal bug up my … named Cafferty, is an out-and-out sloth. His paranoiac, hate-filled drivel rivals Olbie’s. How he and Olbie, to name two, ever got a job in broadcasting, only God knows.
Not to mention, Wolf always looks wide-eyed and unnerved when the attack-dog comes on the air.