Excellent interview-Senator Barbara Boxer on Countdown
Posted By: Liberal on 2006-09-01
In Reply to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Senator Boxer
Did anyone else get a laugh out of this? I thought it was pretty dumb and haughty of her. I mean it's not like the general was trying to degrade her...they are trained from day one to ma'am and sir everyone. Shoot my cousin's the same age as me and he ma'ams me! LOL (he's Navy.)
Oh well. Just wondering if anyone else heard about it. javascript:editor_insertHTML('text','');
I saw this interview on Countdown.
Twice. (I taped it.) Jonathan Turley is a very well respected expert in Constitutional law, and I was actually very pleasantly surprised at the courage he showed by saying what he said. I just hope he isn't the next victim to be crushed by the Bush career-demolition machine.
anybody watching the Barbara Walters interview with the Obamas tonight? nm
x
Thank you for your service!..and Boxer is an
nm
What Boxer didn't count on was
Petty Boxer.
Insecure Boxer.
Self-absorbed Boxer.
Infantile Boxer.
Lame Boxer.
Loser Boxer.
She's "worked pretty hard" to earn all those titles too, over the years.
Countdown fun...(sm)
Workinig on music selection --- maybe some Marvin Gaye and Will I am.
Yes we can.
Countdown....(sm)
Picking out party dress....I'm thinking a nice retro 50s style....
YES WE CAN
Keep posting...love the countdown...(sm)
dusting off sound system and deciding on party hats today.
I especially enjoy Olberman's countdown observance.
x
Barbara Bush...........sm
She was ill during the presidential campaigns about the same time that Obama's grandmother in Hawaii passed away. I remember reading about it at the time, but there was very little media coverage of Mrs. Bush's situation.....which does not surprise me.
I believe it was Barbara not Laura Bush sm
In an effort to further divide America, this writer must have gotten some of that rabid drool on his keyboard.
Idiotic remark from Barbara Bush
What a stupid remark from Barbara Bush. That whole family lacks compassion. Unbelieveable.
Barbara Bush: Things Working Out Very Well for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans
By E&P Staff
Published: September 05, 2005 7:25 PM ET updated 8:00 PM
NEW YORK Accompanying her husband, former President George H.W.Bush, on a tour of hurricane relief centers in Houston, Barbara Bush said today, referring to the poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated, This is working very well for them.
The former First Lady's remarks were aired this evening on National Public Radio's Marketplace program.
She was part of a group in Houston today at the Astrodome that included her husband and former President Bill Clinton, who were chosen by her son, the current president, to head fundraising efforts for the recovery. Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama were also present.
In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: Almost everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to Houston.
Then she added: What I’m hearing is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.
And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them.
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
I have lost all respect for Barbara Walters.
nm
sound bite from barbara bush's remarks
Here is the sound bite from Barbara Bush (it actually was on The Drudge Report!)
Here's the clip. Let them try and spin it however they want. Her callous words cannot be denied. These are heartless group of elitists: http://www.drudgereport.com/bb.mp3
here is the audio from barbara bush's insane statement
Barbara Bush-Audio
via Atrios: And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (she chuckled)--this is working very well for them....read on
Audio-MP3
What's sad is that she doesn't even realize how insane her statements are?
Barbara Bush recovering from Heart Surgery
Luckily she is doing fine. Didn't even know she was having heart problems. I wish her the best.
The other **loving** statement Barbara Bush made in 2003
Ignorant fool that she is.
Why should we hear about body bags and deaths, Barbara Bush said on ABC's Good Morning America on March 18, 2003. Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?
Senator Santorum
Senator Santorum said if gay marriage is allowed, it will lead to bestiality!!!! Now that is one sick mind..How can anyone equate two humans loving each other with bestiality? Crazy times in crazy America.
thank you senator clinton!
for backing Obama:
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vbXkuYmFyYWNrb2JhbWEuY29tL3RoYW5rc19teXNwYWNl
The junior senator is going to owe A LOT of
favors should he be elected. He has been groomed by the Chicago political machine for this position and his many associates will expect their due. He can give very eloquent, enthusiastic speeches, have millions listen to him, rally around him and accept his word as truth, much like many of the dictators of the last century. Socialism is on the way and most people are turning a blind eye to it.
How did he become a Senator then? Did no know look into his background then?
Supposedly he is being called a terrorist, Muslim and is involved with all of these organizations, so I do not understand why and how he has been allowed to serve our government???? Did no one care about all of this when he was elected?????
VT, Socialist Senator
Bernie Sanders. Isn't that special?
Don't let your pets anywhere near Senator FrankenFrist
First he adopts the animals, promises to love and take care of them, waits for them to trust him and then ZAPS them. Not far afield from the Republican MO we've seen for the last six years.
I think we should force all politicians to undergo a PET scan of sorts -- an in-depth history of how they have treated animals during their lifetimes. I find this to be deplorable. Makes me wonder how Bush might have treated animals in his past, as well.
Ironic how someone who is clearly devoid of a heart be drawn to cardiology, but I guess that's where the big bucks are.
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060612/COLUMNIST0101/606120346/1092/NEWS
Kitty-killer label litters Frist resume for president
Published: Monday, 06/12/06
There's a potential pothole in U.S. Sen. Bill Frist's road to the White House: He's a confessed kitty killer.
He fessed up in his 1989 book, Transplant, to adopting cats from shelters when he was in medical school, treating them like pets for a while, and then using them in his research experiments. Maybe in hindsight, Trent Lott should have seen it coming.
To his credit, the future senator wrote that it was a heinous and dishonest thing to do.
Last week, Frist started shopping around a new memoir to New York and Tennessee publishers. Here's the burning question: How will he spin the cat tale?
It came up in Tennessee's 1994 Republican primary, when Frist faced five opponents for the nomination. It was Chattanooga's Bob Corker (he's in a similar cat fight for Frist's seat now) who tried to inflame the feline furor. Corker sent beef-and-bacon-flavored 9 Lives Cat Treats to reporters and put out a press release saying Frist had lost the Garfield vote.
It was a short-lived local story that briefly flared in the national press. Yes, what Frist did was odd and rather icky, but he also saved a lot of lives as a heart surgeon. The kitty killer charges were widely dismissed, and Frist won the primary.
But running a national race is a different animal from running a statewide one. He'd better have an answer ready on the cat thing before he can even think about winning the GOP nomination. Running for president requires candidates to dump out their underwear drawer for all to see, answer questions about what color eye shadow their prom date wore, and explain any cross word ever said to their dry cleaner.
In other words, it'll be brutal.
Bet Frist wishes now he'd refrained from giving out too much information in his first book. He made his case in Transplant for saving lives by learning through experiments with animals while at Harvard. It's the part where he kept them as pets first that is bothersome.
Desperate, obsessed with my work, I visited the various animal shelters in the Boston suburbs, collecting cats, taking them home, treating them as pets for a few days, then carting them off to the lab to die in the interests of science. And medicine. And health care. And treatment of disease. And my project.
It was, of course, a heinous and dishonest thing to do, and I was totally schizoid about the entire matter. By day, I was little Billy Frist, the boy who lived on Bowling Avenue in Nashville and had decided to become a doctor because of his gentle father and a dog named Scratchy. By night, I was Dr. William Harrison Frist, future cardiothoracic surgeon, who was not going to let a few sentiments about cute, furry little creatures stand in the way of his career. In short, I was going a little crazy.
Frist recently commented about the power he felt when holding the last beats of a dog's heart in his hand. Good thing little Scratchy had a decent hiding place while Frist was in med school.
This will be media catnip. Think of the potential for protests and endorsements. A Saturday Night Live skit would be a no-brainer: Toonces, look out! It's the kitty-killing gentlemen from the state of Tennessee!
Maybe Frist should title his coming memoir Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.
Because, as Big Daddy would say, there's great potential here for mendacity. And he better get ready to dance on some hot shingles.
Published: Monday, 06/12/06
|
Senator Wants IRS to Chase After Pimps
I don't have a problem with prosecuting and fining pimps, so I think Grassley is definitely on to something. I do have a problem with calling them employers and seeking tax money from them. That just sounds nasty (for lack of a better term). Just call them fines IMHO.
-------------------------------------------------
Senator Wants IRS to Chase After Pimps
Sen. Charles Grassley wants the IRS to chase after pimps and sex traffickers
WASHINGTON, Jun. 28, 2006
By MARY DALRYMPLE AP Tax Writer
(AP) Pimps and sex traffickers could soon find themselves being chased by tax collectors, not just the vice squad.
Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, wants the Internal Revenue Service to chase after pimps and sex traffickers with the same fervor it stalked gangster Al Capone for tax evasion.
Grassley, R-Iowa, would hit pimps with fines and lengthy prison sentences for failing to file employment forms and withhold taxes for the women and girls under their command.
The proposal would make certain tax crimes a felony when the money comes from a criminal activity. A one-year prison sentence and $25,000 fine would become a 10-year sentence and $50,000 fine for each employment form that a pimp or sex trafficker fails to file.
Grassley planned to propose the penalties when his panel meets Wednesday.
The thugs who run these trafficking rings are exploiting society's poorest girls and women for personal gain, Grassley said. The IRS goes after drug traffickers. It can go after sex traffickers.
Michael Horowitz, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said the change has the potential to put pimps out of business without difficult trials that require women to testify to abuse and mistreatment.
We need to simply treat the pimps and massage parlor operators the way we would treat anybody who takes the proceeds of a customer transaction from somebody and then gives a fraction of it back, he said.
Under tax law, that relationship makes the pimp an employer, requiring the filing of a wage statement and the withholding of payroll taxes, including Social Security.
Grassley envisions creating an office inside the Internal Revenue Service to prosecute sex traffickers for violating tax laws. The office would get $2 million to get started, and it would be allowed to keep a portion of the taxes it collects.
The IRS work is intended to build on efforts under way to curb worldwide trafficking. The Justice Department, collaborating with U.S. attorneys offices nationwide, would identify pimps and sex traffickers and refer them to the IRS.
Grassley also wants to change the IRS whistleblower program to allow the girls and women to participate.
If the IRS goes after pimps and sex traffickers for tax offenses now, it conducts lengthy audits of their lifestyles in order to estimate their incomes from illegal activities and determine taxes due.
MMVI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Congratulations to Senator Obama.
My heartiest congratulations to Senator Obama and to Senator Clinton for her campaign, and for quickly meeting with him this evening to discuss unifying the party.
I believe that the torch has been passed to the next generation of American citizens, with their high hopes and wonderful ideas for the future of this country, a future that includes all races and genders, and the potential of a better future for all of us.
Again my congratulations to Senator Obama!
Every senator on the floor during these votes....
has the identical experience Obama has. Does not make them foreign policy experts. How many times does someone have to say she was at the state level? She has as much foreign policy experience as Bill Clinton did when he was elected PRESIDENT. Geez. Your #1 guy has done...that is why he has Biden. He has never made an executive decision in his life, even in his campaign other than I am Barack Obama and approved this message.
John McCain is the only one of them, including Biden, with real and extended foreign policy experience. He has actually met with world leaders, not run the foreign relations committee. He is already known and respected worldwide. That is a no-brainer...and HE is the one running for the job.
Is someone in this thread related to Senator
Is that his nick name for McCain supporters? Hey how about McCain sell a few of those houses and give it to the financial companies???? How about the rich do something for a change???? How about that????
This makes me sick, all of it! We need to be addressed by these candidates and not set aside until oil companies and rich folks figure out what happened!!!! We are looking at who is going to be our next President and all Bush cares about are his pockets being lined? Poor thing; did he invest in the wrong stock???
I must be really whacked, but I feel this candidacy is waaaaay more important than IGA, IGM, Wash Mut, Bank of America, Lehman, Looman, Dooman, or dooofus, whatever!!!!! These lenders loaned the money to people who they knew couldn't pay it back and now it has come back to bite them and now its the rest of us having to bail them out. No sympathy here! I stayed within my budget; so sorry others did not!!!!!!!! These candidates are going to run this country. I think Obama is right; let's get it on with the debates.... JMO...
95.71% match for Senator Obama.
!
Senator versus presidency
Sure, I can see where a lot of this would be overlooked while running for a senate position versus president of our country. The higher the position, the more you look into someone's history and that is what separates the boys from the men....
Maybe Senator Obama believes in following the
"First Admendment" to the Constitution of the United States.
When he was the honorable senator from Illinois...
Amnesty is the largest of these rewards and gives illegal aliens a path to citizenship or makes them instantly legal. Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens.
Senator Barack Obama has voted in favor of giving illegal aliens further rewards and other incentives to come such as in-state tuition, educational benefits, welfare and health care services.
As have most of the members of his party. And they do it because they want their votes...heck if you were in this country illegally and one of the parties was for giving you everything but the kitchen sink, wants you to be allowed to vote, etc....wouldn't YOU vote for them???
No, I don't blame him personally...although he has to take personal credit since he voted for it...I blame the PARTY. For you to deny it is, in your words...UNFREAKINBELIEVABLE. But then all the Obama worshippers are pretty unfreakinbelievable...sigh.
Never hurts to have a senator's wife
Doesn't mean she has to actually DO anything to earn the bucks. She got a great big raise (nearly triple - and still claimed they had trouble paying off their college loans) when he was elected to the senate. I imagine her primary duty at the hospital was simply to be Mrs. Senator Obama, so naturally no one could possibly replace her.
Whenever I see a photo of MO with that huge toothy grin I am reminded of a Kate Hepburn line as Eleanor in Lion in Winter. She describes one of her husband's former mistresses as having prominent teeth, ''She smiled to excess, but chewed with real distinction.''
Obama Rated the Most Liberal Senator
We're talking even more liberal than Ted Kennedy! Hillary talks about the "good" of the people. That's a Socialist quote, but no surprise there.
McCain is a "Maverick" for going to the other side. That's literally changing parties. And how about that famous temper? When have the Dems gone to the "other side?" The only exception is (surprisingly) Diane Feinstien, who is appalled by the Compeon & Ramos border patrol agents, who have been put in shackles & solitary. Compeon was beaten badly as well, and was never treated.
"W" has been a disappointment as well, but he's not a conservative, either. At least he's pro-life & pro-military, so I;ll give him that. Check out www.eyesontheborder.com
I've never missed an election, but I'm simply in a huge quandry, as NONE of these candidates are worthy of running our wonderful country. The only option is to vote for conservative Reps.
Also, nowhere in the Constition states voting on various dates. All voters should be able to vote on the same date. My state didn't get the option of choosing my "preferred candidate!"
Google this & you'll learn the facts.
NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate ... nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ - 77k - |
Senator Obama was a paid employee,
community organizer. He did not do this on a volunteer basis.
So how he can still be Senator then. Don't they have to pass an FBI check? Guess not.
So what other Senators, Congressmen and woman, legislators, etc have past associations out there??? why are they allowed to serve in our government. Do not get it.
If anyone knows about swine odor, it's Senator Harkin! nm
*
Senator Sold Stock Before Price Dropped
Martha Stewart comes to mind.
Shares Fell Two Weeks Later
By Jonathan M. Katz Associated Press Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page A03
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, sold all his stock in his family's hospital corporation about two weeks before it issued a disappointing earnings report and the price fell nearly 15 percent.
Frist held an undisclosed amount of stock in Hospital Corporation of America, based in Nashville, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain. On June 13, he instructed the trustee managing the assets to sell his HCA shares and those of his wife and children, said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Frist.
Frist's shares were sold by July 1 and those of his wife and children by July 8, Call said. The trustee decided when to sell the shares, and the Tennessee Republican had no control over the exact time they were sold, she said.
HCA shares peaked at midyear, climbing to $58.22 a share on June 22. After slipping slightly for two weeks, the price fell to $49.90 on July 13 after the company announced its quarterly earnings would not meet analysts' expectations. On Tuesday, the shares closed at $48.76.
The value of Frist's stock at the time of the sale was not disclosed. Earlier this year, he reported holding blind trusts valued at $7 million to $35 million.
Blind trusts are used to avoid conflicts of interest. Assets are turned over to a trustee who manages them without divulging any purchases or sales and reports only the total value and income earned to the owner.
To keep the trust blind, Frist was not allowed to know how much HCA stock he owned, Call said, but he was allowed to ask for all of it to be sold.
Frist, a surgeon first elected to the Senate in 1994, had been criticized for maintaining the holdings while dealing with legislation affecting the medical industry and managed care. Call said the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has found nothing wrong with Frist's holdings in the company in a blind trust.
To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, Senator Frist went beyond what ethics requires and sold the stock, Call said. Asked why he had not done so before, she said, I don't know that he's been worried about it in the past.
An HCA spokesman said the company had no part in Frist's decision.
Frist's father, Thomas, founded the company, and his brother, Thomas Jr., is a director and leading stockholder. The family is worth $1.1 billion, according to Forbes magazine.
HCA -- formerly known as Columbia HCA Healthcare Corp. -- has been a top contributor to the senator's campaigns, donating $83,450 since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The sale of the shares was first reported by Congressional Quarterly.
Send Senator Howard Carroll your suggestions. sm
He is retired now. No, I do not think a flight instructor is a small job, but it is a weenie job when compared to a soldier doing a tour in a war zone.
Senator McCain opposes Marriage Protection Amendment
Senator McCain opposes Marriage Protection Amendment
Sen. McCain has said he will oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment (MAP), which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, when it comes up for a vote on June 6th.
Sen. McCain says it should be left up to each individual state to define marriage. Can you imagine the mess if that happened! Fifty different laws defining marriage! That is totally unworkable. Our forefathers knew the mess that would create, and that is the reason marriage fell under the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
One liberal activist Federal judge could strike down the marriage laws in all 50 states because they would be so confusing and conflicting.
In reality, a vote for the MAP is a vote for traditional marriage. A vote against the MPA (which Sen. McCain currently plans to do) is, in reality, a vote for homosexual marriage.
Remember that no matter how Sen. McCain explains his opposition to the MPA, the bottom line is that a vote against it is a vote for homosexual marriage.
Senator McCain needs to hear from you today! Call him using one of the district office numbers below. If the line is busy keep calling until you get through.
Take Action |
Please call Senator McCain today and tell him to vote for the MPA. If his lines are busy, please keep trying. He needs to hear from you personally.
Washington DC office: 202-224-2235
District Offices: Phoenix 602-952-2410 Tempe 480-897-6289 Tucson 520-670-6334
|
Colbert Report: Senator Allen and His Ethnic Friends
This is sooooo funny. When I first saw the clip of Allen's Macaca comment, I actually emailed the Colbert Report and wrote, **Help. Senator Allen needs Stephen's help in getting some new ethnic friends** because this true story reminded me so much of the comedic segments on the Colbert Report regarding Stephen's search for a new **black friend.** I think they call this life imitating art! LoL!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
Senator Frist Now Backs Funcing for Stem Cell Research
Finally! A neocon wants to save life AFTER it's born, too!
July 29, 2005
Veering From Bush, Frist Backs Funding for Stem Cell Research
WASHINGTON, July 29 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.
Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing " P nonetheless.< bill the supports he work, for financing taxpayer on limits strict placed which policy, four-year-old Bush?s Mr. altering about reservations had while that said He speech. Senate lengthy a in morning this decision his announced juncture,? at>
"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist said. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."
His speech received the approval of Democrats as well as Republicans.
"I admire the majority leader for doing this," Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader and Democrat of Nevada, said immediately after the speech. He and Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said Mr. Frist's stance would give hope to people everywhere.
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, contending they were discussing "the difference between life and death," said of Mr. Frist, "I believe the speech that he has just made on the Senate floor is the most important speech made this year, and perhaps the most important speech made in years."
He added: "This is a speech that will reverberate around the world, including at the White House."
Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, said Mr. Frist had told Mr. Bush in advance notice of his planned announcement. "The president said, "You've got to vote your conscience," Mr. McClellan said, according to The Associated Press.
"The president's made his position clear," Mr. McClellan said when asked if Mr. Bush would veto a pending bill that would liberalize federal support for stem cell research, The A.P. reported. "There is a principle involved here from the president's standpoint when it comes to issues of life."
Mr. Frist's move will undoubtedly change the political landscape in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, one of the thorniest moral issues to come before Congress. The chief House sponsor of the bill, Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, said, "His support is of huge significance."
The stem cell bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, where competing measures are also under consideration. Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters, his support for the bill could break the Senate logjam. It could also give undecided Republicans political license to back the legislation, which is already close to having the votes it needs to pass the Senate.
The move could also have implications for Mr. Frist's political future. The senator is widely considered a potential candidate for the presidency in 2008, and supporting an expansion of the policy will put him at odds not only with the White House but also with Christian conservatives, whose support he will need in the race for the Republican nomination. But the decision could also help him win support among centrists.
"I am pro-life," Mr. Frist said in the speech, arguing that he could reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. "I believe human life begins at conception."
But at the same time, he said, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."
Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, said today in a statement that Senator Frist's decision was "very disappointing but not a surprise," given the senator's previous testimonies advocating stem cell research.
"As a heart surgeon who knows that adult stem cells are already making huge progress in treating heart disease in humans, it is unfortunate that Sen. Frist would capitulate to the biotech industry," Mr. Perkins said. "Thankfully, the White House has forcefully promised to hold the ethical line and veto any legislation that would expand the president's current policy."
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also objected to Mr. Frist's decision and alluded to its political impact. "Senator Frist cannot have it both ways," he said, according to The A.P. "He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding. Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008."
Backers of the research were elated. "This is critically important," said Larry Soler, a lobbyist for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. "The Senate majority leader, who is also a physician, is confirming the real potential of embryonic stem cell research and the need to expand the policy."
Mr. Frist, who was instrumental in persuading President Bush to open the door to the research four years ago, has been under pressure from all sides of the stem cell debate. Some of his fellow Senate Republicans, including Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Mr. Specter, who is the lead Senate sponsor of the House bill, have been pressing him to bring up the measure for consideration.
"I know how he has wrestled with this issue and how conscientious he is in his judgment," Mr. Specter said today. "His comments will reverberate far and wide."
But with President Bush vowing to veto it - it would be his first veto - other Republicans have been pushing alternatives that could peel support away from the House bill.
Last week Mr. Castle accused the White House and Mr. Frist of "doing everything in their power to deflect votes away from" the bill. On Thursday night, Mr. Castle said he had written a letter to Mr. Frist just that morning urging him to support the measure. "His support of this makes it the dominant bill," he said.
Despite Mr. Frist's speech, a vote on the bill is not likely to occur before September because the Congress is scheduled to adjourn this weekend for the August recess.
With proponents of the various alternatives unable to agree on when and how to bring them up for consideration, Mr. Frist says he will continue to work to bring up all the bills, so that senators can have a "serious and thoughtful debate."
Human embryonic stem cells are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of a new field of regenerative medicine. The cells, extracted from human embryos, have the potential to grow into any type of tissue in the body, and advocates for patients believe they hold the potential for treatments and cures for a range of diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.
"Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold some promise for specific cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide," Mr. Frist said.
But the cells cannot be obtained without destroying human embryos, which opponents of the research say is tantamount to murder. "An embryo is nascent human life," Mr. Frist said in his speech, adding: "This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science."
On Aug. 9, 2001, in the first prime-time speech of his presidency, Mr. Bush struck a compromise: he said the government would pay only for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, created by that date, so that the work would involve only those embryos "where the life or death decision has already been made."
The House-passed bill would expand that policy by allowing research on stem cell lines extracted from frozen embryos, left over from fertility treatments, that would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Castle has said he believes the bill meets the president's guidelines because the couples creating the embryos have made the decision to destroy them.
In his speech, Mr. Frist seemed to adopt that line of reasoning, harking back to a set of principles he articulated in July 2001, before the president made his announcement, in which he proposed restricting the number of stem cell lines without a specific cutoff date. At the time, he said the government should pay for research only on those embryos "that would otherwise be discarded" and today he similarly supported studying only those "destined, with 100 percent certainty, to be destroyed."
Moreover, he said, "Such funding should be provided only within a comprehensive system of federal oversight."
After Mr. Bush made his 2001 announcement, it was believed that as many as 78 lines would be eligible for federal money. "That has proven not to be the case," Mr. Frist said. "Today, only 22 lines are eligible."
But, Mr. Frist says the Castle bill has shortcomings. He says it "lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism," does not prohibit financial incentives between fertility clinics and patients, and does not specify whether the patients or the clinic staff have a say over whether embryos are discarded. He also says the bill "would constrain the ability of policy makers to make adjustments in the future."
Mr. Frist also says he supports some of the alternative measures, including bills that would promote research on so-called adult stem cells and research into unproven methods of extracting stem cells without destroying human embryos.
"Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream," he said in conclusion today. "But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It's time for a modified policy - the right policy for this moment in time."
Jennifer Bayot and Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article from New York.
Incoming junior senator from Illinois Burris more qualified/more experience than Obama...
just the facts, ma'am.
I know it is not the same interview.
What I was saying is that he outlines in this interview what he feels is the big problem with the White House.
Did you see the interview......
with those three men who were recently released after being hostages in Columbia? I was about in tears when that one guy was talking about being locked in boxes at night and how he would think about his daughter. When he talked about them having no indication of being released and then him and two guys looked out and saw a rainbow......he knew they would get out and go home but he just didn't know when. That rainbow was a sign to him that God was going to get them through. To be able to have such faith in a time like that. Makes my problems seem so small compared to what they went through. I can't even imagine. The one man said that he finally got to meet his 5 y/o twin boys for the first time as they had not been born when he was taken hostage.
No, I did not see that particular interview...
but have read a lot and it is indeed inspiring. And personally I believe trials are when faith is the strongest, you dig deep and find strength you never thought you had. And you are the most open to God communicating to you...like the rainbow communicating to the man and the Holy Spirit confirming that they would be rescued. And yes, when you hear of something like this, certainly does put one's own problems in perspective, doesn't it?
Then why not do an interview for someone who...
doesn't get a tingle up their leg when you speak? Who is going to ask you the hard questions? He avoided that for over a year. If he is so confident, so ready to lead, why let little old Fox News scare him? Your argument rings very hollow...and it is the koolaid you should be reaching for, not chocolate...lol.
I saw that interview
What I didn't see was the reporter questioning McCain/Palin. Did that happen? What kind of questions did she ask THEM? With her attitude, I certainly do not blame Obama/Biden. She admitted on Larry King, I think it was, that she is a Republican. Another conclusion I've come to. Rabid Republicans have poor eyesight!
yup, that was an interview by someone from
man I can't think of his name right now. He has a side kick lady, but you were listening to the same one. The guy with long hair and sunglasses....Stern. That's him. While it was amusing, it was also an eye opener. Even Stern who is very liberal was shocked at the stupidity.
Yesterday's interview on
Matt Cooper pretty much spelled it out. You might not like it, though, because it still holds your boys accountable for their actions. So by all means, read at your own risk.
MSNBC.com
Transcript for July 17 Matt Cooper, John Podesta, Ken Mehlman, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein
NBC News
Updated: 1:57 p.m. ET July 17, 2005
PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."
Sunday, July 17, 2005
GUESTS: Matt Cooper, White House Correspondent, Time Magazine; John Podesta, President and CEO, "Center for American Progress" and Former Chief of Staff, President Bill Clinton; Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee; Bob Woodward, Washington Post and author, "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat" and Carl Bernstein, former Washington Post Watergate Reporter
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert, NBC News
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the investigation into the leak which identified Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. This Time magazine reporter says his source released him from his pledge of confidentiality, allowing him to avoid jail by testifying on Wednesday. What did he say to the grand jury? He'll discuss it for the first here this morning. Our guest: Matt Cooper.
Then Newsweek magazine quotes Karl Rove as saying it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency, who authorized the trip." What now for President Bush's deputy chief of staff? With us, Rove's former deputy, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, and President Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta.
And 33 years ago, another famous source, Deep Throat, provided information which brought about the resignation of Richard M. Nixon. His identity has now been revealed and his story now chronicled in a new book: "The Secret Man." With us, Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
But, first, joining us now is Matt Cooper of Time magazine. Welcome.
MR. MATT COOPER: Morning, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the cover of your magazine: "Rove on the Spot," subtitled "What I Told the Grand Jury," by Matthew Cooper. And here is an excerpt from your article, which will be available tomorrow in Time magazine.
"So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."
For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?
MR. COOPER: That's correct.
MR. RUSSERT: And when Karl concluded his conversation with you, you write he said, "I've already said too much." What did that mean?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure what it meant, Tim. At first, you know, I thought maybe he meant "I've been indiscreet." But then, as I thought about it, I thought it might be just more benign, like "I've said too much; I've got to get to a meeting." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I do know that memory of that line has stayed in my head for two years.
MR. RUSSERT: When you were told that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, did you have any sense then that this is important or "I better be careful about identifying someone who works for the CIA"?
MR. COOPER: Well, I certainly thought it was important. I wrote it in the e-mail to my bosses moments later that has since leaked out after this long court battle I've been in. You know, I certainly thought it was important. But I didn't know her name at the time until, you know, after Bob Novak's column came out.
MR. RUSSERT: Did you have any reluctance writing something so important?
MR. COOPER: Well, I wrote it after Bob Novak's column had come out and identified her, so I was not in, you know, danger of outing her the way he did.
MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."
Did you interpret that as a confirmation?
MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?
MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: I believe so.
MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."
"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?
MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.
MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?
MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.
MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?
MR. COOPER: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: The big discussion, Matt Cooper, has been about your willingness to testify...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...before the grand jury. And let's go through that. This was Wednesday, July 6, Matt Cooper talking to the assembled press corps.
(Videotape, July 6, 2005):
MR. COOPER: This morning, in what can only be described as a stunning set of developments, that source agreed to give me a specific, personal and unambiguous waiver to speak before the grand jury.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Now, Karl Rove's attorney has spoken to The Washington Post. "[Karl Rove's attorney, Robert] Luskin has said that he merely reaffirmed the blanket waiver by Rove ...and that the assurance would have been available at any time. He said that [Matt] Cooper's description of last-minute theatrics `does not look so good' and that `it just looks to me like there was less a desire to protect a source.'"
MR. COOPER: Well, can I back up a little bit, Tim? For two years, you know, I have protected the identity of my sources. As you know, I was in a rather infamous court battle that went through all the courts in Washington, right up to the Supreme Court, and we lost there with a special prosecutor trying to get me to disclose my source. My principle the whole time was that no court and no corporation can release me from a pledge of confidentiality with my source. And so even after Time magazine, over my objections, handed over my notes and e-mails, which included, really, everything I had and identified all my sources, I still believed that I needed some kind of personal release from the source himself.
And so on the morning of that clip you just saw, my lawyer called me and had seen in The Wall Street Journal that morning Mr. Rove's lawyer saying, "Karl does not stand by any confidentiality with these conversations," or words to that effect, and then went on to say, "If Matt Cooper's going to jail, it's not for Karl Rove." And at that point, at that point only, my lawyer contacted Mr. Rove's lawyer and said, you know, "Can we get a kind of personal waiver that applies to Matt?" And Mr. Luskin and he worked out an agreement and we have a letter that says that "Mr. Rove waives confidentiality for conversations with Matt Cooper in July 2003." So it's specific to me and it's personal, and that's why I felt comfortable, only at that point, going to testify before the grand jury. And once I testified before the grand jury, then I felt I should share that with the readers of Time.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Luskin, Rove's attorney, is suggesting that you had the same waiver throughout the last two years, and only when you were confronted with going to jail did you, in effect, decide to compromise your source or not protect your source.
MR. COOPER: Well, I protected my source all along. I don't maintain that I haven't. I have all the way along, and that's why we went to the Supreme Court. That's why I stood by the source even after Time had disclosed my documents. We went to Rove only after seeing his lawyer, in some sense, invite us to, in that quote in The Wall Street Journal. My lawyers and the editors at the time did not feel it was appropriate for me to go and approach Rove about some kind of waiver before then.
MR. RUSSERT: In your piece, as I mentioned, you said "some government officials," and you said it may be more than just Rove and Libby. Did you get waivers from those additional sources when you testified before the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into anything else, but I don't--anything I discuss before the grand jury, I have a waiver for.
MR. RUSSERT: Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...of Time magazine, authorized the release of your e-mails and notes to the prosecutor. Pearlstine said this: "I found myself really coming to the conclusion that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do." Do you agree?
MR. COOPER: In part. I mean, I think Norman Pearlstine made a very tough decision. I spent a lot of time with him and I admired the way he made it. I disagreed. I thought we should have at least, you know, gone forward, gone into civil contempt. I would have been willing to go to jail. I think we should have, you know, held on a little longer, but that's a reasonable, you know, disagreement between people.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, he came to Washington, Pearlstine, and some other editors from New Work and met with the Washington bureau of Time magazine.
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: At least two correspondents produced e-mails saying, "Our sources are now telling us they will no longer confide in Time magazine. They will no longer trust us to protect our sources." Is that going to be a long-term problem for your magazine?
MR. COOPER: Well, I think, you know, Time will have to, you know, reassure confidential sources that we're going to continue to rely on them and continue to protect them. You know, this--Tim, I think the important thing is here that one aberration in this case was it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and it was then--you know, Time did decide in this case to turn over the notes. Now, Pearlstine has said that in other cases he might not. I think the important thing to remember here is that, you know, the reporters of Time will keep their word. I kept my word for two years. I didn't feel like any court or corporation could release me from that confidence, and I kept my word and so only spoke with the grand jury after I received that written personal waiver from my source.
MR. RUSSERT: You are going to testify this week before Congress for a shield law. Explain that.
MR. COOPER: Sure . Well, Tim, you know, this is the 12th day, I believe, of my colleague Judith Miller from The New York Times being in jail in this investigation because she did not get a waiver that she feels comfortable with and she's protecting her sources. There's incredible aberration, Tim. Forty- nine states have some kind of protection for journalists and their confidential sources, but there is no protection at the federal level. And so in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats have put forward legislation in Congress to create some kind of protection for whistle-blowers and confidential sources and other people who want to come forward to the press so there'd be some kind of federal law, too.
MR. RUSSERT: What's your biggest regret in this whole matter?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure I have that many. I mean, I believe the story I wrote was entirely accurate and fair, and I stand by it. And I think it was important because it was about an important thing that was going on. It was called A War on Wilson, and I believe there was something like a war on Wilson going on. I guess I'd be a little more discreet about my e-mails, I think. I'm an object lesson in that, you know, e-mails have a way of getting out.
MR. RUSSERT: Will this affect your career as a journalist?
MR. COOPER: I don't think it should, Tim. I kept my word to my source. I only spoke after I got a waiver from that source. That's what other journalists have done in this case. I don't think it should.
MR. RUSSERT: How did you find the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I was surprised, Tim. You know, I'd heard this old line that grand jurors are very passive, that they'll indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them. I thought this grand jury was very interested in the case. They--a lot of the questions I answered were posed by them as opposed to the prosecutor. I thought they were very involved.
MR. RUSSERT: Where do you think it's heading?
MR. COOPER: You know, I really don't know, Tim. I've been, you know, involved in this case as anyone, I guess, for a couple of years now, and at times I think it's a very big case, at times I think it's, you know, politics as usual and not going to be that big a case at all. I just don't know.
MR. RUSSERT: And we'll find out. Matt Cooper, we thank you very much for joining us and sharing your views.
MR. COOPER: Thank you, Tim.
Saw this interview, and I would surmise the man
knows what he is talking about...apparently things are NOT hunky-dory with the freedom-thing in Iraq, and so much as says let's get out now! and I agree!
POWERFUL INTERVIEW....sm
Double wowzers!!!
I am impressed and concur with Pat and the interviewers view points.
Thanks for sharing.
|