The Republican National Committee released the following fact sheet today on MoveOn.org:Those crazy liberals are bringing their version of "truth" to the people again. Be sure to get the facts...
"It's no surprise that Democrats and left-wing organizations like MoveOn.org oppose efforts to confirm well qualified judicial nominees. The blatant inaccuracy of their claims, however, is nothing short of laughable. MoveOn.org and liberal Democrats can run misleading advertisements, but they can't run from their record of obstruction and empty rhetoric." -- Tracey Schmitt, Press Secretary
MOVEON PAC TARGETING SENATORS ON CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION
The Following MoveOn PAC Radio Ad Will Run Against Sens. Specter (R-PA), Snowe (R-Maine), Collins (R-Maine), Nelson (D- Neb.), Smith (R-Ore.), and Warner (R-Va.) Beginning On April 6 And Running Until April 8. (ABC's "The Note," 4/5/05)
MYTH: The Filibuster Has Been Around For 200 Years.
AD RHETORIC: "Senator Arlen Specter* Stands In His Office. The Senate Chamber Is Only Steps Away. There, For Two Hundred Years ..."
FACT: Legislative Filibuster Has Been In Existence For Less Than 100 Years.
-- The Filibuster Has Only Been In Existence Since 1917. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): "Filibustering against the legislative calendar items has been permitted since 1917 … But executive nominees, filibustering on the executive calendar is an entirely different situation." (Sen. Orrin Hatch, Congressional Record, 3/1/05, p. S1834)
-- Filibusters Of Judicial Nominees Are Not Part Of Senate Tradition. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): "(F)or the first time in history, we have had filibusters of judicial nominees. Only President Bush's judicial nominees have been filibustered by our colleagues on the other side, and in every case where they were filibustered, those nominees had majority support. So filibustering judges is not a part of the tradition of the Senate, nor has it ever been." (Sen. Orrin Hatch, Congressional Record, 3/1/05, p. S1833)
MYTH: Democrats Merely Want To Express Their Opinions On The Judicial Nominations.
AD RHETORIC: "(T)he Confirmation Process For Federal Judges Ensured That All Voices Were Heard."
FACT: Democrats Are Filibustering Nominees in Order to Block Them Permanently -- Not to Preserve Free Speech:
-- Democrats Are Not Filibustering Nominations In Order To Preserve The Minority's Right To "Be Heard;" They Are Permanently Blocking The Floor Votes Of Judicial Nominations. When asked how many hours were necessary to debate the nomination of Priscilla Owen, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) answered, "there is not a number in the universe that would be sufficient." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 4/8/03, p. S4949)
-- The Senate Had 28 Months To Debate The Nomination of Miguel Estrada Before It Was Withdrawn. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.): "In September, Miguel Estrada withdrew his nomination after a minority of Senators prevented him from getting a vote for 28 months." (Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Congressional Record, 11/4/03, p. S13843)
-- By September 2004, The Senate Has Spent More Than 150 Hours Debating Judicial Nominations -- More Than Any Previous Congress. (U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "The Assault On Judicial Nominations In The 108th Congress," 9/28/04)
MYTH: Judges Who Have Been Filibustered Are "Radical."
AD RHETORIC: "But Radical Republicans Want Absolute Power To Appoint Supreme Court Justices Who Will Support Their Radical Agenda And Favor Corporate Interests Over Our Interests."
FACT: Filibuster Of Nominees Is Radical -- Leading Senate Democrats Used To Agree Filibustering Nominations Indefinitely Is Neither Right Nor Fair:
-- In 1998, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.): "To Delay Judicial Nominations For Months And Years And To Deny Them A Vote Is Wrong." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 10/14/98, p. S12579)
a) "Vote Them Up, Vote Them Down," Leahy Told The Senate. "But I think they have given the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt, and if the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. ... That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what our oath of office should compel Members to do -- to vote for or against. ... Vote them up, vote them down." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99, p. S11102)
-- In 1998, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Said That Voting On Judicial Nominees Was Something That The Senate Owed To All Americans. "We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)
-- In 2000, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Said Government Does Not Fulfill Its "Constitutional Mandate" When Judicial Nominees Do Not Receive A Vote. "The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)
MYTH: Senate Republicans Are Attempting To Abolish All Filibusters.
AD RHETORIC: "Now Dick Cheney May Give Them What They Want Using A Parliamentary Trick So Outrageous Even Republicans Call It 'The Nuclear Option.' Fifty-One Votes In The Senate Can Defeat Dick Cheney. Arlen Specter's Vote Is Vital. Arlen Specter Needs To Know You Support Him Against The Radicals. Call Him Today ... And Tell Him To Oppose Dick Cheney's Nuclear Option."
FACT: No Republican Senator Is Advocating Ending The Legislative Filibuster, Even Though Several Democrats Have In The Past.
-- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas): "What We Are Talking About Is Not Restricting Debate In Any Way On Legislative Business…." (Sen. John Cornyn, Congressional Record, 3/4/05, p. S2079)
-- In 1995, Democrats (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, And Sarbanes) Wanted To End The Legislative Filibuster. In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the legislative filibuster who are still serving are the nine Democrats who supported the Harkin- Lieberman proposal in 1995. (Karen Hosler, "Senators Vote 76-19 To Maintain Filibuster," The (Baltimore) Sun, 1/6/95; S.Res. 14, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed to 76-19: R 53-0; D 23-19, 1/5/95, Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes Voted Nay)
-- The Harkin-Lieberman Proposal Would Have Amended The Senate Rules To Allow A Simple Majority To Overcome "Any" Filibuster. (Karen Hosler, "Senators Vote 76-19 To Maintain Filibuster," The (Baltimore) Sun, 1/6/95; S.Amdt. 1, Motion To Table Agreed To, 1/5/95)
-- As Majority Leader, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) Initiated Four Precedents That Allowed A Simple Majority To Change Senate Procedures Without Altering The Standing Rules, Thereby Avoiding A Filibuster By The Minority. (Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1977, pp. S31916-27; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1980, pp. S4729-32; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1979, pp. S31892-94; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1987, pp. S12252-60)
-- Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas): "(Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.)) Led The Creation Of Precedents In 1977, 1979, 1980 And 1987 To Stop Filibusters And Other Delaying Tactics Previously Allowed Under Senate Rules Or Precedents." (Sen. John Cornyn, Op-Ed, "Let The Senate Majority Rule," The Washington Post, 3/11/05)
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.): "Let The Senate Vote On Amendments, And Then Vote Up Or Down On The Resolution. … If I Have To Be Forced Into A Corner To Try For A Majority Vote, I Will (Change The Rules) Because I Am Going To Do My Duty As I See My Duty, Whether I Win Or Lose." (Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1979, pp. S144-45)
MYTH: MoveOn Really Protecting Free Speech -- A Moderate Position.
AD RHETORIC: "Paid For By MoveOn PAC, http://www.MoveOnPac.Org. Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee. MoveOn PAC Is Responsible For The Content Of This Advertisement."
FACT: MoveOn PAC Is Part Of Far Left Establishment:
-- Democrat Leadership Council (DLC) CEO Al From: "You've Got To Reject Michael Moore And The MoveOn Crowd." (NBC's "First Read," 3/1/05)
a) "Rank-And-File Democrats 'Are More Like Us Than MoveOn,' Which (Al) From Called A Group Of 'Elites, People Who Sit In Their Basements All The Time And Play On Their Computers.'" (NBC's "First Read," 3/1/05)
-- Top Donors To MoveOn.Org Voter Fund Were Herbert And Marion Sandler ($2,505,014), Peter B. Lewis ($2,500,000), George Soros ($2,500,000) and Stephen Bing ($971,427). (Political Money Line Web site, http://www.tray.com , Accessed 3/18/05)
a) The Sandlers Were Fourth Largest Donors To Democrat 527 Groups, Giving $14,009,039, Including To The Joint Victory Campaign And Citizens For A Strong Senate. (Political Money Line Web site, http://www.tray.com , Accessed 3/18/05)
-- Peter Lewis And Billionaire Philanthropists George Soros And John Sperling Have "Bankrolled The Pro-Pot Movement." (Joel Stein, "The New Politics Of Pot; Can It Go Legit?" Time, 11/4/02)
a) Lewis Was Second Largest Donor To Democrat-527 Groups In 2004 Cycle, Giving $23,997,220, Including To Joint Victory Campaign 2004, ACT NOW PAC, America Votes 2004 And Democracy For America. (Political Money Line Web site, http://www.tray.com , Accessed 3/18/05)
-- Soros Said A "Supremacist Ideology" Guides Bush Administration, Which Reminds Him Of Nazis. (Laura Blumenfeld, "Soros's Deep Pockets Vs. Bush," The Washington Post, 11/11/03)
a) Soros Contributed The Most Money, $27,030,105, Of Any Donor To 527s In 2004 Cycle, Including To Joint Victory Campaign 2004, ACT NOW PAC, And Democracy For America. (Political Money Line Website, http://www.tray.com , Accessed 3/18/05)
b) Soros Has Been Called The "Daddy Warbucks" Of Drug Legalization. Joseph A. Califano Jr., Op-Ed, "Devious Efforts To Legalize Drugs," The Washington Post, 12/4/96)
-- Bing Described As "Playboy-Producer-Philanthropist." (Eric Alterman, "The Hollywood Campaign," The Atlantic Monthly, 9/04)
a) Bing Was Fourth Largest Contributor, Giving $13,952,682, To Democrat-527s In 2004 Cycle, Including To Joint Victory Campaign 2004, Voices For Working Families, And Campaign for Americas Future. (Political Money Line Web site, http://www.tray.com , Accessed 3/18/05)
-- Recent MoveOn.Org Social Security Ad Labeled "False" By FactCheck.Org. (FactCheck.Org, "MoveOn.Org Social Security Ad," http://www.factcheck.org , 2/1/05)
Mark's Remarks
The Left is in full panic mode. The light is being shined on their obstruction. And all they have to fight it is a slick ad campaign???? They themselves have said it: fillibustering these nominees is wrong.... Leahy said it, among others.
And, as usual, the liberals misread or simply pencil in things that aren't there to the Constitution. There is no fillibuster provision in the Constitution. It is not 200 years old. Besides, we are only talking about fillibustering nominees, not ending debate totally. Why can't liberals present the facts? Answer: their worldview is so skewed by blind pathological hatred for anything different than them that they cannot see the facts....
