New York Times : A Different Set Of Rules For Democrats

In 1987, the New York Times said that Democrats had the right to block Reagan’s Supreme Court nomination, because they had won control of the Senate.

2016-02-17-06-33-57

Against Robert Bork – NYTimes.com

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to New York Times : A Different Set Of Rules For Democrats

  1. I haven’t done the research but I know Eisenhower was blocked in 1960. Let me look it up.

  2. Bill Junga says:

    It appears that the New York Times is merely a house organ of the Democratic Party. This should not be unexpected.

    • Yes, the New York Times is an organ of the Party and it is expected to behave like one. However, one must appreciate the honesty of the old Soviet Communists who didn’t pretend to follow any other principle than the interests of the Party as the vanguard of the Progressive cause.

      During the first press conference, ABC’s Sam Donaldson asked the new president about Moscow’s aims and intentions. Throwing diplomatic double-speak to the wind, Reagan calmly explained that the Soviet leadership had “openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat.”

      Reagan continued, explaining that the Soviets considered their relativistic behavior “moral, not immoral.” This was something that the United States needed to “keep . . . in mind” when doing “business” with Moscow. The assembled Washington press corps responded with what National Security Adviser Richard V. Allen described as “an audible gasp.”

      In the ensuing weeks, America’s leading journalists—perplexed, offended—repeatedly pressed the new president for clarification. And so Reagan would clarify, again and again, saying of the Soviet leadership:

      “They don’t subscribe to our sense of morality. They don’t believe in an afterlife; they don’t believe in a God or a religion. And the only morality they recognize, therefore, is what will advance the cause of socialism.”

      http://itmakessenseblog.com/tag/soviet-power

      We’ll be well advised to remember this even as the New York Times pretends to share our morality and our allegiance to America’s founding principles.

  3. darrylb says:

    NYT not a surprise

    Off subject, but I would like respond to the thread I missed ‘The Day the Music Died’
    It all shows how things have changed.
    — I live near Mankato, Holly and the Crickets were at the Kato Ballroom that fateful year.
    traveling in what was called the winter dance party.
    —Then they traveled to Duluth, at the National Guard armory, Bobby Dylan (at age 17) said he stood three feet in front of Holly
    —-Then traveled in that unheated bus back to Spirit Lake near here. The drummer got frostbite
    and had to be hospitalized. Holly Charted the plane so they could get to Moorhead early,
    wash some clothes and get some rest. I was in junior High at the time
    —- Tommy Allison lost his seat on the plane to Ritchie Valens (ValenZuela) and Waylon Jennings
    gave his seat to the Big Bopper, who had the flu and joked to him, I hope your plane crashes,
    something that Jennings said haunted him his whole life.
    —– Valens sister lives near here and she sometimes sings at the Kato where they honor the
    the lives of the musicians on the anniversary of their appearance each year.
    —–Teenagers John Lennon and Paul McCartney saw Holly in London and they chose the name
    ‘Beatles’ in part to honor Holly and the ‘Crickets’
    ——The Hollies took their name mostly after Christmas Holly. Honoring Buddy Holly was an
    afterthought.
    ——Holly named a song ‘Cindy Lou’ but changed it to ‘Peggy Sue’ after his drummer Bobby
    Allison broke up with her, Later he did marry her.
    —– Bruce Springsteen says he plays ‘Holly’ before every performance just to keep him honest.
    ——Valence (age 17) told Donna (age 15) that he had written the song ‘Oh Donna’ for her, but she had no idea it was recorded until she heard it being played when she was riding in a convertible with five other girls. She could not hear it because they were all screaming.
    ——Donna, now Donna Fox, lives in Sacremento and has stated that Ritchie’s family still treats
    her like one of their own.

    Well, getting long, but I could another page.
    Just have to add that when I talk to people who saw Holly that he really had the place rockin’

    • Andy DC says:

      It is hard to believe that an artist of Holly’s stature would have to go traipsing around these little towns in the frigid Midwest during the dead of winter. Why not Vegas or Miami?

  4. Bork? The pot-smoking do-your-own-thing hippie judge? He’s lucky he wasn’t lynched!

  5. gator69 says:

    There are rules for democrats? When did this happen?

    • Some Democrats have tactical rules on how to deal with other Democrats in specific situations. Those rules can be suspended as needed if it advances the Progressive cause.

      They have no rules in the fight against all other Americans.

      Democrats.com
      ———————
      The Aggressive Progressives

      Democrats.com members who wish to participate in our message boards should observe the following rules:

      – You must generally support President Barack Obama, and you must not misrepresent his positions or actions, smear him, or attack him (1)

      – You must generally support the principles and candidates of the Democratic Party, and you must not misrepresent their positions or actions

      – You must support our efforts to build a dynamic and supportive community of progressive activists

      ———-
      (1) President Obama is the first Democratic president to call himself a progressive. But we recognize he is not as progressive as many of us here at Democrats.com, and we disagree (sometimes strongly) with some of his policies, Senate votes, and appointments. It is within our rules to criticize President Obama for specific actions and to urge him to take more progressive actions. But it is against our rules to misrepresent his actions, smear him, or attack him.

      http://www.democrats.com/rules

      • gator69 says:

        If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago, and a racist today.
        -Thomas Sowell

  6. Ted says:

    “President Obama is the first Democratic president to call himself a progressive.”

    Convenient. Just one cycle later, we have the first democrat to call himself a socialist.
    If Bernie wins the nomination, will it still be racist to say democrats are socialists?

  7. Ted says:

    I hate to say it, but I have to agree with His Highnessness on this one. I sincerely hope the senate blocks whoever he nominates, and doing so is entirely within it’s power. But he’s right that the constitution requires him to nominate someone, and it requires the senate to consider that person.

    On a somewhat different subject, I think it’s reasonable to trace the current animosity between democrats and republicans to the Borking of Bork. That stands in my mind as the point when the democrats started their now ubiquitous slogan of, “Anybody But ________.” It also seems to be the point when they decided that republicans were no longer just wrong, but universally evil. They’ve since become the party of hate, where literally the only thing holding their tenuous coalition together is their mutual hatred of middle and lower class whites. I still don’t get how the 60’s “peace and love” has reversed itself so thoroughly, or how older democrats seem so completely oblivious to that reversal. To their credit, at least younger democrats seem to be able to see how angry Hillary is. They don’t seem to pick up on how hateful they are themselves, though.

    I tried (briefly) to be a democrat when I was in high school, around the time of the Clarence Thomas teardown. I just couldn’t make myself hate whoever was the latest target, to the extent the democrats required. I still can’t. As much as I hate some of Obama’s actions, I just can’t make it personal. He doesn’t seem like that bad a guy to me. Arrogant and power hungry? Of course. But that describes just about everyone who’d even consider running for president. (Ron Paul being the most notable exception) I think he’s generally trying to do what he believes is right for the country. I think he’s absolutely wrong, and mostly incompetent. I think pretty much the same about W, too. But evil is a word I have a very hard time attaching to a person. Regardless of politics, that alone makes it impossible for me to be a modern democrat. I’m not really a republican, either. But at least they tell me to hate ideas, instead of people.

  8. gofer says:

    “A group called PoliTech visited the campus of George Mason University with a simple quest: to see how many students could put a name to famous political faces. The students surveyed in the film had a broad range of majors — from Finance, to Nursing, to Accounting, to Anthropology and, yes, even Government and International Politics. But nearly all of them failed the test. Big time. Most surprisingly, not only could the young woman majoring in politics not name Ronald Reagan, she even failed to identify Joe Biden, as did all the other students save for one. And not a single one was able to name Ronald Reagan after being shown his picture. (For the record, he looks nothing like Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.) However — and this is the least surprising part — every single student could instantly identify a pop culture icon known as Kim Kardashian.”

    Patriot Post

  9. RAH says:

    A good article which explains the SCOTUS vacancy: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/15/the_supreme_court_vacancy_explained_in_250_words_129666.html

    I agree with every word and will add.
    1. In the end I suspect it will be very difficult to get a nominee in that is as much of a Constitutional constructionist as Justice Scalia was in even if the Republicans win the WH. We conservatives will miss him very much.

    2. The next POTUS will probably get to replace two and possibly up to four Justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and Steven Breyer are all over 75. Ginsburg is 82 years old and a two time cancer survivor and Breyer is 77 years old. They are the two justices with voting records that are furthest left. Anthony Kennedy, more moderate but certainly not a Constitutional Constructionist, is 79 years old.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s