1. Unlike the RW'ers, the People want the Filibuster to stay
2. Bush Administration linked to Pundits
3. Social Security - Is it a crisis that deserves Fear Mogering or not?
1. Unlike the RW'ers, the People want the Filibuster to stay
According to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, a plurality of Americans favor retaining the Senate’s filibuster option for court nominations. The poll question read: “As you may know, in the last term of Congress some senators used a procedure called a filibuster when it came to some of President Bush's judicial nominees. When this happens, it takes the votes of sixty senators instead of fifty-one to end debate and hold a confirmation vote for a nominee. In your opinion, should the Senate maintain the filibuster rule or eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations?” Forty-eight percent of those polled favored maintaining the filibuster, with 39 percent calling for its elimination and 13 percent unsure.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/poll20050119.pdf2. Bush Administration linked to Pundits
Salon reports: “In light of the second revelation this month that the Bush administration had hired a Republican-friendly pundit to help promote policy initiatives -- payments that were kept hidden from readers and viewers -- conservative commentators are calling on the White House to come clean and detail any other controversial agreements. The opinion makers say they don't want a black cloud of suspicion hanging over their own columns and broadcasts.”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/27/pundits/index.htmlThe Department of Health and Human Services acknowledged Thursday that it paid a syndicated columnist at least $4,000 for work on behalf of Bush administration efforts to promote marriage.
The disclosure came a day after President Bush called for an end to paying commentators to promote his policies. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for Children and Families at the department, responded Thursday by issuing new rules banning the practice.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-27-hhs_x.htmWhere are you, Liberal Media?
3. Social Security - Is it something that deserves Fear Mogering or not?
Columnist David Limbaugh plays up the notion that Social Security is in “crisis” and argues that the Democrats are being dishonest regarding the future of the program: “Just like their about-face on assessing Saddam Hussein as a threat that had to be removed, they are now shamelessly, brazenly denying there is a serious problem with Social Security that needs serious attention. Like little kids they are arguing over the semantics of whether we are currently facing a ‘crisis’ in Social Security or just a major ‘problem.’”
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6391However, the National Review’s Rich Lowry suggests that the Bush Administration is wrong in describing the current Social Security situation as a crisis: “Any crisis 40 years away will strike most voters as attenuated, a fact Democrats have exploited effectively in the initial Social Security debate. Democrats go too far when they say, in effect, that ‘Bush lied about Iraq, and he is lying about Social Security.’ But the administration has been vulnerable to the charge of ‘false imminence’ in both debates.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200501250744.asphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/is_it_treason_yet/message/7