The Ressurrected One
05-13-2005, 01:09 PM
...strikes again!
Today's hottest media story relates to a CBS News report on the judicial filibuster by Gloria Borger that aired Monday night. The segment included an interview with Ken Starr, in which Starr, seemingly in reference to the Republicans' effort to end the filibuster, said:
"This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
You can watch the CBS report here (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/search/search.php?searchString=ken+starr&source=cbsvideos&sort=1&type=any&num=10&offset=0). The two Starr quotes are the main feature of the segment; what is most interesting to me is Bob Schieffer's reaction. He clearly understood Starr to be talking about the Republican effort in the above quote.
Only he wasn't. Starr learned of how CBS had edited his interview, and has made public an email (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051205/content/truth_detector_2.guest.html) in which he wrote:
"I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her."
As we have noted repeatedly, the mainstream media have pulled out all the stops to support the Democrats on the filibuster. This, though, would appear to be over the line. It is also being reported that Starr has asked for a copy of the video of his interview and been turned down by CBS, but I haven't yet seen that in writing anywhere. I don't know, maybe there is an innocent reason why CBS wouldn't want to give up the tape; maybe they sent it to Davos for safekeeping.
Then, there's this from the Media Research Center today:
CBS Twists Starr Rebuke of Democrats
Into Blast at GOP on Judges (http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050512_extra.asp#1)
http://www.mrc.org/stillshots/2005/Starr050905.jpg
Monday's CBS Evening News, Ken Starr has charged, distorted soundbites from him in order to clearly imply that he had denounced the GOP plan to block Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees as "a radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government." Gloria Borger had set up that bite: "Many conservatives consider the fight over judges their political Armageddon. But conservative icon and former federal Judge Ken Starr says it's gotten out of control." In an e-mail from Starr posted today on National Review Online's "The Corner," Starr explained: "The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience." Starr declared: "[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."
Borger can't claim she didn't have first-hand knowledge of what Starr said in the interview since the video clips played by CBS showed her sitting in a seat a couple of feet from him. Neither the Tuesday or Wednesday editions of the CBS Evening News offered any clarification.
[Web Update, 5/13: Thursday's CBS Evening News also did not provide any correction or clarification.]
While Starr does oppose ending the filibuster for judicial nominees, the AP on Tuesday night pounced on the Starr quote which had him attacking Republicans for a "radical departure" and an "assault" on the judiciary. The AP's Jesse Holland wrote:
"Kenneth Starr -- an appeals court judge on the D.C. circuit from 1983-1989 -- came out against the Republican plan to ban judicial filibusters on Monday. He told CBS Evening News that it is a 'radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.'"
For the AP dispatch in full: news.yahoo.com
Quin Hillyer, editorial page writer for the Mobile Register, on Wednesday afternoon alerted me to the possibility that CBS and AP had misconstrued the target of Starr's rebuke. This afternoon, Hillyer informed me that Rush Limbaugh spent some time on his show today dissecting CBS's distortion.
[Web Update, 5/13: For Rush Limbaugh's take as expressed on his May 12 show, check here]
Below is a transcript in full of the May 9 CBS Evening News story followed by today's posting on National Review Online, by Ramesh Ponnuru, of Starr's rejection of how CBS News characterized the target of his soundbites:
http://www.mrc.org/stillshots/2005/Borger051205.jpg
-- CBS Evening News, Monday, May 9. Anchor Bob Schieffer set up the piece: "In Washington, an epic battle that has been threatened for months now may be coming to a head: The Republican threat to try to change Senate rules and do away with filibusters to make it easier to confirm some of the President's judicial appointments. It sounds like inside baseball, but it could have a dramatic impact on everything from abortion and same-sex marriage to the death penalty. Here's Gloria Borger with our report."
Audio of Chuck Schumer over video of Capitol dome: "It's an arrogance, an abuse of power."
Borger: "As far as political fights go, this could be one for the history books."
Audio of Bill Frist: "They should get an up-or-down vote."
Borger: "The Senate showdown is over judges. Republicans, who want to get the President's nominees confirmed, are threatening to end the age-old filibuster, where any Senator can threaten to stop any vote just by continuously talking. Right now it takes 60 votes to cut him off. The Democrats call that unconstitutional, an assault on the system of checks and balances."
Borger, standing in front of Supreme Court: "But this fight goes way beyond Senate rules. This is a monumental battle about the future of the courts. Just who gets to sit on the Supreme Court? And should we appoint justices who want to rule on everything from abortion to gay marriage to civil rights? [Borger off camera again] That's why many conservatives consider the fight over judges their political Armageddon. But conservative icon and former federal Judge Ken Starr says it's gotten out of control."
Ken Starr, identified on-screen as "Dean, Pepperdine University School of Law," sitting opposite Borger in an office setting: "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
Borger: "Starr, who investigated the Monica Lewinsky case against President Clinton, tells CBS News that the Republican plan to end the filibuster may be unwise."
Starr: "It may prove to have the kind of long-term boomerang effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful Senators may come to regret."
Borger: "Still, Starr thinks all judges should be allowed a vote, even if they're Democrats."
Borger to Starr: "During the Clinton years-"
Starr: "Exactly."
Borger: "-lots of those nominees were blocked by Republicans in committee, you'll recall."
Starr: "Exactly."
Borger: "Right."
Starr: "And I don't think that's particularly admirable either."
Borger, with Capitol backdrop: "Now both sides realize they have a lot at stake here, so watch for talk of a possible compromise. They know that the polls show that partisan wrangling is not what the voters want, Bob."
Schieffer then asked her: "Well, seeing Ken Starr, of all people, coming out on what looks like the opposite side of many on the conservative, in the conservative wing of the Republican Party, tells me that both sides here may be looking for some way out of this showdown that's coming. Do you get that sense, Gloria?"
Borger: "I do get that sense. The polls are showing that the voters really want this wrangling to stop. I think Ken Starr is saying that those on the far right and those on the far left have both gone overboard; that a President ought to get the right to pick his judges, and we ought to move beyond where we were when we had the Justice Bork fight in the '80s, Bob."
-- National Review Online's The Corner, posting at 11:37am EDT on May 12. Quote marks, ellipses, parentheses and brackets as in posting:
KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS [Ramesh Ponnuru]
CBS, AP, and other outlets reported earlier this week that Starr had said that getting rid of the judicial filibuster would be a "radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
This seemed like a very odd thing for Starr to say, so I contacted him.
He forwarded to me an email he had sent to someone else who had asked about this matter:
"In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice...with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences....In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the 'filibuster' represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition....
"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."
END of item from NR's "The Corner." This item is posted at: www.nationalreview.com
Direct address for The Corner: www.nationalreview.com
-- Brent Baker
Today's hottest media story relates to a CBS News report on the judicial filibuster by Gloria Borger that aired Monday night. The segment included an interview with Ken Starr, in which Starr, seemingly in reference to the Republicans' effort to end the filibuster, said:
"This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
You can watch the CBS report here (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/search/search.php?searchString=ken+starr&source=cbsvideos&sort=1&type=any&num=10&offset=0). The two Starr quotes are the main feature of the segment; what is most interesting to me is Bob Schieffer's reaction. He clearly understood Starr to be talking about the Republican effort in the above quote.
Only he wasn't. Starr learned of how CBS had edited his interview, and has made public an email (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051205/content/truth_detector_2.guest.html) in which he wrote:
"I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her."
As we have noted repeatedly, the mainstream media have pulled out all the stops to support the Democrats on the filibuster. This, though, would appear to be over the line. It is also being reported that Starr has asked for a copy of the video of his interview and been turned down by CBS, but I haven't yet seen that in writing anywhere. I don't know, maybe there is an innocent reason why CBS wouldn't want to give up the tape; maybe they sent it to Davos for safekeeping.
Then, there's this from the Media Research Center today:
CBS Twists Starr Rebuke of Democrats
Into Blast at GOP on Judges (http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050512_extra.asp#1)
http://www.mrc.org/stillshots/2005/Starr050905.jpg
Monday's CBS Evening News, Ken Starr has charged, distorted soundbites from him in order to clearly imply that he had denounced the GOP plan to block Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees as "a radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government." Gloria Borger had set up that bite: "Many conservatives consider the fight over judges their political Armageddon. But conservative icon and former federal Judge Ken Starr says it's gotten out of control." In an e-mail from Starr posted today on National Review Online's "The Corner," Starr explained: "The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience." Starr declared: "[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."
Borger can't claim she didn't have first-hand knowledge of what Starr said in the interview since the video clips played by CBS showed her sitting in a seat a couple of feet from him. Neither the Tuesday or Wednesday editions of the CBS Evening News offered any clarification.
[Web Update, 5/13: Thursday's CBS Evening News also did not provide any correction or clarification.]
While Starr does oppose ending the filibuster for judicial nominees, the AP on Tuesday night pounced on the Starr quote which had him attacking Republicans for a "radical departure" and an "assault" on the judiciary. The AP's Jesse Holland wrote:
"Kenneth Starr -- an appeals court judge on the D.C. circuit from 1983-1989 -- came out against the Republican plan to ban judicial filibusters on Monday. He told CBS Evening News that it is a 'radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.'"
For the AP dispatch in full: news.yahoo.com
Quin Hillyer, editorial page writer for the Mobile Register, on Wednesday afternoon alerted me to the possibility that CBS and AP had misconstrued the target of Starr's rebuke. This afternoon, Hillyer informed me that Rush Limbaugh spent some time on his show today dissecting CBS's distortion.
[Web Update, 5/13: For Rush Limbaugh's take as expressed on his May 12 show, check here]
Below is a transcript in full of the May 9 CBS Evening News story followed by today's posting on National Review Online, by Ramesh Ponnuru, of Starr's rejection of how CBS News characterized the target of his soundbites:
http://www.mrc.org/stillshots/2005/Borger051205.jpg
-- CBS Evening News, Monday, May 9. Anchor Bob Schieffer set up the piece: "In Washington, an epic battle that has been threatened for months now may be coming to a head: The Republican threat to try to change Senate rules and do away with filibusters to make it easier to confirm some of the President's judicial appointments. It sounds like inside baseball, but it could have a dramatic impact on everything from abortion and same-sex marriage to the death penalty. Here's Gloria Borger with our report."
Audio of Chuck Schumer over video of Capitol dome: "It's an arrogance, an abuse of power."
Borger: "As far as political fights go, this could be one for the history books."
Audio of Bill Frist: "They should get an up-or-down vote."
Borger: "The Senate showdown is over judges. Republicans, who want to get the President's nominees confirmed, are threatening to end the age-old filibuster, where any Senator can threaten to stop any vote just by continuously talking. Right now it takes 60 votes to cut him off. The Democrats call that unconstitutional, an assault on the system of checks and balances."
Borger, standing in front of Supreme Court: "But this fight goes way beyond Senate rules. This is a monumental battle about the future of the courts. Just who gets to sit on the Supreme Court? And should we appoint justices who want to rule on everything from abortion to gay marriage to civil rights? [Borger off camera again] That's why many conservatives consider the fight over judges their political Armageddon. But conservative icon and former federal Judge Ken Starr says it's gotten out of control."
Ken Starr, identified on-screen as "Dean, Pepperdine University School of Law," sitting opposite Borger in an office setting: "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
Borger: "Starr, who investigated the Monica Lewinsky case against President Clinton, tells CBS News that the Republican plan to end the filibuster may be unwise."
Starr: "It may prove to have the kind of long-term boomerang effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful Senators may come to regret."
Borger: "Still, Starr thinks all judges should be allowed a vote, even if they're Democrats."
Borger to Starr: "During the Clinton years-"
Starr: "Exactly."
Borger: "-lots of those nominees were blocked by Republicans in committee, you'll recall."
Starr: "Exactly."
Borger: "Right."
Starr: "And I don't think that's particularly admirable either."
Borger, with Capitol backdrop: "Now both sides realize they have a lot at stake here, so watch for talk of a possible compromise. They know that the polls show that partisan wrangling is not what the voters want, Bob."
Schieffer then asked her: "Well, seeing Ken Starr, of all people, coming out on what looks like the opposite side of many on the conservative, in the conservative wing of the Republican Party, tells me that both sides here may be looking for some way out of this showdown that's coming. Do you get that sense, Gloria?"
Borger: "I do get that sense. The polls are showing that the voters really want this wrangling to stop. I think Ken Starr is saying that those on the far right and those on the far left have both gone overboard; that a President ought to get the right to pick his judges, and we ought to move beyond where we were when we had the Justice Bork fight in the '80s, Bob."
-- National Review Online's The Corner, posting at 11:37am EDT on May 12. Quote marks, ellipses, parentheses and brackets as in posting:
KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS [Ramesh Ponnuru]
CBS, AP, and other outlets reported earlier this week that Starr had said that getting rid of the judicial filibuster would be a "radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
This seemed like a very odd thing for Starr to say, so I contacted him.
He forwarded to me an email he had sent to someone else who had asked about this matter:
"In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice...with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences....In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the 'filibuster' represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition....
"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."
END of item from NR's "The Corner." This item is posted at: www.nationalreview.com
Direct address for The Corner: www.nationalreview.com
-- Brent Baker