|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Hewitt: Dan Rather Should Have Been Fired Special From NewsMax's Most Informed Sources
Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories): 1. Gay Group Slams Hillary The head of New York's leading gay rights group has sent out a memo calling Hillary Clinton's refusal to support gay marriage a "disappointment" and a reason why the group's board shouldn't help raise money for her campaign. In the Feb. 10 memo, marked "confidential" and sent via e-mail to board members of the Empire State Pride Agenda, Executive Director Alan Van Capelle refused to "lend my name and sell tickets" to a gay-oriented fund-raiser for Clinton's re-election. The memo - a copy of which was obtained by the New York Observer - states that supporting a gay fund-raiser for Clinton "will actually hurt our community. It will send a message to other elected officials that you can be working against us during this critical time and not suffer a negative pushback from the gay community.
Story Continues Below
The memo stated, "We have become a community that throws money at politicians and we demand nothing in return. And that's what we get - nothing. It's the wrong message to send." Van Capelle goes on the say that Hillary is "a complete disappointment and does not deserve" a fund-raiser from the gay community." Clinton opposes gay marriage as "a consequence of her Midwestern Methodist upbringing, her generally cautious political sensibility, her own personal marriage history, something else entirely, or a combination of these factors," according to a report about Van Capelle's memo on the National Journal's Web site The Hotline. According to the Observer, Democrats have basically sought to protect "traditional marriage" while at the same time attemped to appeal to the "donor-rich" gay community by supporting domestic partner benefits, AIDS research and other efforts popular among gays. "Increasingly, that's not enough for gay Democrats," Ben Smith writes in the Observer.
2. Alito's Awkward First Supreme Court Day On Samuel Alito's first day on the Supreme Court, the eight questions he asked put him on course to quickly surpass the total number of questions Justice Clarence Thomas has asked in 15 years. But the new justice did have a few awkward moments:
Alito won't have a lot of time for on-the-job training, however, before he likely becomes a central figure in an important issue before the Court. The Court has agreed to hear a case about "partial birth" abortion. Previously the Court decided against a ban on the procedure - with his predecessor, Sandra Day O'Connor, casting the deciding vote. Alito's first day on the bench came as the Court was hearing two environmental cases. As oral arguments started, Alito listened as the lawyer for a shopping-mall developer explained why the Clean Water Act didn't apply to him. Justice Antonin Scalia quickly interrupted to declare his agreement with the builder. Ginsburg broke in to voice her opposition. Then, without waiting for the other six, Alito spoke up: "Does it make sense that a tributary that leads into navigable water is not necessarily covered?" Justice David Souter agreed with Alito's line of questioning, suggesting "evil polluters" were trying to evade the law. Writes Milbank: "It might have been an anxious moment for the new justice's supporters. Was Alito, so recently championed by the right wing, siding with Ginsburg and Souter against Scalia? Or was he merely playing the devil's advocate, as justices often do? "Alito, resting his face in his left hand, his pinky on his lips, gave no further clues." Editor's Note:
3. Ex-Congressmen Urge Electoral College Reform A group of former congressmen is launching a campaign to reform the Electoral College system, saying presidential election results should rely on the nationwide popular vote rather than on the outcome of a handful of swing states. The group's plan would seek to eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election, as happened to Al Gore in 2000. The Campaign for the National Popular Vote is backed by former Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., former Rep. John Anderson, R-Ill., and other ex-members of Congress. Democrats may stand to gain more from such reforms because candidates could increase their margins in heavily populated urban areas that typically favor their party, the Chicago Tribune reports. But both Democratic and Republican candidates consistently carry certain states, and with the current winner-take-all system regarding electoral votes, voters on the losing side are effectively disenfranchised in those states. What's more, in the last two campaigns candidates rarely stopped in Illinois, California, Texas or New York, four large states that were deemed a lock in the Democratic or Republican camps. "We shouldn't make irrelevant 10 out of the 13 most populous states," Anderson told the Tribune. "Why should people feel they should even vote if they are irrelevant to the process?" Previous attempts to change the Electoral College by amending the Constitution have failed in Congress, so proponents of the Campaign for the National Popular Vote seek to change laws through individual state legislatures. The effort begins in Illinois, where legislation has been introduced in the General Assembly, followed by California and other states. The Illinois legislation calls for each state to join an interstate compact. When the states that have joined comprise 270 electoral votes - the number needed to win the presidency - the laws would simultaneously take effect, according to the Triune. The initiative does not seek to abolish the Electoral College, but rather it would award the electors from each state to the candidate who wins the country's popular vote. Supporters say the last two elections illustrate the need to change the system. In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 ballots, but lost the election in the Electoral College after George Bush narrowly won the popular vote in Florida and all of its 25 electoral votes. In 2004, President Bush won the popular vote by 3 million ballots, but would have lost if John Kerry had carried Ohio. Critics, however, say changing the Electoral College system would reduce the influence of smaller states. And even supporters of the new plan concede that reform is an uphill battle.
4. Don Hewitt: I Would've Fired Dan Rather Former "60 Minutes" executive producer Don Hewitt has said for the first time that he would have fired correspondent Dan Rather after the "Rathergate" scandal erupted over a segment of the show in late 2004. While taking part in Court TV's "Truth in Media and Publishing" panel, 83-year-old Hewitt was asked by Time magazine managing editor Jim Kelly: "Should Dan Rather have been fired." Hewitt had previously stopped short of publicly calling for Rather's axing. But this time he said simply: "Yes." He suggested that Rather was politically motivated in airing the September 2004 report about George Bush's service with the National Guard - a report that turned out to be based on forged documents. According to the New York Daily News, Hewitt told the panel: "I have a built-in bias against reporters who have axes to grind. I think there are reporters that allow their own bias to encroach on their journalism, and that's a crime against journalism." Mary Mapes, who produced the segment, was fired by CBS. But Rather was allowed to remain as the anchor of "CBS Evening News" until he retired in March 2005, and stayed with "60 Minutes II" even after that. Hewitt also took a swipe at the media furor over Oprah Winfrey's promotion of the book "A Million Little Pieces." When another panelist called Oprah "irresponsible" for promoting the supposed memoir, Hewitt declared: "The world's teetering on the brink of disappearing and here we're talking about Oprah."
5. Couric Could Take Big Pay Cut at CBS Katie Couric is likely to take Dan Rather's old job as anchor of "CBS Evening News" when her contract with NBC expires - and take a big pay cut as well. Couric now earns about $13 million a year co-hosting the "Today" show, and NBC will offer her $20 million to remain with the network, according to Roger Friedman at Fox News. But CBS will probably not offer Couric much more than she's getting now at NBC, since the evening news program is a half-hour show - while "Today" spans three hours - and is not a big money maker. "Nevertheless, Couric is probably going to take the job when the offer comes to her officially in mid-May," Friedman reports. "Her NBC contract doesn't expire until May 31, and she's not allowed to talk to any competitors until two weeks before that date." TV insiders believe money is less of a concern for Couric than how badly she wants to make a lifestyle change. Said a source: "If she leaves, it won't be for money."
6. We Heard ... THAT big bucks couldn't save Richard Nixon's son-in-law Ed Cox in his bid to unseat Sen. Hillary Clinton - he spent $1.1 million seeking the Republican nomination to oppose Clinton before withdrawing late last year. The millionaire lawyer hired high-priced GOP consultants connected to the Bush administration and New York Gov. George Pataki. But during all of last year, he raised only $294,296 from people not named Cox, campaign filings now show. Cox repeatedly had to dip into his own fortune to keep his campaign alive, dishing out as much as $150,000 a month via no-interest loans and cash payments, Newsday reports. Among his expenses were $172,995 to Karl Rove's former direct mail team, $177,185 to a Web site designer and $53,218 to a consultant to coach him on TV appearances. Cox appeared to be the front-runner for the GOP nod until Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro entered the race in August. Gov. Pataki endorsed Pirro, although she eventually dropped out of the Senate race to run for attorney general. But even with Pirro out of the picture, Pataki refused to endorse Cox against Republican primary opponent John Spencer, a former mayor of Yonkers. According to Newsday, Cox has left open the possibility of re-entering the race if Pataki does lend his endorsement.
Miller has joined The Harry Walker Agency, which crows in a release: "We are honored to announce that Judith Miller has joined us exclusively! The veteran New York Times reporter who sparked an international debate over journalistic ethics is now ready to tell her story." Miller was jailed for 85 days after refusing to divulge her sources to a prosecutor investigating the Bush administration's role in leaking a CIA officer's identity. After her release, Times editors said Miller had misled them and were sharply critical of her actions in the case. Miller quit the paper last November. THAT often-at-odds Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy shared an "affectionate moment" at a meeting of their Senate Judiciary Committee. After a nasty year of in-fighting on the committee over judicial confirmations, Vermont Democrat Leahy surprised onlookers by commending Pennsylvania Republican Specter for putting up a brave fight against cancer and "wearing out some members of this committee somewhat younger, including the ranking member (Leahy), and keeping an agenda that would wear out any chairman of either body," Roll Call reports. Specter, 76, is battling stage IV-B Hodgkin's disease. "Thank you very much," Specter replied. "You are making me blush." Leahy retorted: "That is not easy."
Editor's Notes:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |