Newsflash: MSM lies for Bush

[hfojvt]

There's a first time for everything, eh? :sarcasm: The AP story on Yahoo news says Roberts was "overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate to lead the Supreme Court"
78-22 is considered overwhelming? Yes, it is sad that we could not get another ten Democrats on the right side, but compare that to the votes on the previous nine candidates, courtesy of my research on Wikipedia.

Ruth Ginsburg: The U.S. Senate confirmed her by a 96 to 3 vote and she took her seat on August 10, 1993.

O'Connor: She was confirmed by the Senate 99-0 on September 21 and took her seat September 25

Breyer was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in an 87 to 9 vote and took his seat August 3, 1994.

David Souter: and he took his seat October 9, 1990 shortly after the United States Senate confirmed him by a vote of 90 to 9.

Finally, Reagan nominated Kennedy, and after being confirmed 97-0 by the Senate he took his seat February 18, 1988.

Scalia was approved by the Senate in a vote of 98-0 and he took his seat on September 26, 1986.

Rehnquist: and after being confirmed by the Senate by a 68–26 vote on December 10, 1971,

Stevens: he took his seat December 19, 1975 after being confirmed 99-0 by the Senate

Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a 52-48 vote on October 15, 1991,

4 out of nine were confirmed without a single negative vote, one with less than five negative votes, and two with less than 10 negative votes. Bush should to find a less divisive nominee next time.

[raccoon]

1. Thanks for posting that.

Was it Bush himself, or the presstitutes, who came up with the "mandate" (from the voters, I mean)?

[Demoiselle]

2. MSM has the attention span (and memory bank) of a fruit fly.

And the work ethic of a three-toed sloth. (No offense meant to any three-toed sloths that may be reading this.)

[AX10]

3. kick

This is true. Roberts did not get 90% of the votes. He only got 78%.

[hfojvt]

4. and how will it be reported on tonight's news

and in tomorrow's papers?
Probably they will say something like "considering how divided the Senate is now, it is an overwhelming victory for Bush"
But how did we get so divided and what has Bush done to be a "uniter"? I would say that 22 negative votes is proof of Bush's unwillingness to nominate a non-divisive candidate. I could look up the votes for Bush's cabinet too and most of them were 98-2 or better, so we only became "this divided" in Bush's term. The MSM will write the 22 off as knee-jerk opposition.