Sandy Hook

Sandy Hook

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Ken Starr Said What About Right-Wing Attacks on Kagan?

Former Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr chastised Republicans on MSNBC today for suggesting that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is unqualified because she has no prior bench experience.

“It’s certainly not necessary,” Starr said, adding that she “has been an outstanding teacher, a wonderful academic, a very successful dean…[and] was a great community builder.” Host Monica Novotny then asked about attacks on Kagan from “conservative politicians” and “conservatives in the media.” “That’s politics,” Starr said, calling them “ugly.” He later said the right-wing strategy isn’t good for the Court or for the country.

Novotny told Starr that no one is expecting Republicans to filibuster the nomination but they are vowing to vigorously challenge her and as you’ve said, “that’s politics.” But is that the right strategy?

Well it may be good politics but I don’t think it’s good for the Court. We have been through a generation of very divisive politics which I think is not serving the Court well and therefore I don’t think it serves the country well. But far be it from me to question the tactics of folks who are elected by their constituents to carry a particular voice. I just wish for the sake of the country that there are less rancor and acrimony. Elections have consequences. President Obama has chosen someone who is very qualified.


Think Progress reminds us:

Starr, who famously led the impeachment campaign against President Bill Clinton, has previously said he “very much regrets” his “unhappy decision” to drag the country through that right-wing crusade

19 comments:

  1. I just wish Ken Starr had cared more for the country years ago. I wish he had been as principled when he prosecuted Bill Clinton for lying about sex. What a shameful time in our history that was and it led to a free-for-all open season on politicians. The Swift Boat gang certainly felt free to lie and distort knowing they could get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Darlene, I totally agree. I'm not crazy about this man at all - I hate what he did to Clinton and to the country. Yet, he did express his regrets and he is slamming the right-wing for their "ugly" criticism of Kagan. I don't want to sound sappy, but if we are going to begin to heal, I think we have to forgive. Maybe even more important, he's the first damn Republican to speak out against "politics as usual" and the meanness of those nuts on the right. In today's climate I feel that takes courage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OMG .... this isnt going to be another rightee/ leftee battle, heh? Once again .... the forces of good/ evil at each other's throat's, of course both calling themselve's good and their opponent evil. Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh .... I mean .... the gal look's alright to me, whether I agree with her or not on every issue .... beside's most folk's only care about if she will be against homo's, or against abortion, neither of which are going to be stopped anywayz, whether you like it or not, because it's not practical thinking ... it's nothing more than time wasting political highsiding for the pop culture thinking. No one should worry .... she's not "evil" .... or anything out of the mainstream, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh. :)

    Thank You Ms.TNlib ......

    ReplyDelete
  4. Darlene:
    I agree, it was very shameful when Clinton lied to the American people about his sexual escapades.

    He should have just told the truth, and asked for forgiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Now, now RC, it wouldn't be politics if the lefties and righties agreed on something.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Senate voted 96-0 on a watered down version to audit the Fed. That was not politics, that was a nod of survival instinct.

    Kagan will be affirmed. I am sure of that. Some of the repubs will need to give their base some lip service. But she will get the position.
    Why shouldn't she? She basically agreed with the W administration during her other confirmation.

    I do not like the idea that Larry Summers was her boss at Harvard. Plus she might have to much loyalty to Obama, and Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RZ - we can't always choose our bosses. If we could, I would never have had that she-male pitbull I had in my last job.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wonder? Is "not inhaling" the as acceptable as pulling out? :-)

    The sad thing is, it is in fact all politics, which hasn't had a damned thing to do with you and I and the rest of the country for so long now there are generations of people who think this is what the country is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BB: ROFLMAO
    Well said.
    This has been going on for decades. From both sides.
    Ever see the movie [Bulworth]?

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is a clip from Bulworth.
    It sums it up quite nicely.
    [WARNING STRONG LANGUAGE] :-)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8lUY9jS8oQ&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  11. Darlene: Fact Check looked into the Swift Boat matter, and could not conclude whether or not they were lying or Kerry's side was lying.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can see how dmarks would read the Fact Check accounts of the two Swift Boats ad and conclude that they don't take a position. But for those of us who don't stretch reality to the breaking point, the analyses flatly contradict the content of the ads.

    ReplyDelete
  13. dmarks is doing what could charitably be called some selective reading, or less charitably be called lying. either way, it's no wonder nobody takes anything he has to say the least bit seriously.

    As for Starr..... I am sure he thinks he did the job he was hired to do, and probably doesn't think of it much beyond that. History, however, is going to have a far different take on him.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh, my God! Did Starr see a sign on the road to Damascus?

    If only he had had such common sense back in the days.

    ReplyDelete
  15. BB: LOL - good question. Hey, it's politics as usual and has been going on since the days of the Founding Fathers. Now, if I could only tell you who they were.

    dmarks, K and JR: have to read Factcheck before I have a comment.

    I'll only say that people have a right to their own interpretation and others have the right to refute it - civilly I hope.

    BJ: I agree but I think JR is also right. Starr was doing the job he was hired to do - not unlike an attorney who has to defend a murderer who he knows is guilty as hell. As I said to Darlene, I'm just glad to see a known Republican having the spine to denounce these crazy wing-nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  16. dmarks seems to be correct. Factcheck has about 20 references and they do say that the evidence is inconclusive.

    http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

    Now, damn it, this post is about Starr and his comments re the wing-nuts and Kagan's appointment. It's one thing to mention something in passing - it's another to divert the whole friggin conversation away from the topic at hand. Likewise, to do so once in awhile is acceptable but not as a routine. dmarks, we've discussed this before, so I suggest you stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What I don't like about the factcheck version is how everything is kind of lumped together, which makes a liberal interpretation (pardon pun) real easy for any right wing sooper genius who is desperate for us all to not remember that his two greatest heroes were an AWOL coward and a serial draft dodger.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ken Starr is an extremist himself. When even extremists are sayomng the GOP is overboard, that speaks volumes.

    ReplyDelete
  19. JR: I agree with you about everything being lumped together, at least in this case but I don't think they do it all the time.

    TC: Just wish more of them would have the guts to do likewise.

    ReplyDelete