Republican on C-SPAN2: "Bush is trying to kill Social Security"

[nickgutierrez]

Right now, C-SPAN2 is taking calls on the filibuster. Most of the callers seem to be flame-throwing Republicans. The one I referred to in the subject line said that the filibuster needed to be "killed" because of the Terri Schiavo case, because "judges are more powerful than the governors", whatever that means, and "therefore, conservative judges must be put on the bench."

So yeah, pretty much your typical right-wing nutjob. But what she said after that stunned me: "When (somebody) said that President Bush isn't trying to privatize Social Security... they lied. He is trying to privatize Social Security, and he is trying to kill Social Security as we know it." (paraphrased, emphasis partially mine) She made it abundantly clear that she was absolutely against *'s Social Security plan for this very reason.

Pound yet another nail in the privatization coffin, folks - even the far right isn't backing the plan anymore.

[eleny]

1. I just heard that nutball

Because of "Schrivo" we need conservative judges on the bench. Screwball.

[nickgutierrez]

9. Typical RW nut, as I said

:)

But that only made the Social Security turnaround all the more stunning.

[Moochy]

2. Caller was nuts

She was nuts.. She showed clear signs of the rational mind trying to accomadate an irrational world view:
(to paraphrase)
"Judges have too much power, so I support "killing" the filibuster."

"One thing I learned about terry schLavo case..."

One thing she didnt learn was how to say the name. Its really amazing to hear the brainwashed right struggle to make a point on these call in shows.


PS Yes her point about social security privatization was pretty stark contrast to her nutjob ideas of conservatives and socialism..

She thinks we fought WW2 to fight socialism.
and to support conservative judges.

Nothing to do with fascism....

to quote Senator Byrd, Oh how the worm turns.

[CottonBear]

3. That was a rerun from this morning.

I heard her. She was all over the place.

Does...not...compute...bzzzz.bzzzz. *head explodes*

[converted_democrat]

11. I was watching that today with my husband. We just looked at each other

and shook our heads.

[CottonBear]

12. I was confounded as well.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[fob]

4. It reads like they are FOR bush* killing SS. Was the emphasis on

".. and he*s TRYING TO KILL SS..." As if they were appalled

OR

"...as WE KNOW IT" As if that was THE PLAN and it's long overdue?

[nickgutierrez]

5. I should have been more clear.

The caller made it very clear that they opposed * on Social Security. In fact, I'll edit my OP to say so.

[paineinthearse]

6. Who made the remarks?

Please PM me with the name and I will post the full transcript tomorrow.

[nickgutierrez]

7. It was some random caller on C-SPAN 2

A self-described Republican, who placed a call maybe a minute or two before my OP was posted.

[CottonBear]

13. I didn't catch the name. It was a middle-age woman.

I was getting ready for work. I don't remember anything else beyond being stuned by her statement on SS.

[Guckert]

8. the ignorance of the GOP voters. Schindler judge was GOP, as was most

appellate court members. along with the George Bush loving Supreme court. What an idiot. she probably thinks Saddam had WMD and helped with 9/11 :puke:

[napi21]

10. What are these nuts going to say when Shrub GETS all his judges,

and they still follow the law? They are all assuming that things aren't going their way because all them damn old judges must be liberals! None of 'em realize that when things are spelled out in the law, even if the individual judge doesn't agree, he/she has no real choice but to apply the law in the ruling.

I heard domeone on CNN I think saying that Row will not be overturned by any SCOTUS because it has been law for 30 years, and there's all kind of precident. The only way to overturn it would be through an ammendment. I don't remember who said this, but it was some guest law professor, and his comments made sense.