We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Thanks to Michelle Malkin and Powerline, Gwynnie would like us to reflect upon the following official quotes, all by Democrat leaders deploring the filibuster in judicial nominations. Gwynnie would also like us to reflect upon the fact that they are completely consistent with the positions of the speakers today:
"It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor." Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, May 14, 1997
"I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination." Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record,October 5, 1999
"Let's bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down." Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, September 11, 1997
"I respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. . . .It is not appropriate not to have hearings on them, not bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote." Sen. Joe Biden, Congressional Record, March 19, 1997
“If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down.” Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, September 28, 1998
“I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong, that that is rule by minority.” Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, January 5, 1995
"The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: 'Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote ... The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry, it should vote him up or vote him down.' Which is exactly what I would like.” Sen. Pat Leahy, Congressional Record, March 7, 2000
"The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body. The greatest obstructive body is more like it. In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him." New York Timeseditorial, "Time to Retire the Filibuster," January 1, 1995
Question: Why are these statements consistent with the apparent opposite statements being made by the same persons today?
Answer: Because they are Liberals. Liberalism is at its very core a sincere desire to get into a position of power to do good things for people who are unable accomplish (or even attempt to accomplish) those good things for themselves. That nice statement contains four underlying assumptions
Liberals know what “good things” are;
Liberals know what other people (loosely referred to as “masses”) really need;
Resistance by the masses to those ideas is based on ignorance; and
It is in the best interests of the masses to impose “good things” on them, even if they are do not agree (presumably, they will understand later).
Any questions so far? Remember; it’s superior knowledge or understanding vs. ignorance or apathy. When these concepts are put into practice, what one principle must necessarily fall by the wayside? Well, it’s democracy, of course. The power of the Liberal to do good things must be maintained – at all costs. If the masses can be persuaded, so much the better, but if not, they must be overruled. Gwynnie remembers a law professor at a highly regarded university who was utterly horrified at a student’s impertinent suggestion that the state legislatures convene a Constitutional Convention as they have a right to do under Article V. He said, “can you imagine what the PEOPLE might DO to the decades of protections added to the Constitution by the courts?”
No, the American people clearly cannot by trusted to act in the manner the elite want them to, which is why Liberals are passionate about power, not democracy. All the statements made above by Boxer, Daschle, Feinstein, Biden, Durbin, Harkin, Leahy, and the New York Times , although couched in democratic terms, have nothing to do with any notion of moral or ethical principle, or democracy; the statements are about their own personal power and control. In that light, saying that a Democrat filibuster is good and a Republican filibuster is bad are completely consistent. It’s not about principle; it’s about WINNING!
How easy it is to forget that the heart of democracy is a willingness to lose, to accept the control of the majority, and to come back fighting in the next election. The Democrats are attacking the very foundation of democracy.