Saturday, December 02, 2006

Prof. Justice: Election Reflection - "Bipartisanship" (Part II)

(Note: This is the second part of a four-part series. Part I can be viewed here.)

The Dems’ victory wasn’t yet history when they peeled their “moderate” layer of skin faster that Nancy “stretch” Pelosi’s last facelift. And she’s not been the least bit pretentious about her hard left turn. For proof, we need look no further than the chairmanships she’s endorsing. Looney lefties like John Conyers, John Murtha, Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel, Carl Levin and Alcee Hastings to name a few. With that lefty-studded lineup, does anyone really believe that the “moderate” Health Shulers of the House will dare buck Pelosi to whom they owe their jobs? Let’s face it. Pelosi’s wearing the pants in that House. The bottom line is that whether in the House or the Senate, none of the so-called moderates will have any clout. And in the House especially, they’ll immediately need to build a support system and networking organization to retain their seats in 2008. So whether it’s Pelosi in the House or Reid in the Senate, they’ll all shut their moderate mouths and when ordered to flank left, their only response will be, “how fast?”

The Pelosi-Reid mantra, “spirit of friendship, cooperation and bipartisanship” is as nonexistent as their morality. Pelosi’s first act demonstrated as much when she endorsed John Murtha to serve as her House lapdog. In a letter to Murtha mere days after duping the American people, she wrote, “Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues.” I’m a little fuzzy on Murtha’s “strong voice for national security” but perhaps she’s referring to his calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq by “redeploying” troops to Okinawa. Or maybe she was thinking of his brilliant military strategic analysis when he opined that the President’s “policy is causing terrorism” and that the war “can’t be won militarily.” Murtha, one of the House’s biggest (pun intended) moonbats who, like Cindy Sheehan, has become the poster child for the provocative loony left. This guy was being touted to become majority leader and that’s “friendship, cooperation and bipartisanship?” I’d hate to see their perception of lefty partisanship.

It gets better. Lefty John Conyers, who staged mock impeachment hearings last year and is on record vowing to commence such proceedings (except of course during the weeks prior to the election), will become chairman of the House Judiciary committee. Charles Rangel, who will become chairman of the extremely powerful House Ways and Means committee, has said that all of the President’s tax cuts will be on the chopping block but claims he only wants to “close loopholes” in the tax code. Folks, that’s a code word for eliminating any and all tax breaks that he hasn’t yet closed. Pardon my stupidity, but if they eliminate a tax “break” which relieves us from paying a tax that we’ll now have to pay, isn’t that a tax increase? But far be it for him to call a spade a spade. My guess is if he had, perhaps not as many people would’ve been so willing to vote for the Dems.

And in the Senate, presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton vowed to operate the Senate on a more bipartisan basis than it had under Republican control. Although it would probably be news to her, she’s not in control of the Senate. Nevertheless, Hillary professed, “We are ready to roll up our sleeves and work with our Republican counterparts. Our country works best when we govern from the vital, dynamic center.” Never being one to shove her agenda down our throats, Clinton then insisted, “Health care is coming back . . . It may be a bad dream for some.” Now that’s bipartisanship for you.

Or maybe the bipartisanship they’re referring to is their reflexive refusal to permit John Bolton’s nomination as our ambassador to the Useless Nations to go to the Senate floor for an up or down vote. True, sore loser RINO Lincoln Chafing could bring it to the floor. But given his voting history, there’s no reason to think of him as anything other than a Dem. For Bolton though, what exactly did he do wrong while serving in that capacity this past year? He’s represented us extremely well and is the first ambassador since Jean Kirkpatrick who steadfastly refuses to kowtow to the rogue states dominating the “security” and “human rights” councils. I’m sorry, but rabidly anti-Semitic and anti-American Muslim-Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Libya sitting on those councils is worse than a botched John Kerry joke. It’s hardly arrogant to not give a rat’s behind what they or any other backwards third-world theocracy say about us, Israel or human rights. It’s about time America removes its collective proverbial guts from the glass jar on the shelf where the libs put it and tell the Useless Nations a thing or two. And Bolton’s precisely the one to do it. But the Dems won’t even let it come for a vote. Some “spirit of friendship, cooperation and bipartisanship.”


  1. It is the terrifying honest truth

  2. Uh?
    Pelosi rejected Hastings for the Intelligence Committee. Silvestro Reyes is up for that job. Will Hastings get another chairmanship?
    Also the Congressional Black Caucus has supported the Democrats faithfully and will ask for some chairmanships. Part of why Hastings was even under consideration for Intelligence is that reason.

  3. And Carl Levin is in the Senate. Pelosi's endorsement is meaningless.

  4. BE - I think he wrote this before it happened, and forgot to update it.

  5. Or maybe she was thinking of his brilliant military strategic analysis when he opined that the President’s “policy is causing terrorism” and that the war “can’t be won militarily.”

    I'm reading your tone as sarcastic, but both of those "opinions" appear to be shared by virtually everybody outside the White House. That intelligence report which was leaked revealed that the intelligence community believes the President's policy is causing terrorism. And who's still arguing the war can be "won" militarily? Every remotely non-partisan person in the country is talking about finding the least bad options there.

    Regarding John Bolton, he's clearly an extremist. It's not partisan to demand someone more reasonable. And that "up or down vote" nonsense is sheer propaganda. Republicans didn't refrain from filibustering when they had the majority during Clinton's term. It's the way Congress works. Even moderate Republicans like McCain and his fellows in the gang of 14 agree.

    Your whole post is a rant not based in facts, but apparently in hatred of your perception of liberals. Why not try to understand the other side instead of assuming the worst hidden motives for every action? Liberals aren't all conniving, evil people who are trying to ruin the country and hand it to the terrorists.

  6. Ezzie,

    This professor's rants are unbecoming the normally civil and reasoned tone of your blog.

  7. BE-

    You're right about Carl Levin. I should have included Reid with Pelosi for "their" endorsements. As for Hastings, Ezzie is correct. I did write this within a week to ten days after the election and am just posting it in pieces. Some of the issues have been resolved. But Pelosi absolutely and staunchly was promoting Hastings for the chairmanship. One reason was to intentionally bypass Jane Harmon with who she ha apparently had a cold relationship probably, and I'm speculating, because they are competing for the headlines back home. Another was because of black caucus
    went bananas when she asked jefferson to step down after discovering his freezer stuffed with cash. They wanted to make a stink but didn't after she supposedly guaranteed to elevate Hastings to the chairmanship.


    "Your whole post is a rant not based in facts . . . Liberals aren't all conniving, evil people who are trying to ruin the country and hand it to the terrorists."

    Actually, that's false. The "rant" is loaded with facts. It's also loaded with my interpretation of those facts which you happen not to like. In fact, one might argue that perhaps what burns you up is that many of those opinions contain a measure of truth.

    And incidentally, I noticed that your two assertions regarding the intelligence report and John Bolton are conspicuously absent of any facts. Take a look at some polls showing that many Americans wanted the President to have much more aggressively prosecuted the war rather than the wimpy politically correct one we've been executing. As for causing terrorism, anyone who thinks that WE have done anything to CREATE terrorism is a fool. The islamist wackadoodles have been violent since Mohammed. This is a subject for another time, but Islam is anything but a religion of peace. And Bush's first mistake was to run around pretending that it is. That's not to say that there aren't peaceful muslims, but its' teachings aren't. It's a myth that terrorism is caused by poverty and despair. It's caused because of their abject hatred of anyone who isn't muslim. If you don't believe me, you need look no further than the horrific persecution of "infidels", i.e., Christians and Jews, in their countries where they subject their masses to poverty and hateful indoctrination of the West - and this was way before Bush, Clinton and Reagan. As for Bolton, precisely what has he done that you claim makes him an extremist? Taking a hard stance against third world dictators and terrorists is hardly extremist. I think it's prudent representation.

    By the way, as far as facts go, you're wrong on the Republican filibuster point. Of course, the filibuster is part of Congress and that's how Congress works. I am not aware, however, of the Republicans ever filibustering presidential nominees, cabinet, judicial or otherwise. And they never did so during the Clinton Administration. In fact, the filibuster was never intended to be used as such.

    Responding to arguments with language such as "clearly an extremist", "more reasonable", "nonsense", "sheer propaganda" and "hatred" aren't exactly well-reasoned opinions based in fact. And, apparently unlike you, I am not opposed to you saying it.

    I don't think all liberals are conniving evil people. Actually, I don't think any are. I do think that politicians are generally more interested in acquiring or retaining their power. And I'm well aware of the fact that politics is a game of pandering and posturing intended to achieve that goal. I, being a conservative, simply difficulty with the extremes to which the liberal approach will go to do so. The entire approach of this four part series is merely to identify much of the frustration conservatives have the liberals and the dems. To be sure, conservatives obviously have a similar effect on liberals. The difference is that when it comes to the very real threat from the wacko terrorists, the Democrats seem willing to put their achieving power ahead of the best interests of the country. Of course, having said that, I also believe that many on the left sincerely believe that their approach is indeed in the best interest of the country. I just disagree.

    Here's some unsolicited advice. I realize my writing may anger some - including you - but you are always free to simply not read it. I wish you would because I still enjoy reading everyone's comments, positive or negative. Try to lighten up a little, because you should be able to tell that using sarcastic humor to make a point is a style that many people use. Not everyone likes it. But many do use it. And it is based on facts.

    Having said that, you may want to steer clear of Parts III and IV. They may send you through the roof. But maybe I'll yet write something that you will either like, appreciate or agree with.

  8. And incidentally, I noticed that your two assertions regarding the intelligence report and John Bolton are conspicuously absent of any facts

    I'm sorry, I thought these were common knowledge.

    Regarding the intelligence report, I was speaking of the National Intelligence Estimate:

    A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Regarding Bolton, he said, "The [U.N.] Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." You may agree with him, but you must admit that makes him something of an extreme choice to be the Ambassador to the U.N.

    As for filibusters:

    In fact, Republicans filibustered several of then-President Clinton's ambassadorial and Justice Department appointments in the 1990s and attempted to filibuster Clinton's judicial nominees. Moreover, after the Republicans regained control of the Senate in 1995, they blocked approximately 60 Clinton judicial nominees, denying them votes on the Senate floor and denying most even a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    In addition to the approximately 60 judicial nominees that the Republican-led Senate blocked without resorting to a filibuster, several Republican senators, including current Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), unsuccessfully attempted to filibuster other Clinton judicial nominees.
    (Media Matters.)

    Try to lighten up a little, because you should be able to tell that using sarcastic humor to make a point is a style that many people use. Not everyone likes it. But many do use it. And it is based on facts.

    My quarrel is not with your humor, but your "facts." As the saying goes, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts."

  9. I read the intelligence report you cited, but I didn't read it the same way. I agree that the terrorism threat has indeed been exacerbated because our Iraq involvement, but the report does not suggest in any way that we caused them to be terrorists. What the report doesn't focus on, I’m guessing because it would be beyond the scope of the report is that one way or the other we face their threat. If we do nothing, they will not go away; they will continue their "crusade." Iraq may have been a mistake, and I believe that while removing sadam was not, trying to establish democracy was. But the terrorist problem from the islamists is with us to stay. No matter what we do, they're coming. So yes, if we fight them, they will use that as propaganda to gin up more terrorists. But if we stick our head in the sand, they will find other ways to recruit. They did it way before Iraq.

    In citing Media Matters, you neglect to inform people that it is an extremist left-wing propaganda tool that specifically targets "conservative" sources. The fact remains that those appointees did not make it out of committee not necessarily along party lines but due to qualifications or lack thereof. As for their assertion that Frist unsuccessfully attempted to use the filibuster, that is a myth.
    That is in stark contrast to the Schumer-led "litmus" test that anyone not comporting with the liberal ideology is per se unfit to serve. I would point out that when the ultra-activist Ruth Ginsberg was appointed, republicans gave Clinton deference to his appointment and overwhelmingly confirmed her because of her impeccable competence. That can hardly be said about the deems treatment of bush's appointees.

    As for Bolton, no I would absolutely not agree that makes him an extremist. There is an enormous feeling and belief in this country that the UN should no longer receive the majority of its funding from our tax dollars and should be thrown out of the country. They are not what they were when it was created. They are a collective bunch of corrupt anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel thugs which serves no legitimate purpose. Whatever our quarrels are with allies such as Germany, France, etc..., they are still are "friends" and our relationship with those and other countries will remain strong with or without that useless body of third-world thugs. Having said that, his opinions don't make him an extremist. His conduct representing us is how he should be judged and to my knowledge, it has been excellent.

    Finally, I don't use my facts. As with everything, one can usually find facts to support their arguments regardless the position. You may not like the facts used and you are certainly entitled to argue that the facts used to support arguments don't actually support it, but they are nevertheless facts.

    JA - I must say, I find this stimulating. Unfortunately, I have a monster case going to trial and have very little time to do this. It’s a problem because I’m sort of addicted to it. But I gotta stop; otherwise, I could keep doing this indefinitely.

  10. Professor:

    JA - I must say, I find this stimulating. Unfortunately, I have a monster case going to trial and have very little time to do this. It’s a problem because I’m sort of addicted to it. But I gotta stop; otherwise, I could keep doing this indefinitely.

    I understand completely. :-) Good luck! (Unless you're fighting against gay marriage or something. ;-)

  11. :P

    If you knew what he was fighting, I'm guessing you'd be one of the first to stand behind him.