Marginalization
Just when I thought Congressional democrats couldn't get any dumber, they prove me wrong.
Okay, folks. Let me even the score for you. We had eight years of Clinton, and he basically screwed the pooch. He had a "projected surplus" that never materialized because it was based almost solely on cutting defense spending. He essentially ignored the growing threat of terrorism, in spite of several high level terror attacks that happened on his watch. He made a big deal of the need to fix Social Security, and we're no better off than we were when all those powerful senators and congressmen congratulated him just for acknowledging that it's a problem.
In 2000, President Bush was legally voted into office. Deal with it. Since then, he's been cleaning up President Clinton's messes. Democrats have chosen not to support the nation and work for the common good, but instead to criticize President Bush throughout his entire presidency. Instead of cooperating in the Congress, they have chosen to do their utmost to obstruct their Republican colleagues. Because of this, they have lost seats in the past three elections. Instead of learning their lesson (that lesson being that Americans want a government that can cooperate and get things done, not a government of a strong leading party and a bunch of obstructionist wankers), they've chosen to obstruct Republicans as much as possible. Because of this, they're marginalizing themselves more and more with every passing session. You want proof? The Senate Minority Leader, Tom Daschle, got FIRED by his employers, the citizens of South Dakota, back in November.
If wankers like Senator Reid don't start figuring this out and changing their act, they're going to get "Daschled." Some Democrats have started figuring this out, but the selection of Governor Howard Dean as Democratic National Committee chair, and all of this asinine talk of Senator Hillary Clinton as a 2008 presidential candidate demonstrates that the party leadership just plain don't get it.
I'll be honest, folks; I'm a die-hard Republican, but if given the choice between a dominant party and a bunch of obstructionist lunatics, or a right-of-center party and a left-of-center party who compromise or resist based on civil disagreement (vice this childish idiocy we're seeing from the Democrats these days), I'll take the latter. The whole point is not to have lawmakers obstructing other lawmakers; the point is to have lawmakers with different ideas helping the people, and doing so in as inefficient a way as possible so that the mechanisms for government remain in place without imposing institutionalized tyranny on the people. It would be nice if we saw some trace of this concept in present-day congressional politics.
Democrats threatened Tuesday to slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments.
Any such change would mark "an unprecedented abuse of power," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "The power to confirm judges includes the right to use well-established Senate rules to reject nominees."
Reid, the Democratic leader, exempted military and national security legislation from the threat, and said his rank and file would not block passage of measures needed to ensure continuation of critical government services.
Okay, folks. Let me even the score for you. We had eight years of Clinton, and he basically screwed the pooch. He had a "projected surplus" that never materialized because it was based almost solely on cutting defense spending. He essentially ignored the growing threat of terrorism, in spite of several high level terror attacks that happened on his watch. He made a big deal of the need to fix Social Security, and we're no better off than we were when all those powerful senators and congressmen congratulated him just for acknowledging that it's a problem.
In 2000, President Bush was legally voted into office. Deal with it. Since then, he's been cleaning up President Clinton's messes. Democrats have chosen not to support the nation and work for the common good, but instead to criticize President Bush throughout his entire presidency. Instead of cooperating in the Congress, they have chosen to do their utmost to obstruct their Republican colleagues. Because of this, they have lost seats in the past three elections. Instead of learning their lesson (that lesson being that Americans want a government that can cooperate and get things done, not a government of a strong leading party and a bunch of obstructionist wankers), they've chosen to obstruct Republicans as much as possible. Because of this, they're marginalizing themselves more and more with every passing session. You want proof? The Senate Minority Leader, Tom Daschle, got FIRED by his employers, the citizens of South Dakota, back in November.
If wankers like Senator Reid don't start figuring this out and changing their act, they're going to get "Daschled." Some Democrats have started figuring this out, but the selection of Governor Howard Dean as Democratic National Committee chair, and all of this asinine talk of Senator Hillary Clinton as a 2008 presidential candidate demonstrates that the party leadership just plain don't get it.
I'll be honest, folks; I'm a die-hard Republican, but if given the choice between a dominant party and a bunch of obstructionist lunatics, or a right-of-center party and a left-of-center party who compromise or resist based on civil disagreement (vice this childish idiocy we're seeing from the Democrats these days), I'll take the latter. The whole point is not to have lawmakers obstructing other lawmakers; the point is to have lawmakers with different ideas helping the people, and doing so in as inefficient a way as possible so that the mechanisms for government remain in place without imposing institutionalized tyranny on the people. It would be nice if we saw some trace of this concept in present-day congressional politics.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home