Save Phil? Bite Me!
Have y'all seen this nonsense yet? Not unlike the AARP's asinine Social Security advert about demolishing a house to fix a leaky sink, it's once again a vast oversimplification of a very complex issue.
The premise? The Founders (not the shapeshifting aliens from the Gamma Quadrant) set up a government with checks and balances so that no group could get too much power. Unfortunately, the evil fascist Republikkkans want to eliminate the filibuster, one crucial element of the system of checks and balances, so that only their voice will be heard and they can make all the rules.
What's my take on it? Democrats have been abusing the filibuster, plain and simple. The Founders didn't give us checks and balances so the minority party could do everything they can to obstruct the operation of government. The filibuster was never intended to derail judicial nominations for purely partisan reasons.
Part of checks and balances means that the people can Daschle-ize their representatives if those representatives are behaving like children and doing nothing more than obstruct things. The Republican party has gained power in the last few elections, without fail, and that's because Democrats have lost touch. If the people put a party into office in strong numbers, then that party gets to set the agenda and make the rules. That's what representative politics is all about, and Democrats have been grasping for straws. They're out of power, and they're out of touch, and that's why they've been abusing the filibuster.
I'm skeptical of the so-called "nuclear option," but I'm outraged at the partisan nonsense we've been seeing from the Democrats for the last few years, so I'm forced to support it.
Go ahead, folks. Debate it. Tell me what you think. Save "Phil"? Or nuclear option?
The premise? The Founders (not the shapeshifting aliens from the Gamma Quadrant) set up a government with checks and balances so that no group could get too much power. Unfortunately, the evil fascist Republikkkans want to eliminate the filibuster, one crucial element of the system of checks and balances, so that only their voice will be heard and they can make all the rules.
What's my take on it? Democrats have been abusing the filibuster, plain and simple. The Founders didn't give us checks and balances so the minority party could do everything they can to obstruct the operation of government. The filibuster was never intended to derail judicial nominations for purely partisan reasons.
Part of checks and balances means that the people can Daschle-ize their representatives if those representatives are behaving like children and doing nothing more than obstruct things. The Republican party has gained power in the last few elections, without fail, and that's because Democrats have lost touch. If the people put a party into office in strong numbers, then that party gets to set the agenda and make the rules. That's what representative politics is all about, and Democrats have been grasping for straws. They're out of power, and they're out of touch, and that's why they've been abusing the filibuster.
I'm skeptical of the so-called "nuclear option," but I'm outraged at the partisan nonsense we've been seeing from the Democrats for the last few years, so I'm forced to support it.
Go ahead, folks. Debate it. Tell me what you think. Save "Phil"? Or nuclear option?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home