Posts with the tag 'partisanship'
I quick Technorati search shows that many blogs, liberal and conservative, are talking about Senator Larry Craig, and the eight men claiming to have had homosexual encounters with him.
I find this interesting… the reactions and the willingness of left-leaning bloggers to accept the accusers claims as genuine without scrutiny or a hint of doubt. It’s interesting because a similar benefit of the doubt did not exist when it came Bill Clinton and the women who accused from rape to fondling to witness intimidation.
When Kathleen Willey was on Hannity & Colmes a few weeks ago, Alan Colmes, bursting with Clinton talking points, attacked Willey’s credibility at her accusations, which have been carefully documented in her new book, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Would Colmes, or any Clinton Defender for that matter, give equal scrutiny to anyone accusing any Republican of something damaging? Of course not. Partisans on both sides of the aisle are more than willing to doubt those who attack their own, and accept wholeheartedly those who attack their political adversaries.
I can’t say any whether or not those men claiming to have had encounters with Larry Craig are telling the truth or not — and neither can those liberals who are anxious to take political advantage of the scandal. But, if they are going to be given the benefit of the doubt by the media, or the Democrats, then Bill Clinton’s accusers deserved (and still deserve) the same.
Tags: Bill Clinton, blogs, hypocrisy, Larry Craig, media bias, partisanship
December 3rd, 2007
Last week, Harry Reid complained that President Bush was acting like a “bully” right before he decided to keep the Senate in session during the Thanksgiving break to avoid any “controversial” recess appointments. Roll Call reports that sources said “Reid made the decision after he was unable to strike a deal with White House officials that would have allowed swift consideration of several key Democratic picks for the executive branch.”
James Joyner of Outside The Beltway nailed it when he said:
One wonders why they’d do that, given how cooperative the Democrats have been in moving through Bush appointments…
Yes, it’s hard to comprehend how Reid can be serious about calling Bush a “bully” when Democrats have tried every tactic available to them to stall or block Bush’s nominations. Be it Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, or John Bolton, Democrats have abused the filibuster to prevent or delay confirmation of highly qualified people, solely because they were conservative and nominated by Bush.
In other words, had Democrats respected the Constitution and given Bush’s nominees the up-or-down votes they were entitled to deserved, recess appointments wouldn’t be an issue.
Another interesting point by James Joyner:
Given that both parties have been in permanent campaign mode for the last fifteen years or so, the traditional checks and balances process has gone from a system to force compromise to one used to bludgeon the other side and score points. That’s led to both branches using extraordinary tools like recess appointments and filibusters on a routine basis which, in turn, ratchets the pressure up another several notches.
I would also add that this “campaign mode” has gotten worse since the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the 2000 presidential elections. Because of these two events, Democrats feel justified in abusing the filibuster, delaying funding for our troops, leaking the details of classified anti-terrorism programs, etc. etc.
Compromise won’t exist anymore because of the Democrats. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, was confirmed in 1993 by a 96-3 vote. Think any nominee by a Republican or a Democrat will ever be confirmed by such a margin again? Don’t count on it. Democrats have assured that bipartisanship is near death or already dead in Washington, D.C. Harry Reid’s threat to keep the Senate in session during Thanksgiving break is merely a symptom of a disease his party is largely responsible for.
Tags: filibuster, Harry Reid, impeachment, partisanship, President Bush
November 19th, 2007
Democrats are so tough that they’re calling President Bush a “bully.”
Democrats who lead Congress likened President George W. Bush on Thursday to a bully on Iraq war policy and vowed to spend no more on combat without a deadline for bringing U.S. troops home.
“He damn sure is not entitled to having this money given to him just with a blank check,” Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrats’ Senate leader, told reporters. “Americans need someone fighting for them taking on this bully we have in the White House.”
Meanwhile as Democrats cry to their mommies about Bush being a bully, they’re denying much needed funds for our troops.
Now it is being reported that Harry Reid is keeping the Senate in session in order to prevent recess appointments. So, Reid whines about so-called “bullying” from Bush, and then pulls his own stunt, which could easily be described a bullying tactic. And Democrats blame Republicans for the partisanship that plagues Congress. If there are positions that need to be filled, but no specifics names being floated for one position or another, then there is no justification for such a move. If Harry Reid wants to set the precedent that the opposing party of the president will block every and any action he tries to make, then Democrat will one day have to lay in the bed they’ve made.
Democrats have already abused the filibuster, how else are they going disrespect the Constitution?
Tags: Christmas, defeatism, Harry Reid, Iraq, partisanship, President Bush, troop funding
November 16th, 2007
Frank Rich shows just how out of touch the left has become since 2000:
In the six years of compromising our principles since 9/11, our democracy has so steadily been defined down that it now can resemble the supposedly aspiring democracies we’ve propped up in places like Islamabad. Time has taken its toll. We’ve become inured to democracy-lite. That’s why a Mukasey can be elevated to power with bipartisan support and we barely shrug.
This is a signal difference from the Vietnam era, and not necessarily for the better. During that unpopular war, disaffected Americans took to the streets and sometimes broke laws in an angry assault on American governmental institutions. The Bush years have brought an even more effective assault on those institutions from within. While the public has not erupted in riots, the executive branch has subverted the rule of law in often secretive increments. The results amount to a quiet coup, ultimately more insidious than a blatant putsch like General Musharraf’s.
There is still a slight hope that once President Bush leaves office in January of 2009 that this sort of nonsense will end - it will be rather hard, at that point, to claim that Bush has ended our democracy when he turns over power to his democratically elected successor. The hope is slight, however, because anyone other than a screwball like Kucinich may very well be viewed by the left as someone merely installed by the same cabal which installed President Bush. Here is Rich saying whatever he darn well pleases while various opposition groups work strenuously and openly for the defeat of all things Bush, and he still claims we’re not free anymore. Why? Because Bush is still in office…and the Congress isn’t just passing law after law to end whatever Bush has done since taking office. In other words, to lefties like Rich, as long as Bush is around in any way, shape or form, we aren’t free - and freedom is only possible in a completely leftwing America, purged entirely of all things Bush.
This is foolish. This is ignorant. This is hateful. This, however, is the left - and is why we must defeat them.
Tags: media bias, partisanship, President Bush
November 12th, 2007
