<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12201415\x26blogName\x3dThe+Limburg+Letter\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://brashlimburg.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://brashlimburg.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d424945394657709206', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

New Fools vs. Old Hacks

Seems like the rest of the blogsphere has moved past the filibuster compromise already, but I'm still decompressing. In particular I'm having a good time watching the Left settle on a collective opinion. Actually make that collective opinions, because a very distinct line has been drawn in this case between New and Old Guard of the Democratic faithful.

Yesterday I jumped the gun a bit saying the Left had settled into "cautious acceptance". I hadn't yet visited my friends over at The Nation, who are definitely not happy about the compromise. David Corn summed up their opinion by asking the timeless question "Did the Democrats get screwed--or screw themselves? " Now I've been telling Democrats to screw themselves for years; I can't imagine why they would start listening to me now. Either way, it's clear that for this group the entire filibuster debate was about the judges. They're wrong on every level of course, but at least they're consistent in their socialist ideology.

The fools over at Daily Kos can make no such claim, unless "We Hate Bush" passes as some kind of higher philosophy. Since we all know that Bush is pure evil, nothing but total victory would have been acceptable. The very idea of compromise is like sympathy for the devil. That said, now that they've "lost" this debate, they don't seem to really care about the consequences. It's the fight they're interested in, the issue itself is secondary. This morning they've already moved on, warning Democratic Senators that if they compromise on Social Security too, "all hell" will break loose. After all:

"Why any Democrat would want to give bush "half a victory" rather than an anvil is beyond me, and completely and utterly unacceptable."

And so the Left continues it's slide from smart people with crazy ideas, to crazy people with no ideas. These are the people that made Howard Dean the DNC chairman. It's the Kozies, the New Guard, that run the party now.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This can only be considered a victory for Republicans. Axing the filibuster all together would have been a more complete victory, but today we have 3 crucial nominees who will be approved. 3 more than yesterday.

What did the Dems win? Nothing. The Constitutional Option is still on the table if they pull this crap again. This was mearly an attempt to save face. They know if they would have continued to fight, they would have lost. What's more, they have created a stickier situation for themselves. They've implicitly demonstrated that nominees such as Prescilla Owen (previously too out of the mainstream to even have a vote) no longer fall under the "extreme circumstances" they've agreed to.

Of course, we're talking about Dems here. I do not expect them to honor the agreement, and they'll try to spin it somehow. But they'll be arguing from a much weaker position.

5/25/2005 12:24:00 PM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

WTF!?! Why is everyone looking at this like a "win" situation? (On either side)

And do any of us truly believe in most politicians to "honor" an agreement? They will "honor" an agreement as long as it suits their "needs", whatever those needs may be.

Kind of off topic: Should the processes of our Congress remain stagnant? Kind of like religious dogma? Never, or barely, changing with the times? Filibusters have not always been part of Congressional processes and can be eliminated, and I would guess that the world wouldn't come to an end.

5/25/2005 01:21:00 PM  
Blogger Brash Limburg said...

No honor among thieves, Ned, you nailed it there. Although in this case we're supposed to keep them honest I guess.

To your second point, I think the Constitution answers that when it states that the Senate can make its own rules. The only part that can't change with the times is Senator Byrd, who still talks like it's 1945 in the Deep South.

5/25/2005 02:39:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home