Politics
If DeLay were a Democrat, would the Democrats be attacking his so-called ethical problems? Would the Republicans be defending them?
If the Democrats agreed with Bolton's views, would the Democrats be bringing up this stuff about his personality? Would the Republicans be dismissing/apologizing for the arguments?
If the judicial nominees believed that abortion was always OK, in every situation, instead of that abortion should have significant limits, would the Democrats say they are extreme? Would the Republicans defend them as representative of the views of the people?
Would the Republicans filibuster those nominees? Would the Democrats be trying to remove the filibuster?*
I know the above focuses on the Democrats, because they are in the minority and doing most of the attacking because of that. But this isn't about partisanship. This is about ignoring the completely B.S. arguments the politicians use to attack something.
The Democrats do not think DeLay has ethical problems, they simply dislike him. The Democrats do not think Bolton has a bad personality, they simply dislike his views. The Democrats do not think the judicial nominees are extreme, they simply don't want new conservative judges in district courts.
The rest is just garbage. But the Democrats won't stick to the real point, because if they do, they lose, because they are in a minority, just like the Republicans did in the early 90s when they were the minority. So they bring up the garbage to try to confuse people. And we're stupid and gullible, as we are a mob of people, so it works.
*Lieberman, Kennedy, and Kerry are among the Democratic senators who are fighting to "save the filibuster" because it is so integral to democracy, but voted to abolish all filibusters 10 years ago, calling them "legislative piracy." And, of course, some of the current GOP senators participated in judicial nominee filibusters in the 90s.
If the Democrats agreed with Bolton's views, would the Democrats be bringing up this stuff about his personality? Would the Republicans be dismissing/apologizing for the arguments?
If the judicial nominees believed that abortion was always OK, in every situation, instead of that abortion should have significant limits, would the Democrats say they are extreme? Would the Republicans defend them as representative of the views of the people?
Would the Republicans filibuster those nominees? Would the Democrats be trying to remove the filibuster?*
I know the above focuses on the Democrats, because they are in the minority and doing most of the attacking because of that. But this isn't about partisanship. This is about ignoring the completely B.S. arguments the politicians use to attack something.
The Democrats do not think DeLay has ethical problems, they simply dislike him. The Democrats do not think Bolton has a bad personality, they simply dislike his views. The Democrats do not think the judicial nominees are extreme, they simply don't want new conservative judges in district courts.
The rest is just garbage. But the Democrats won't stick to the real point, because if they do, they lose, because they are in a minority, just like the Republicans did in the early 90s when they were the minority. So they bring up the garbage to try to confuse people. And we're stupid and gullible, as we are a mob of people, so it works.
*Lieberman, Kennedy, and Kerry are among the Democratic senators who are fighting to "save the filibuster" because it is so integral to democracy, but voted to abolish all filibusters 10 years ago, calling them "legislative piracy." And, of course, some of the current GOP senators participated in judicial nominee filibusters in the 90s.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment