Monthly Archives: April 2005

Watch for Exploding Heads

Last week I predicted that the GOP has enough votes to end the filibuster. (BTW can we just call it “ending the filibuster” rather than the “Nuclear Option”- how we ever bought into such a politically loaded and misleading term I’ll never know.) Actually, it wasn’t as much a prediction as it was interpreting cues from Senator Schumer (D).

Robert Novak writes today that the GOP has 52 votes in the bag. It may be getting close to go-time. Aside from all of the political ramifications that will result, I’m going to enjoy watching the collective head explosion of the moonbat left as they watch the GOP exercise the full power of their democratically elected majority position. (Hey for a minute there I kinda sounded like the Emperor describing to Luke the power of the “fully operational battle station” in Return of the Jedi. When in Rome…….cue the imperial theme music.)

Mapes the Victim

Poor Mary Mapes, she’s such a victim. Like a spoiled young child who can’t grasp her first taste of accountability at kindergarten, it just must be that nasty teacher’s fault. All she did was stick Billy in the neck with a pencil and she got sent to the principal’s office – that nasty, nasty teacher.

Sheltered, coddled, oblivious to personal responsibility all she knows is the pain that she feels at the hands of those holding her responsible. The effect her actions may have had on others probably doesn’t even enter her mind.

Related: The Anchoress has updated her original excerpt post. (Referenced at Jawa Report linked to above).

Sgrena Update??

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah (cue image of Al from Happy Days – it’s retro sitcom week here at Musing Minds). How many times have we seen this before? The MSM implies a story line. Facts, which can only surface with the passage of time, show the opposite of what was originally reported. The media plasters the original story line all over the map, and is completely silent when the truth comes out. Oh, they’d report the follow up facts if it confirmed their preconcieved story line. Otherwise…..nah.

John Kerry Again "Reporting for Duty"

John Kerry is again “reporting for duty”. The mission: make the U.S. military look victimized. Not really a new mission actually, but a continuation of one he began in the early ’70’s. He’s sending out a mass e-mail to military families asking for stories of dissatisfaction.

At at time when the U.S. military has achieved stunning success, unparalleled in modern history, John Kerry is scratching away at anything negative he can find.
Read all about it from Lorie at PoliPundit.

Welcome Polipundit readers!

Update: Will Collier over at Vodkapundit has a good response to Mr. Kerry. Read the comments too.

A Bit Higher on the Pedestal Please

Part of the problem in the debate over judicial activism is the belief on the part of many that judges possess superior qualities from the rest of the population. Judges weigh competing facts and interpret the law and come to decisions. They are humans who possess the same traits of bias, envy, greed, self importance and self loathing that the rest of us have in varying degrees. They bring these traits to the table every time they arrive at a decision. Until we can design robots intelligent enough to replace humans on the judiciary, this will continue to be the case.

But to many, judges are superior beings who somehow possess the ability to derive “the truth”. It is so if a judge says it’s so. The Schiavo case was a perfect example of this. As a case in point, Ann Althouse (who, by the way, thought that Schumer did a good job of defending his opposition to the filibuster on Meet the Press last weekend) had this to say about recent comments from Justice Kennedy:

But I love the cool, measured response that models judicial demeanor. It helps people see that judges function in a different way from politicians, even though the politicians are pushing the proposition that they don’t.

Apparently judges don’t have agendas or hold political views, they are above the political fray. Justice R2 D2 in the year 2199 maybe, but today our judges are still human.

Blankley to N.E. Republicans: Hold on to Your Testicles

Tony Blankley wrote a scathing piece about Tom DeLay’s attackers. He also goes after those Republicans that seem to be cutting and running from their faithful leader. Check out his final paragraph:

If a party can be stampeded by phony charges and a run of shoddy stories in whorish newspapers into dumping their most effective congressional leader, I wouldn’t give 2 cents for their near-term future. A party that would voluntarily cut off its own testicles and FedEx them to their opponent as a trophy, is not likely to manifest any regenerative powers. That’s the thing about losing those organs.

He also has some choice words for the NYT, I suggest you read the whole thing.

Welcome to the Matrix

Here’s an extensive article about the biased MSM’s failure to report good news out of Iraq. I think its a well written article, but it seems that everything in it has been said a hundred times before on the blogosphere.

I’d say that’s more a testament to the blogosphere being ahead in the enlightenment game, than an indictment of David Limbaugh. Reading it reminded me of the fact that most of the public is still in the dark on MSM bias and other issues regularily discussed on blogs. Last year, before I entered the Matrix, that article would have seemed so radical to me.

The Filibuster isn't Constitutional

I find it hard to imagine that that framers of the Constitution silently wanted to have a process which is designed to thwart the other explicitly created processes. That’s like saying a car maker intended its line of cars to have a chronic stalling problem. At least let’s start with an honest debate and recognize that the filibuster was a political tool created after-the-fact and cut out all this “it’s part of our constitution” nonsense.

Kaus takes a look at the reasons for ending the filibuster, and cites Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker as follows:

But as a longtime constitutional reformer, Hertzberg is himself an anti-filibusterist, recognizing that the Constitution–which doesn’t mention filibusters–already makes it way too difficult for the government to pass laws desired by a majority. Think about it: An identical bill has to pass two different legislatures, with differing terms, and then be approved by a President who may or may not be in the majority party. Isn’t that difficult enough? Why add an extra, non-constitutional rule that makes it even harder to get anything done?

But Kaus and Hertzberg go on to state how appointing judicial nominees is different than passing legislation because its a permanent decision and we don’t want to be left with a radical judge for life. But again, isn’t this just another ex post facto political rationalization? I don’t think you can have it both ways without saying “the Constitution be damned”. And I don’t hear too many Democrats saying that.