The Dying Party


We’ve never had an Official U.S. Senate Pornographer before, though pornographic behavior is frequently the entertainment provided to the public by the world’s oldest deliberative body. So Al Franken, the answer to Harry Reid’s prayer, should fit right in.

Some of the Democrats can’t wait to see what mischief they can do. “With the Minnesota recount complete,” Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said after the Minnesota robbery was completed, “it is now clear that Al Franken won the election.”

Actually, it wasn’t clear at all, but clarity is never valued among thieves. The Democrats in the Senate were eager to get Al seated quickly, both for crucial Senate votes coming up and because once seated among his equals, a bum is difficult to throw out.

There’s honor among the members of our only native criminal class, similar to the honor among robbers, burglars and other servants of the night. The difference, and it’s only a slight one, is that robbers, burglars and thieves often hold themselves to higher standards than members of Congress.

Read the rest at Washington Times

I found this article through another blog and figured I’d bring it to idio for a little run-around. This came from the op/ed section of the paper, hence the brazen partisanship and near-sexist and -racist ethic. I like how the author continues to call Al Franken a pornographer here, seeing how this simply came about from a piece the man wrote as satire (it’s okay, look it up, we have time) for Playboy. In the grand scheme of things, when considering people like Mark Sanford and Larry Craig, this innocuous article amounts to absolutely nothing.

Unfortunately, and not really for Democrats, more for Republicans, this is the way of Conservatives as of late. This constant grasping at straws seems to indicate a party that is on the verge of collapse. I mean, look at the Sotomayor hearings over the past couple of days. There is little that can be done to keep her from becoming the replacement of Justice Souter, but that doesn’t mean they’re not going to try. It’s as if they think that by asking the right questions they’ll convince the everyone else that Sotomayor is not the right pick for Justice of the Supreme Court. And, as it has over several weeks now, it all comes down to a little quote. I’ll post it in entirety here, since that’s more than any other news outlet will give you.

Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

If you’re looking for the direct quote, the one repeated again and again by journalist and senator alike, it’s in bold right there. But do yourself a favor and look at the whole thing. At least some people will allow themselves a bit of wisdom, as that is the subject of this debate after all. After asked on the subject by Sens. Sessions, Kyl, and Graham, Sotomayor admitted that the phrase was a “rhetorical flourish” that “fell flat.” She went on, however, to say that “I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging.” But really, one can’t say that their upbringing has nothing to do with the decisions they make in life. And in all truth, this quote reflects the woman, but it says nothing about her ability to judge objectively. All this hubub over a little bit of language. Kind of like the whole thing with Franken.

But that’s the matter at hand. Republicans now are doing anything and everything they can to block the actions of a Democratic President and a Democratic majority Senate, and all they seem to be doing is digging themselves a deeper hole. The only way to appeal to those voters who sit on the fence every election year is to come toward the center more. Polarizing yourself accomplishes nothing more than to make you appear to be a crazy person. I mean, look at Michelle Bachmann, who now is publicly saying she will refuse to fill out the Census because she feels it’s too prying and gets too personal. You need to pick your battles people, not go up against everything that is Democratic backed, or even the things you think are backed by Liberals (since the US Census comes from the US Census Bureau). And the fear Republican Senators and Representatives have of the government is astounding. How can one be afraid of the body that they inhabit and have a part in directing. Libertarianism or just plain smaller government is one step away from anarchy. But I suppose that’s the way it goes. The Conservative/Liberal meter is not a straight line, its a circle, and while Centrism is one point where Liberal and Conservative meet, anarchy is the other.

What I’m really saying, however, is that unless there are more moderate Conservatives willing to come forward and make a name for themselves, the Republican party doesn’t stand a chance. I mean, go ahead and keep embracing the extremes of Conservativism, but don’t expect to get anywhere. This country doesn’t need two parties governing at the same time, like brothers arguing in the back seat. It needs a stable governing body that is willing to work together to accomplish its goals. But I’ll let you be as polarized as you want to be. That just means we’ll get more Democrats in office.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s