Tarry for the Nonce

August 8, 2005

Liberal Logic

Filed under: News — lmwalker @ 5:59 pm

Why do liberal Democrats oppose the people they do? Sometimes it’s a head-scratcher. If we listen to their own words . . .

  • David Souter is homosexual because he never had children.
  • John Roberts is homosexual because his wife is a successful lawyer.
  • Miguel Estrada was “especially dangerous because . . . he is Latino.”
  • John Roberts is not diverse enough because he is not Latino.
  • Clarence Thomas was an appropriate “lawn jockey” because he is African-American.
  • John Roberts is unfit to judge because he is Catholic.
  • Charles Pikering, a former president of the Mississippi Southern Baptist Convention, was “too pious.”
  • Priscilla Owen, who sang in her church choir, showed too much “piety.”
  • Leon Holmes, who co-published an article in a Catholic newspaper with his wife, was mocked for same by Sens. Diane Feinstein of California, Charles Schumer of New York and Richard Durbin of Illinois.
  • William Pryor, a papal knight, was, alas, a man of “deeply held beliefs.”
  • Robert Bork was unfit because he might have been an atheist.

As Best of the Web points out “Gays, blacks, Latinos, whites, Catholics, Protestants, (suspected) atheists–come to think of it, liberals have a defense against the charge that they’re prejudiced: They hate everyone equally.”

Advertisements

8 Comments

  1. That’s a straw man if ever I saw one.

    Comment by Matt — August 8, 2005 @ 10:09 pm

  2. Do realize that it could be worse.

    They could say so-and-so likes to race 12 cylinder cars, so he’s unfit.

    This person likes to whittle wood, so she’s out.

    That person enjoys going bowling, so they’re out.

    If you or I examined everything about a person, their history, and circumstances, I am sure you or I would find something that we found far from desireable. At least these nominees have hobbies.

    I think they just don’t want the Republicans to nominate anyone (yes, I have a knack for stating the obvious; you might even call it my specialty).

    It would be really nice if they would return to civility and let the President get his picks without all this pandering and filibustering that’s been going on recently.

    Perhaps its still repercussions from the 2000 election…

    Or perhaps the Dems are running scared because they know they’re losing their political power and there’s nothing they can do about it.

    Oh, and is anyone remotely saddened by the loss of Peter Jennings? (I’m sure that statement’s gonna get me in trouble).

    Comment by Andrew P. — August 9, 2005 @ 10:03 am

  3. In fairness, the minority party should always question the policies of the majority party – that’s the nature of our government. But yes, the GOP is definitely the party of ideas right now.

    In college debate, the easiest way to lose a debate on the negative side is to scream and moan that the affirmative plan doesn’t solve enough, which is basically all that the Democrats have done under Dubya’s administration. The GOP is right to call them obstructionist, and it’s nice to see Howard Dean finally realizing that. Hopefully the Democrats can get some new ideas to envigorate the party and run for election on a platform other than “stop the Republican madness.”

    Regardless of your politics I think we’d all agree that that would be a nice change.

    BTW Peter Jennings was indeed a loss, though I’m not much of a nightly news person. I think that’s a generational thing whose time has passed.

    Comment by Matt — August 9, 2005 @ 12:34 pm

  4. In fairness, the minority party should always question the policies of the majority party – that’s the nature of our government.

    If you had not put the qualifier ‘in fairness,’ I would agree with your statement. The qualifier implies that the Democrats are doing so — which you then go on to say they are not.

    The point, I think, of the BOW blurb is to illustrate pretty clearly that the Dems have nothing with which to argue, so they try to discredit someone personally in any way they think will be effective.

    Personally, I see nothing at all that resembles fairness in that.

    Comment by auntlori — August 10, 2005 @ 6:59 am

  5. In dealing with the Democrats in my family via political email discussions, I find that when I or my conservative cousin have solid arguments, the more diehard Dems turn to name calling and belittling, rather than challenging the arguments. We find it rather comical as it just re-inforces the fact that ‘they’ can’t really handle a solid debate. Of course, we just thought this was limited to our family, but there’s lots of evidence that Democrats seem to belittle rather quickly, which makes me think they’re just arrogant, and will try anything to discredit an opponent.

    Apparently the leadership influences the base.

    Comment by Andrew P. — August 10, 2005 @ 9:43 am

  6. Matt said:

    In fairness, the minority party should always question the policies of the majority party – that’s the nature of our government.

    Aunt Lori responded:

    If you had not put the qualifier ‘in fairness,’ I would agree with your statement. The qualifier implies that the Democrats are doing so — which you then go on to say they are not.

    The point, I think, of the BOW blurb is to illustrate pretty clearly that the Dems have nothing with which to argue, so they try to discredit someone personally in any way they think will be effective.

    Personally, I see nothing at all that resembles fairness in that.

    Matt replies:

    Sure, that’s just good politics, which unfortunately the Democrats are simply not practicing now. It would be nice to see them be the party of ideas for once, and I think the lack of ideas is a reflection of the lack of leadership from within the party. Al Gore was a decent candidate in 2000 but I think he would’ve fared better by attaching himself to Clinton’s legacy. Aside from his utter lack of personal morality (and yes, I know that counts above all else for many of you on this board) he was in many ways a very effective president and statesman, and once he gets past his health issues, I think he’ll do quite well. But Gore has really ridden off into the sunset, and John Kerry never fully defined his position, despite hammering Bush in the debates. The Democrats’ position ever since Bush was elected has consistently been, “Yes, but,” never fully giving the public a reason to reject the status quo of the Bush administration, which has its many problems and dilemmas, but which has no adequate rejoineder from their opposition, as has been reflected in all the recent elections.

    Personally, I think a lot of it has to do with the changing nature of our society. America is becoming more and more diverse, while at the same time there is an increasing amount of stratification along class lines, especially in terms of education and opportunity. The GOP base of business and religion are both very strong, while the Democrats base of labor is in utter disarray, leaving the upper class base of Democrats bereft of ideas or support. Add in the military conflict, and the fact that the military overwhelmingly votes for the Republican Party, and we have the situation that we have. Of course, I think it’s also a chicken and the egg kind of thing.

    The organization I think we need to hear more from is the Democratic Leadership Council – the centrist Democratic organization in DC that aided in the growth of the Clinton coalition. But lest we claim that the Bush administration is in a runaway rout, there really isn’t a successor to Bush yet and with Karl Rove’s scandals, I think there are the seeds for some real scandals forthcoming.

    Comment by Matt — August 10, 2005 @ 3:33 pm

  7. Condi vs. Clinton, 2008! That’s what I want to see… its time we had a woman president. This is the 21st century for Pete’s sake. I think we need to get it all out at once; an African-American Female President would do. And Condi just looks like she could kick your ass without even blinking if you pissed her off.

    Comment by Andrew P. — August 10, 2005 @ 5:04 pm

  8. The GOP base of business and religion are both very strong, while the Democrats base of labor is in utter disarray, leaving the upper class base of Democrats bereft of ideas or support.

    The “base of business” tends to run counter to the “base of labor,” but I think one of the major divisions is that of the “base or labor” and the “base of religion” tends to be comprised of the same people. These citizens are caught in the middle. So when the Democrats started to lose their religous base, they started to lose some of their labor base as well.

    Comment by laura — August 11, 2005 @ 2:29 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: