Democrats Behaving Badly: From Texas to D.C. (And don't forget O.K.!)

National Review Online ^ | May 16, 2003 | Kay R. Daly

[xsysmgr]

f the consequences for the Constitution weren't so dire, the recent antics of the nation's Democrats would be downright funny.

Whether it's obstruction by filibuster of the president's judicial nominees, or obstruction by flight of redistricting in Texas, these Democrats seem to have regressed to infancy. Temper tantrums, however, are annoying whether deployed as a toddler tactic or as a political scheme, and both mothers and voters have a tendency to take a dim view.

In Washington, D.C., Democrats have become the poster children for hypocrisy on judicial nominations and filibusters. A veritable treasure trove of quotations from Democrats in past years shows clearly that it's politics, not principle, that rules the Democratic party.

For example, on January 5, 1995, Senator Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) said: "I may not agree with everything that Republicans are proposing, but they are in the majority and they ought to have the right to have us vote on the merits of what they propose. But I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong — that is rule by minority."

Apparently Senator Harkin's memory is good, just short. He has consistently voted to maintain the filibusters against President Bush's amazingly qualified judicial nominees.

The Democrats' behavior seems to have originated in their continual obsession with the 2000 presidential election. After their attempts to change the rules failed in the court system, a serious case of sour grapes seems to have infected the Democrat party.

As the once-venerable New York Times opined in 1995, "Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which Senators held passionate convictions, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, dooming any measure that cannot command the 60 required votes."

So who are today's sore losers? How about Nan Aron from the Alliance for Justice, who said: "Well, I would certainly acknowledge that there is a group of law professors around the country that do believe this president, because he did not win the election, does not have the authority to select Supreme Court justices, and I think that view holds among many."

Or this gem from Abner Mikva: "First, this president does not have the mandate of a national plurality. While the court did resolve the dispute about Florida's electoral votes, giving President Bush an electoral college majority, it could not alter the popular vote."

Echoes of Aron and Mikva ring in Sen. Ted Kennedy's latest snit in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 6 at which he said: "The 2000 election was very close. The Senate is very closely divided as well, and it's no surprise that we are divided over the appointment of judges. President Bush has no mandate from the American people to stack the courts with judges who share his ideological agenda, and the Senate has no obligation to acquiesce in that agenda."

It's a short trip from a false premise to a skewed result, Senator Kennedy. Or as my wise grandfather used to say, "It isn't what folks know that gets them into trouble, it's what folks know that just ain't so." Our president has actively sought strict constructionists for the bench. As federal judges, they would apply the law as they found it, rather than injecting personal ideology into the equation — the way some of the Left's favorite activist judges do.

In Texas, Democrats in the legislature tried another tactic. Lacking the votes to stop, delay, or defeat the redistricting measure, they left the state. That's right — they fled the jurisdiction of Texas entirely, so that a quorum could not be called and the redistricting bill would die on the vine due to time limitations.

Just pause for a moment and let the image sink in: Texas Rangers being called out to chase down duly sworn-in legislators and haul them back into the capital to do their jobs.

One legislator actually compared the group's flight from duty to the bravery shown at the Alamo. That legislator needs to get back to Austin and vote on the public-education bill that's set to expire, because accurate courses in Texas are evidently in short supply.

Hundreds of brave souls died at the Alamo because they stood their ground and fought. They knew they were going to die; they stayed and fought anyway. They didn't run away to Oklahoma.

What the Democrats in both Washington and Texas have shown is that when their minority status doesn't suit them, they'll do anything to obstruct the will of the majority — regardless of what damage is done to the constitutional process.

Senate Republicans inside the Beltway and the Republicans in the Texas legislature need to draw a line in the sand and clearly articulate the damage being done to our Constitution, to the voters, and to the legislative bodies as institutions. This must be done over and over again until the message is successfully delivered through all the media noise.

Of course, if that fails, a time-out might work.

— Kay Daly is spokesperson for the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary and a recent recipient of the American Conservative Union's Ronald Reagan award.

[areafiftyone]

[Rippin]

FYI

[cwb]

Quote:

"First, this president does not have the mandate of a national plurality..."

These people are scary. Bill Clinton never even got a majority of the vote in either of his elections. His 43% in 1992 and 49% in 1996 was more of an indication that the "people" opposed his ideas than supported them. And yet, I never heard any concern about his mandate to do as he pleased.

And I'm sorry....I'm not too impressed with Gore's supposed popular vote win when we see the level of voter fraud throughout this country. Thank God...or the Founders, for their wisdom in constructing the Electoral College. I'd hate to think what this country would look like if New York, California and a couple other states decided the direction for this country.

[nothingnew]

One legislator actually compared the group's flight from duty to the bravery shown at the Alamo.

Hundreds of brave souls died at the Alamo because they stood their ground and fought. They knew they were going to die; they stayed and fought anyway. They didn't run away to Oklahoma.

Excellent.

FMCDH

[Roughneck]

"Democrats seem to have regressed to infancy."

Right. Absolutely. : DemoBRATS.

[sweetliberty]

"The Democrats' behavior seems to have originated in their continual obsession with the 2000 presidential election"

While their shameless behavior escalated during that period, I think that when it really got started was under (no pun intended) Bill Clinton, where they were finding themselves daily in the position of defending the indefensible. It finally got to the point that they didn't even make a pretense any more that it was about anything but agenda. Their downward spiral has been gaining momentum ever since, and they still aren't getting a clue that America is no longer buying what they're selling.

[sweetliberty]

"What the Democrats in both Washington and Texas have shown is that when their minority status doesn't suit them, they'll do anything to obstruct the will of the majority — regardless of what damage is done to the constitutional process."

Precisely. And don't EVER make the mistake of underestimating their lust for power and the extent to which they will go to attain and maintain it.

[sweetliberty]

"DemoBRATS"

Another worthy FReepism.

[freeangel]

I sure hope that the whiners remember that what goes around, comes around. What we are seeing as unprecedented behaviour today will have lots of precedents in the future.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

First and foremost, our President had a majority of the vote--the only vote that counts, that of the Electoral College. For crying out loud, in the early days of our Republic they didn't even bother to keep track of the popular vote as it was, and still is, immaterial. If Gore would have won the presidency while losing the popular vote there wouldn't be a peep out of the media or the law schools. Incidentally, if there is a large number of law profs who have a problem with how Bush won in accordance with the Constitution, we need to identify these idiots and replace them with competent lawyers. No wonder our legal system is in such a mess!

[longtermmemmory]

New word:

Texahomans!

.

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[longtermmemmory]

Law professors are refugees from the legal profession. (old saying but still true) They often have very litte to do with the real world. The sad truth is that most all law professors are left wing, and law professors sit on the committees which choose student admissions. Of course 25 years ago getting in a US law school was a moderate challenge, now the proliferation of law schools has yealded a one seat per applicant reality across the nation. Anyone, ANYONE, who wants to go to law school can find an acredited law school to take them. And the leftist professors will be waiting. (BTW law schools are cheep to maintain, and have a high profit margin)

[wildbill]

Don't forget the substitution of Lautenberg for Torricelli.

[schaketo]

=== Cut === Paste === Email to Friends and Family ===

In the upcoming democratic primary (2004) ...

BIG AL NEEDS OUR HELP! - Register as a democrat and vote for Crazy Al!

Rev. Al Sharpton is officially running for president in 2004.

During the May 3, 2003 demoncrap debate in Columbia, S.C., our man Al stated “The way to move a donkey is to slap the donkey,” and “I’m going to slap the donkey until the donkey kicks”.

Let’s help Crazy Al slap the donkey until it kicks.

Assume GW has the Republican nomination sewn up. Its time for all good republicans, libertarians, and independents to stand up and be counted. Lets take a page from Sen. McCain’s play book. Prior to the 2004 democratic presidential primary in your state, re-register as a democrat and vote for Al Sharpton!

Wouldn’t it be great if Crazy Al won! At the very least, lets ensure he gets prime time speaking rights at the 2004 nationally televised democratic convention. You gotta love it. Line up, sign up, and send this to all your like-minded friends.

Check here for the rules governing primary voting in your state: http://www.fec.gov/votregis/primaryvoting.htm

In case you’d like to send Big Al a donation:
http://www.sharptonexplore2004.com/

Anyone need a bumper sticker or button?
http://democraticbuttons.freeservers.com/

How about an Al Sharpton yard sign?
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/victorystore00/pryasi.html

Oh yea, and don’t forget to call the local demoncrap party headquarters and ask them the following before the primary election:

1. Can I get a ride to the polls – help them spend their money during the primaries so they’ll have less during the national election. Have them take you the scenic route and stop off and do some shopping on the way home.
2. Are you giving anything away free for voting democrat? Cigarettes, box of cigars, box lunch, etc. Ask for two of each.
3. Send 25 cents in the mail to the DNC and watch how much they spend on mailing you to give to the party. Great way to help them spend money and keep you up to date on their propaganda.
4. Can you think of any other questions we should as them?

=== Cut === Paste === Email to Friends and Family ===

[patriciaruth]

Let's not forget the Toricelli-Lautenberg bait and switch.