Gay Patriot Header Image

Senate Democrats: In Thrall to the Far Left

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:33 am - January 25, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Supreme Court

So many on the Left are so blind to reality of the modern Republican Party that whenever they encounter a Republican who does not fit their stereotype of the narrow-minded Bible thumper or greedy tycoon, they have to inform us that the radical right controls the GOP. Many of these people claim that they know more about a party whose meetings they have never attended and with whose leaders and activists they have never conversed. But, they know more about the party than those who have actually been involved and so insist that our party’s leaders enforce a strict right-wing ideology and brook no dissent.

With today’s party-line Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems that the party which enforces a strict ideology is not the Republican Party, but the Democrat – and the ideology is not a right-wing one set by greedy industrialists and intolerant theologians, but a left-wing one set by a variety of D.C.-based interest groups and angry bloggers.

And while Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats voted en masse against a qualified conservative jurist (tapped to replace the court’s “swing” vote), Senate Republicans, members of the party supposedly in thrall to the radical right, did not so vote against Ruth Bader Ginsburg when President Clinton tapped this one-time American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney to replace a retiring conservative jurist nearly thirteen years ago.

My state’s senior Senator, the normally sensible Dianne Feinstein said that things had changed since the Senate voted on Ginsburg and Clinton’s other nominee Stephen Breyer, claiming that “There was not the polarization within America that is there today, and not the defined move to take this court in a singular direction” (via Powerline). While she’s right that there was not such polarization at that time, she fails to acknowledge that her party which has polarized the process. As John Hinderaker puts it:

Republicans didn’t try to defeat judicial nominees on a purely political, partisan basis, but rather voted for qualified nominees of the President’s party and judicial philosophy. But over the last five years, time after time, the Democrats have been willing to trash our institutions and traditions for the sake of political gain.

And we’ve seen this before. Democrats level accusations while their ideological confreres hurl insults – at qualified conservatives, merely to tarnish their names and so make them less palatable to the American public.

As Polipundit puts is, the Democrats have created “a new and unprecedented standard” for Supreme Court nominees. And Arizona Senator John Kyl seems to agree with Polipundit’s recommendation that “Republicans should return the favor if a Democrat becomes president:”

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., warned that Republicans would remember a party-line Alito vote in future Supreme Court nominations, considering several Republicans voted for Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who were nominated by President Clinton.

“It is simply unrealistic to think that one party would put itself at a disadvantage by eschewing political considerations while the other party almost unanimously applies such considerations,” Kyl said. “So I say to my Democratic friends: Think carefully about what is being done today. Its impact will be felt well beyond this particular nominee.”

So beholden are Democrats to left-wing interest groups and so afraid are they of being savaged by the Bush-hating bloggers that they are likely not even considering the consequences to the political process of their unified opposition to a nominee whom even they acknowledge is qualified, a nominee whom the American Bar Association has given its highest rating while many of the judges with whom he has served on the Third Circuit – including those appointed by Democratic presidents – favor his confirmation.

As the united opposition of Senate Democrats (at least those on the Judiciary Committee) show that they are in thrall to the far left, it provides several opportunities for the GOP. First and foremost, it shows how far out of the mainstream these Democrats must go in order to oppose a nominee who has won high marks by those following the confirmation process. After the hearings, a poll showed that 54% of Americans favor his confirmation while only 30% oppose it.

Not only that. The united Democratic opposition makes clear the contrast between their party and ours, thus serving to further rally a GOP base which had, until recently, been growing despondent. If a nominee so upsets the Left that Senate Democrats will vote in unison against him, it should make conservatives realize that, in appointing him, the president has done something right. As a result, Republicans may be more willing to work harder for their candidates this fall – and at the very least get off their duffs and vote on Election Day.

Just by scanning the comments to this blog, you can find a number of angry leftists who refuse to understand how gay men could join a party they believe to be controlled by right-wing zealots. They ignore our arguments and refuse to acknowledge our experiences in this supposedly-intolerant party. So eager are they to define Republicans as mind-numbed robots who would sacrifice their own freedom to a narrow-minded ideology that not only do they fail to see the GOP as it is, but they fail as well to see how an ever more elected Democrats are compromising their principles to placate increasingly powerful interest groups and increasingly vocal (and quite angry) activists and bloggers.

Perhaps, my grad school classmate was right when he said last night that when you want to know what’s going on in the left, just listen to their insults of Republicans. Because they’re not so much talking about us as they are describing things on their own side.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

31 Comments

  1. “Republicans should return the favor if a Democrat becomes president:”

    Not just Supreme Court nominees either. I just hope we can remember this far back if a “Democrat” ever becomes president again.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 25, 2006 @ 2:42 am - January 25, 2006

  2. Maybe you might want to define what YOU mean by the Far Left, since every one and thing that questions GWB’s insincerity is labeled by you as a part of this amorphous Far Left. I’m not a part of the Far Left, and I sure as hell am not in favor of Alito. The LAST thing we need is another, Far Right wingnut on the Supreme Court. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas’s extreme judicial activism is too much. I am especially anxious about GWB’s nominees attitudes to an imperial presidency, something which GWB obviously supports. Call me conservative, but I still believe in divided government, with the executive, legislative, and judicial actions each having equal authority. Maybe you don’t mind crowning GWB grand imperial dunce, but I do!

    Comment by Stephen — January 25, 2006 @ 3:17 am - January 25, 2006

  3. Maybe you might want to define what YOU mean by the Far Left,

    Depends on what the meaning of “is” is, right, Stephen? Actually, you just defined it for him in your comment. Anybody that would classify Alito as a “Far Right wingnut” definitely would be considered a far left ass clown devoid of any honesty.

    I’m not a part of the Far Left,

    I would offer not to tell anybody, but you just did.

    Alito, Scalia, and Thomas’s extreme judicial activism is too much.

    How dare an SC judge rule based on the law and the Constitution rather than legislate liberalism and rely on international law and unsigned treaties. Without liberal justices, liberalism will never see the light of day.

    I am especially anxious about GWB’s nominees attitudes to an imperial presidency, something which GWB obviously supports.

    That’s funny, those of us who deal with reality instead of partisan political games have seen no evidence of that, so why should a justice have to tell you how he would rule on a non-event?

    Call me conservative,

    Sorry. I’m not a pathological liar like your lefty buddies.

    Maybe you don’t mind crowning GWB grand imperial dunce, but I do!

    Nobody’s aiming to crown anybody “grand imperial” anything. Alternatively, you douchebags have a Grand Imperial Wizzard and have crowned him the “Conscience of the Senate”.

    Wanna try again?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 25, 2006 @ 6:32 am - January 25, 2006

  4. And now, the Senate Democrats, having failed to Bork Alito, are plotting to stall out the confirmation as long as possible. Why? Because they want to deny Bush the opportunity to speak of it in his State of the Union address.

    Instead of formulating alternative policy approaches to the nation’s problems, Democrats are playing games like this. How petty. How childish. How pathetic. How can anyone be proud to be a Democrat?

    Comment by V the K — January 25, 2006 @ 7:25 am - January 25, 2006

  5. V the K – I think you need to ask….How can anyone be proud to be Conservative?? After ALL, ALL, ALL the crap spewed from Bush and his administration on a daily basis – LIES, Deciet, LIES etc….. If the Dems were REAL smart — they’d ALL WALK OUT on the Faux President’s State of the Union Address. Hey in 2008 I was actually entertaining the notion of voting for McCain – until I found out he and Spector are Endorsing Santorum’s re-election. See that’s the Repubs – they lock-step to each other no matter what type of person (fellow repug) stands for or his reputation is. We all know what Santorum stands for….and if you actually like him — well, therpay should be part of your daily schedule. If you actually think Santorum cares about your rights as a Gay American – you are delusional!

    Comment by JRC — January 25, 2006 @ 10:01 am - January 25, 2006

  6. I guess it’s too much to expect today that our critics would actually read my posts and take issue with my points.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 25, 2006 @ 10:11 am - January 25, 2006

  7. I’m an Independent, so I don’t think either party has anything to be proud of. But at least the Republicans are behaving like grown-ups and engaging in real policy debate, not playing an endless series of high school clique games.

    Comment by V the K — January 25, 2006 @ 10:17 am - January 25, 2006

  8. I’m an Independent, so I don’t think either party has anything to be proud of. But at least the Republicans are behaving like grown-ups and engaging in real policy debate, not playing an endless series of high school clique games.

    Comment by V the K — January 25, 2006 @ 10:17 am – January 25, 2006

    I think you need to get off the Repug sleeping pills and WAKE UP! So Sad!

    Comment by JRC — January 25, 2006 @ 1:14 pm - January 25, 2006

  9. JRC…sounds like you need a hug. You also need some new material; no one bought that bullshit mantra the first fifty-thousand times around.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — January 25, 2006 @ 1:25 pm - January 25, 2006

  10. #9

    Sounds like someone’s needs to get some.

    I’d like to see a liberal demonstrate how Bush lies. They can’t, but they can lie themselves and hope like hell we’re stupid enough to believe them.

    they lock-step to each other no matter what type of person (fellow repug) stands for or his reputation is.

    But liberals can keep supporting a murderer and a Gran Wizard without hesitation.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 25, 2006 @ 7:06 pm - January 25, 2006

  11. “Perhaps, my grad school classmate was right when he said last night that when you want to know what’s going on in the left, just listen to their insults of Republicans. Because they’re not so much talking about us as they are describing things on their own side.”

    You are so right. But of course, that kind of process would be true on both sides, wouldn’t it, unless Republicans come with an immunity to projective styles?

    So we should cull your critique of Dems to learn what it says about you, yes?

    Comment by PeaceOut — January 25, 2006 @ 7:21 pm - January 25, 2006

  12. “I’d like to see a liberal demonstrate how Bush lies. They can’t, but they can lie themselves and hope like hell we’re stupid enough to believe them.”

    President Bush — April 20, 2004:

    Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

    Comment by PeaceOut — January 25, 2006 @ 7:29 pm - January 25, 2006

  13. See that’s the Repubs – they lock-step to each other no matter what type of person (fellow repug) stands for or his reputation is.

    Yep. They all followed Bush lock-step and supported Hariet Meiers. They all followed Bush lock-step and supported his Social Security reforms. They ALL followed Bush lock-step and supported the FMA…

    Oh, no wait. They didn’t.

    Compair that to the Senate Democrats and their vote on Alito. That looks alot more like lock-step to me.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 25, 2006 @ 8:13 pm - January 25, 2006

  14. And JRC, note that I didn’t call you a desparaging name or personally insult you. I simply refute your assumption about republicans blindly /unquestioningly following Bush.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 25, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - January 25, 2006

  15. PeaceOut, perhaps you should check the context of the President’s quote you cite in #12 and you will see that he did not misrepresent the program to eavesdrop on international communications of terrorist suspects.

    As to your comment in #11, if you want to cull my critique of the Dems to see what you can find out about me, go ahead, our archives are fully accessible. It is striking that the party that encourages the other of narrow-mindedness is the one which forces a narrow orthodoxy on its members. And while I accuse the Democrats of narrow-mindedness, I don’t delete your posts —from my blog–and sometimes even take the time to reply.

    It’s when someone becomes so hysterical in accusing others (and frequently misrepresents their views or takes them out of context as you have done) that one wonders if they’re just talking about themselves.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 25, 2006 @ 8:32 pm - January 25, 2006

  16. LOL, GPW. I bet a friend you’d play the literalist with Bush’s quote. You know very well what it implies to the average person. I’m sure you’d likewise note that his managing to rhetorically but not causally link 9/11 to Saddam doesn’t amount to dishonesty. The context is above all POLITICAL, GPW.

    Part 2: Your blog, GPW, is full of invective, often ad hominem, directed at liberals (to say nothing of its, um, condescending tone). And almost always, such comments are indeed self-descriptive. The blogosphere is largely a cluster of pots and kettles calling one another black. That is why it’s so important that professional media recover a sense of objectivity in the original sense it was understood as an unsparing inquiry in search of the truth, not simply the equal reporting of “both sides” as if facts were always spinning like electrons.

    Comment by PeaceOut — January 25, 2006 @ 11:25 pm - January 25, 2006

  17. “Compair that to the Senate Democrats and their vote on Alito. That looks alot more like lock-step to me.”

    Indeed, the Dems lock-stepped behind Bush on the invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act.

    It never fails here that the writer thinks a few exceptions disproves the rule. In other words, I’ve just proven how loyal to Bush the Dems are.

    Comment by PeaceOut — January 25, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - January 25, 2006

  18. #12

    No, I’m talking about a lie. Not the liberal spin that they hope like hell the people will be stupid enough (and obviously you are) to believe is a lie.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2006 @ 2:18 am - January 26, 2006

  19. #16

    You know very well what it implies to the average person.

    Too bad the polls show that the “average person” (Read: “dumbasses” in liberal speak) don’t agree with you or the other liberals.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2006 @ 2:21 am - January 26, 2006

  20. That is why it’s so important that professional media recover a sense of objectivity in the original sense it was understood as an unsparing inquiry in search of the truth, not simply the equal reporting of “both sides” as if facts were always spinning like electrons.

    Somehow the liberal media is led to believe that the food groups had been changed by a group blast-faxing, somehow believed that the Koran could be flushed down a toilet, somehow believed that Microsoft Word & Kinkos was around in the 60’s, that bin Laden’s DNC talking points actually mirror Republicans etc. etc. etc.

    Shall I go on?

    “Professional media” (ie. the DNC mouthpieces) is dead. The American people aren’t buying the liberal propaganda anymore.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2006 @ 2:27 am - January 26, 2006

  21. I would respond to the charge that the “MSM” (MainStream Media) is liberal (it is not), but I’ll merely point out that Newsweek–which broke the story of the Koran flushing in the US (it had apparently been broken earlier in other countries)–explained its research here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857154/site/newsweek/ It struck me as not credible that an entire bound book could be flushed down a toilet, but it is not incredible that an a book could be flushed down a toilet page by page. Something like the so-called Chinese water torture.

    Tne point of this comment is to address the warrantless electronic wiretaps. A few days ago I did a little research on the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) regarding electronic surveillance, 50 USC 1801 et seq (it is available on the Cornell LII web site), and it appears that the 72 hour limitation is mentioned in 50 USC 1801(h)(4) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801—-000-.html . That does not limit warrantless wiretaps to 72 hours. It provides for a sliding window of 72 hours during which the government can engage in warrantless wiretaps, but requires that, until the government gets a warrent from the FISA court or a certification from the Attorney General “that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person”, it is supposed to destroy information that it has recorded that is over 72 hours old. That “sliding window” feature allows the government the ability to surveille so that it can try to acquire information that it believes it can establish probable cause to support a warrant. After the government obtains a warrant, it can retain the information indefinitely.

    The objection to GWBush’s warrantless wiretaps is three-fold. One, in contravention to 50 USC 1801, they are retaining the information for longer than 72 hours without bothering to obtain a warrant from the FISA court. Two, there is no indication that the GWBush administration has ever tried to obtain a certification from the Attorney General that the information retained indicated “a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.” Three, there is no indication that any of the information older than 72 hours old has been destroyed.

    Some of us were actually sentient beings during the Vietnam War, and we know that the revelations that the federal government (and I’m not just referring to Nixon) was spying on dissident groups and civil rights organizations during the 1960s and early 1970s. That had a rather severe chilling effect on freedom of speech. Quite frankly, it seems to me that any sophisticated terrorist organizations would use scramblers on voice communications and encryption and/or password-protected zip files on data communications, which would take a substantial length of time for the US wiretappers to decipher.

    Comment by raj — January 26, 2006 @ 6:59 am - January 26, 2006

  22. If Democrats don’t want the Government to wiretap calls made by terrorists, why don’t they just put up a bill making it illegal to wiretap calls made by terrorists? Or, are they just afraid of being busted for pulling a political stunt, as happened when Murtha’s ‘Defeat and Retreat’ proposal was put up for a vote.

    Comment by V the K — January 26, 2006 @ 8:23 am - January 26, 2006

  23. V the K — January 26, 2006 @ 8:23 am – January 26, 2006

    If Democrats don’t want the Government to wiretap calls made by terrorists, why don’t they just put up a bill making it illegal to wiretap calls made by terrorists?

    Um, is this comment for real? The FISA act allows the government to wiretap calls through a sliding 72 hour window prior to applying for a warrant to determine whether the person being wiretapped is in fact a terrorist. Unless there is some probable cause (which is a really low standard) for believing that the person being wiretapped is a terrorist, it seems to be a waste of resources for the government to continue with the wiretap for any extended period of time.

    Comment by raj — January 26, 2006 @ 9:50 am - January 26, 2006

  24. Peace Out, I greatly appreciate your comments to this blog as they make it so much easier for me to prove my points.

    In order to create the image of the president that you want to see, you have to twist his words out of context. I’m not sure what you’re getting at in your point about the president “rhetorically” linking Saddam to 9/11 because he did so thing. He did indicate that there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, ties which have been proven.

    In Part 2, you claim that this blog is “full of invective, often ad hominem, directed at liberals.” I believe you made this claim before, but you have yet to cite my words to make your case. I would agree that there is a lot of name-calling in the blogosphere and that professional media recover a sense of objectivity. Perhaps had it maintained that sense of objectivity, the blogosphere would not have gain the following that it has.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 26, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - January 26, 2006

  25. And when conservatives opposed Harriet Miers because she wasn’t conservative enough, that was ok, right?????

    Comment by Downtown Lad — January 26, 2006 @ 10:38 pm - January 26, 2006

  26. Actually, they opposed her because she didn’t do a good job answering the questionnaire the Senate Judiciary Committee sent her. And, in her interviews with Senators, she didn’t show an understanding of legal issues necessary to serve responsibly on the high court.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 26, 2006 @ 11:01 pm - January 26, 2006

  27. Let me see if I understand Downtown Lad. Harriet Miers-Underqualified Bush crony appointed to a position that was clearly over her head: Good. Michael Brown – Underqualified Bush crony appointed to a position that was clearly over his head: Bad.

    Let me see if I understand raj: During wartime, it is a good idea to require our intelligence services to get a judge’s permission before each intercept of an enemy’s communications.

    Comment by V the K — January 27, 2006 @ 9:11 am - January 27, 2006

  28. V the K — January 27, 2006 @ 9:11 am – January 27, 2006

    Let me see if I understand raj: During wartime, it is a good idea to require our intelligence services to get a judge’s permission before each intercept of an enemy’s communications.

    I had responded to this issue above in comment #21. I had presumed that you could read American English, but apparently you can’t.

    Comment by raj — January 27, 2006 @ 4:27 pm - January 27, 2006

  29. And, once again, a defeated leftist is reduced to hurling insults.

    Comment by V the K — January 27, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - January 27, 2006

  30. What’s ironic is that one of the Left-liberal talking points against Alito is that he would approve (gasp!) the NSA wiretaps on terrorists as a Bush crony, etc.

    Why ironic? Well, Miers was the Bush crony. Bush then rightly went with someone else (Alito) who in fact is NOT connected to Bush in any way, shape or form. In other words, in going with Alito and not Miers, Bush has done what the Left-liberals wanted.

    But hey, facts like that never stop them.

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 1:21 am - January 29, 2006

  31. Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 1:21 am – January 29, 2006

    As far as I can tell, Alito was not and never has been a member of the FISA court. So your question is pretty much irrelevant.

    Comment by raj — January 30, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - January 30, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.