The filibuster's on the table," Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California said.
They're quite mad, aren't they? But I guess we should be afraid, be very afraid, right? I mean, fear is their stock and trade, and they are very afraid of Sam so the fillibuster is on Ms Boxer's table. I see.
How often may one cry wolf? Or the sky is falling? Therein lies the rub the Democrats have found themselves in, as they once again lurch to the tune of "Bad Man, Very Bad Man" in their descriptions of Samuel Alito.
In their minds, you see, the times have changed to the point that possessing a conservative judicial philosophy is something to be cringed at, and no longer suitable for the modern, fast-results, lets change the channel America they so warmly embrace. This is how the entertainment media keeps it's audience, something new, something fresh, something bold, and now for something totally different, and if it's good enough for the boob tube it should be good enough for the country as a whole.
Change, change, then more change is fine because it keeps the electorate on their toes, flitting from the analysis of one topic to another, and an off balance electorate suits those with an off balance agenda very well, thank you. The same people who feel it is quite satisfactory to have aborted over 20 million babies in the last several decades, will hop upon the "For The Children" bandwagon on a moments notice, knowing full well that a somewhat confused country will pay little or no attention to such a contradiction.
But the problem with conservatism is that it doesn't change all that much, so to be one is to be a dinosaur that hasn't quite understood that it is supposed to be extinct, and for that reason and that reason alone, all conservative ideology is bad, and those who espouse such ancient rhetoric's even worse. John Roberts was bad, and Sam Alito is worse because their opinions differ from the Schumers and the Kennedys and the Boxers, and merely saying that there is a disagreement doesn't have nearly enough impact to be all-persuasive, so the next obvious step is to vilify the one having this different opinion and portray them as a dangerous person.
So the sky is falling once again, and we are told that no options are off the table. The entertainersmasquerading as elected representatives want their constituencies to know that they will wage an all out war for them if necessary, because people who don't think as they do must be horrible people indeed and thus the dreaded filibuster is once again among the weapons that may be employed to smite the ogres who would force the country back into legislation through representation.
But what must the middle of the roaders think of all this? Supposedly, 30% of the country is Republican, 30% are Democrats, with the remaining 40% quite happy to remain fence sitters, and is it to the fence sitters that the likes of Schumer preach, or do they merely dance for their loyal base?
Are the undecideds really that malleable that they can believe there to be only one proper philosophy? Then again, that's the opposite of malleability isn't it, so it simply must be a presentation guaranteed to soothe one's liberal supporters, and while once MUST mollify one's base, must one draw such an irrevocable line in the sand as Ted Kennedy did when slandering Judge Bork? Regardless. The sky is falling once again, brought to you by the sky-is-falling-people, the Catastrophe's R Us folks who would have us believe that the climate is changing, people are dying because a mentally and morally deficient Chief Executive lied, and that any idea is a good idea as long as it is their idea.
How long can the Democratic party continue to find support only from those in constant fear? Fear of guns, fear of what horrors might befall a nation that forced healthy women to birth healthy babies, fear of religions, fear of allowing people to actually have a distaste for sodomy...fear, fear, and fear again.
No comments:
Post a Comment