Thursday, April 21, 2005

Filibuster for the "Protection of Minorities"?

Only when it's convenient, evidently. According to Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times:

Liberal Democrats, who now extol the filibuster to protect minorities, were in the forefront advocating strict majority rule through most of my nearly 48 years as a reporter covering Congress. As recently as 2000, architects of the filibuster strategy to block President Bush's judicial nominees -- with Democrat Bill Clinton still in the White House -- were demanding straight up-or-down votes on judges.
(Via RealClearPolitics)

(True confession: I used to have a big dog. Every so often, I'd go to the yard to pick up dogshit. No matter what you do, if you have a dog, there it is, this distasteful chore. In the same way, I'm finding it hard to attend to the blatently self-serving, hypocritical, character assassinating lies of the left. The difference? Well, there's the obvious upside to having a dog, and on balance, dogshit is only moderately offensive.)

No comments: