The Democratic Party: Hypocrisy and Revisionism
- From: Don O'Shay <dontheman@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:53:41 -0700
The Democratic Party: Hypocrisy and Revisionism
By Frank Salvato
CNSNews.com Commentary
July 29, 2005
Howard Dean has decried Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a right-winger. John
Kerry is demanding that the White House release Supreme Court nominee
John Roberts' records in total. And Teddy Kennedy -- well, Teddy
continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
If it were possible to hear "eyes roll," the sound would have
thundered across the country with each one of these statements.
Whether it is their manipulation of our nation's sitcom attention span
or the elite media's bent agenda is irrelevant. The Democratic
"sideshow barkers" are getting away with it.
Recently, at one of his many anger-fests - or as I like to call them,
Anger-paloozas - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean
took the opportunity to once again lash out at Republicans and
conservatives while painting a picture of the Democratic Party that
would confuse Picasso.
While being queried about the possibility of John Roberts being
confirmed to the US Supreme Court, Dean said, "The President and his
Right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government
take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house
is."
Huh? What? I wonder what color the sky is in Howard Dean's world and
if whatever he is afflicted with is contagious.
The decision that Dean was referring to, Kelo v. The City of New
London, which allows local governments to forcibly acquire private
property in order to pad their tax bases, was ascribed to by the
court's liberal coalition of Justices; John Paul Stevens, David
Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. The only
"conservative" that signed on to this unconstitutional ruling was
Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The idea that a court which seats Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer
could somehow be considered a "Right-Wing Supreme Court" is akin to
the idea that Bill Clinton would be a excellent cheerleader camp
counselor. The thought really is that preposterous.
Meanwhile, in another part of the strange and quizzical land that is
"Democratopia," we have the oblivious John Kerry and the calculating
Teddy "A Bridge Too Far" Kennedy.
Vietnam War protest hero John Kerry recently called on the White House
to release "in their entirety" all of Supreme Court nominee John
Roberts' records as they pertain to his public service. "We cannot do
our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides
elements of his professional record," Kerry said.
I am sure Senator Kerry will afford the White House the same amount of
time to release Roberts' records as Kerry took to sign his Form 180.
In fact, the White House should follow Kerry's lead and release
Roberts' records exclusively to a friendly newspaper so that they can
vet and redact information that could be of any substance. This way
the White House could say they satisfied the request for the release
of Roberts' records without actually releasing any information...just
like Kerry!
And speaking of transparency, how can the subject of liberal hypocrisy
be addressed without a mention of the crowned prince of duplicity,
Teddy Kennedy.
Donning a straight face that would make Stephen Wright envious,
Kennedy stated in a recent press conference that Nominee Roberts'
confidential files - files protected by the sanctity of
attorney-client privilege mind you - from both his tenure as
Solicitor-General, as well as his work as a private attorney, should
be open to scrutiny by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Normally it would be typical of Kennedy to impose a double-standard so
that a conservative would be disadvantaged and disenfranchised.
Demanding a judicial litmus test whose qualifier is the right to
privacy (Roe v. Wade) while obliterating the right to privacy mandated
by attorney-client privilege is shooting par at the Teddy Kennedy
Judicial Invitational. But in this instance there is a very rich icing
that goes with the cake.
Kennedy took a very different attitude toward the types of questions
that should be asked of a Supreme Court nominee when then
Solicitor-General Thurgood Marshall was to go before the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
"We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have
to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the
court or very likely to be before the court," Kennedy said during a
1967 press conference. "This has been a procedure which has been
followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound
legal precedent."
Hhmm, it seems that the idea of transparency in Teddy's world is
subjective. At once it is as clear as the thinnest membrane known to
man and at the same time it is as murky as the waters under the bridge
at Chappaquiddick. Let's just hope it doesn't take Judge Roberts ten
hours to answer any questions.
So, as the circus that will be the confirmation hearings of Supreme
Court nominee John Roberts arrives in Washington DC, it is important
to remember that "sideshow barkers" seldom hawk wares of value and
never play on an even field. In this case the disingenuous calls of
"step right up" are an invitation to deception.
With that in mind, can someone define the word "is" for me please?
(Frank Salvato is managing editor of TheRant.us.)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Plame Treason Moves Closer to Bush
- Next by Date: Politically Correct Screening Won't Catch Jihadists
- Previous by thread: Sharpton: Stop Blind Support of Dems
- Next by thread: Politically Correct Screening Won't Catch Jihadists
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
