Drag Liberals Into The Light

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 007, Apr 28, 2005.

  1. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,604
    Thanks Received:
    7,922
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,237
    Drag Liberals Into The Light



    By Ann Coulter
    Wed Apr 27, 7:58 PM ET



    Democrats are in an incomprehensible rage over the filibuster. DON'T STOP READING! I AM NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THE HISTORY OF THE FILIBUSTER! Republicans have got to learn to stop getting into technicalities with the Democrats. They win in the dark; we win in the light. And it doesn't get much darker than a discussion of the Senate filibuster.

    It's no excuse that the Democrats are lying. They do that all the time. Republicans have got to learn to let it go.

    In one sentence Republicans should state that the so-called "nuclear option" means: "Majority vote wins." (This is as opposed to the Democrats' mantra, which is "Our side always wins.")

    I am sublimely confident that normal Americans will not be shocked to learn that a Republican Senate plans to confirm the judicial nominees of a Republican president -- despite the objections of radical elements of a party that is the minority in the Senate, the minority in the House, the loser in the last two presidential races, the minority in state governorships, and the minority in all but a tiny number of very small but densely populated enclaves in this country that need to tax Rush Limbaugh, even though he lives in another state, just to keep all their little socialist programs afloat.

    The question Republicans need to ask is: Why do the Democrats want to keep judicial nominees like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen off the federal bench?

    As I understand it, the reason Democrats are in a blind rage about Priscilla Owen is that, as a state court judge in Texas, Owen interpreted a law passed by the Texas Legislature requiring parental consent for 14-year-old girls to have abortions to mean that parental consent was required for 14-year-old girls to have abortions.

    I think Americans need to hear Democrats explain that.

    Democrats oppose Janice Rogers Brown because she's black. One cartoon on Blackcommentator.com shows President Bush introducing Brown to Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, with Bush saying, "Welcome to the bench, Ms. Clarence -- I mean, Ms. Rogers Brown. You'll fit right in!"

    Let's see, what do those four have in common? Two secretaries of state, a former general, a former professor and a Supreme Court justice ... What's the common thread? I know there's something -- but what is it?

    There's a whole array of groups opposed to Brown: People for the American Way, the National Women's Law Center, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Feminist Majority, the Aryan Nation and so on.

    But their actual objections to Brown are somewhat opaque. The Web page of "People for a Small Slice of the Upper West Side Way" contains a lengthy diatribe on Brown's nightmarish extremism while managing never, ever to give one specific example. In fact, if you take out "Janice Rogers Brown" and replace it with "Tom DeLay," it makes just as much sense when you read it.

    This is what we get by way of explanation on the horror show that is Janice Rogers Brown:


    "ideological extremism"

    "aggressive judicial activism"

    "even further to the right than the most far-right justices"

    "prone to inserting conservative political views into her appellate opinions"

    "many disturbing dissents"

    "a disturbing tendency to try to remake the law"

    "extreme states' rights and anti-federal-government positions"

    "working to push the law far to the right"

    "doesn't hate America and all that it stands for"
    OK, I made up that last one.

    Conservatives never attack liberal judges this way. We simply say: He found the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional ... He found a right to gay marriage in a state constitution written in 1780 by John Adams ... He ruled that smelly homeless people have a constitutional right to stink up public libraries and scare patrons ... He excluded 80 pounds of cocaine found in the defendant's car on the grounds that it was reasonable to run from the police when the police are viewed as "corrupt, violent and abusive."

    Democrats want to terrify people by claiming Bush's judicial nominees are nutcase extremists hell-bent on shredding the Constitution -- as opposed to liberals' preferred method of simply rewriting it on a daily basis -- but they're terrified that someone might ask them what they mean by "extremist." So let's ask!

    If the details helped liberals, I promise you we'd be hearing the details. Most important, if liberals could win in the court of public opinion, they wouldn't need the federal courts to hand them their victories in the first place. The reason liberals refuse to elaborate on "extremist right-wing ideologue" is that they need liberal courts to give them gay marriage, a godless Pledge of Allegiance, abortion on demand, nude dancing, rights for pederasts, and everything else they could never win in America if it were put to a vote.

    Republicans are letting them get away with it by allowing the debate on judges to consist of mind-numbing arguments about the history of the filibuster. Note to Republicans: Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are "extreme."

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/...Hou_8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhMmlmYnIxBHNlYwNsbjE3MDQ-
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    :rock: :clap:
     
  3. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Ann Coulter's magic 8-ball seems to say things like, "Democrats are untruthful", "Democrats can only hope to advance their America-hating agenda through the courts", and "Democrats cannot withstand a rational discussion of the facts".

    Pretty good information, if you ask me.
     
  4. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,604
    Thanks Received:
    7,922
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,237
    When Ann walks into a room full of people, the liberal dems scatter like a pack of vampires avoiding the rays of the rising sun... a metaphore of course. But none the less, liberal dems hate her because she has an uncanny ability to describe them as the putrid scum they are.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I thought George was quite tackleful in the way he pointed them out as people with no plans and no action. Think the press will run with it?
     
  6. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,604
    Thanks Received:
    7,922
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,237
    I'd say not much chance dillo... if it's the "liberal" press you're asking about.

    The fact that the libs are "idea shy" has been pointed out by quite a few people, but that point always seems to be avioded by the main stream media, hence the importance of our conservative bloggoshpere.

    Thank you jimnyc.
     
  7. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    No wonder liberals hate Ann Coulter...as always, she has the supreme ability to cut to the chase.... :bow2: :bow2: :bow2:
     
  8. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,576
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,220
    What i think is so disingenous about the Democrats tactics for fillibustering judicial nominations is that they are claiming they want to debate the judges qualification, but by filibustering them they prevent all such debate. If they want to debate their nomination then debate it and then do an up or down vote. If a nomination is as extreme as they seem to think there is no way they can get a majority of the votes. (By definition if they got a majority of the votes they wouldn't be extreme anyway)

    So how about we debate the candidates and give them an up or down vote. or are Senate Democrats too lazy to do their constitutionally mandated job of actually voting.
     
  9. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    It has nothing to do with debating qualifications because the two sides have their mind made up anyway. As always, the republicans slam any liberal groups opinion as liberally biased until it comes to issuing a highly qualified rating to conservative judges. Because these judges are considered conservative, nothing could ever be shown or debated that would in any way convince a republican politician to vote down on the judge.
     
  10. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Right--politics as usual
     

Share This Page