I love the first link. Read the whole thing. Here are the first few paragraphs.
Effective immediately, the Democrats will be known as the lyin’-ass boyfriend party – the perfect date for progressive voters looking to be stood up, bullshitted blind, or left holding the tab.
For five years now it’s been “Please baby, baby, baby, please! I’m sorry I was a no-show last time, but hey, that was because I was working overtime to save up to do something extra special for next time, which is the really big event – right, baby?”
Last April, when the Democrats backed away from filibustering extremist appeals court nominees, it was, “Don’t you fret, baby. We’re not going to go to the mat over small fry like Owen, Pryor, and Brown because we’re saving the filibuster for the big one – you know, the Supreme Court, baby.” Months later, Democrats folded rather than fight John Roberts, the young-ish yes man with a penchant for executive privilege and a wife who used to head an anti-choice organization. After all, they said, they needed to save their energy, and the filibuster, for the next Supreme Court nominee, who would undoubtedly be worse.
Well, baby, the moment of truth has arrived. It’s Alito-time, and the lyin’-ass boyfriends are backpedaling again. Why aren’t they going to raise a ruckus this time? Aw, baby… the filibuster is just so darned hard to use with only 45 senators! And what’s the point of trying to do anything until we’ve recaptured the Senate or the White House?
I have terrible news for the Democrats: being the minority party is not their real problem.
As I said: continue reading.
Well, Dean did well today. He didn’t sound crazy and his positions actually sounded coherent and appealing.
Oh oops. The link should have been this one.
Thank God for Dems like Kerry and Kennedy re the Alito filibuster.
And my jaw dropped when I read what Byrd had to say about Alito.
and a wife who used to head an anti-choice organization Wow, there’s an offensive comment, for a variety of reasons. Mrs. Roberts didn’t “head” Feminists for Life, she was one of their attorneys. Second, Feminists for Life is not accurately called “anti-choice,” because their motto is “better choices.” If you agree with William Saletan’s recent monumental op-ed in the NY Times, then you pretty much agree with Feminists for Life. This is an organization that, yes, thinks abortion is bad. (Gasp! oh no!) But they aren’t trying to reduce abortions by banning it outright. They are calling attention to one of the least-talked about aspects of the abortion tragedy, and that is for many women, it comes down to whether or not they can afford to have a child. It’s not just adding another mouth to feed to the budget for the next 18 years; 45 million Americans are uninsured, and FMLA allows parents to take unpaid leave, only. Millions of women find they simply can’t afford to have a child. Furthermore, many women have abortions because of the social stigma attached to being a single mother. Our own prejudice turns what should be a celebration of new life into something shameful. We still talk about “illegitimate” children, as if a human being could ever be “illegitimate.” Feminists for Life is trying to reduce abortions — and apparently that makes them suspect in the eyes of the morally untethered Left — by addressing the root problem, not by trying to criminalize desperate women and the doctors who help them.
Furthermore, what business does anyone have these days assuming that a woman’s views on any given issue necessarily reflect that of her husband? I find that patently sexist.
Pingback: A Guy In New York