Posts Tagged ‘2010 election’

In the wave of post-election coverage, I ran across a story you’re not likely to have heard much about.  MSNBC is perhaps beside itself over the fact that Iowa voters removed three state Supreme Court justices last night.  This represented, “the first time [Iowa] high court justices have lost a retention election.”

The people chose to return these judges to private life apparently because of their participation in last year’s unanimous decision striking down a state law that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Not surprisingly, once the hoi polloi registered their dissatisfaction with their betters, a group of former governors, lawyers and judges said the justices’ removal would “threaten Iowa’s independent judiciary.

Now in the interests of full-disclosure, let me say that I am an advocate of civil unions.  Homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone to dispose of their property, entrust others with automatic power-of-attorney, and the other rights that are traditionally accorded spouses.  Furthermore, they are entitled to these protections without having to take additional legal steps beyond those taken by a married heterosexual couple.

The Left is right to whatever extent it is simply advocating equal protection under the law.  The Left is wrong, however, to think that they are empowered to unilaterally order the changing of the English lexicon.  They are mistaken to believe that the power to ensure equal protection entails the right to demand that other Americans lend their approval to a lifestyle of which they do not approve…that they may force others (specifically the religious community) to either speak in muted tones with regard to issues that they believe are fundamentally wrong…or worse utilize the power of the State to force the people of Iowa to think a certain way.

It’s very revealing how times have changed the Left’s feelings vis a vis the people and the State.  You will all remember, I’m sure, how upset many on the Left were when the Supreme Court decided in 2000 (in Bush v. Gore) that that pesky little Constitutional mechanism of the electoral college actually DID have to be adhered to, and proclaimed Bush the winner of the hotly-contested race.  Back then the SCOTUS was the Devil-with-a-black-dress-on.  There was talk of chucking the electoral college, and going whole hog with direct democracy (well…minus those overseas military votes, which more and more frequently seem to suffer from “mistakes” don’t they?) The judges, after all, were really just servants of the people.

But this morning in Iowa?  Screw the people.  They’re stupid.  They voted for the conservatives.

No, your honors, they aren’t stupid….and that’s why you’re looking at the want ads today.

Advertisements

As what looks to be an historic mid-term shellacing of the Democrats looms, we’re already beginning to hear voices–both within and without the Republican Party–calling for “compromise” between the new Congress and the President. Many of the usual suspects in the media will take it upon themselves to “warn the Republicans” that they’d better get on board with the Obama agenda, or else they’ll be thrown out of the offices they won precisely by campaigning against said agenda.   With that in mind, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane and recall just what “compromise” means when on the lips of the Left.

Remember that magical year of 2001 when “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffords of VT decided he was done with the Republican Party and elected to declare himself an independent caucusing with the Democrats?  Despite the fact that the Democrats seized control of one branch of the Legislature without even winning an election, that didn’t stop them from becoming “the party of ‘no'” with regards to President Bush’s judicial nominees.  The power of their newfound single-vote majority was acted upon as if they had received an overwhelming electoral mandate.

Not only did the newly-Democratic Senate not seem in a particularly conciliatory mood, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) had no problem asserting his expectation that, “We expect them [i.e., the Bush Administration] to rethink, to recalibrate their political calculations when they send up nominees to us.

Fellow senator, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) seemed no more interested in compromising with Bush when he warned: “I made it clear to the White House and to the White House counsel that we are not going to be a rubber stamp.”

Following his own election to the Presidency, Obama’s talk of “changing the tone in Washington” shifted rather dramatically.  He told legislators of his own party, “Americans did not vote for the status quo–they sent us here to bring change.”

A question then, Mr. President:  If those same voters toss out the majority of your legislators in two days, will that too be a repudiation of the status quo?  Will it too be a mandate for a change of direction?

The President’s defenders, of course, will accuse me of oversimplifying the case.  (Facts and direct quotations are rather inconvenient things, aren’t they?) They will say that the President’s efforts at compromise have been far more “nuanced” (which is to say, “nonexistent”) than my analysis allows for.  Very well, perhaps we should give ear to the analysis of Democratic pollsters Doug Schoen:

Ideally [President Obama] wants bipartisanship. If that doesn’t work, ‘We won, you lost. You’re discredited. We’re not.’ That’s kind of his fallback position.

Nor was this carpe diem attitude of “now-it’s-our-turn-so-we’re-gonna-ram-through-everything-we-can” restricted to the elected politicians.  Recall this even-handed commentary from fair-and-balanced journalist, Chris Matthews:

You’re quite right, Mr. Matthews, we shouldn’t “pussyfoot” around, apologize for winning, or worry about getting along with the President.  Thank you very much for endorsing, in advance, the opposition of the newly conservative House.

The Bolt’s definition of narcissism:  Opining that your country can “absorb” a terrorist attack, but would suffer irreparable harm if your party lost the mid-term elections.

Perhaps you’ve already heard of the latest brouhaha surrounding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  It seems that one of the good senator’s aides entered into a fake marriage with a Lebanese man in order to help him avoid deportation.  Media Matters–that paragon of even-handed journalism–decried Fox News (apparently for having the audacity to even report something less-than-adulatory of one of our dear leaders) by pointing out there is, “no evidence that Reid or anyone in his office had any knowledge of the investigation or the alleged wrongdoing.”

This is rather fascinating as one of the most influential Leftists in America argued less than a month ago that evidence of guilt was not necessary in order to smear people.  Just in case you’ve forgotten, here’s a clip of David Axelrod conducting the political hatchet job on that nefarious global cabal–the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.