« Now, That's What You Call Provacative | Main | Details On The Levee Failures »
November 03, 2005
Kossacks And The Party Of Harry Truman
It takes a special kind of moonbat to become the first repeat winner of Mark Coffey's Weekly Jackass award. But Markos Zuniga, that paragon of calm reason, has more than enough chops to make the grade. At the dependably excellent Decision '08, Mark highlights the dependably ludicrous rantings of the Daily Kos, who in this post produced an analysis of Harry Reid's stunt that borders on the surreal. Kos:
I think it bears restating that Reid just proved to Senate Republicans that Democrats don’t need the filibuster to stop Alito (or any other judge, for that matter).
The Senate has plenty of parliamentary maneouvers available to the minority, any of which would accomplish the same thing in the end — preventing the majority from running roughshod over the minority.
Today should, for all intent purposes [sic], make any talk of a “nuclear option” obsolete.
Mark does a fine job in listing half a dozen good reasons why Markos' post is a bad joke--I'll only comment on a seventh. Kos assumes it's the job of Senate Democrats to prevent the "majority from running roughshod over the minority." This echoes the Dem's crying about Bush not picking a nominee that will "unite" the country. It's obvious to a child that what they really mean is that they can't handle the fact that they lost the election; they can't handle living in a democracy, I guess.
Just to reinforce the proof that the Left can't cope with reality, Mark has decided to issue a Bonus Jackass award to a Kossack named Hunter. Now, I've got nothing against profanity when it's used judiciously, but I've always had a disinclination to use it on this blog; I guess I feel it distracts from whatever reasoning skills I might have. But Hunter--now here's a guy who feels strongly about his shared heritage with Judge Alito:
There's nothing fucking "Italian American" about being an ultra-far-right conservative jackass. You will not drag my heritage into this like you shoved Alito's well-groomed hand up Rosa Parks' corpse, or I will bury you, you loathsome little egg-humping fucker. And unlike most of the victims of your only-like-a-minority-when-they're-dead corpse huggings, I'm still very much alive.
This is just charming, isn't it? (Mark gives a hat tip to James Taranto for this little gem; Taranto's piece is well worth your time.)
What in the hell has happened to these people? More importantly, what has happened to the Democratic party? We go over to my mom's on Sundays for lunch and quite often Mom will bring up the political topic of the week. Being a yellow-dog FDR, depression-era, dirt farm-raised type of Democrat (as was my dad), she has no comprehension of what has happened to the party of Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Scoop Jackson. My standard reply to her is, "Mom, the Democratic Party today is not the same party that you grew up with."
John Leo recently laid out what actually did happen to the Dems, and as you can guess, it all stems from 1972:
The changes at the 1972 convention removed the power of the city bosses and party regulars to determine the nominee and, in theory at least, increased the number of Democrats involved in selecting nominees. In reality, though, the reformers, through rule changes and some stealth and manipulation, stacked the convention and radically changed the party. Affluent, well-educated liberals were in-a “new elite,” as the Washington Post termed it. Party regulars, officeholders, and blue-collar Democrats were out. [...]
New York, a union state, had only three union members as delegates, though it had at least nine members of the gay liberation movement. No farmer was a member of the Iowa delegation. [...] The total of female delegates tripled, to 43 percent, with heavy emphasis on supporters of abortion and the hard-edged feminism represented by Bella Abzug
The McGovern reform commission and the people who changed the party in 1972 wrought lasting damage, and not just to Democrats: They helped mightily to create the modern split between red America and blue America. Many members of disfavored groups-Catholics, southerners, and much of the white working class and lower middle class-decamped for the Republican Party, while the Democrats emerged more clearly visible as the party of well-off liberals, the poor, identity and grievance groups, secularists, and the cultural elite. A second coming of McGovernite guerrillas wouldn’t do much to improve that image.
I briefly caught Michelle Malkin on Bill O'Reilley's show yesterday; she was on to promote her new book "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild". O'Reilley made a half-hearted attempt to make his usual argument about the crazies on both sides; Malkin would have none of it--noting emphatically that the Dems made one of their top loonies chairman of their party.
The revolution unleashed upon the Democratic party by the Sixties radicals, a revolution that has almost destroyed one half of our two-party system, is ripe for a counter-revolution. I just can't believe moonbats like Hunter speak for the majority of Democrats. But who will lead the Dems out of their morass?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/403
