I’ve been quite busy lately and hadn’t had the time to check in with the Commissar in some time. Imagine my disappointment to see this:
Let’s look at the filibuster deal in perspective. While I hesitate to agree with constituent emails read into the record by Tom Harkin, I’ll ask the question — Is nomination of judges the country’s top priority? Numero uno? The big enchilada? More critical to our security than the war on terror? More important to our economic health than competing with China and India? What about social security reform? Energy policy? Energy prices?
Of course not.
As we, the so-called “United” States of America, confront those issues, do we want our leaders to spend any time on them at all? Or do we prefer they negotiate judgeships 24×7? And, if they DO manage to squeeze in a few minutes to deal with issues of national security, the economy, or the future, do we want them to do that from the narrowest, most partisan, most divisive posture possible?
These questions are fair; and the answers are obvious. Nor are these questiond the exclusive province of Moonbats and squishy-soft liberals. Anyone with an ounce of patriotism, anyone who aspires to the smallest thought-leadership role, any responsible person with any audience whatsoever, should be able to figure out what position to take on this issue.
The filibuster deal is a good thing; it may not be the “salvation of the Republic” as the Senatorial blowhards claimed last night, but it is a positive thing.
Wow. And if you disagree with that position, you don’t have an “ounce of patriotism”??? (All of a sudden I feel like John Kerry: “Are you questioning my patriotism?”)
I virulently oppose the filibuster “deal,” which is (in my view) simply a capitulation to Democrats’ bottom line, at the expense of the Republicans’ bottom line. But I wouldn’t question the patriotism of someone who disagrees.
Of course judges aren’t the top priority. But, to me, they are priority Number Two, after the War on Terror. Your mileage may vary, but I see a solid judiciary as more critical than social security reform, energy policy, or energy prices. It is beyond the scope of this post to explain why, but it has to do with the people’s right to govern themselves. Kind of an important principle, in my book.
And who says that according a high priority to good judges somehow undermines those other issues?? In fact, if we had employed the nuclear option, that would have ended any time wasted negotiating over judges, wouldn’t it, Commissar?
But here is where the Commissar goes over the top:
For the Main Stream Bloggers to rant on and on about sell-outs, disappointments, cowards, Party traitors, etc. etc. is shameful. And why do they indulge in such divisive nonsense? Because, in a Pavlovian-like reaction, they have learned over time that harshness and vitriol sells, or at least draws traffic.Thus, in the guise of thoughtful political commentary, they regularly churn out manufactured controversy. Even in a simple, easy-to-evalute case like the filibuster deal, they can’t stop themselves from pumping their Sitemeters. It’s beneath contempt.
Hang up your MT control panels, guys. Just shut them off.
Well, I’m on WordPress here, Commissar, so I assume you weren’t referring to me. I know I don’t fall into the elite category of the folks you are criticizing here by name, but I share their opinions, and I assure you that mine are sincerely held. Since I hold these opinions with all earnestness, I would never dare be so glib as to accuse others who hold similar opinions of expressing these opinions simply to boost traffic. I sure as hell am not doing that, and I resent even the slightest implication that I might be.
Some of us honestly think the filibuster “deal” just plain sucks. People like the Commissar may disagree — and that’s fine. But don’t accuse the rest of us of disingenuousness when we are simply expressing sincerely held beliefs. That’s unnecessarily hostile and without foundation.
Note that, if I were simply interested in harshness and vitriol, I’d simply tell the Commissar to go to hell — or worse, accuse him of base and ulterior motives (and even lack of patriotism!) for expressing these opinions (as he has done with those of us who strongly oppose the filibuster capitulation). But that’s not my style — and ultimately, I think it’s not his either.
I wish he’d take it back.
UPDATE: Well, he’s not taking it back, exactly. (Though he is claiming that he didn’t accuse people of changing their position on this issue just to get traffic — which is exactly how I read his post. Oh, well . . . it’s linked. You can read it and decide for yourself.)
But there is a consolation: a good post from Jeff Goldstein on the issue.