Is there anyone lower than a Senate Democrat?

February 4, 2015
"Senate Grinch"

“Senate Grinch”

I’m really not sure, after this stunt:

In a shocking move, Senate Democrats today filibustered all funding for the Department of Homeland Security. They refused to allow the DHS funding bill, which has already passed the House, to be brought up for a vote. This means that funding for DHS, including its many vital national security functions, will soon run out.

Why would Democrats vote unanimously to shut down DHS? Because the funding bill excludes the implementation of President Obama’s patently illegal and unconstitutional subversion of the nation’s immigration laws. The Democrats’ position is: either you go approve of and pay for the president’s illegal acts, or we will shut DHS down.

Note that “unanimously” includes supposed bridge-building moderate Joe Manchin (D-WV), who says he’s in DC to “get things done.” Remember this lesson: there is no such thing as a moderate or conservative Democrat, not when it counts — in a vote. They’ll say all the right words their voters want to hear about being “centrist” and standing against the president, but, when push comes to shove, they still vote with their progressive leadership.

But then, what else should we expect from a caucus still lead by Harry Reid, who as Majority Leader turned himself into a human roadblock against almost any bill passing, even amendments his own party members wanted considered? When it came to being “Dr. No,” Reid made Andrei Gromyko look like a paragon of cooperation.

Now in the minority, he apparently plans to do the same thing, all to protect Obama’s anti-constitutional usurpation of the Congress’ power to write our laws.

Again, what should we expect from the man who ran as fast as he could to a microphone to stab our Armed Forces in the back and scream “all is lost” just as they were about to begin a major campaign against al Qaeda?

Harry Reid is a venal, mean-spirited old wretch of a man whose idea of the “national interest” extends no further than his party’s caucus chamber and who couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss about his responsibilities to the Constitution.

The Senate will be improved immeasurably once he retires.

More from Politico.

Advertisements

That was then, this is now

March 6, 2010

Before he became President, Barack Obama felt one couldn’t govern by ramming through legislation with just 51 votes in the Senate:

Unless, of course, he actually becomes President and there’s something he really, really wants … even if most of us don’t.

It’s different now. Somehow.


If only Il Duce were here!

February 25, 2010

David Axelrod has a dream. Sadly, we instead live in a democracy.

Maybe he and Tom Friedman should start a club …or a Bund.


James Madison was a smart guy

February 14, 2010

Unable to get their way and pass hugely unpopular legislation, even with an overwhelming majority in the Congress and control of the Presidency, many Democrats in government and their supporters on the Left have argued for the elimination of the filibuster from the Senate. “Anti-democratic!” they call it.

Baseball Crank has a good post up citing President Madison in Federalist 62 on why it is important to have a Senate that slows down the rush to enact complex (and bad) legislation. I recommend you give it a look. Here’s a telling excerpt:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.

And maybe the Democrats should, too, since they seem to have forgotten the Whys of their own government.

UPDATE: More on Mr. Madison’s thoughts on current politics.