Monday, October 31, 2005

When did we forget to be civil?

I must have fallen off the “turnip truck” yesterday; isn’t that what they say about some hick who hasn’t figured out how the world works? I haven’t always been tuned into the political scene and I’ve just now come to notice, maybe it’s always gone on this way and I was ignorant, how downright ugly people are to each other.

I enjoy watching movies when I can’t find a good baseball game, call me one of the boys of summer. I’ve got a couple of really good political movies in mind, The Manchurian Candidate ( both the one with Frank Sinatra in black and white and the newer version with Densel Washington ), and Seven Days in May come to mind when I think of the lengths some folks will go in order to move an agenda along. Maybe I’ve already answered my question, “has it always been this ugly?”, probably.

I remember watching the State of the Union Address as President Bush spoke in front of the combined houses of government. It struck me as particularly “in bad form” as Senator Hillary Clinton displayed her contempt by rolling her eyes in such exaggeration as to become a distraction to those working the television cameras. I’m sure that at some time during her upbringing and professional training that Senator Clinton must have been taught how to endure with a polite or cordial manner, a simple blank expression at the very least instead of muscular contortions to express indignation.

I picked that particular lack of civility because it has remained fresh in my mind over time. It seems to characterize a trend, something which does nothing to bolster a working relationship between rival political parties. The “loyal opposition”, an interesting term since they are in no way loyal, at least not to the Union of citizens we call the United States of America, these loyal opponents who for one reason or another are in the minority with the political numbers have seen fit to dedicate their energies toward bringing down the Union in order to express their dissatisfaction with the current majority and administration.

I’d like to ask Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who said Monday that he is "disappointed" in the pick of ( Samuel ) Alito in that he is not a "consensus nominee" and said one day earlier that that nominee would "create a lot of problems.", exactly what is a “consensus nominee? Maybe over in Nevada they have some secret scientific laboratory where they are turning our Compilation People; the sinister brow of Ted Kennedy, the shrill screeching… you get the idea. In any case, I’d prefer an individual, someone who can stand up and explain his/her own thoughts rather than some milk toast “yes man” who marches to multiple voices. Did you, Senator Reid, when you began spouting off in front of the public, ever consider the damage you might be doing to this great country? Is it acceptable for anyone, much less an elected official who sits in the Senate to carry on character assassinations of men who are known to be honorable, regardless of their political leanings?

Did you mean that if Samuel Alito were to be confirmed and take a position on the Supreme Court that his quiet and thoughtful approach, his careful and methodical process of weighing points of law and how each case is compared to the rule of law as outlined in the Constitution, that his track record of being fair minded would “create a lot of problems”; is that what you meant? Or did I hear incorrectly?

I’d like to ask Bob Beckel, a top Democratic strategist why he believes, “There are perhaps only two other people in the country who would cause Democrats to be "more disturbed" than Alito”. According to Beckel, "He runs counter to everything we believe in," then Beckel added, "Let me congratulate the right wing. They beat the president back and they got somebody they wanted."

I must have missed part of Bob Beckel’s tirade, who are the two other people in the country who would cause the Democrats to be more disturbed? Let me take a couple of wild guesses; hummmmmm, Rush Limbaugh?, “Talent on Loan from God!”, or maybe some other hard hitting conservative, Sean Hannity?, “Let Freedom Ring…” I can see where the Democrats might be shaking in their boots at the thought of having an up front and honorable justice sitting on the Supreme Court; someone who would actually hold his right hand to the square and mean it when he promised to uphold the Constitution rather than impose his personal views and legislate from the bench.

I’d like to ask Senator Schumer D-NY, exactly why he thinks, "The president seems to want to hunker down in his bunker" and "soothe the ruffled feathers of the extreme wing of his party," Schumer also said, "This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people."

When I hear people focus credibility because a certain group is “diverse” when talking about an individual’s character instead of detailing qualifications little red flags and fireworks alert me to a particular agenda of the left which is Anti-American in all of its forms. It is the philosophy which pretends to offer fairness and equality regardless of effort and ability. It is the lie which pretends to justify discrimination against qualified individuals in favor of privileged handouts based on race or gender; either of which destroy the Spirit which has made America the greatest country in the world. Make no mistake, the Socialist Progressive, oh hell, just call them the Democratic segment of our country are intent on having us believe that it is a group of diverse peoples who make the difference rather than any individual’s efforts to improve his/her position in life. I suppose that makes it okay to destroy individuals one at a time through character assassination in order to improve the group.

The best line I’ve been able to come up with, one that would bother almost any of the Progressives and Socialist; pardon the slip, the Democrats, came from Samuel Alito. In a May 2005 profile in the Newark Star-Ledger, Alito said, "Most of the labels people use to talk about judges, and the way judges decide (cases) aren't too descriptive. ... Judges should be judges. They shouldn't be legislators, they shouldn't be administrators."

No doubt about it, Samuel Alito is a problem for the opposition party, the party that believes it can “get around” the Constitution by having justices who have deep feelings rather than justices who have deep thoughts. I hardly knew about Samuel Alito before hearing and reading about his accomplishments today. Why did President Bush waste so much time with old’ what’s her name?

Note: I've borrowed some quotes from Fox News web site which is linked via title bar. I also borrowed some quotes from the CNN web site, which link has since vanished.

No comments: