Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Pittsburgh's Moonbat Media, Take Two

More "descent into insanity" journalist from the Moist-Towelette, this time from columnist Sally Kalson:

If ever there were a critical moment where government, politics and the well-being of citizens intersect, it's here and now.
This is about Katrina again, isn't it?

Conservatives who view the federal government as the enemy are thrilled by the prospect of President Bush making two Supreme Court appointments in short order. With five justices firmly in their pockets, there would be no limit to the protections they could curtail.
Oh, so it's not about the hurricane. It's about how those of us on the Right want to curtail protections by --

Whaaat?? Surely you will explain what you mean by that remark.

At the same time, the Bush administration's tragic bungling of hurricane relief efforts shows in stark relief the inevitable outcome when those in charge of the federal government profess a profound distrust of its role, when people such as Bush ally Grover Norquist campaign "to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub."
Aha! So there is a connection between the hurricane and the President's Supreme Court nominations. Well, you got us there. That's what happens when anti-Big Government types like us are put in charge of Big Government. Now tell us how you can manipulate that "bathtub" metaphor to your advantage.

Well, we've just gotten a good look at government drowning in the giant bathtub of New Orleans, along with countless citizens. When the reckoning is over, state and local agencies no doubt will be found wanting, but the feds will have to take the biggest share of the blame.
If a conservative had referred to the disaster area as a "giant bathtub", left-wing hatemongers would be crying for his/her blood for making such an insensitive remark. But since Sally is a liberal, she gets a free pass. I'm willing to give her a limited pass for her grudging acknowledgement that "state and local agencies no doubt will be found wanting". It's more than most of her fellow travelers will concede.

Far be it from her to give ground on the matter of federal responsibility, though. She tells us that all of the money to fortify the coast and the troops to support the rescue and recovery all went to Iraq:

War is one job conservatives can get behind, but Katrina shows what happens when other responsibilities are ignored.
And reluctance to deal with terrorists is one responsibility that members of the party of Carter and Clinton can shirk. So is the responsibility to govern constitutionally, which Sally Kalson obviously hates:

Imagine two more justices dedicated to drowning government in the bathtub, two more who want local officials to set their own laws largely unhindered and bear their own burdens largely unassisted.
The woman either has no concept of Federalism, or she staunchly opposes the US Constitution. Is she unfamiliar with the 10th amendment? Local governments are supposed to "set their laws largely unhindered". As long as the federal constitution does not hinder them, or the state government, local officials can pass whatever laws they please.

Sally also supports quotas for federal hiring at the highest levels:

If Bush wants Roberts as the next chief justice, Dems should insist that he also announce a more moderate candidate to replace Sandra Day O'Connor before Roberts' confirmation vote. Then they should seal a deal with the Republican leadership, each side of the aisle agreeing to support the other's nominee. The GOP would get another chief justice in the mold of Rehnquist, the Democrats would get another moderate (or semi-moderate) in the mold of O'Connor, and government would at least stay strong enough for a fair fight in the bathtub. Failing that, Democrats should unite and head back to the mattresses for a filibuster.
I would ask her "What part of 'majority party' do you not understand?", but first I should like to ask several Republican Senators the same question. Replacing a Supreme Court justice is not about finding an intellectual clone of the one who died or is leaving. It's about finding a qualified candidate who shows the highest regard for the Constitution. But that would leave the Left completely out in the cold.

Sally digresses a bit here:

If you think this impossible, consider this statement by Sen. Rick Santorum, aired Sunday on WTAE-TV. In criticizing the government's response to Katrina, he couldn't resist piling on the conservative mantra of personal responsibility.

"I mean," he said, "you have people who don't heed those warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. There may be a need to look at tougher penalties, candidly, on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving."

I agree that this was a questionable suggestion by Rick. On the bright side, it demonstrates why Big Government is BAD. On the other hand, it gives lefty columnists ammunition to fire back at us:

Punish the victims, that's the ticket. Never mind that it is, candidly, hard to imagine any penalties tougher than the complete destruction of your home, the loss of your city, the deaths of neighbors and family. Go ahead and arrest all those irresponsible laggards who didn't own cars to take them out of harm's way, or American Express gold cards for charging a room at the Holiday Inn. Levy fines on all the old, sick or disabled folks who didn't yank out their IVs and flee their nursing homes or hospitals.
Good points, really, if laden with stereotypes. But what does it have to do with appointing new SCOTUS justices?

Either way, Senate Democrats need to ask themselves if this is the judicial philosophy we need from the highest court in the land. And if not, they'd better do the extraordinary and hang together, or the rest of us might drown separately.
So Rick Santorum controls the judicial thought process of Republican-appointed justices? How does his silly suggestion equate to Bush's court appointments? This is insane. Go back and read the whole column. Where is the connection?

If you'll please excuse me, I have to go wash the blood from my ears.

No comments: