Friday, December 23, 2005
Three Democrat Stooges
Ok, there's a lot more than three Democrat stooges, but three get the distinction for being especially stooge like in the last few days. This was all sourced from today's WSJ Opinion Journal blog by James Taranto where you'll find a blurb on all three are worth a visit.
Stooge 1: Ted Kennedy whose op-ed in yesterday's Boston Globe calls Mao Tse-tung's "little red book" the Communist Manifesto which was actually written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Ted was trying to point to a supposed abuse of government reach by referring to the likely made up story about a college student checking out the aforementioned book from a library which got him a visit from homeland security agents..NOT!
Stooge 2: Tom Daschle had an op-ed in today's Washington Post where as Taranto put it "the defeated Senate Democratic leader, weighs in on today's Washington Post op-ed page with a piece in which he argues that he and his erstwhile Senate colleagues never meant to authorize President Bush to fight terrorism in the U.S" Taranto also links Ed Morrissey's blog who sums up Daschle's newly reached position thusly: "Democrats have to be the worst historical revisionists still received by polite society or have been truly clueless about the nature of the war on Islamofascist terror since its start. Daschle actually makes a case for both in his essay" and "Perhaps Daschle didn't notice, but the entire reason that Congress passed the war resolution was that the United States got attacked--inside the United States. It's as if that context never occurs to Daschle."
Stooge 3: Harry Reid apparently told a gathering that "we killed the Patriot Act." and then on Monday decided to clarify what he meant by saying the maybe he should have said was "we killed the conference report" and went on and on blaming his poor choice of words on his lack of education and not having had an English class. Tarranto pounces on this in the following way; This is the same Harry Reid who, a little over a year ago, called Justice Clarence Thomas "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court" because "I think that his opinions are poorly written." If Reid's literacy is as defective as he himself claims it is, doesn't this make him, by his own standard, an embarrassment to the Senate?
Further, if Reid never even had an English class, what qualifies him to evaluate Justice Thomas's writings? Or was he merely stereotyping Thomas as unintelligent because of his race, in the manner of ignorant men throughout history?