The theme of the past few days seems to be, from the left side of the aisle, all about victimhood. So far I've heard from Hillary's people, John Edwards on the campaign stump, and Chuckie Schumer in an interview. Poor things, victims all. What would the Dems be without victimhood? They seem to have fallen for their own oppressive tendencies.
Hillary's people are in a snit because newspaper writers noticed her new feminine makeover as far as her style of clothing goes. They think this is simply not worthy chatter about her majesty, Queen Hillary.
John Edwards complains no one is listening to him. He cries that no one is interested in his campaign issues. Well, every time a poll is taken and folks are asked what issues are most important in their lives, John's topic du campaign, poverty, is dead last. Just after the environment. Alert Al Gore. If John got into the game as big time as Elizabeth and started talking about health care, national security, education, and all that good stuff, maybe someone would stifle a yawn and pay attention. That lovely coiffed hair only goes so far.
Charles Schumer, D-NY, says he was duped, duped I tell you. He says Bush and his administration duped him and the other senators into confirming John Roberts and Sam Alito for the Supreme Court and come to find out, these two guys are conservatives. Can you imagine? You mean to tell us that George W. Bush wanted conservatives on the Supreme Court? I'm all aghast.
Schumer, high hypocrite that he is, says, well, now, the administration can just forget it. No more hearings or confirmations should another place on the court come up. He's planning on waiting for Hillary to sit into the Oval Office and she can bring in the likes of more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs and Janet Renos to take up any vacancies. I can't wait.
The thing is though, Chuckie didn't vote yes to either Roberts or Alito. Did he think we forgot? I realize we are not as smart as Chuckie, in his mind anyway, but he really, really, really wants you to know this is an important issue for the upcoming election and by heavens, you better pay attention.
Just yesterday I read an article written by Robert Barnes and Jon Cohen of the Washington Post and the headline? "Court is too far right for 31% in new poll." Stop the presses. 31%? Oh, wait, that's not even close to a majority. Oops. You almost fell for it, didn't you? I guess they're on Schumer's talking points memo list. The socialist they quoted, disguised as the president of the liberal (their characterization, not mine) People for the American Way. "And it's why a major priority for us over the next 16 months will be to emphasize the importance of the Supreme Court and why it should be an important factor in voting for president." Chuckie has spread the word well, don't you think? No question the poll showing 90% of journalists in DC voted for Kerry and other Dems is quite legitimate now.
That fact of the matter is that elections have consequences. The president gets to pick his nominees. The Supreme Court is comprised of the same ratio of conservative and liberal thinkers as before. Usually the judges go towards the middle over time, except for Bader Ginsburg, of course, and it is a natural progression of maturity. Schumer's accusations of veering to the far right, always with the far right slinging, is simply all hooey. The liberals used to complain about Sandra Day O'Connor until she voted their way a few times in her waning years. Then all of a sudden she was a moderate, a real consensus builder. They are simply delusional.
So, damn that stupid George W. Bush fooling those innocent Democrats. Again.