Dems: We Weren’t Obstructionist Enough

Fresh off of their reaction to the historic Iraqi elections as a defeat which required an immediate retreat, the leadership of the Democratic Party further cemented its separation from political reality by declaring today that they failed to obstruct enough judicial nominees in the last session of Congress:

Senate Democrats are “not going to cut and run” from a battle over President Bush’s judicial nominations, the party’s leader vowed Tuesday, adding that some Democrats regret not having blocked even more appointments.
“If they bring back the same judges we’re going to do the same thing,” Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said of the administration. Democrats blocked votes on 10 of Bush’s first-term appointments to the courts and confirmed more than 200.
Republicans have threatened to change long-standing Senate rules to strip Democrats of their ability to block votes, but Reid sounded a note of defiance. “Well, let them do it,” he said.

Well, at least we finally found one battle from which they refuse to “cut and run”. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it’s their Little Bighorn, which Tom Daschle discovered a bit too late last year. Reid may find himself confident of holding a filibuster, but Reid doesn’t have to worry about getting re-elected in 2006. Senators like Kent Conrad, Mark Dayton (who has his own problems), and other red-staters can’t afford to pull a Daschle in this session. Already some Democrats want to put some distance between themselves and Reid, Kennedy, Boxer, & Co. I doubt that they’ll want to extend the lease on the GOP’s main campaign issue in the Senate races of 2004.
As part of the joint interview, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sounded off on social-security reform. She attempted to use the new Democratic strategy of values focus to slam the proposed changes towards limited privatization:

Reid said not a single Democratic member of the Senate favors using payroll taxes to create personal accounts. And Pelosi said any Social Security legislation “shouldn’t begin by slashing benefits.” Bush administration officials have said the president may recommend reducing the benefits guaranteed future retirees as part of his plan.
Pelosi said that Bush’s plan envisioned taking an “unconscionable, obscene, immoral amount of money to privatize” Social Security.

Let’s be clear about this. The money that funds Social Security doesn’t grow on a tree somewhere off the Potomac River. That money gets confiscated by the government and redistributed at whim. Bush proposes to allow the taxpayers from whose pockets the money comes some limited choice about how to invest it in order to create better return for their money. Perhaps one could call that misguided or inefficient, but how exactly does allowing a taxpayer to control their own property equate to immorality or obscenity? Does Nancy Pelosi consider property rights unconscionable? Do the Democrats really want to run on a platform of eliminating property rights in 2006?
I truly thought that after losing three straight national election cycles, the Democrats would learn from their mistakes, grow up, and marginalize the fringe. From what they’ve done so far, they not only have failed to learn a single lesson from their defeats, their current leadership appears to want nothing less than the utter destruction of the Democratic Party.

2 thoughts on “Dems: We Weren’t Obstructionist Enough”

  1. Not obstructionist enough?

    Captain Ed has this post, questioning whether the Dems really believe they weren’t obstructionist enough with Bush’s judicial nominees over the last four years:
    Well, at least we finally found one battle from which they refuse to “cut and run”. …

  2. Daily Dish

    With the stunning success in Iraq this weekend, the President’s star continues to rise. In the State of the Union Address tonight, the President will surely note the fact that freedom is on the march in places that once harbored,

Comments are closed.