Wednesday, April 13, 2005
In January, Boxer protested Bush's election certification and threatened to hold up proceedings until "voter disenfranchisement issues" in Ohio were resolved. Frank Salvato described Boxer's tantrum (found here) as a "waste of time and taxpayer money on a political stunt." Salvato continues by calling it "an unethical, albeit constitutional, narcissistic desire for attention and political divisiveness." I couldn't agree more. All I would add is that we can expect a lot more of her shenanigans in the future because Boxer is from a very blue state and she doesn't have to face the voters again until 2010. That's the perfect scenario for obstructionist Senators (unlike Tom Daschle, who was up for re-election last year in a very red state. He lost.)
Babs wasn't finished embarrassing herself in January, though, with her objection to Bush's certification. Remember her shameful and pompous grandstanding at Condoleeza Rice's Senate confirmation hearings at the end of January. Another shining example of "a narcissistic desire for attention" at a time when Rice's confirmation was never in question. So much for bipartisanship, eh Senator?
In the "guilt by association" department, let's not overlook who Michael Moore supports.
Last month Boxer went to go visit troops in the Middle East. Here's a photo of her with some young Marines. None of the Marines look too pleased to be lunching with Boxer, but perhaps that's just my own bias creeping in. Or maybe it's because they know how vocal she's been in opposition to the "unilateral war" in which they risk their lives on a daily basis. Or maybe they've just surfed over to MichaelMoore.com. Oh, before anyone accuses me of harvesting this picture from an extremist right wing website, I'll save you some time and link to where I got it, found right here. Judge for yourself:
Senator Boxer's Marine Corps. photo-op
Last week, Boxer threatened to hold up confirmation of Stephen L. Johnson, President Bush's choice to lead the EPA. More narcissism . More obstructionism (see a pattern yet?) This time, the issue for Boxer was a little known program where everyday people are paid so the pesticide industry (American Chemistry Council) can measure the effects (if there are any) of pesticide use on children. Basically, people were paid to go about their normal lives and then let some scientists take samples every 3-6 months. They were never told or even encouraged to change their regular habits. Of course, the facts about the program's true nature didn't stop Boxer from lying about it on her website, where she described it as "an immoral program to test pesticides on children." Read the EPA link and show me where the immorality is! Their PDF dictates the exact opposite, in fact. Boxer makes it sound as if George Bush himself concocted some Saddam-like chemistry torture test where the eyelids of loving parents are forced open with toothpicks so they must watch their little babies ("of color" no less) get dipped into flaming vats of DDT while evil, laughing Republicans in white lab coats record (and then gamble on) the results.
If we go further back in time, to last year, for example, we find that on the floor of the Senate Barbara Boxer referred to the Madrid train bombings (an Al Qaeda act of terror) as a "rail accident." So I guess, using her terminology, the World Trade Center collapsed as a result of an "aerial accident?" Nothing criminal here, but I provide this statement as more evidence of Boxer's utter lack of competence (not to mention her insensitivity towards the Madrid bombing victims) when it comes to holding elected office. To steal Charles Johnson's term, Boxer is an "idiotarian."
Of course, before she became a Senator, Barbara Boxer was a representative from California. She holds the great distinction of "second most prolific writer of bad checks" (bouncing 143 checks over 39 months, totaling $41,417) in the house banking scandal of 1992. A crime that would land any one of us in prison for a very long time apparently (in California, anyway) enables San Francisco liberals to elevate themselves to the greatest deliberative body in the world, the U.S. Senate. But, according to Barbara Boxer, that's "none of your business." I could go on forever, but I think you get the picture.
On to the matter at hand, the aforementioned solicitation of help from MSM newspapers. Though I linked it above, here are some key quotes, with some M3C analysis thrown in to aid digestion.
"You need to explain why a vocal minority in the Congress is essential for a democracy and why it is essential for you," she told several hundred editors at the opening session of the American Society of Newspaper Editors conference.
A "vocal minority" is essential for democracy? Since when? I thought free and fair elections were essential for democracy. I thought an atmosphere where an opposition can exist is essential. I'm willing to bet that if everyone agreed with Boxer's view of the world, her desire to create and protect a vocal minority would evaporate. And should I even comment on media bias when a hard-core liberal like Barbara Boxer is the opening speaker for the American Society of Newspaper Editors? Since they have invited her to speak, can we put to rest the notion that they are objective?
When asked later what newspapers should specifically do to highlight the issue, Boxer pointed to both news coverage and editorials explaining the effect of limited filibusters. "I think editorials would be very helpful," Boxer told E&P. "When people hear filibuster, they don't get what it really means. It would be helpful because the press understands it."
Yes, the press understands that which the stupid voters don't. If the stupid voters understood what filibusters are, then they would rise up and no longer be a "vocal minority." So Boxer enlists her friends in the press to help.
Boxer cited the efforts by Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the House Minority Leader, and others in the GOP to weaken minority-party rights, as well as DeLay's threats to impeach judges who have gone against his views. She said newspapers need to cover both issues closely so that readers can remain informed, but also so newspapers can protect their own freedoms.
Boxer cleverly uses the Democratic playbook here: use every issue as an opportunity to demonize Tom DeLay. No specifics here as to what it is exactly DeLay is doing, of course. However, I'm still a little confused how Tom DeLay (a House Representative) can somehow influence Senate politics. I know he's the moonbats' poster child for evil, but this is a stretch, don't you think? For the record, DeLay has called for impeaching judges that ignore the law. That's very different than impeaching judges that "go against his views" and it seems perfectly acceptable to me. As a side note, I think the lazy E&P writer missed the fact that DeLay is House Majority Leader; it's the Democrats who are in the minority, and their leader is Nancy Pelosi.
"They're going after judges, they're going after the filibuster, and it is dangerous," she told the news leaders. "You have a dog in that fight. Your whole basis of what you do is exercising that freedom of speech. These checks and balances are crucial for all of us. We exercise them."
Yes, the old "freedom of expression" canard. Yawn. The press' "dog in the fight" is the Democratic party, who they almost monolithically support. Republicans may go after (they haven't yet) a filibuster which is being misused, a filibuster of judges which is not spelled out in the Constitution. That means it's unconstitutional, and something all honest Senators should oppose.
"There is a big story to be told out there, and I hope you will tell it as you see it. ... They are going to change the rules of the Senate that have been around for 200 years. These rights are important, this leverage is important. And your rights to tell stories the way you want are in many ways tied to this. You are in this battle."
"Tell it as you see it?" She's asking them to tell it as she sees it! That's the point of her speech, and this article, so spread the word, editors! And the fact is that Democrats are using filibusters to oppose judicial appointments, a tactic until now, never used in 200 years. She has the facts completely wrong, clearly an effort to help shape public opinion.
Boxer also pointed to the War in Iraq, reminding editors that one of the Republican arguments for being in Iraq is to give the citizens their freedom. "I think it will fall on deaf ears if we don't protect freedom of expression here at home, or minority rights," she said. "I've always believed it to be patriotic to speak out, even when you are alone. It isn't fun, but it is necessary to do."
Yes, all those people being locked up for expressing their anti-Bush views is astounding, isn't it? Just how many have there been, Senator? While you're at it, tell us how many Americans (here in the U.S.) are dying from roadside bombs, IEDs and suicide bombers.
That's it. I rest my case. It's a lovely day here, our weather is making up for all that rain we had this winter. And I'm ready for a beer.....