In which once again it is demonstrated that “partisanship” = “a Democrat showing a spine”

14 Jul 2016 01:20 am
Posted by: Donna

stand with ruth

The Notorious RBG laid down some truth about the racist orange buffoon currently running for President as the actual GOP nominee for that office and, of course, the Very Serious wags are Very Upset about it!

Per James Freedland in the NY Daily News:

The bed-wetting, pearl-clutching, hand-wringing very serious thinkers need to relax.

Yes, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made comments this week that were critical of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. And while this may be seen as a departure from the norms of political discourse, who cares?

From the left, right and center, the backlash to Ginsburg has been as hyperbolic as it is ahistorical.

Editorial reactions have ranged from the melodramatic (“RBG just risked her legacy to insult Trump”) to the Country Club scolding (“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has crossed way, way over the line”) to the both-sides-now provocative (“Donald Trump is right about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg”).

This is hogwash. Ginsburg’s legacy is solid, no matter what today’s observers say, and what she did ought to be considered perfectly acceptable.

If it wasn’t acceptable, as Freedland points out, then said bed-wetting pundits should have acted just as horrified by SCOTUS justices such as Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas engaging in nakedly blatant partisanship in recent history, but nah.

This is just further proof of what has been obvious to me (and other attentive observers) for a long time: that “partisanship” is only a problem, nay, even a thing really, when Democrats exhibit behavior that distinguishes them from doormats.

To wit:

Healy tweeted this about a speech Clinton made at the site of Lincoln’s “house divided” speech (warning, autoplays). She was making the standard overture that prominent Dems are expected to make (and Republicans almost never are) toward “bipartisanship”, followed by a series of true statements about Trump. But it was so “partisan” of her to say such things about the man who is literally dividing the country with hateful rhetoric right now!

Obviously, Clinton should have been more like Abe Lincoln, who was careful not to criticize the slavery-loving ways of his opponents when arguing for the need to for a whole union. Oh wait, no, he made what was considered a radical speech in Springfield in 1858, demanding of his audience that they make a choice in the direction of the country regarding slavery:

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

Such a partisan hack, that guy.

No Comments

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment

Democratic Diva is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner.