The Democratic Party: Hypocrisy and revisionism
By Frank Salvato
web posted August 1, 2005
Howard Dean has decried Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a right winger. John Kerry is demanding that the White House release Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' records in total. And Teddy Kennedy, well, Teddy continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth. If it were possible to hear "eyes roll" the sound would have thundered across the country with each one of these statements. Whether it is their manipulation of our nation's sitcom attention span or the elite media's bent agenda is irrelevant. The Democratic "sideshow barkers" are getting away with it.
Recently, at one of his many anger-fests – or as I like to call them, Anger-paloozas – Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean took the opportunity to once again lash out at Republicans and conservatives while painting a picture of the Democratic Party that would confuse Picasso.
While being queried about the possibility of John Roberts being confirmed to the US Supreme Court, Dean said, "The President and his Right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is."
Huh? What? I wonder what color the sky is in Howard Dean's world and if whatever he is afflicted with is contagious.
The decision that Dean was referring to, Kelo v. The City of New London, which allows local governments to forcibly acquire private property in order to pad their tax bases, was ascribed to by the court's liberal coalition of Justices; John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. The only "conservative" that signed on to this unconstitutional ruling was Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The idea that a court which seats Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer could somehow be considered a "Right-Wing Supreme Court" is akin to the idea that Bill Clinton would be a excellent cheerleader camp counselor. The thought really is that preposterous.
Meanwhile, in another part of the strange and quizzical land that is "Democratopia," we have the oblivious John Kerry and the calculating Teddy "A Bridge Too Far" Kennedy.
Vietnam War protest hero John Kerry recently called on the White House to release "in their entirety" all of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' records as they pertain to his public service. "We cannot do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides elements of his professional record," Kerry said.
I am sure Senator Kerry will afford the White House the same amount of time to release Roberts' records as Kerry took to sign his Form 180. In fact, the White House should follow Kerry's lead and release Roberts' records exclusively to a friendly newspaper so that they can vet and redact information that could be of any substance. This way the White House could say they satisfied the request for the release of Roberts' records without actually releasing any information…just like Kerry!
And speaking of transparency, how can the subject of liberal hypocrisy be addressed without a mention of the crowned prince of duplicity, Teddy Kennedy.
 Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee D.C. Circuit Judge John G. Roberts (R) shakes hands with U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) on Capitol Hill on July 21 |
Donning a straight face that would make Stephen Wright envious, Kennedy stated in a recent press conference that Nominee Roberts' confidential files – files protected by the sanctity of attorney-client privilege mind you – from both his tenure as Solicitor-General, as well as his work as a private attorney, should be open to scrutiny by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Normally it would be typical of Kennedy to impose a double-standard so that a conservative would be disadvantaged and disenfranchised. Demanding a judicial litmus test whose qualifier is the right to privacy (Roe v. Wade) while obliterating the right to privacy mandated by attorney-client privilege is shooting par at the Teddy Kennedy Judicial Invitational. But in this instance there is a very rich icing that goes with the cake.
Kennedy took a very different attitude toward the types of questions that should be asked of a Supreme Court nominee when then Solicitor-General Thurgood Marshall was to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court," Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. "This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent."
Hhmm, it seems that the idea of transparency in Teddy's world is subjective. At once it is as clear as the thinnest membrane known to man and at the same time it is as murky as the waters under the bridge at Chappaquiddick. Let's just hope it doesn't take Judge Roberts ten hours to answer any questions.
So, as the circus that will be the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts arrives in Washington DC, it is important to remember that "sideshow barkers" seldom hawk wares of value and never play on an even field. In this case the disingenuous calls of "step right up" are an invitation to deception.
With that in mind, can someone define the word "is" for me please? 
Frank Salvato is the managing editor for TheRant.us. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, socio-political education project. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and numerous radio shows. His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are periodically featured in The Washington Times as well as other national and international publications. He can be contacted at
oped@therant.us Copyright © 2005 Frank Salvato
 Printer friendly version |
|