18 December 2009


I just heard Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D.ILL) being interviewed on POTUS (XM 130/Sirius 110). The issue was, of course, the massive restructuring of the American economy that the Democratic Party is attempting to foist on us in the form of so-called “health care reform.”

The specific topic was whether or not the missing Senate bill (set to be unveiled by Harry Reid and his cohorts 36 hours before the Senate votes on the measure) can withstand a cloture motion. Under the Senate rules, a filibuster can be ended only if two-thirds of the Senate votes for “cloture,” i.e., to limit debate. Right now, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska has stated that he will not vote for cloture if the Senate bill does not contain language similar to the Stupak amendment which was added to the House bill.

Tim Farley was talking to Rep. Schakowsky about the possibility of compromise on the issue. He referred to the warning by former-President Clinton to the Democratic party that “America can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” (In so doing, he was paraphrasing Admiral Sergei Gorshkov, a tactical and strategic genius and one of my heroes, believe it or not. The Admiral said “Perfect is the enemy of good enough.”)

Rep. Schakowsky, demonstrating an astounding ignorance of American history complained that the real problem at hand is the rules of the Senate. In particular, she is incensed that “a Senator from a small state” can hold up what she thinks is the most important legislation of the past 70 years. (I wonder if that member of the Democratic Party base—the NAACP—would be willing to put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act lower on the list?)

Apparently Rep. Schakowsky has never studied the Constitutional Convention of 1787. She espouses the demand of the large states that they control the Federal legislature—a demand that failed in the convention. The idea of a Senate in which the States were represented equally balancing a House of Representatives whose membership was based on population was just one of the checks and balances written into our Charter. Now, Rep Schakowsky wants to rewrite 220 years of Constitutional history so that what she deems “best” for the Nation need not be subjected to any such checks on an unbridled central government.

She should know better. Shame on her!

No comments: