The Party of No: Ad Nauseum

So a Senator from Alabama now thinks that it is acceptable to stop all 70 of Obama’s outstanding nominations until his fair state be given two important pork projects revolving around the only really important GOP talking point these days (besides saying no to anything and everything democrats like): terrorism -- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/opinion/06collins.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print. I’m not sure if anyone in America still remembers, but since Clinton, the Republicans have been consistently blocking judges nominated to federal courts by Democratic Presidents. But when Bush was president for eight years we heard endlessly about the few pretty radical choices that Democrats blocked from the federal court. Lest us forget what has happened with the two most important selections that did get through (and a lot more got through in general than under Clinton), those two Supreme Court justices that just rewrote campaign finance in the U.S. to the benefit of corporations and against a reasonable definition of what democracy means. In any case, one wonders if Republicans might pay for their unrelenting dedication to absolute obstructionism? While the radical Tea Baggers, led by the suddenly media-savvy Sarah Palin and lunatic fringe TV personality Glen Beck, continue to show a willing blindness to the reality of the moment (and a penchant for ahistoricity that would make Big Brother proud), one wonders if the rest of America is ready to essentially shut down the government to allow Republicans back into power. Didn’t we elect Obama to get away from Bush and the mindless mantra of small government and free markets? It takes a while to teach old dogs new tricks, but if we don’t start teaching ourselves what role government has to play in our lives, we might find ourselves eating our beloved dogs to keep from starving . . .