-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Ma)
14 Nov 2003
Neanderthal: [slang] A crude, boorish, or slow-witted person; [adj] ill-mannered and coarse and contemptible in behavior or appearance.
(Which of the three judicial nominees standing with President Bush in this picture is Ted Kennedy calling a Neanderthal? Hint: he's blocking them all, and more besides.)
Well, that's just about the finest example of projection I've ever seen, a common psychological problem among many Liberals. Projection can be described as "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits" and "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have." It's hard to imagine what could be more crude and boorish, not to mention coarse and contemptible, than driving your car off a bridge, killing the girl you were attending a party with -- while your wife was home waiting for you -- leaving her drowning in the car (as diver John Farrar reported, "If she had been dead or unconscious, she would have been prone, sinking to the bottom or floating on top. She definitely was holding herself in a position to avail herself of the last remaining air that had to be trapped in the car."), and then using your family connections and power as a Senator to avoid a manslaughter charge... or even the minimum 20-day mandatory sentence for leaving the scene of an accident. Every time Ted Kennedy opens his mouth, all I can hear is the voice of a man who escaped justice.
As far as the Democratic (definitely NOT "democratic" with a small d) blocking of a vote on President Bush's judicial nominees goes, however, it doesn't seem that they're leaving him any choice. Bush's next move has to be appointing judges during the recess of the Senate, which they hope to begin before Thanksgiving. The recess appointments would expire at the end of 2004, unless they're replaced by Bush's nominees before then. The last recess judicial appointment was Clinton's appointment of Roger Gregory in 2000, so the process has precedent... though it would really upset the Democrats. Of course, they're openly being obstructionists now, and blatantly working against the President, so what's the difference?
Of course, there are some who suggest that instead of appointing his current nominees during the recess, President Bush should appoint some truly extreme right-wing activists to those positions. That would give the Senate Democrats a little incentive to allow merely conservative judges like Pickering, Brown, Kuhl and Owen to come up for a vote.
Just mentioning Robert Bork ought to make the Democrats reconsider obstructing the vote.
As far as the Democratic (definitely NOT "democratic" with a small d) blocking of a vote on President Bush's judicial nominees goes, however, it doesn't seem that they're leaving him any choice. Bush's next move has to be appointing judges during the recess of the Senate, which they hope to begin before Thanksgiving. The recess appointments would expire at the end of 2004, unless they're replaced by Bush's nominees before then. The last recess judicial appointment was Clinton's appointment of Roger Gregory in 2000, so the process has precedent... though it would really upset the Democrats. Of course, they're openly being obstructionists now, and blatantly working against the President, so what's the difference?
Of course, there are some who suggest that instead of appointing his current nominees during the recess, President Bush should appoint some truly extreme right-wing activists to those positions. That would give the Senate Democrats a little incentive to allow merely conservative judges like Pickering, Brown, Kuhl and Owen to come up for a vote.
Just mentioning Robert Bork ought to make the Democrats reconsider obstructing the vote.