In a welcome break from the endless coverage of Obamacare, the Senate Democratic leadership scuttled the filibuster rules Republicans had been using to hold up a ridiculous number of Obama appointments, and the Administration brokered a nuclear deal with Iran.
The break is welcome because it gives rightbloggers, who were starting to get repetitive in their complaints about the national health care system, some new things to be hilariously outraged about.
The detonation of the filibuster “nuclear option,” which makes the approval of a simple majority of Senators sufficient to clear some Presidential appointments, is funny for a number of reasons. For one thing, it reflects a stark partisan reversal from 2005, when Democrats decried and Republicans threatened it. Rightbloggers were quick to notice the “hypocritical extremist progressive liberal Democrats“‘ part in this minuet, but generally did not note the GOP’s, perhaps on the assumption that the Whigs were in power at that time.
For another, it clears a heretofore impeded path for the appointment of three judges to the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C., where the Administration expects to see challenges to its habit of fixing problematic legislation such as the Affordable Care Act via regulation — which fixes his opponents regularly denounce as illegal, and which now stand a better chance of a friendly hearing should the Court hear them. (“The president no doubt has in mind,” snarled the editors of National Review, “the sage advice of Roy Cohn: ‘Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.'” Wait, conservatives don’t like Roy Cohn anymore? Maybe they found out he was gay.)
Best of all, it surprised rightbloggers, who seem to have formed the impression that Democrats were only allowed to hang around shame-facedly taking their abuse anymore and were pissed to find it wasn’t so.
“Now Obama can appoint the Rev. Al Sharpton to a judge seat and GOPers are powerless to stop him,” cried Samuel Gonzalez at Right Wing News. “This is who progressives are — ruthless and nasty! Welcome to Obama’s version of the Third Reich!”
“[Democratic Senator] Mary [Landrieu] Voted To Kill The Filibuster Today… which shows what a shamelessly unprincipled hack she is,” ululated The Hayride. “…Landrieu was with Harry Reid in this rather fascistic endeavor. She was with the idea of trampling all over the rights of the Senate minority and trashing the deliberative character of that body… [she is] a cancer on our body politic which cannot be removed quickly enough.” In case readers weren’t getting the point, The Hayride also photoshopped Landrieu’s head on the body of Benito Mussolini, presumably because even their readers had finally grown tired of Hitler mashups.
“OBAMA MOCKS THE CONSTITUTION” declared Charles Hurt at Breitbart.com “Disgraced. An embarrassment. Utter disregard for the law. Toronto’s crack mayor, Rob Ford? No. President Obama.” In fact, said Hurt, Obama was worse than Ford, because while “the drunken rages of Toronto’s Mr. Ford have been entertaining… What Mr. Obama is doing is not funny and cannot be undone.” We wonder if this column is actually battleground preparation for some Republican Presidential candidate who’s on crack. Admittedly, that could be any of them.
Rush Limbaugh compared the vote to rape because, well, Rush Limbaugh. (Don’t worry, Rush fans, Limbaugh “is swinging back at critics,” as reported by The Daily Caller — his spokesman said, “Rush Limbaugh has spent 25 years illustrating absurdity by using extrapolated analogies.” Well, that clears that up.)
At Zero Hedge, Some Guy said the filibuster vote was bad for the blacks, or something. “We have the odd case of President Obama, a minority, telling us that Majority Rule is good for us,” marveled Some Guy. “…The fact that Barack Obama, an ethnic minority in America, is supporting the end of the filibuster in the US Senate is a very telling sign-post on what appears to be the road to, ‘A tyranny of the majority.'” Then Some Guy showed us a Photoshop of Obama as the Samuel L. Jackson character in Django Unchained, and Harry Reid as Leonardo DiCaprio. Suddenly it all makes sense. Where would the brethren be without Photoshop?
If you suggested to rightbloggers that the absurdly high number of filibustered appointments under Obama — nearly as many as under all previous presidents combined — had something to do with the filibuster vote, most of them would affect not to hear you.
RedState’s Dan Spencer, for example, told us everything about Harry Reid’s “unprecedented filibuster campaign” and hypocrisy in the mid-aughts, but when it came to Mitch McConnell’s obstructionism in the Obama era, he was mute. Ditto John Fund at National Review, who claimed the casus belli was four recently blocked nominations, but didn’t mention the dozens Republicans have smothered since 2009, and then pretended to weep for the lack of comity that would ensue (“this ‘cure’ is far worse than the disease”). That’s how the pros do it, folks.
This victim act wasn’t performed just so people would cry for Republicans. It laid groundwork for a vision of justice, in which Democrats, having so brutally used the courtly Republicans, would be made to pay.
National Review‘s Andrew C. McCarthy, sounding like a mob boss wording things carefully on a wiretapped line, said, “Courts cannot function unless Congress funds them — meaning both houses of Congress approving spending on them… The Constitution vests in Congress decisions about what federal circuit and district courts we need. It does not say that once courts and the judgeships on those courts are established, these must be maintained forever. If senate rules are now to be changed on the dime by the majority, all kinds of seemingly impossible things become possible.” You know, after reading that back, we rescind our previous characterization; McCarthy sounds more like the world’s most boring supervillain.
Patterico thought “Republicans should be overjoyed” because “we have obtained the moral permission to exercise raw power. All we have to do now is get it.” He added that “it’s liberating to know, deep in our bones, that principle will never constrain [Democrats] when countervailing pressures get strong. It will keep us from acting weakly (again) when we are in power.” Those who remember the Congressional shutdown back in October, or the Republicans’ recent filibusters, may wonder what he’s talking about. While admitting that “partisanship is nastier in Congress than it once was,” Commentary‘s Jonathan S. Tobin insisted that “if President Obama and Reid think it can’t get worse, they’re kidding themselves.” Considering the kind of treatment Democrats are already getting from their friends across the aisle, we can understand why Democrats figured they might as well go ahead and find out.
The Iran deal is in a sense a small thing — a six-month arrangement under which Iran would fulfill a number of conditions on its nuclear program in exchange for a reduction of sanctions, after which the situation would be revisited. But for the brethren it was momentously awful, a catastrophe, indeed another… well, you know these guys, and their taste for the apocalyptic; take a guess.
“Munich 2; Deal Reached On Iran’s Nukes,” howled Joshuapundit. “…President Obama and the West have just decided to accept a nuclear armed Iran.” “This is like Munich and Chamberlain all over again, isn’t it?” said Robert Stacy McCain. “Even to think of negotiating with the Tehran regime is a disgrace.”
“The statements from the Obama administration and the EU following the closing of the first round of talks all made clear that Geneva 2013 is Munich 1938,” gasped Caroline Glick at FrontPageMag. “The White House was unable to restrain its excitement at the prospect of a deal with the genocidal, nuclear weapons-developing mullocracy.” If restraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions were really the goal, said Glick, the “only step” is clear: “bombing its nuclear installations.” Curse those peacenik all-previous-presidents!
“Iran Deal: Obama’s Munich?” asked The Camp of the Saints before answering, “Barack Hussein Obama is as much of a dullard as Neville Chamberlain was, and, like such people, he believed that he was smarter than all of his associates, that he possessed a clearer vision of the world.” Except, they added, “What Chamberlain was most assuredly not was a malevolent man, like Obama is.” Worse than Munich with worse than Chamberlain!
Danny Jeffrey of Fix Bayonets took it even further: The “lying, deceptive, traitorous, and desperately seeking total power over the unthinking masses” Obama “has far more in common with Adolph than Neville…” Tsk! And here we were about to say that Obama probably found the Chamberlain comparison a relief after years of Hitler Photoshops. Thanks for spoiling our punchline, buddy!
“Is This ‘Iran Nuke Meeting’ In Paris – Or Yalta Or Munich?” headlined Clif Smith at the Beverly Hills Courier. Maybe Obama’s Stalin. Or, even worse, FDR! “At Yalta, we could not free the captive nations,” said Smith, “but gave them away for 50 years on the pledge by the Soviet Union to join in the war against Japan.” Maybe Obama’s Churchill, too. At this point it’s hard to keep track.
William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection helpfully collected a bunch of representative conservative messages on the deal, including GOP Senator John Cornyn’s classic “Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care” — but for some reason left out RedState kingpin Erick Erickson‘s tweet, which we think is even better: “Congratulation to Iran on its successful acquisition of the bomb. Brought to u by Mr. ‘if u like ur plan, u can keep ur plan.'” It only lacks Benghazi for a triple wingnut score.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton claimed in the Weekly Standard that “Obama, fearing that strike more than an Iranian nuclear weapon, clearly needed greater international pressure on Jerusalem. And Jerusalem fully understands that Israel was the real target of the Geneva negotiations. How, therefore, should Israel react?” By bombing the United States, of course. Since we can’t get Chris Christie, who like Winston Churchill is fat, into the White House before 2016, an America led by Black Neville Chamberlain will certainly fall to Israel, and Emperor Netanyahu will impose a government more to rightbloggers’ liking.
“Munich II,” wrote James Jay Carafano at National Review. “…The Russians laud the deal. But it was a government in Moscow that believed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact solved all its problems.” Connect the dots, sheeple — diplomacy never works!
Charles M. Grist of American Ranger told us what the real outrage was: “And when the ayatollah (the real Iranian decision-maker) finally announces to the world that they have successfully developed a nuclear weapon, none of you Obama-lovers – or his media protectors – will hold him accountable. He will escape blame once again, just as he has for the countless scandals that have plagued his administration.” Though Grist also said that the deal “smells a lot like the ‘peace for our time’ speech in 1938,” he didn’t think the blame would stick to Obama as it had to Chamberlain. So perhaps the President is more like a replicant Chamberlain, or a Transformers version that can mutate into other historical villains who have also eluded the historical opprobrium they clearly deserve, such as Bill Clinton.
In general, the early returns indicate that rightbloggers are worried that citizens may prefer the idea of a peace process in the Middle East to, say, another Iraq, and of supporting weapons inspectors to that end instead of just saying Hans Blix is full of shit, we know they have WMDs, bombs away. But we must admit the possibility that it’s not all just politics, and the brethren have a genuine interest in blowing up Iran, too. Having read their writing, can’t you see how they might seek some sort of violent release?
Let’s have radio host Hugh Hewitt walk it home for us: “On the domestic front, the agreement in Geneva, like the nuclear option in Harry Reid’s Senate are just huge efforts to switch people’s collective attention from the disaster in their lives that is Obamacare.” Ah, the magic word again! Or was that Benghazi?