Parti(san) Fever

Arlen Specter is a pain in the butt, but who said that was a bad thing? In the midst of disgusting partisan politics, Mr. Specter seems to be the only person in the Senate with any sense--or at least the only one willing to stand up and be a vocal pain in the butt about the situation.

I know, I know, six months ago I was saying that the man shouldn't be given the chairmanship he was awarded. However, it is America after all, so I am free to waffle like John Kerry.

Specter makes a valid point when he says, "I can't raise hell with Democrats for their party straitjacket if the Republicans are doing the same thing." As much as it laments me to agree with the man, who can argue against what he said?

I'm slightly torn on this issue of breaking the filibuster. On one hand, the Democrats are forcing this on themselves by being bull-headed about allowing a straight up or down vote for Bush's nominees, instead forcing a 'super-majority' to get these members through. This in itself is unconstitutional. However, stripping the powers of the minority party, even one as despicable as the current Democratic Party, is unconstitutional and therefore unacceptable.

This situation is avoidable if we simply refer to history and to the Constitution. The founding-fathers did not require the use of a super majority for approval of judicial nominees. The use of the filibuster in this manner is further proof of the growing partisanship of the democrats which, in turn, forces increased partisanship in the GOP. It needs to stop.

As Specter said, "Thought requires independence, not response to party loyalty or any other form of dictation. The lessons of our best days as a nation should serve as a model today for senators to vote their consciences on the confirmation of judges and on the constitutional/nuclear option"

As Specter says, this petty partisanship applies to both sides and needs to end on both sides.

More on this can be read at The Washington Times.