/* Am I A Pundit Now?: Reid Knows Who Is Naughty And Nice

Monday, May 09, 2005

Reid Knows Who Is Naughty And Nice

The thinness of the democrats' ability to discuss issues and opinions in a substantive way was on full display again this weekend, as Harry Reid stated that Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen are 'bad people'. Not bad judges, not bad nominees, but bad people. Reid also said that Brown, an african-american, seeks to take the nation back to the days before the Civil War.

This is filthy, and Reid deserves to pay a heavy political price for it.

Why doesn't Reid just say that Janice Rogers Brown likes to fry babies up in a pan and eat them? Why doesn't he just say that Priscilla Owen idolizes Hitler? I mean, if you are going to just start making stuff up, why not really go for it.

Is Harry Reid even aware that Brown is rated "well-qualified" by the ABA? Yes he is, but that is not even a factor for Reid. This is about appealing to the Michael Moore base and keeping them wound up with the idea that Bush will be served a defeat - any defeat. I get the feeling sometimes that the democratic base would jettison the entire democratic experiment itself if it would make Bush look bad. This is "opposition simply for oppositions' sake" - the new motto of the democratic party.

I have no doubt that the democrats have been and will continue to be punished for just this type of behavior. Their furious lies about Bush, the economy, and the war in Iraq is basically what lost them the last election. They will continue to lose as long as they use lies instead of truth, rely on demagoguery instead of logic, and obstruct rather than rebut with debate. Fine with me, but it is truly embarassing to watch.

As a side note, Captain's Quarters has a good discussion of Canon 8 of the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, which partly states "While a lawyer as a citizen has a right to criticize such officials publicly, he should be certain of the merit of his complaint, use appropriate language, and avoid petty criticisms, for unrestrained and intemperate statements tend to lessen public confidence in our legal system. Criticisms motivated by reasons other than a desire to improve the legal system are not justified." While all of this certainly applies to Reid, I am opposed to measures such as these, which seek to stifle rather than open a full and vigorous debate on issues. Moreover, a canon such as this could be used as a type of "Sedition Act" whereby controversial lawyers and views could be silenced by an overzealous adherence to its tenets. Fortunately, this canon is never invoked in practice, as far as I know.

6:40 AM | | |