In the column I wrote the very day after the 2008 elections, I warned about how if the Obamites couldn’t win under the current rules, they would just change the rules or otherwise break them. The latest idea, the “Slaughter Solution,” is just one such example.
Here’s what I wrote:
“These New Alinskyites who are taking over the White House, combined with the most leftist congressional leadership in memory, will not let us play by the same rules under which conservatives recovered from those earlier debacles. They will try to drastically tilt the playing field, seed our side of the field with land mines and, in short, rig the process to make it next to impossible for the political right, or Republicans, to recover. And they are likely to succeed in at least some of these designs. It will begin with their efforts to secure a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators (including the two independents). Right now the libs (and yes, all the Democratic senators, with the possible exception of Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, are libs) have 56, with three Republican moderates and one conservative leading their races but awaiting recounts or runoffs. Watch for the Alinskyites to try stealing all four, and to succeed in at least two. We’ve seen this game before. They did it in Indiana’s “Bloody Eighth” congressional district in 1984. They almost succeeded in 2000 in Florida. They did succeed, outrageously so, in the Washington State governor’s race in 2004. Those are just the most obvious of many similar examples. And now they are even more ruthless, more lawyered-up, and in a more powerful position to pull it off than they were in any of those instances Next, watch what happens if they regularly can’t peel off enough Republicans (or hold their own semi-fairminded people like Nelson and Joe Lieberman) to overcome whatever filibuster attempts Republicans do mount. Watch for an assault on the filibuster itself. Watch how they use as precedent the GOP “nuclear/constitutional option” on judges in 2005 — except instead of just using it for judges, watch them use it against all filibusters. It’s easy: Make the ruling from the chair that the filibuster is out of order for some reason. Instruct the parliamentarian to rule in their favor. Win the appeal of the parliamentarian’s ruling by simple majority vote. And watch the courts pronounce it an internal matter of the legislative branch and thus outside of courtroom purview. Watch a cheerleading establishment media — the Fourth Estate as a veritable Fifth Column — actually back these lefty maneuvers. It’s all in the name of one-man/one-vote democracy, dontcha know?
Also, I warned: “Watch what Michael Barone called the Obama ‘thugocracy’ use the Justice Department to stifle dissent.” And:
“The erosions of conservative rights will be incremental. Each one will have its own justification. Each one will be supported by the establishment media. Each one will be timed so as to allow the general public to become accustomed to it, to accept it as unremarkable, or even to come to regard it as a public good for the sake of keeping conservative ‘troublemakers”’ from fomenting disorder. And the Obamessiah, still speaking frequently to stadia full of admirers, will provide a tone of reasoned moderation, combined with further appeals to hope, in order to justify it all. These are the sorts of things Alinskyites do. These are the sorts of tactics used by ACORN, at whose conferences Obama himself regularly taught seminars on ‘power.’”
I dare say I was right. And today’s obscene rule-bending and precedent-shredding in the health-care debate is just the very, very start. All who love this republic ought to fight to save the rules of the republic against these assaults. And then fight some more.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?