“No Man’s life liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session”.

- attributed to NY State Judge Gideon Tucker

Friday, February 5, 2010

Paul Kanjorski's Progressivism Shows

Paul Kanjorksi is a Pennsylvania Democrat and Representative.

Why, then is he so passionate about ending the Senate's rule that legislation must pass with 60 votes?

Yesterday morning, on CNBC, Kanjorski displayed his Progressive stripes prominently. Just as Glenn Beck has warned, when the going gets tough, the Democratic Progressives are stepping on the accelerator.

To wit, Kanjorski began whining about how some health care had to pass. That it was the duty of Congress to govern.

Nevermind concerns over what they pass. He actually said passage was the most important thing. That Republicans' preferences for other elements in a health care bill were now simply getting in the way of some sort of legislation. So they'll have to be ignored.

So will public preferences to not have the Democrats' ill-conceived health care "reform."

Thus, Kanjorski allied himself with Barney Frank, another Congressional Democrat and non-Senator, in calling for the Senate to rid itself of its 60-vote rule, and pass health care 59-41.

Content for decades with the cloture rule, and happy to obstruct legislation they didn't like since their 1994 loss of control of the House and earlier loss of control of the Senate, Democrats now find it objectionable.

Kanjorski put on display a naked contempt for voters' wishes, claiming that whoever was the majority in Congress had the duty, obligation and, thus, right to pass whatever they liked, because, well, people want active governance. He went so far as to mock-humbly say that even if members of Congress became unpopular and weren't re-elected, it was their duty to give people these new laws. After all, some laws are, according to Kanjorski & Co., better than no new laws.

Even if the new laws violate campaign promises, aren't widely supported, and are pushed via lies and financial sleights of hand.

It's very troubling when Representatives begin agitating for the other House to change its rules. Why, on earth, should a Representative concerning her- or himself with the Senate's rules?

This clearly smacks of Progressive desperation. So desperate that they will just start changing rules which no longer suit them, in naked pursuit of their goals, irrespective of what voters have expressed as their preferences.

We can only hope that Kanjorski's district sees him for the anti-Constitutionalist that he is, and give him an opportunity for career development by electing his opponent in November.

No comments: