New-age filibuster

Our country is built on the principle of majority political rule with respect for the minority party's rights. So what happens when the minority abuses that respect and tries to block all actions of the majority? The majority has to take action.\nThis idea may sound far-fetched, but if you've been watching the debate over judicial filibusters, you know this is exactly what's been happening. Democrats, still stung from their electoral defeats, have filibustered some of the president's judicial nominees. By acting the way they've been, Democrats are hypocritically forgetting their own history and ignoring the issues they were elected to resolve.\nThe current battle goes back to President Bush's first term. According to an April 6 article on www.Law.com, Democrats voiced objections to many of the President's judicial nominees. Knowing they didn't have the votes to outright defeat the nominations, they used the filibuster to prevent 10 individuals from being confirmed.\nDemocrats claim Republicans are abusing their authority. In an April 9 article in USA Today, Senate minority leader Harry Reid said, "When it comes down to it, stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those in power who want to rewrite the rules, so that they can get their way."\nWell, Senator, perhaps it's time you remembered your party's own history. \nThe Democrats' firebrand partisan in the Senate, Robert Byrd, did the same things when he was majority leader in the 1970s that the Republicans are currently attempting. An April 10 article in The Washington Post shows what he did.\nIn 1975, Sen. Byrd proposed reducing the supermajority from two-thirds to three-fifths. Byrd also broke a 1977 filibuster with a simple majority vote. Perhaps the most controversial of Sen. Byrd's actions came in 1979 when he threatened to change Senate rules to break a filibuster.\nThis is the party accusing the Republicans of stifling the minority? The fact is Democrats have no room to accuse Republicans of anything because stifling the minority is exactly what they did when they were in the majority.\nMore important than history, however, is that Democrats seem to be forgetting the social issues about which they're supposedly concerned.\nA look at the Web sites of the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee shows how consumed Democrats are with filibustering.\nAt the very top center of the DNC main page, there is a banner that reads, "Stop the Partisan Power Grab." The explanation of this call to action claims that the Republicans are saying, "No more debate. No more dissent. No more checks and balances... " It seems the Democrats are consumed with partisanship. One doesn't even find mention of actual issues on the main page until the bottom of the page. \nIf Democrats are this concerned with the filibuster issue, Republicans must be as well, right? Wrong.\nA trip to the RNC main page shows a commitment to the Social Security issue with a cleverly designed campaign around March Madness. Further down the page, one sees an issue summary from Chairman Ken Mehlman and links to its party's pressing issues. \nThis comparison shows Democrats are consumed with defending the filibuster at the expense of real issues, while Republicans are working to resolve those issues.\nDemocrats like Robert Byrd repeatedly abused their majority and tried to stifle debate for years. Now that Republicans have the power, Democrats are whining about minority rights and the importance of dissent. Where was their respect for dissent in the 1970s?\nThe issue has become a distraction from important Senate business. Heck, Democrats aren't even talking about anything else.\nThanks to the filibuster issue, the Democratic party has become the party of partisan bickering.