Brown: Liberalism = Slavery

I'm surprised no one has gotten to this one already (or has someone?  I searched diaries and fount no results):

NYT: Latest Confirmed Nominee Sees Slavery in Liberalism

Pretty self-explanatory.  But the "slavery" thing is really a gimmick.  In truth she's aligning liberalism with totalitarianism, which is probably one of the most ironic things I've heard all year.  

If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy - a license to steal, a warrant for oppression.

I have no problem with Brown being a black female Republican, for the same reason that I can't stand it when Clarence Thomas is referred to as an "Uncle Tom."  It's Ms. Brown's choice.  We shouldn't force or guilt-trip people into one party based on their race or gender, even if we do know for a fact that one party is more concerned with their well-being.

But I do have a problem with her use of the "liberalism = big government = no freedom" path of thought.  Want to know who will return us to the days of slavery?  It's the Jesse Helms crowd, not John Kerry.  Want to know who hearkened back to the days of segregation?  No, it wasn't Howard Dean, it was Trent Lott.

Janice Rogers Brown's political priorities are certainly skewed, but not because of her race and/or gender.  They're messed up because of that one simple statement.

•  Filibuster deal = Surrender

  by Paleo on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 06:28:31 AM PDT

  •  I strongly disagree

    Saving the fillibuster so that it can be used against Supreme Court nominees was a smart tactical move.

    It was clear there was going to be a showdown, one we were quite likely to lose and see those extremists nominated to the District Courts.  America has a very short memory, we clearly comprimised and it will be very hard for the Republicans to paint us as being unreasonable, if the stand we make is over the Supremes.

    It was the right move.

    by Michaelpb on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 07:00:21 AM PDT

    •  No More Surrenders

      The Repbublicans and their friends in the media will continue to label the Democrats "unreasonable" and "obstructionist" no matter what they do or don't do.

      As far as I'm concerned, they might as well live up to those labels since they have no real incentive to do otherwise. To a Republican, remember, compromise is a sign of weakness.

      by Answer Guy on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 08:53:24 AM PDT

      •  I don't care what Fox says

        I care how voters react.   I believe they will remember that we comprimised and let the Republicans have what they want LAST time.

        This time we march in the streets.  Preventing Bush from creating a right wing majority on the SCOTUS overshadows everything else.

        Wars are won by knowing which battles to fight and which ones to walk away from.  In my opinion, they played this one the right was as long as they truly intend to fight over SCOTUS.

        by Michaelpb on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 11:19:13 AM PDT

    •  Naive

      Aside from the fact that you never win by compromising with evil, nothing was "saved."  If Janet Rogers Brown wasn't an "extraordinary circumstance" who would be?  You might get to find out when Bush tries to appoint her to the Supreme Court in a year or two.  There is no "deal" because the Republicans will never find a nominee who satisfies the "extraordinary circumstance" on ideological grounds.

      by Paleo on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 11:45:59 AM PDT

•  I Agree!

  Calling Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom" is an insult to Uncle Toms all down through history, and all acorss our fair land.

  by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 11:17:14 AM PDT