Commentaries appear at regular intervals. If you would like an invited commentary for your publication, please let me know!

Today we will be looking at how leading liberals, in their own words, debate themselves. Nothing is quite as effective at exposing liberal hypocrisy than showing actual statements made by liberals. Since I have limited space, I cannot show you every example of liberal hypocrisy, or even a significant fraction. (Sorry about that!)

I realize that some liberals, like the Clintons, are easy targets. Everyone knows that both Clintons say what they think you want to hear at that moment, and in the words of Bill Clinton, a promise from them is only good for "24 hours". So instead of flogging that dead horse I'll take you on a tour of leading liberals in the Senate.

• Tom Daschle

  Senator Daschle has a reputation for ignoring the intent of the Framers of the Constitution when it comes to things like "advise and consent", which Daschle believes to mean "only if I agree". He has not always thought this way, of course. Here is what Daschle said before he was obstructing President Bush's judicial nominees:

  "I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination."
  —Congressional Record, October 5th, 1999.

  Evidently Senator Daschle is no longer baffled about voting against a vote! To make it perfectly clear about his earlier stance, here is another quote of Daschle's:

  "Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor."
  —Congressional Record, October 28th, 1999.

  Apparently that too has changed, as Daschle is blocking a vote on Hispanic nominee Miguel Estrada and a female nominee, Priscilla Owens. Is Daschle from the south or just channeling the old Southern Democrats? Well, he is from South Dakota. Maybe someone should let him know that "south" in this case is just relative.

• Diane Feinstein

  Senator Feinstein was apparently shocked that women and minority judicial nominees were being "obstructed":

  “Women and minorities come up in the law in a different way... Many male nominees have a background almost entirely in corporate law. Women and minorities are more likely to have a background in public service. But there are senators trying to block the confirmation of anybody with that kind of background. All we have said is have the decency to give these people a floor vote.”
  Quoted in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 25th, 1999.

  I guess Feinstein meant women of the proper gender and minorities of the proper color. Then again:

  “If a Senator has a problem with particular nominees, he or she should vote against them. But a nominee should not be held up interminably by a handful of Senators.”
  —Congressional Record, October 4th, 1999.

  Apparently she did mean every nominee. Maybe she just forgot?

• Pat Leahy

  As the leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee you would think that Leahy would know better than to oppose President Bush's judicial nominees after opposing a similar filibuster in 1998:

  "In 1998, Sen. Leahy publicly opposed the filibuster, saying on the floor of the Senate that all judges deserved an up-or-down vote."
  —American Renewal web site.

• Tom Harkin

  Liberal hypocrisy is not limited to judicial nominees, of course. For example, the liberal Senator from Iowa knows pork when he sees it, and apparently proposes spending items with his eyes wide shut:

  "...this radical budget...leaves children behind by creating massive deficits on top of already large debt."
  Harkin commenting on the Bush budget.

  Yet Harkin has already proposed 24 billion dollars of additional spending (that has been rejected) this year. Apparently the children have not been left that far behind after all. Then again, maybe his criticism was that the children were not being left far enough behind, and that was his way of helping out.

I could go on and on, but as I said, space is limited.

Clearly liberals continue to be hypocrites when it comes to political issues. That is not really surprising because for a liberal there is no such thing as a "matter of principle". For most liberals, the current political landscape and attempts to gain an advantage over their opponents determines what their beliefs are at any given moment.

This poses an interesting question for the liberals lining up to oppose President Bush in 2004: is your opposition based on principles, and if so, what are they?

I will not hold my breath waiting for a response.

Senator Daschle has a reputation for ignoring the intent of the Framers of the Constitution....

“If a Senator has a problem with particular nominees, he or she should vote against them. But a nominee should not be held up interminably by a handful of Senators.”

"In 1998, Sen. Leahy publicly opposed the filibuster, saying on the floor of the Senate that all judges deserved an up-or-down vote."

...is your opposition based on principles, and if so, what are they?