NYT Squirming over "Hastert Decree"

I always smile when the NY Times tries to incriminate Republicans for perverting American democracy. The editorial board clings to an understanding of democracy tantamount in accuracy to that which I held in 2nd grade social studies class. And I went to public school. Today, the NYT opines through the hazy lens of a "people's" democracy on Speaker Dennis Hastert's "triumphalist decree that no bill [on immigration]...can be put to a vote unless a majority of his Republican caucus...agree to it."

Of course, Hastert is right that "the job of the speaker is not to expedite legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his majority." The Times calls Speaker Hastert the most "hard-core" of "House obstructionists." Aside from the comical nature of vilifying Republicans as obstructionist after the Democrat's circus these past three years, I think the Times actually believes the proper role of the Republican leadership is to support the passage of Democrat initiatives. The Times is pretty much crying foul on a simple check and balance in the American system. The Senate Bill, from a conservative's perspective, is watered-down and impotent. (If you haven't read the Ed Meese op-ed from yesterday' it's worth a look.) Let's hope that Hastert sticks to his guns and empowers our majority to do what it's supposed to do.

I am delighted to see a little hard-nosed gusto from the Speaker. With every major media outlet reporting on an alleged rift between conservative voters, Congress, and the President, it's about time that the leadership stand-up and defend the principles it was elected to fight for. Even if it seems from the NYT's rant that the "Hastert decree" is a political liability, it isn't. We want the NYT to squirm. Kate O"Brien and Richard Lowry are absolutely right in the current issue of National Review: "Once Republicans have given away the premises of their governing philosophy, they have no foothold to resist Democratic initiatives." Go get 'em Denny.