Dems don't believe in fairness. In April 2005, then-Sen. Barack Obama took to the Senate floor and ardently spoke out against GOP efforts to end the filibuster. Then a rising star in the Democratic Party, Obama noted that despite the pressure partisans might feel, it was imperative to “rise above an ‘ends-justify-the-means’ mentality, because we’re here to answer to the people — all of the people — not just the ones wearing our party label.” Last month, Obama made precisely the opposite argument at John Lewis’ funeral, contending that eliminating a vital check on partisan power was justified as long as Dems got their desired policies.
After offering a shamefully dishonest comparison between George Wallace, Bull Connor and contemporary Republicans, Obama argued that passing a “voting-rights” bill was worth stripping away counter-majoritarian norms. “If all this takes eliminating the filibuster, another Jim Crow relic, in order to secure the God-given rights of every American,” Obama told the congregants, “then that’s what we should do.”
And by “we,” Obama means 51 percent of Washington should dictate the legislative agenda to the entire country. Why is it a bad idea? Let’s turn to 2005 Obama, who explained that while the American people expected rigorous debate in Congress . . .