USA Today caught my eye this afternoon with a sub-headline that reads: “Leaving GOP, Specter gives Dems a boost in stifling dissent”-
From USA Today, 4/29/09
Excuse me, but since when did having a filibuster proof, duly elected majority imply the “stifling” of “dissent”? Since when was parliamentary obstruction of the democratically elected majority’s will a matter of “dissent” at all? Dissent is something every American has a right to do, and should continue as long as there is disagreement over policy (that is: forever). But the majority must rule in a democracy, as long as it rules constitutionally. Want checks and balances when a single party rules both Congress and the Presidency? I’ve got three words for you: the Supreme Court. Don’t trust the court? I’ve got three more words for you: the next election.
An interesting question here is: why on earth would an editor at USA Today want to add that sub-headline? Perhaps out of some misbegotten impulse for “fairness”? There is no further mention of dissent in the story, which you can read here.