Jon Tester is not a well-known politician who makes frequent appearances on cable news. But what the Montana Democrat lacks in familiarity he compensates by pulling off the most important liberal duty of all -- he shows that he cares. Really, really cares.
This of course is the prerequisite before all others to gain credibility on the left. Even the most egregious of transgressions -- letting a woman drown in one's car, for example, and not reporting the accident until after sobering up the next day -- will be forgiven providing that the guilty party consistently conveys the most important of emotions, empathy, year in and election cycle out, while also earning that coveted high approval rating from NARAL.
Oddly enough, liberals don't think the most effective way to accomplish this is through actual compassion. Rather, they believe it is far more efficiently brought about by maligning the character of political opponents, specifically by smearing them as cruel and heartless. It matters little whether any specific conservative actually is -- what matters more is whether liberals can make other people believe that he is. Bill Clinton, to cite another exemplar, parlayed this ham-fisted con into an eight-year stint in the White House. Hillary Clinton kept trying and fell short, never having mastered the perfectly timed bite to her lower lip.
Tester, a guest on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show last night, was asked to weigh in on fellow senator Jeff Sessions' nomination for attorney general. Here is what Tester said was his reason for opposing Sessions --
MADDOW: Senator, before tonight I'm not -- and forgive me if this is an oversight on my part -- but I was not clear if you have made an overt statement, if you had made a clear statement, as to how you intend to vote personally on Senator Sessions' nomination. Have you decided whether you'll vote yes or no on him?
Translation: You've dodged this long enough. Time to come clean.
TESTER: I have. Jeff Sessions has been a strong supporter of the Patriot Act. We tried to fix the Patriot Act to protect civil liberties and protect privacy ...
... and protect jihadists ...
TESTER: He voted against that.
Thereby demonstrating his strong support for the Patriot Act.
TESTER: He also voted against the Violence Against Women Act. He does not really appear to care about people who've had, women who've had violence committed against them, so I'm going to be voting no.
So that's all it takes to get one impugned as indifferent to violent assault against the fairer sex?
By that convoluted logic, Time magazine writer Kate Pickert is an obvious misogynist for writing a 2013 article with the odious headline, "What's Wrong with the Violence Against Women Act?" Sure sounds like hate speech.
The same can be said for Daily Caller writer Elena Maria Lopez for a post she wrote last month titled, "Jeff Sessions was Right to Vote Against Domestic Violence Legislation." Obviously this sadistic woman should not be allowed to speak on any campus in America, lest she pollute impressionable young minds.
The original Violence Against Women Act passed in 1994 as part of a huge crime bill largely written by then-Senator Joe Biden and signed into law by Bill Clinton. (Yeah, the creep who kept hitting on women). Passed with bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, it authorized funding for 100,000 more cops, broadened uses of capital punishment, added restrictions to gun ownership, and funded new prison construction and crime prevention programs, among other provisions. More than $1 billion was included for prevention and more aggressive investigation of assaults against women.
The law was renewed without controversy in 2000 under Clinton and again in 2005 when it was signed by George W. Bush. By the time it came up for renewal again in 2012, Democrats had larded it up with provisions for same-sex couples and illegal immigrants that drew opposition from conservatives such as Sessions.
In their deranged ardor to derail Sessions' nomination, Democrats like Tester malign Sessions as indifferent to violent assault against women when it would be far more accurate to describe Sessions as opposed to legislation they support. Taking that approach, however, runs the risk of showing that liberals care more about honesty than appearing oh so empathetic in all that they do.
<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
