Whatever. Rice in o8 baby!
I'm well aware. That's why I said that the Republicans probably wouldn't nominate him. But I think the fact that he was willing to reach and participate in a bipartisan effort to achieve a compromise is commendable, and not "caving." But I wouldn't expect Republicans to see it that way.
I would say to that that republicans have worked hard to get a majority. But now that we have a majority, it's rendered null and void because of people like Arlen Specter and McCain. Honestly, what the is the purpose of having a majority if we cut 'deals' with the minorty that prevent the majority from excerising the clout they've hard earned? McCain undercut A LOT of hard work by conservatives in the party. But you know, whatever, he'll have a price to pay.
Could go either way, nature of the beast. By no means is this a 'right wing' thing.
You act like having the majority is like winning some kind of sport and getting en lements.Honestly, what the is the purpose of having a majority if we cut 'deals' with the minorty that prevent the majority from excerising the clout they've hard earned?
Perhaps McCain and Specter vote how they (edit: and the people they represent) believe and not necessarily along party lines. I don't see how that can possibly be considered a bad thing.
Last edited by Spurminator; 05-25-2005 at 03:52 PM.
I'd vote for Senator McCain.
I thought the representatives were aligned to their constiuants and not to any specific party beliefs?
The job of those in the majority and the minority are to represent the will of their cons uants.
I defer to my man Jonah on why the compromise sucks...
And my point exactly...Nor is the worst aspect of the compromise the embarrassment the GOP brought upon itself with its inept rhetoric. Ever since they moronically coined and popularized the phrase “nuclear option,” the Republicans were destined to look bad. Implicit in the phrase is the notion that the Republicans were the ones determined to do something radical and dangerous, even though it was the Democrats who were actually promising to “blow up” the Senate.
But nooooo, the Republicans had to come up with a phrase that showed how macho they are, even at the expense of conceding the better part of the argument to the Democrats. Where is the vaunted “message discipline” the Republicans are supposed to have? They couldn’t simply call it the “restore Senate tradition” option? Did they just have to show off their big swinging nuclear options?
The most annoying thing about the compromise, I believe, is the logic underneath it.
First, there’s the abiding faith — eternally celebrated by the press — that compromise is always and everywhere a good thing. If I say two plus two equals four, and you say two plus two equals one billion, is it really such a great advance to split the difference and agree that it’s somewhere near 500 million? The media’s love of compromise is the moral hazard that comes from always seeking both sides of an issue. The press should seek both sides, of course, but it shouldn’t conclude that simply because each side has good arguments that both are right, or that splitting the difference is enlightened. The media sees such blurring as wisdom, when really it’s cynicism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/script...0505250806.aspBesides, it is far more dangerous when democracies choose not to have arguments. This is because political arguments represent conflicts of legitimate interests and legitimate perspectives. Intellectually shabby compromises by their very nature don’t settle the disagreements, they merely postpone and exacerbate them.
The fact remains that your being crtical of a senator who does not represent you because he didn't succomb to what a large party - whom he doesn't represent either - wanted.
I'm sick of this supposed 2 party system that is really nothing more than a farse to begin with.
Great. He'll need it I'm sure!
In fact, after reading through that article, I'm going to declare it idiocy. It tries to compare compromise in the Senate over non absolutes to compromise over an absolute (2+2=4).
But then again, the republican party does tend to view it's morality as absolute regardless of how other people view those values.
He's just making a broader point that I can easily see applied to the current debate.
I agree with you on moral absolutes, because there are moral absolutes.Chiefly, abortion is murder.
you know, dropping bombs on countries we hate kills babies too(or takes out their resources so they starve or dehydrate to death)...what makes that kind of murder more acceptable than an abortion in a clinic?Chiefly, abortion is murder.
Not to get on a tangent here, but I do think compromise can be a very dangerous thing, Neo. Take into account how this country is willing to compromise our liberties in the name of safety.
Whereas I'd usually retort with a rude comment, because I respect him I will kindly ask Travis to elaborate instead.
Republicans worked hard, so they earned the right to eliminate checks from a system of checks and balances??
I believe the real farce here, Manny, is your attempt at spelling :p
McCain is his own man and I like that.
Bandit, "dropping bombs on countries we hate"? Elevate the discussion please. "Takes out their resources so that they starve or dehydrate to death"? You can't be serious. I'm lost for words. Really.
Manny, if compromising liberties for safety was ever to be abused, sure, very dangerous. But as Hugh Hewitt points out:
or this point:I think it is far more accurate to say GOP activists --of all ideological stripes, including big-tent, Arlen Specter-supporting, party-first folks like me-- are furious because they know what the "deal" does to the NRSC and the effort to build a lasting majority. You can stray on Social Security and private accounts and be a good Republican. You can vote to keep ANWR closed and be a good Republican. You may favor abortion rights or same sex marriage rights (though not their imposition via court diktat), and you can even vote against any particular judicial nominee on sincere grounds, and be a good Republican.
But you can't sell out the Cons ution. And you shouldn't sell out good people unfairly slimed by extremists of the left. The gang of seven did both. That's why folks are furious. It is wrong to characterize that as an ideological reaction. It is a principled reaction to an unprincipled maneuver.
How refreshing it would be if, say, Barbara Boxer would stand up in the Senate and say "I oppose Justice Owen because she's a center-right Republican and I'm a liberal." Fine. Boxer won the election in California. She can do whatever she wants with her vote. But to try and turn William Meyer or Janice Rogers Brown or Miguel Estrada or all the others into ogres is disgusting.
This is the work of McCain. Enjoy!
Thanks for the links......but I still would like to know why Bandit thinks Rice has blood on her hands.
Whoa!
Cheryl, here are a few links with some good info:
http://www.americansforrice.com/Issues.htm
Good running blog here:
http://www.condipundit.com/
My thoughts are that Bandit is referring to the Downing Street Memo, which if authentic (the British haven't denied it is), proves with little doubt that the W administration, including Ms. Rice, was intentionally shaping intelligence data to support an invasion of Iraq and the overthrown of Saddam Hussien. An Invasion that even our closes allied, Britian, thought was probably illegal.but I still would like to know why Bandit thinks Rice has blood on her hands.
His own man? You got to be in kidding me. Everytime that McCain has had a chance to be 'his own man' against policies he disagreed with this administration he had bent over backwards and taken up the ass.McCain is his own man and I like that.
Doesn't matter what my feelings about McCain are though because the Republican NeoCons would never nominte him - he is simply too much of a wild-card.
Look for the NeoCons to help push the nominations of Guiliani, Jeb Bush, Cheney and Hillary Clinton (since when did party affiliation get in the way of absolute power?).
None of those have a prayer.
I would be looking at Rice, Allen, and Romney.
Rice will never get the nomination. Tolerance for women and minorities runs only so deep in the Republican party.I would be looking at Rice, Allen, and Romney.
Oh really? Wish I could see the look on your face when that notion of yours gets shattered into a million pieces very soon...
If Condi got the Republican nod I would leave the forum, but since that'll happen, yeah right, I guess your stuck with me.Oh really? Wish I could see the look on your face when that notion of yours gets shattered into a million pieces very soon..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
