Text 13555, 156 rader
Skriven 2005-06-12 21:56:33 av Gary Braswell (1:123/789.0)
     Kommentar till en text av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Washington "Mod-squad
=============================
John Hull -> Gary Braswell wrote:

 TR>>>>> Sort of. `Moderates' are individuals who are completely in love
 TR>>>>> with themselves. They think their shit don't stink.

 GB>>>> You should take this show on the road.<g>


 TR>>>>> I've heard it said of `moderates' that, during the sex act, they
 TR>>>>> shout out their `own' names!

 GB>>>> Hey, its better than shouting out "Rush".<g>

 JH>>> I can see where Rush would make you uncomfortable.  He has less
 JH>>> tolerance for moderates than I do, and less use.  In our system,
 JH>>> moderates are, by definition, fence riders.  They can't make a
 JH>>> solid commitment to either side of an issue, so they seek to find a
 JH>>>  middle ground that does nothing to resolve a problem - only
 JH>>> prolong it.

 GB>> Rush does not make me feel uncomfortable in the least. I used to
 GB>> listen to him all the time, watch his TV show while it was on, I
 GB>> even have two of his books.

 JH> Haven't learned much from then.  He has done more for the cause of
 JH> conservatism than anybody else except for Ronald Reagan.  There are
 JH> people who would murder him gleefully because of that if they could.

I think Newt did quite a bit as well, surprised you left him out. As for
learning, well lets say I was informed. I like hearing the points and stand of
both sides. They both have good ideas and plans....well at least until
recently. The Democrats have little.


 GB>> I have heard his opinion of moderates before. So what?

 GB>> Time took a funny shot, so I figured why not do the same?

 JH> I assume you meant Tim, not time, but I even so, I didn't see anything
 JH> funny in your comment, the <g> notwithstanding.

I know you take Rush as sacrosanct John.

 GB>> As much as you hate to admit it, moderates are often the group
 GB>> that puts an election over the top or provide just enough votes to
 GB>> pass legislation. They broker between the hard-liners who do not
 GB>> want to lose face in the political ring and at times, they bring a
 GB>> little sanity to their own party if affiliated.

 JH> No, those aren't moderates.  Each party has a range of members, right to
 JH> left within the basic structure of the party.  Moderates - those who
 JH> CLAIM to be moderates - have carved out a neutral ground in the middle
 JH> that is like the DMZ in Nam, and then try to pretend they are significant.

I like to see you twist.


 GB>> They have their parts to play, just as partisans do.

 JH>>> Some of those Bush appointees have been waiting for a
 JH>>> Constitutionally guaranteed up or down vote for four years.  The
 JH>>> only reason they haven't gotten it is because the Democrats are
 JH>>> obstructing the process.

 GB>> I know the things leading up to this.

 JH>>> Everybody knows it.  The Gang of 14 did nothing but further
 JH>>> obstruct things and added insult to injury by letting only three of
 JH>>> the 10 go through.

 GB>> Lets see, they obstructed a situation where none of the 10 got
 GB>> through.

 GB>> Huh?

 GB>> After they did what they did, 3 got through and with who knows how
 GB>> much more to come.


 JH>>> And then, two days later, Harry Reid started a defacto fillbuster
 JH>>> against Bolton and blows the whole deal up just as I predicted
 JH>>> would happen.  What has your moderation gained, Gary?  How has it
 JH>>> helped?

 GB>> Well, it got 3 though. Maybe would or even will get more.

 JH> Oh, well, gee.  3 got through.  Let's have a party.  If McCain and his
 JH> damn cronies had let things play out, we would have set things straight
 JH> again in the Senate vis-a-vis the rules on filibustering, and done it
 JH> according to the Constitution.  We would be well on the way to having
 JH> ALL of those nominees getting their guaranteed up or down vote.

Maybe, until whatever next the Democrats had in store. Still more may come
through.

 GB>> And without the tit-for-tat soon to follow. But who knows, maybe
 GB>> it will come too.

 GB>> A conservative friend of mine said I should have been happy to see
 GB>> the two parties go all the way and see which or both got damaged
 GB>> in the process and suffered for it in upcoming elections.

 GB>> Maybe he has a point.

 JH> You really ought to listen to your friends.

Probably.

Congress' popularity is really a massive low now.



 GB>> But I don't want the potential damage to become a reality that
 GB>> might harm the country.

 JH> To bad fence riding is more likely to do the very damage you are afraid
 JH> of than to help.

Fence riding can certainly cause damage as well.



 GB>> To hell with the parties.


 JH> That's about the most un-American thing I've ever heard you say.  This
 JH> country was founded by men who believed fiercely in the two party
 JH> system, in partisanship.  The structure of the Constitution is dependent
 JH> on the party system to function properly.  Without the natural animosity
 JH> and partisanship of a strong party system, the checks and balances built
 JH> into our system cannot and will not function.  We have 229 years of
 JH> peaceful political transitional change to show the success of the party
 JH> system and partisanship, two of which took place during the bloodiest
 JH> civil war in human history.

 JH> For someone who claims to be so politically astute, its rather chilling
 JH> to find out you don't understand that.

Every nation has parties some two, some more. Some just one. Parties have come
and gone here in our history.

I understand how things have been and benefited.

But things change...everything changes.

Its not un-american at all to questions parties or anything else in our
Republic.

It is to suggest otherwise.

I am glad you are chilled, John.

Its good to be, every now and again.

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)