Text 13567, 204 rader
Skriven 2005-06-13 08:26:03 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Kommentar till text 13555 av Gary Braswell (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Washington "Mod-squad
=============================
12 Jun 05 21:56, Gary Braswell wrote to John Hull:
John Hull ->> Gary Braswell wrote:
TR>>>>>> Sort of. `Moderates' are individuals who are completely in
TR>>>>>> love 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,
TR>>>>>> they 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
JH>>>> find a middle ground that does nothing to resolve a problem -
JH>>>> only 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
JH>> are people who would murder him gleefully because of that if they
JH>> could.
GB> I think Newt did quite a bit as well, surprised you left him out.
GB> As for learning, well lets say I was informed. I like hearing the
GB> points and stand of both sides. They both have good ideas and
GB> plans....well at least until recently. The Democrats have little.
Newt did a lot, but he wan't around for nearly as long as Rush has been. And
he let personal problems (or foibles) interfere to the point he got forced out.
Didn't help us much then, did he?
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
JH>> anything funny in your comment, the <g> notwithstanding.
GB> I know you take Rush as sacrosanct John.
He isn't Christ reincarnated, if that's what you mean. Nor do I think he walks
on water. But he is an extremely smart guy politically, and has a proven track
record predicting what the left (and the right) will do. You dismiss him at
your peril if you intend to stay politically astute.
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
GB>>> to pass legislation. They broker between the hard-liners who do
GB>>> not want to lose face in the political ring and at times, they
GB>>> bring a little sanity to their own party if affiliated.
JH>> No, those aren't moderates. Each party has a range of members,
JH>> right to left within the basic structure of the party. Moderates -
JH>> those who CLAIM to be moderates - have carved out a neutral ground
JH>> in the middle that is like the DMZ in Nam, and then try to pretend
JH>> they are significant.
GB> I like to see you twist.
People in the normal range of opinion within a party are not moderates.
Moderates are those who would rather work with their counterparts in the other
party than help their own party find the best solution. You can't trust 'em.
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
JH>>>> of 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
GB>>> how much more to come.
Yeah, and the question of the filibuster on judicial appointees has still not
been resolved. I agree with Brit Hume's assessment that it only prolonged the
agony, and may end up ultimately hurting both parties.
JH>>>> And then, two days later, Harry Reid started a defacto
JH>>>> fillbuster against Bolton and blows the whole deal up just as I
JH>>>> predicted would happen. What has your moderation gained, Gary?
JH>>>> How has it 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
JH>> his damn cronies had let things play out, we would have set things
JH>> straight again in the Senate vis-a-vis the rules on filibustering,
JH>> and done it according to the Constitution. We would be well on the
JH>> way to having ALL of those nominees getting their guaranteed up or
JH>> down vote.
GB> Maybe, until whatever next the Democrats had in store. Still more
GB> 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
GB>>> see the two parties go all the way and see which or both got
GB>>> damaged 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.
GB> Probably.
GB> Congress' popularity is really a massive low now.
Their rating certainly wasn't helped by this deal.
GB>>> But I don't want the potential damage to become a reality that
GB>>> might harm the country.
The Democrats are losing support and becoming marginalized because not only
have they run out of ideas, but because they've spent the last 40 years telling
everybody how there is too much partisanship while all the while they were
engaged in it up to their necks. People think everybody is supposed to make
nice and play kissy face in Congress, and the founders didn't intend for it to
work that way at all.
All McCain and his crew did was perpetuate that myth and prevent a chance to
set the train back on the tracks from taking place. That time is still coming,
but when it does it will be a lot harder to get done and a lot more bloody.
JH>> To bad fence riding is more likely to do the very damage you are
JH>> afraid of than to help.
GB> 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.
JH>> This country was founded by men who believed fiercely in the two
JH>> party system, in partisanship. The structure of the Constitution
JH>> is dependent on the party system to function properly. Without the
JH>> natural animosity and partisanship of a strong party system, the
JH>> checks and balances built into our system cannot and will not
JH>> function. We have 229 years of peaceful political transitional
JH>> change to show the success of the party system and partisanship,
JH>> two of which took place during the bloodiest civil war in human
JH>> history.
JH>> For someone who claims to be so politically astute, its rather
JH>> chilling to find out you don't understand that.
GB> Every nation has parties some two, some more. Some just one.
GB> Parties have come and gone here in our history.
GB> I understand how things have been and benefited.
It doesn't sound as if you get it. The Founders specifically designed the
system around two strong parties. Its bicameral, it doesn't lend itself to a
setup like in Britain or Israel where two or more parties have to form a
coalition to stay in power.
GB> But things change...everything changes.
Not necessarily for the better.
GB> Its not un-american at all to questions parties or anything else
GB> in our Republic.
GB> It is to suggest otherwise.
GB> I am glad you are chilled, John.
GB> Its good to be, every now and again.
One doesn't try to effect change by going outside the system design. That is
known as anarchy or revolution. You don't go to that level to change Senate
rules. THAT is what is chilling, in that apparently you are willing to do so.
John
America: First, Last, and Always!
LIBERALS AND DOGS KEEP OFF THE GRASS!
--- Msged/386 TE 05
* Origin: (1:379/1.99)
|