Text 13602, 268 rader
Skriven 2005-06-14 00:04:31 av Gary Braswell (1:123/789.0)
Kommentar till text 13567 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Washington "Mod-squad
=============================
John Hull -> Gary Braswell wrote:
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.
JH> Newt did a lot, but he wan't around for nearly as long as Rush has been.
JH> And he let personal problems (or foibles) interfere to the point he got
JH> forced out. Didn't help us much then, did he?
No, but he did give a divided, listless and contrarian party at the time, a
vision and a plan that worked in getting them into power in a big way.
Some of the smarter Democrats have pointed to the Contract With America as the
way to go, a plan of their own.
But so far all they have been able to offer is contrariness and insults.
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.
JH> He isn't Christ reincarnated, if that's what you mean. Nor do I think
JH> he walks on water. But he is an extremely smart guy politically, and
JH> has a proven track record predicting what the left (and the right) will
JH> do. You dismiss him at your peril if you intend to stay politically
JH> astute.
Oh, I don't dismiss him in that arena. I have agreed with him in the past on
some issues.
I lost a lot of respect for him over his hypocrisy in drug abuse.
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.
JH> People in the normal range of opinion within a party are not moderates.
True.
JH> Moderates are those who would rather work with their counterparts in the
JH> other party than help their own party find the best solution. You can't
JH> trust 'em.
Help their own party find the best solution? In this case, the filibuster
situation, neither party was interested in a solution.
The so called Gang of 14 put the country before their party.
I have a lot of respect for people who have that kind of nerve.
Parties are the way things work and the way to affect political change.
But at times, the people in them, in their hubris, put themselves before
anything including what is best for the country.
Its times like those we need people to do what is right, not just what those in
the party want.
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.
JH> Yeah, and the question of the filibuster on judicial appointees has
JH> still not been resolved. I agree with Brit Hume's assessment that it
JH> only prolonged the agony, and may end up ultimately hurting both parties.
We will see.
Clue me in when one of Brit Hume's assessment's does not fall in lock-step with
the Republican party.
And I am not saying when he is unfair, quite the opposite when he heads his own
show. He goes out of his way to reign in those who get wild and makes sure both
sides get their due.
But when he is on someone else's show in analysis, take a copy of the
Republican talking points and put it in his seat and you can save everyone
time.
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.
JH> Their rating certainly wasn't helped by this deal.
I dunno.
The slide got really rolling when the controversy got rolling.
GB>>>> But I don't want the potential damage to become a reality that
GB>>>> might harm the country.
JH> The Democrats are losing support and becoming marginalized because not
JH> only have they run out of ideas, but because they've spent the last 40
JH> years telling everybody how there is too much partisanship while all the
JH> while they were engaged in it up to their necks. People think everybody
JH> is supposed to make nice and play kissy face in Congress, and the
JH> founders didn't intend for it to work that way at all.
I dunno John. Many congressmen retiring on both sides of the isle state they
reason they are going is because of the partisanship on both sides.
If you are trying to tell me the Founding Fathers never planned or even allowed
for compromise, you are living on another planet.
Sure they wanted the issues fought out and debated. I do too. I want it wrung
out so we can see what the crooks are up to.
JH> All McCain and his crew did was perpetuate that myth and prevent a
JH> chance to set the train back on the tracks from taking place. That time
JH> is still coming, but when it does it will be a lot harder to get done
JH> and a lot more bloody.
Oh, I think it will probably be much like it would have been had they done
nothing at all except play to the pettiness of both sides of the issue.
The people who wanted the train to wreck are still there and still complaining
loudly.
My friend is right.
Lets let it crash and see what happens.
My bet is some egos are going to be shown the door.
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.
JH> It doesn't sound as if you get it. The Founders specifically designed
JH> the system around two strong parties. Its bicameral, it doesn't lend
JH> itself to a setup like in Britain or Israel where two or more parties
JH> have to form a coalition to stay in power.
And yet there are no law forbidding more than two parties.
Imagine that.
GB>> But things change...everything changes.
JH> Not necessarily for the better.
True.
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.
JH> One doesn't try to effect change by going outside the system design.
JH> That is known as anarchy or revolution. You don't go to that level to
JH> change Senate rules. THAT is what is chilling, in that apparently you
JH> are willing to do so.
I'm not looking for anarchy or rebellion John.
I am looking for the country before the party though.
And its a good thing to scare the existing parties a bit. Maybe they will put
up better candidates then, instead at times, doormats for platforms.
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.
* Origin: (1:123/789.0)
|