Comments on: America’s Two Party System: “The Party of Fear, the Party Without A Spine” http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338 A rough draft of my thoughts... Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:58:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Captain D. http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1364020 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:39:53 +0000 http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1364020 Bravo! Bravo!

]]>
by: Dr. Steven Taylor http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1364001 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:08:16 +0000 http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1364001 Point taken. However, leadership has far more tools at its disposal to block such legislation (especially in the House), yet they clearly chose not to do so. Indeed, if the Democratic leadership were serious about their rhetoric, then the bill wouldn't have made it to the floor in the House and would never have escaped the Senate. I have little doubt that there was a willingness to allow the bill to pass and take away a campaign issue from the the GOP while hoping to use the six-month clock as a way to blunt attacks and criticisms from the left. Point taken.

However, leadership has far more tools at its disposal to block such legislation (especially in the House), yet they clearly chose not to do so. Indeed, if the Democratic leadership were serious about their rhetoric, then the bill wouldn’t have made it to the floor in the House and would never have escaped the Senate.

I have little doubt that there was a willingness to allow the bill to pass and take away a campaign issue from the the GOP while hoping to use the six-month clock as a way to blunt attacks and criticisms from the left.

]]>
by: Dave Schuler http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1364000 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:39:40 +0000 http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1364000 I posted in a similar vein Sunday morning. The part that baffles me is the notion on the part of activists that elected officials whose primary interest is demonstrably re-election will for some unknown reason suddenly cultivate an interest in something other than re-election. I posted in a similar vein Sunday morning. The part that baffles me is the notion on the part of activists that elected officials whose primary interest is demonstrably re-election will for some unknown reason suddenly cultivate an interest in something other than re-election.

]]>
by: Buckland http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363997 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:39:13 +0000 http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363997 Or it's not just about politics. Maybe there's a majority coalition in the center that thinks the ideas in the FISA law are a pretty good idea. The leadership of the Democratic party howled in pain when the program first came to light. However the Democratic Senators that voted for it -- Feinstein (CA), Salazar (CO), Lincoln and Pryor (AR), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (FL) (and 10 of their friends) just aren't the career obsessed politicians you're describing. This is the serious center-left that thinks the intelligence services should have the tools necessary to find out what's happening in the world. A much better case would be that a good chunk of the Democratic party's right wing reject the extremist demands of the nutroots. The leadership of both the house and senate demanded unilateral disposal of an intelligence asset. The DiFi and friends figuratively flipped them the bird. Or it’s not just about politics. Maybe there’s a majority coalition in the center that thinks the ideas in the FISA law are a pretty good idea.

The leadership of the Democratic party howled in pain when the program first came to light. However the Democratic Senators that voted for it — Feinstein (CA), Salazar (CO), Lincoln and Pryor (AR), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (FL) (and 10 of their friends) just aren’t the career obsessed politicians you’re describing. This is the serious center-left that thinks the intelligence services should have the tools necessary to find out what’s happening in the world.

A much better case would be that a good chunk of the Democratic party’s right wing reject the extremist demands of the nutroots. The leadership of both the house and senate demanded unilateral disposal of an intelligence asset. The DiFi and friends figuratively flipped them the bird.

]]>
by: Dr. Steven Taylor http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363996 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:23:56 +0000 http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363996 The "dis" is now an "un" (for whatever that may be worth). I take your point. Still, my fundamental point is that one would have expected at least some GOPers to be concerned about the issue, if not because of the alleged libertarian leanings of some in the party, but also to guard the prerogatives of the legislature. Alas, neither was the case. The “dis” is now an “un” (for whatever that may be worth).

I take your point. Still, my fundamental point is that one would have expected at least some GOPers to be concerned about the issue, if not because of the alleged libertarian leanings of some in the party, but also to guard the prerogatives of the legislature. Alas, neither was the case.

]]>
by: MSS http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363995 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:48:27 +0000 http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363995 Hmm, I don't want to try to be your editor, but the "curbing" still doesn't do it for me. Maybe the problem is the "disinterested." I mean, instead of "uninterested," perhaps? I understood the original to mean "do not have a stake in," look the other way because it doesn't matter, etc. And my response was that they (GOP congress members) gained greatly from it for 6 years. They were quite interested (in the sense of having a stake). I guess my answer to Jan is: Kucinich or Gravel in the primary, and someone without a D or R by his or her name in the general. But we've been over that before: I vote sincerely, strategic voting never making any sense to me (unless it's organizationally coordinated as part of a votes-for-policy-concessions deal, that is). Hmm, I don’t want to try to be your editor, but the “curbing” still doesn’t do it for me. Maybe the problem is the “disinterested.” I mean, instead of “uninterested,” perhaps?

I understood the original to mean “do not have a stake in,” look the other way because it doesn’t matter, etc. And my response was that they (GOP congress members) gained greatly from it for 6 years. They were quite interested (in the sense of having a stake).

I guess my answer to Jan is: Kucinich or Gravel in the primary, and someone without a D or R by his or her name in the general. But we’ve been over that before: I vote sincerely, strategic voting never making any sense to me (unless it’s organizationally coordinated as part of a votes-for-policy-concessions deal, that is).

]]>
by: Jan http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363994 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:39:00 +0000 http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363994 You are both, unfortunately, correct about the whole situation and it is sickening. What is a body to do, or who is a body to vote for, as the case may be. You are both, unfortunately, correct about the whole situation and it is sickening. What is a body to do, or who is a body to vote for, as the case may be.

]]>
by: Dr. Steven Taylor http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363992 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:33:18 +0000 http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363992 I have inserted the word "curbing" into the sentence in question so that it now reflects the author's original intent when he first wrote the sentence. I have inserted the word “curbing” into the sentence in question so that it now reflects the author’s original intent when he first wrote the sentence.

]]>
by: MSS http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363991 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:43:54 +0000 http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12338#comment-1363991 Republicans have been "disinterested" in the expansion of executive power? I beg to differ. They have been a completely interested party: the party and its members benefited enormously (in reelection, in earmarks, etc.) from that expansion of power--until, that is, The Chief's approval numbers finally reached the proverbial toilet in the run-up to the 2006 election. Apparently Democrats are just as interested in flushing the Constitution down that same device as anyone else. Republicans have been “disinterested” in the expansion of executive power? I beg to differ. They have been a completely interested party: the party and its members benefited enormously (in reelection, in earmarks, etc.) from that expansion of power-until, that is, The Chief’s approval numbers finally reached the proverbial toilet in the run-up to the 2006 election. Apparently Democrats are just as interested in flushing the Constitution down that same device as anyone else.

]]>