Comments Posted By C3
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 73 Comments
PRINCIPLE SHOULD TRUMP PRAGMATISM IN SOTOMAYOR VOTE
Rick;
I'm trying to understand how this will be a "disaster". If Justice Souter was seen as generally leaning left, how will Justice Sotomayor change that?Boy, the Bork nomination sure has changed everything. I can't remember a nomination that did not lead to emotional, "this is horrible..." reactions from the other party.
It is certainly appropriate for Republicans to raise issues of concern and principle in the hearings. A filibuster would be a disaster in my estimation. As I see it the President has the perogative to nominate who he/she sees fits. The Senate must do its due diligence but ultimately it comes down to the votes. If principles are so much at stake in this nomination then its shame on the Republicans for not "selling" those principles well enough to the electorate. Yes, I see principles involved in this nomination but I see far more politics.
Finally, I grew up with the Warren court and all of its sweeping decisions. My hunch would be that the majority of Americans have sympathy with the Sotomayor "make policy" statement.
Comment Posted By c3 On 28.05.2009 @ 10:45
CAN GINGRICH RIDE AN ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT WAVE TO THE OVAL OFFICE?
Michael Reynolds;
"Gingrich is a twat." Offensive on several levels... and enlightening too!You know every once in a while you manage to say something that suggests thought and careful consideration. Unfortunately too often you spout predictable volleys from the left. Why do you visit this site? I ask that sincerely. Is it to "defend the righteous"? Is is to confirm fixed, unchangeable convictions? I just don't get it.
PS And please don't assume that I only like comments from the right of center. Thoughtful and "energetic" back and forth is enjoyable and enlightening. I guess I'm naive.
Comment Posted By c3 On 22.05.2009 @ 15:17
My recollection of his time as minority and then majority leader in the HOuse leads me to believe Newt is much better at putting intellectual force behind grass-roots anger than he is in leading and putting together policy and then implementing. I believe he was "beaten" by Clinton after he'd won the battle over control of the house. His ideas didn't match Clinton's political skills.
And Rick you point a key problem with a Gingrich candidacy: His personal past. Moreover, Newt has a way of becoming radioactive, not good for a national campaign. It generates heat but... (That radioactivity happened with Sarah Palin, though for very different reasons)
Comment Posted By c3 On 22.05.2009 @ 09:55
Many good points here from "both sides". I don't like the term "gangsterism". For me, this comes back to a sentiment I had prior to the election; Barack Obama has "liberal sensibilites" (that's not a pejorative term.). In this case of "deconstructing" a large automaker, I would assume that Obama would tend to focus on job loss/preservation versus small business impact. Not that he wouldn't consider small business impact but it wouldn't "resonate" as much.
As a related matter, it reminds me of so many recent news stories on "old industry" communities dying. Inevitably, someone from the local economic development task force/committee/office would emphasize that "we will succeed because we have so many highly-skilled workers". In other words, the presence of these workers will, almost by definition, create new businesses. To further compound this they will generally cite the "buzz word" industries (i.e. "green technology").
Businesses aren't created because "they have to". (And I suspect it will hard to "create a business" based on having to pay its workers something approximating $40+/hour.
Comment Posted By c3 On 22.05.2009 @ 10:41
GOP MORE POPULAR THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE YESTERDAY
EBJ;
Comment Posted By c3 On 20.05.2009 @ 18:30
Haven't you heard, "sheeple" is SO 2004.
The last election was more about "not Bush" than "we like Democrats". When you combine that with the "liberating sensation of voting for the first black president" you had the beginning ingredients for a big win. The timely economic tsunammi of October didn't hurt either. But that all was true for 2008; it won't be true for 2010 or 2012.
there are many key principles, dare I say "Republican" principles, that IMHO Americans resonate with:
1) A concern for governmental "over reach". (And the reinforcing experience of the annual tax bill.)
2) Moral issues. Now you can argue as to what issues those are and how much the public wants them enforced/legislated but I don't believe you can under-estimate the significance of the California Prop 8 vote and what it says about Americans
3)A strong military. Now that's a distinctly different issue from the was in Iraq or Afghanistan.
4) Opportunities for success. The trick here is to make the connections between that "American Dream" and capitalism and open markets.Neither the SoCons nor the libertarians will be successful without each other (if by success I mean electoral success) Right now each has decide how important that is AND get over the notion of "I'll let you in MY tent if you first give up your core principles" (or better put stop calling each other "religious fanatic" and "pointy headed amoral libertarian"
Finally, how did Republican lose sight of the "tea parties" (and what they might say about future direction) and suddenly become obsessed with bringing down Nancy Pelosi? When Nancy's gone then what. But the huge debt and bill for out kids and grandkids will remain.
Comment Posted By c3 On 19.05.2009 @ 13:35
REPORT FROM THE FRONT: PRAGMATISTS HAVE NO SOUL
Mike;
"? If it’s in politics, that’s what makes a horse race. If you don’t have opposing principles, then you may as well have one party — "this assumes that conflicts over principles only occur between parties. How about this one: smaller government and strong national defense, two traditional Republican principles. So to what degree do you push a stronger national defense at the expense of the principle of smaller government?
Comment Posted By c3 On 19.05.2009 @ 14:33
Mike;
I was trying to create a hypothetical (i.e. necessarily based in reality) scenario where to principles were in conflict.Anyway...
Comment Posted By c3 On 18.05.2009 @ 22:41
And to follow up on Busboy's questions, how do you deal with an issues to seems to put two principles in conflict. For example (and its an attempt at the hypothetical so please argue the specific case details), what if encouraging democracy and free trade were too high principles. HOwever, you felt that open trade with China strengthens the central government and weakens democratic movements. Do you just stick to your "moral high ground" and not chose a path or what?
Principles should inform policy decisions and influence political ones. They alone aren't sufficient for the day-to-day operations of government.
Comment Posted By c3 On 18.05.2009 @ 16:53
CBO ESTIMATES ON OBAMACARE TOP $1 TRILLION
Rick;
I could not disagree more with this statement;
the uninsured are one of the major reasons for skyrocketing health care costs.While "cost shift" is A factor for increasing health care costs it is not THE factor and I suspect not a major factor. There is very good evidence that the relationship goes the other way: increasing health care costs lead to higher levels of uninsured (as a rest of employers foregoing health care a benefit, employers demanding higher employee cost-sharing leading to some employees opting out, states tightening income eligibility levels due to increasing costs). I'll get some citations.
Beyond that I would wholeheartedly agree that we as a nation need to carefully consider the costs before we jump into a massive healthcare initiative. IMHO it all comes down to one key phrase "Its all about the costs!"
Comment Posted By c3 On 17.05.2009 @ 09:28
