Remember all those dumb things Bush did. Jason was all over him too. He's fair and covers both sides, and always states the obvious arguements to his own posts.
Hey guys, card carrying (D) here. I honestly don't see why anyone's expecting a blogger, any blogger, to show both sides of an issue. Oh sure some of them will say they will but everyone, posting about any topic, has an agenda. That agenda of course is to show their opinion and back it up with as much fact as they see fit. A commenter does the same, including this one.
I've noticed a severe drop in news postings from my more liberal friends, as opposed to say the last few years. If Jason suddenly becomes a journalist, I'll totally hold his feet to the fire. Unlike say, a Rush or Bill O'Rly. You're able to see an opposing viewpoint right here.
Unanimity is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Especially in the U.S. Congress. Fortunately, unanimity is not required for legislative action. By design.
What exactly do we meant by a "bipartisan approach"? Do we mean legislation that is favored by some Democrats and some Republicans (and presumably opposed by some of each party)? Do we mean legislation that is favored by a vast majority of Congress, regardless of party affiliation? Do we mean legislation that is supported by the ruling elite of both parties, regardless of individual consciences?
Clear definitions are required for informed discussion.
In theory, mass action (including legislation) works best when it has the support of as many people as possible. So we'd like to build a big consensus for every law and program. But in reality, there are problems. Including, but not limited to:
Contentions that do not easily accept compromise (abortion, for example).
Political operatives who prioritize power over principle.
Self-assurance that views any deviant idea as
( ... )
Personally I like both "Do we mean legislation that is favored by some Democrats and some Republicans (and presumably opposed by some of each party)? Do we mean legislation that is favored by a vast majority of Congress, regardless of party affiliation?"
I'll definitely agree that Partisan roles are playing a lot in this effort, ON BOTH SIDES.
My concern is that the Democrats are too focused on timeline and pushign this through, feeding the partisan politics.
I'd like to see a long thought out solution, even if it's favored by one side, that is carefully put together. I dunno, it could be media presentation of the bill, but it seems rushed.
Of course, from the bill I reviewed, I hate it based on what it does, so I'm opposed on the bill's current actions as I've read it.
I think it's a mistake to discount the time concern. We need X number of supporting Congressmen to pass any healthcare bill. Maybe we have all X right now. But I would guess that not all X really want a healthcare bill. I'd guess that some percentage fear opposing a popular president and/or a popular idea. But the longer deliberations take, the more vocal popular support fades...and potentially the more popularity the president loses (over failure to take action, and over other issues -- like his problems with civil rights). After enough time, it's no longer a big risk to oppose a healthcare bill, and it effectively dies in committee (if not on the floor
( ... )
Comments 11
“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo,” Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina said last week. “It will break him.”
The "fight" by the so-called "conservative" leaders isn't about health care. It's, as always, about power. Holding on to or gaining it.
Reply
Oh wait...
That's not Jason at all.
Reply
I honestly don't see why anyone's expecting a blogger, any blogger, to show both sides of an issue. Oh sure some of them will say they will but everyone, posting about any topic, has an agenda. That agenda of course is to show their opinion and back it up with as much fact as they see fit. A commenter does the same, including this one.
I've noticed a severe drop in news postings from my more liberal friends, as opposed to say the last few years.
If Jason suddenly becomes a journalist, I'll totally hold his feet to the fire. Unlike say, a Rush or Bill O'Rly. You're able to see an opposing viewpoint right here.
Try to make it a good one.
Reply
Reply
What exactly do we meant by a "bipartisan approach"? Do we mean legislation that is favored by some Democrats and some Republicans (and presumably opposed by some of each party)? Do we mean legislation that is favored by a vast majority of Congress, regardless of party affiliation? Do we mean legislation that is supported by the ruling elite of both parties, regardless of individual consciences?
Clear definitions are required for informed discussion.
In theory, mass action (including legislation) works best when it has the support of as many people as possible. So we'd like to build a big consensus for every law and program. But in reality, there are problems. Including, but not limited to:
Reply
I'll definitely agree that Partisan roles are playing a lot in this effort, ON BOTH SIDES.
My concern is that the Democrats are too focused on timeline and pushign this through, feeding the partisan politics.
I'd like to see a long thought out solution, even if it's favored by one side, that is carefully put together. I dunno, it could be media presentation of the bill, but it seems rushed.
Of course, from the bill I reviewed, I hate it based on what it does, so I'm opposed on the bill's current actions as I've read it.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment