Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
more..Let's say you're a leader of a political party. Your party has just won 55 out of 100 seats in the Senate; you have maintained solid control of the House; and your candidate for president has just been re-elected by a margin of three million votes. Now you're faced with crucial political issues you campaigned upon. Do you: a) go for it, or b) compromise?
If you're the Republican Party, you compromise. Republicans are so used to being a minority party -- or at least a party in control of single branches of government at a time -- that they have no idea how to get things done in this new political environment. What's clear to every semi-literate observer of politics -- the basic principle that when you have power, you ram your agenda through -- remains murky for the Republican leadership.
Senate Republicans are stalled on Social Security personal accounts. Senate Republicans are stalled on the John Bolton United Nations ambassador nomination. And Senate Republicans are stalled in foiling the Democrats' desperation filibuster of popular textualist judges who will surely win approval in a full Senate vote.
Republicans own 55 seats in the Senate, a solid majority in the House and the presidency. What in the world is going on? President Bush vowed after his three million vote electoral victory margin to spend his political capital. Yet his political capital drains slowly away, day by day -- his latest approval ratings are below 50 percent. Bush's political capital is not draining away because he's pushing unpopular measures; it's draining away because he isn't doing anything . Approval ratings for the Senate reflect similar disenchantment with inaction. The American people elected President Bush, a Republican Senate and a Republican House in order to see a certain agenda pursued. Yet Republicans, afraid to alienate portions of the voting public they have already captured, dillydally.
It's easy to blame Republican inaction on the obvious: grandstanding by a few key "maverick" Republican senators seeking airtime and press raves. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, has vowed to shoot down any Social Security proposal that includes personal accounts. Because the Committee is split 11-9 in favor of Republicans, Snowe's defection could spell the end of President Bush's Social Security proposal.
At the same time, Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), as well as Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), seem poised to crater Bolton's confirmation.
gop_jeff said:No joke. The current GOP Senators, led by Bill Frist, need to go tell the Senate Dems to get bent and win elections if they don't like what's going on!
IControlThePast said:The trouble with that is they will, and then where does that leave Republicans. Democrats didn't exactly shove legislation down Republican throats. For example, Clinton's defense of marriage act that passed. Moderates are the way, as the polls show many people don't like the new SS system, myself included, and forcing it on constituents would have negative side affects for the Republican Party. I do however approve of Bolton. We need more people like McCain and less like DeLay.
dilloduck said:McCain would sell the Republican party down the river in a heartbeat to get power. I BET you would like him there !!
Bonnie said:Gotta agree there. He has many good quailties but being loyal to an ideology is not one of them.
IControlThePast said:Being loyal to an ideology might not be as good a quality as you think. As an extreme example, terrorists are quite loyal to theirs. It is not a bad thing to be a moderate. I don't think it is possible to fully embrace the theology of either party.
IControlThePast said:Being loyal to an ideology might not be as good a quality as you think. As an extreme example, terrorists are quite loyal to theirs. It is not a bad thing to be a moderate. I don't think it is possible to fully embrace the theology of either party.
Bonnie said:True but some ideologies are worth being loyal to. I don't even consider Islamist extremeism as a viable ideology. Some are peaceful and worthy some are not. To bring up terrorists and what they do is hardly a reason or an excuse to doubt your own belief system, or waver. Keeping an open mind and being loyal to the tennents of your beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
IControlThePast said:True, but one should continually be evaluating beliefs, and possibly changing them. It is not right to critisize someone because his belief system does not always coincide with the ideology of his political party.
BR-549 said:Some things,, no most things are sancrosanct, written in stoen, you know like the Ten Commandments, common sense and democracy.. You seem to be one of those "I stick my finger into the wind and go which ever way the wind blows" type of folks.. That manner of thinking is shallow and pointless. It is right to critisize those that are flat out WRONG!!! McCain is a contrarian who just lives to be a PAIN IN THE ASS!! Maybe it's due to the time in the Hanoi Hilton. Hell I don't know but McCain is seldom consistent in anyway except to agree with Democrats when it will get his mug in front of a camera...
IControlThePast said:No I am one of those that tend to think for myself and come to my own conclusions based on common sense. The bible and other things written in stone are much more controversial than you make them out to be "is it don't murder or don't kill, etc."
If he wanted his face on the camera, being against the War in Iraq would have done it. He would have ran as a VP for Kerry if he wanted. Don't hate someone because he is a moderate and you want him to be more extreme. Political ideology is based on perception, there is no obvious right or wrong for many disagreed upon issues. Most politicians are not in it for the altruism. I'm more willing to trust the one for campaign finance reform.
IControlThePast said:No I am one of those that tend to think for myself and come to my own conclusions based on common sense. The bible and other things written in stone are much more controversial than you make them out to be "is it don't murder or don't kill, etc."
If he wanted his face on the camera, being against the War in Iraq would have done it. He would have ran as a VP for Kerry if he wanted. Don't hate someone because he is a moderate and you want him to be more extreme. Political ideology is based on perception, there is no obvious right or wrong for many disagreed upon issues. Most politicians are not in it for the altruism. I'm more willing to trust the one for campaign finance reform.
Bonnie said:So you believe in moral relativism, nothing is right or wrong just a matter of personal perception???
