What a weird view. I guess all the servicemen at home since obama took office thank you.

 

-----signature-----

Not sure about the rest of your post but I agree with this part.

I must, however, insist that consistency be observed by the whiners on both sides of the aisle.

Remember during the Bush years when the dems were being obstructionist and not letting Bush's judicial and department head nominees come to the floor for a vote in the Senate? (I'm sure you do..."up-or-down vote" practically became a catch phrase.) I thought that was ridiculous...every bit as ridiculous as it is now that Republicans in the Senate won't let Obama's judicial and department-head nominees come to the floor for a vote, even with a Dem majority in the Senate.

You are right, the system IS broken and it MUST be changed, but to pretend that only one side plays these silly games is the height of hypocrisy and really dumb.

 

-----signature-----

Yup.

They do.

And it's ridiculous.

Not seating judges, etc for political reasons is just out of hand.

 

-----signature-----

I dunno Ash, Voodoo told me a two side doing the same thing is a fantasy. It'll be interesting to see if he calls you out on it also.

But if I am laying odds he'll say I am misquoting him and he'll rage and call me one of his special names. Just guessing...

 

-----signature-----

Ash, I don't see anyone here saying only one side does it. It's always lame to put party ahead of country, but our political system is designed to pit two opposing sides against each other to come to a middle ground. Sometimes that gets obfuscated. In this case, denying a group of citizens their right to representation is just extremely lame.

 

-----signature-----

Actually it isn't. Several founding fathers wrote missives about the dangers of strong/dominating political parties in our system. And since they DESIGNED the system, they should know.

 

-----signature-----

-nods-

The essence is sides competing against each other in order to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Which leads to parties deliberately working against each other....that is how it's designed. No political party is in business to enhance the power of the other side. But that doesn't mean it's anything goes...and in this case, the actions are outside the norm.

 

-----signature-----

But your reform doesnt really make a change. This guy works the game so that his seat is empty and a GOP cant get it. This guy would still work the game to keep his seat empty and deny a GOP, a party C and a party D.


It has nothing to do with parties really. Fewer parties, more parties, no parties....the incentive remains the same on this one.


The harm that I see parties creating is that they can introduce incentives for congressmen to not do what they think is best for the country and their constituents because they will move up the ranks of the party if they do something else.


If a congressman is doing something that he feels is in the best interests of the country and his action is legal....then its probably the correct moral choice. Trying to change the rules to make it harder for congressman to make legal choices that are in the best interest of the country is really a dumb idea in the long run.


I know its popular to bash parties all the time...but this one doesnt make sense. This guy is doing what he thinks is best for the country in denying a spot to the GOP. Just because you dont agree that denying a GOP'er a spot is in the best interests of the country doesnt make it a questionable choice.

oops