23 Dec 09
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/23/video-cbs-reports-on-vote-buying-in-obamacare-bill/
And, this ladies and gentlemen, is why one party rule is so dangerous.
The earmarks serve a dual purpose. They keep the Dem Senator's vote AND they help the Dem Senator's re-election chances by doling out all that pork to the Senator's home state.
Buying votes outright with enormous earmarks and then bragging about it may not be illegal (yet), but does anyone think that this is the way to run a government?
Claire Mccaskill was on Fox & Friends this morning. Without going so far as saying so, she impliedly condemned the whole practice. Now, if only she could convince ol' Dirty Harry to do the same.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by Seitsethat doesn't make it anymore acceptable.
Phew! Good that Americans never have to witness pork barrel politics when the Republicans are in power, isn't it?
Now excuse, please, I must go and touch myself while listening to Rush Limbaugh.
"they did it too!" is hardly an excuse.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by generalissimoYes, but one party pointing a finger and saying that it's disgusting and immoral when they did the exact same thing and would do the same if given the chance is clear hypocrisy and rather disingenuous.
that doesn't make it anymore acceptable.
"they did it too!" is hardly an excuse.
23 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThe article addresses that point. Merely reciting the tu quoque argument without addressing the article's attempted rebuttals to that argument does not really address the point.
Yes, but one party pointing a finger and saying that it's disgusting and immoral when they did the exact same thing and would do the same if given the chance is clear hypocrisy and rather disingenuous.
What Andrews misses in his tu quoque is that it was a Republican Congress that admonished Tom DeLay for attempting to trade favors for votes. The GOP may have porked up Congress for a decade and undermined their credibility by doing so, but at least they had some limits and a sense of shame strong enough to publicly rebuke their own leadership for arguably corrupt practices. Couric points out the difference without making it explicit; while Republicans admonished their own leader for these kinds of shenanigans, Democrats don’t feel a need to put on even a pretense of shame.
If you think that's not a legitimate argument, fine. Tell us why. Don't just ignore it.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe sad thing is that I'm starting to agree with you on that point. 🙁
It shows that the electoral system is fundamentally flawed. However, until Americans get over their obsession with the Founding Fathers and start to realize what they did right, and more importantly, what they did wrong, nothing is going to change.
23 Dec 09
4 edits
Originally posted by sh76The problem I have with that is he threw a but in there. "Yeah, the Republicans do the same thing BUT...."
The article addresses that point. Merely reciting the tu quoque argument without addressing the article's attempted rebuttals to that argument does not really address the point.
What Andrews misses in his tu quoque is that it was a Republican Congress that admonished Tom DeLay for attempting to trade favors for votes. The GOP may have porked up Congress...[ ...[text shortened]... ..
If you think that's not a legitimate argument, fine. Tell us why. Don't just ignore it.
There is no but and in no way, shape or form do Republicans have some sort of moral high ground. Earmarks and favors for Republicans have been standard SOP the entire time they were in power.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI agree.
The problem I have with that is he threw a but in there. "Yeah, the Republicans do the same thing BUT...."
There is no but and in no way, shape or form do Republicans have some sort of moral high ground. Earmarks and favors for Republicans have been standard SOP the entire time they were in power.
It's business as usual in D.C.😠
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWell, if the "but" is that there's a difference in degree, then the "but" makes sense. This is not a bright line rule. Extent matters when dealing with gray area issues like this.
The problem I have with that is he threw a but in there. "Yeah, the Republicans do the same thing BUT...."
There is no but and in no way, shape or form do Republicans have some sort of moral high ground. Earmarks and favors for Republicans have been standard SOP the entire time they were in power.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76Throwing in earmarks for states happens on such a grand scale it would be impossible to quantify if one side does it more than another.
Well, if the "but" is that there's a difference in degree, then the "but" makes sense. This is not a bright line rule. Extent matters when dealing with gray area issues like this.
It just seems to me the author has more of an affinity for the right, so he wants to establish some sort of moral high ground. It just isn't there.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76There is no difference in degree over the long haul. Just look what is happening today. Demint and Ensign forced a vote on the constitutionality of mandating that Americans buy health insurance. All the republicans voted that it is unconstitutional. ALL of them. Yay, for principle right?
Well, if the "but" is that there's a difference in degree, then the "but" makes sense. This is not a bright line rule. Extent matters when dealing with gray area issues like this.
But wait, aren't Graham, Gregg, Bennet, Crapo etc. cosponsors of Wyden's bill that --- mandates that Americans buy health insurance?
Both sides are disgusting.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYes, the author is biased in favor of the right. He makes no bones about that. It is a pro-right blog.
Throwing in earmarks for states happens on such a grand scale it would be impossible to quantify if one side does it more than another.
It just seems to me the author has more of an affinity for the right, so he wants to establish some sort of moral high ground. It just isn't there.
That, in itself, does not impeach his point.
23 Dec 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyDo you have a link to Wyden's bill? I'd be curious to look at that.
There is no difference in degree over the long haul. Just look what is happening today. Demint and Ensign forced a vote on the constitutionality of mandating that Americans buy health insurance. All the republicans voted that it is unconstitutional. ALL of them. Yay, for principle right?
But wait, aren't Graham, Gregg, Bennet, Crapo etc. cosponsors ...[text shortened]... l that --- mandates that Americans buy health insurance?
Both sides are disgusting.