Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (114928)	5/20/2005 9:41:19 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793905

"Whereas the "moderates" are trying to smother the debate in the name of tradition and getting along." This is historically what the Senate has been. For better or worse this is what both sides are trading away in the name of political purity. I dont know who started it. Dems will tell you that its a reaction to the way clinton appointees and clinton himself was treated. Reps will tell you it goes all the way back to Bork. Wherever it started it is my view that it should be ended here in a compromise that makes the political orthodox of both sides unhappy. That outcome insures the deal will be fair.

To: DMaA who wrote (114928)	5/20/2005 10:14:45 AM
From: MrLucky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793905

Whereas the "moderates" are trying to smother the debate in the name of tradition and getting along. I note that Warner (maybe, a moderate) and Byrd (definitely, not a moderate are now trying to develop a partisan solution. I can't wait to see that on SNL.

To: DMaA who wrote (114928)	5/20/2005 10:28:46 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793905

Two sides have diametrically opposed ideas about what's in the best interest of the country. They do, in terms of what sort of judges we should have and what ideology they should represent. And those two sides are having a fight to the finish, do or die. But there's a different way to slice what's best for the country. It is best for the country that one side, having control of the WH and both chambers of Congress, greedily stifle all opposition and the opposition preparing to fight to the death? Or is it best that the mechanisms of governance and civility and balance be sustained? I am a bit of an ideologue, too, but IMO there is next to nothing worth that kind of war. You fight so far and only so far, to protect the venue for the next fight. There is nothing about a handful of appellate court judges that will either save or destroy this country. But the fight over it might do the latter. Whereas the "moderates" are trying to smother the debate in the name of tradition and getting along. You call them "moderates." I would call them "temperates" because it's not about ideology but temperament, restraint, sanity. One fight is over ideology, as you say, but the other fight, the more important fight, IMO, is between temperance and intemperance. You dismiss that as "getting along." I'd call it wisdom to leave the building standing.