Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What's bad about having politicians take positions. The people should know what they're getting
|
One's record should be based on how one votes on what our government should do. We don't hold votes in the Senate on "Tina Fey: Hot or Not?" Not to go all Sebby on you, but a senator skipping such a vote would be a fucking hero in my book.
Maybe the voting public decides on candidates based on how they interact with Barbara Walters, but that doesn't mean the nation's business should be conducted for show. If there were no condemnation of "Let's get them to vote 'nay' on
this!" nothing would ever be accomplished in D.C.
Quote:
|
as valid, or invalid, as any of the 100s of proposals that go nowhere
|
Bullshit. The 100s of invalid proposals don't make it out of committee because someone has the pride to say, "Jesus, I didn't run for office so we could vote to authorize Tennessee to sink gambling riverboats from Missouri." This is somewhat different.
Quote:
|
do you think the timing was designed to coincide specifically with a KE campaign event or simply to occur in an election year? If the former, cite please; if the latter, see answer to first question
|
Frankly, I don't think the FMA was designed to be a wedge issue for the Presidential race; I think it was directed toward close House seats, but I profess ignorance about Rove's grand strategy here.
If you think the Senate floor is an acceptable place to play a grand political game of "Gotcha!", why don't we make Kerry and Bush go on MTV and discuss their underwear and tattoos? There's all sorts of stupid shit Americans need to know about their candidates. That's what town meetings and debates are for. (The fact that Bush sucks in these venues is noted in passing.)
Don't get me wrong --- I really don't mind hearing Kerry take a position on this. But remember this thread started with a condemnation of Kerry for skipping the vote, as a sign he dodges "responsibility." Now you're saying his vote would have been merely a useful way to "have him take a position." You're not even seriously defending the notion that anything more than political gain was at stake. Sounds to me like skipping the vote was exactly the right thing to do.
