Tuesday, May 24, 2005

filibuster compromise

Yay! The Senate does in fact some rational people in it. It is good to know. This doesn't mean I am entirely happy with the compromise deal, but that is the nature of compromises. But I am very happy to see that some Senators do actually care about passing legislation and working together to get things done. Almost makes me want to go out and vote for a bunch of moderate Republicans - moderate seeming to mean now "want to get stuff done but realizes they do not have absolute control over the minds of every American citizen".

4 comments:

Killer Llama said...

If you believe some of the political bloggers out there, this deal means the end of Frist's 2008 presidential run and the end of Bush's and the far-right's rule over the senate. Moderates have made themselves relevent again; everything changes.

I hope they are correct.

pacatrue said...

That all certainly sounds nice, but things that are too good to be true.... I do agree that the moderate have been reminded that they have remarkable power. And every moderate I heard mentioning the reasons for this deal, including McCain who was presented as the primary Rep broker, mentioned getting legislation like highway and energy bills through. What is important about that is the lack of mentioning social security or huge tax overhauls. This does sound like the Congress is thinking they really do not need to do the executive branch's bidding all the time. On the other hand, McCain and all the moderates have to be very careful not to alienate the conservative base of the party, as they are critical for future elections. Also, I have full expectations that Frist will find some other way to get himself out there before 2008 as the conservative of choice. This was only the 3rd in a line of moves to position himself that way, including the amendment to ban marital equality and the visit to the Church in an attempt to make his political views those of God.

Killer Llama said...

"Marital equality"? Is that the new leftish word for gay marriage? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, but "marital equality" sounds a bit too much like progaganda to me. Still, I understand that the democrats have been losing the war of language, so if they can get some terms like that to stick, more power to them.

McCain and the other Republican moderates do seem to have doomed any chance of a presidential run in 2008. A shame, really, because I would love to see him in the White House. But he wasn't conservative enough to get the nomination in 2004, he surely isn't now.

What galls me, though, are the comments that are coming from the far right about how these guys betrayed them and that they must be thrown out of office in the next election. I understand how the process works and where money comes from, but to read comments from people in Minnesota talking about kicking a representative from ARIZONA out of office, it makes me think that something is wrong.

McCain's actions may well have doomed his presidential aspirations, and rightly so since that is a nationally elected office. But the only ones that should be involved in deciding if McCain should representative Arizona in the Senate are the good people of Arizona. These power hungry idealogues that Frist serves should remember that.

We would all do well to remember that.

pacatrue said...

Go Arizona. :) I am not sure where I picked up the term marriage equality anymore, but yeah it was from some web site that was in favor of it. I would have to stew for a while on what is propaganda and what isnt to have any strong opinion, and I'm too lazy. I like the term for these reasons: It puts the focus on the legal issue of whether or not all Americans get to participate in the legal institution of marriage or not - the same way all Americans get to participate in the legal institutions of voting, property ownership, etc. And by not giving it a separate name, it insists that the idea is to participate in the same institution, not create a new one for those other people. I like the term because I think it puts the focus where it should be. However, I see the propagandaness of it, since it doesn't make clear to everyone exactly what we are talking about. It is the same sort of spin as "death tax" instead of "estate tax" and such.