Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
- repoman
- I am conservative and opinionated. The essence of this site, and my views of online blogging, are reflected in the following quote by the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; they're not entitled to their own facts"
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(173)
-
▼
July
(15)
- Maggie Unchallenged.
- Schumer: "Just Say No" to Bush Nominees.
- Warning: Unfair Cheap Shot Alert!
- Our Side's Gotta' Win, Even If It Kills Us!
- If Not Outrage, At Least A Question.
- Who's Government Is It, Anyway?
- Where's the Outrage?
- When is a Republican Really a Democrat?
- Repoman Communes With Nature - Update
- Democrats and the D & C: Playing Together in a One...
- Profiles in Courage.......Not!
- Last Words on Immigration
- Win Some, Lose Some
- Partisanship and Hypocrisy
- FLASH: Repo survives the woods!
-
▼
July
(15)
Repoman's Favorite Places
Labels
- Afghanistan
- Bobby Labonte
- Climate Change
- Community Service
- Congress
- Economy
- Evelyn
- Family
- Gates-Chili
- Health Care Reform
- Immigration
- Local Government Consolidation
- Local Politics
- Media
- Media Bias
- Metro Government
- Monroe County
- Music
- NASCAR
- National Politics
- New York State
- Obama
- Personal
- Political Corruption
- Pop Culture
- Schools
- Steelers
- Taxes
- Terrorism
- Town of Gates
4 comments:
Repoman:
You lament the fact that government is full of partisans - who put their party's welfare over that of the country. Yet having read your blog for some time, I have yet to see you talk positive , commend or agree with any Democrat. You advertize yourself as conservative- a self label which proclaims an unwillingness to entertain an idea which may not fit the days' conservative agenda. Apparently you can be outrageously partisan but others can't. What's up with that?
Anonymus:
My definition of conservative is being in favor of free enterprise, self-reliance, personal responsibility and private property ownership rights along with holding traditional values.
You are correct that I rarely agree with Democrat politicians. I don't agree with most Republican politicians either. That is because so many of our national and state politicians have placed personal, party, and partisan intersts above the public interest. The column linked to in this post criticizes both the President and Congressional Democrats for their partisan bickering.
As far as my personal partisanship goes, realize that I am not an elected official. I have no voice in the public policy of the nation or the state of New York. When I voice my opinion, it is just that, an opinion. My criticism is for our elected representatives who owe us a duty to act in our collective best interest, but who allow partisan or personal motives to trump that duty.
Two final points:
(1) I have said nice things about Joe Lieberman. He is(was) a Democrat.
(2) What positions have I taken that you view as "outrageously partisan"?
Repoman:
In response to your question of where I have read ourtragweous partisanship on your part:
Let me point out that your writings are consistently conservative. Your support of liberty, individual rights, less government involvement in our lives comes through regularly. I salute you for being a person with political integrity. What I call partisan on your part also comes through consistently in your writing, in the following way: When a politician changes his/her mind about a policy- specifically from being in support of Bush's Iraq policy - to calling for a change in that policy- you trash the political integrity of that person. ( I have never read you to trash anyone's personal integrity)
I am no boy scout - but I do think that most if not all US Senators and members of the house- will, in the final analysis, not play politics with the security of our country or the mission of our military. I had the opportunity to meet - 30 years ago - a Republican house member from Iowa. He presented himself as very down home ( talking with a piece of hay in his mouth) Educated, I believe at Yale, he presented a political view that was common sense, conservative and not in the least strident. Not the least bit glamorous, I found myself liking this man and believing him to have political integrity. Over the years I have always kept an interest im him - and have attempted to judge how living in Washington may have changed him. My reading is that it hasn't. Now Senator Grassley, he comes across to me as the same midwestern, level headed man of political integrity that I met in the late seventies. However, his views on the Iraq policy of President Bush, have gone from support - to "Give the Prsident time" , to "we need to alter course. My judgement of him remains - a man of political integrity.
What I call partisan on your part is your trashing of a person's political integrity when they arrive at a different position that they may have held 2 or 3 years earlier, particularly about this war. Senators Lugar and Warner have been not only loyal Republicans - but, it seems to me, to have provided excellent advice and leadership on foreign and military issues for many years. Both men strike me as being men of political integrity. Yet when they thoughtfully call for a change in the Iraq polciy- you accuse them of simply being more concerned with re-election than providing leadership. You recently did the same with Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico. So your writing come across as partisan - not in terms of party- but in terms of policy. I happen to think that men and women of politial integrity can modify, change their views - in whatever direction- because they sincerely want to help their country. Even Representative Walsh- I have to give the benefit of the doubt to. When it comes to the safety of this country and the deployment of our troops - his shift in policy has to be based on a thoughtful and sincere belief in what is for the collective good.
I understand your point. Clearly, I have been critical of many politicians who have changed their views on the Iraq War.
I think I am more of a cynic than you are. I do not believe it is beneath many members of Congress to place their personal interests above the public interest.
I guess that's where your point comes into play. Obviously, it is quite plausible and appropriate for politicians to change their minds over time on certain issues. It bothers me, however, when those position changes occur in close proximity to elections. It also bothers me when those changes of mind deal with issues which seem "black and white".
For example, I cannot understand how you can explain a politician's "change of heart" on an issue like abortion, except as based upon political expediency. Nothing about abortion has changed for 40 years. Thus, if a formerly pro-life politician becomes pro-choice, it is hard to explain except as an attempt to mollify a political interest group.
My personal view is that much of the Iraq War is that type of issue. Clearly, it is not quite as "black and white" as abortion, but if you look at the explanations many Republicans give for their "change of heart", it makes me question their motives.
Why did so many GOP congressmen and Senators support the Bush policy on the war 4 years ago? Only because it was popular? The fact that the war is "going badly" can't be the basis for calling for a policy change. The reason for fighting the war has not changed.
Look at the Democrats. Hillary and others voted to go to war in Iraq at the outset. Now they fall all over each other trying to explain away their early support. Why? Were they wrong then? Did they have an epiphany? Yeah, they read the Daily Kos and the polls and they know their electoral chances are better if they are anti-war.
But have you heard anyone articulate a reason to change the policy? That is the reason for my skepticism. Most of those, including the Republicans you named, have not explained why we need to change. They offer only nebulous posturings about the loss of American "lives and treasure".
As much as I dislike John McCain, I give him credit for keeping his eye on the ball on this point. He has consistently articulated the reasons for being in Iraq and why we must win in Iraq. Clearly, he is no Bush puppet and his views on Iraq are costing him public support.
I've rambled quite a bit. To wrap up, I accept your criticism. I have been very intolerant of GOP politicians who have changed their positions on the Iraq War. My belief is that most have done so for personal not philosophical reasons. I hope you are right and I am wrong.
Finally, on Jim Walsh, you really have to admit he is the worst type of opportunist. His views on virtually every topic changed 180 degrees after his close election in 2006. I will acknowledge that guys like Grassley and Warner may have had heart-felt changes of mind. But Jim Walsh? No way! He remains my poster boy for posturing politico.
Post a Comment