What would be the point of that?
Not this, certainly:
You really think successful businesscritters are any bit less narcissistic?!
No, but as a lawyer he has the sense which would tell him to listen to technical experts on the subject, but also to listen to them critically with an independent mind. A lawyer can do all of that better than you can, adaher, and more reliably will.
Our FFs were professional pols and intended such to run things.
That’s just how it should be. No one person can know everything related to government biz, but one can know where to look for the information when necessary, so long as there is a where to look.
But, N.B.: That will not result from more Americans voting R than D; it’s more complicated than that. (And shouldn’t be, but that’s another discussion.)
How do the Pubs do that without it backfiring on them? They certain don’t want to introduce Pub voters to the virtue of multiple parties. For that matter, they certainly don’t want to introduce Pub voters to the virtue of pols from non-traditional backgrounds – such might be too hard for the megadonors to control once in office.
Who, Grassley? Could be worse, I suppose – no Teabagger, at any rate – but that anti-flag-burning amendment does stick in the craw of all decent Americans. Also:
Kind of a mixed bag, don’t you think? C’mon, adaher, not even you want to be on the same side as the FRC or the Eagle Forum!
Yeah – that is, the rest of us are even worse. Just accept it.
No, the death of American conservatism would be beneficial. The death of the GOP is pointless if another party emerges to carry that flag.
Not necessary.
They only need to wait.
Cite?
My understanding was that for purposes of this discussion we were defining “bad” in terms of ideology/policy positions, not character or personal conduct.
A Dem candidate for Senate who is slightly better-known now that adaher has Pitted him. (Not that I’d ever let that stop me, understand.)
There are no legislative committees to which a lawyer’s expertise is not relevant, but it is relevant to a judiciary committee most of all.
Indeed. I imagine that Congress also has a cafeteria, in which they cook meals for everyone who works for Congress. If they have a subcommittee that cooks especially for visiting judges, it might be good to have an attorney on that subcommittee, just as the subcommittee who cooks for visiting farmers might want a farmer on that subcommittee. But every member of every committee in the Congressional cafeteria ought to be an expert on food, since that’s what they’re responsible for making.
Congress itself, however, isn’t responsible for making food. They need a different kind of expert.
BG, I love ya baby…but really? 17 out of 18 posts, and 14 in a row? Those are like some serious John Wooden-era UCLA numbers.
Don’t know, don’t want to know. But adaher’s pushin’ a lotta mah buttons!