The links you offered were from publications that lean left.
I’m confident that the proposition will pass the legislature, as required, the second time.
Don’t suppose you’d care to wager on that? If my idea is crazy and will never happen, you can pick up some money.
Done. I agree. The way we’ve done this in the past, to avoid problems with shipping alcohol, is the winner buys the bottle and informs the loser of the price.
We’re on.
If CA is any indication, it might pass. I think we’re only 3 or so votes shy of legalizing SSM in this state. But the issue here (and this may differ in MA) is that the voters are still against it, although by a smaller margin than when prop 22 was passed back in '00.
Ok, glad to see we agree on at least some things. So here’s a question. Would you have a problem with someone opening a thread titled “O’Connor Resigns - Bush will “consult” Senate Dems. Then do what he wants anyway” with the premise that Bush intends to do nothing more than pay lip service to the agreement reached? With the implication that he is a faithless negotiator who puts his agenda over the restrictions of negotiated compromises?
Cause if we both agree on the analysis of the “cease fire” not being worth the paper it’s printed on then this thread, and the hypothetical one I’ve proposed, seem kind of pointless. If neither of us hard-nosed political realists had any expectation of the negotiation being made in good faith by either party then why trumpet claims of faithlessness on one side as damning when it is your honest opinion that both sides are faithless? Would Bush’s weaseling on his part of the bargain reflect poorly on his supporters? Should the “gang of 14” supporters catch heck for their guys being faithless weasels when both sides are faithless weasels who constructed this “truce” with deliberately vague and weasely terms for just such a purpose?
Enjoy,
Steven
Where did you get the idea that Bush had any role in the compromise? Neither did Frist, the Senate GOP’s putative leader, or Reid for that matter. The deal was struck by 14 renegade moderates, 7 from each side, together forming a filibuster-proof bloc.
Bush is under no less obligation than before to placate the RR that gave him the support he needed in return for his actions on such an occasion, with a lifetime appointment at stake. If that doesn’t make the circumstances extraordinary, what in the OP’s opinion would?
Prediction: The Bolton nomination’s fate will demonstrate the level of Bush’s remaining influence in the Senate. If it fails, then a radical-rightist SC nomination will as well.
Translation: “They don’t say what I want to hear.” :rolleyes:
I’ll ask you once again: What makes you think so? What links can you provide, partisan or otherwise, that leads one to predict an overturn of SSM in MA? Once again you ain’t got shit, do you? {Cue the clock radio playing “I Got You, Babe”}
I already answered that the last time we went over this, again without apparent effect. No, I have no interest in enabling anyone else’s addictive behaviors. If you want to send me some money anyway, though, you can go right ahead and get it over with.
Dunno, Elvis, sending money to a Republican…
“You know, you’re drinking is getting out of hand, here, try some of this heroin…”
It’s based on my own experience and knowledge in analyzing political events.
If I’m right, what will you say when it happens?
If I’m wrong, I’ll happily admit that I know much less than I thought, and that I’m an unreliable judge of political currents and events, and that my future opinions may be safely ignored in light of my failure to accurately gauge this event.
Will you react the same way, if it should happen that you’re wrong?
Bush wasn’t a party to the agreement.
Translation: “My faith trumps mere factual information. It is a higher reality.”
Fits right in with your down-the-line loyalty to the Bush Administration and the Vatican, though.
We’re predicting a future event. I’d say characterizing your conviction that the amendment won’t pass as “factual information” is… a bit hopeful.
So: if the amendment DOES pass, as I predict, what will you do? How will you react? How will you explain this exchange we’re having?
Here is what glimmer of hope I can muster…
The reasonably conservative faction signals that they are not willing to threaten the future of the Republican Party to pay off Bush’s campaign debt to the Troglodyte Right. Honest persons all, they feel somewhat guilty at letting the Bushviks run wild. Being loyal Republcans, they will not oppose so much as gesture, sort of political body language. Gee, wouldn’t it be swell if the White House could propose a moderate?
If GeeDubya chooses to nominate Cotton Mather, he is saying that the Dobsonistas rule! dude! and the future of the Republican Party depends on genuflecting to the Trogs. Given the stubborn arrogance of the Bush admin., I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.
But if cooler heads prevail Bush will nominate a relative moderate. One who has already been bitterly criticized by some on the extreme right. A Catholic, perhaps? Boy, hispanic would be pretty good. But with solid conservative credentials. And somebody from Texas! The Saudi Arabia of America, home to some of the more extreme fundamentalist capitalist sects.
Wherever could they find such a man?
Of course, maybe he was too tough on terrorists. He’s been criticized for that, not being nice to people who hate America. The liberals are sure to bring *that * up. That’s just how they are, always eager to attack someone for loving America too much.
It’s based on factual information about what the vote margin was last time, and why, and what changes have since occurred in the composition of the Legislature and its leadership, and changes of position among returning members. Yet your own navel-gazing, nothing more, trumps that so solidly that you can talk about others’ “hopefulness”?
If you really want to convince anyone but yourself, you do need to expound upon how you reached that position. And, for the record, that’s the topic - not your pouting about my confidence in my own fact-based approach to prediction. Complain all you will about not getting credit for reasonableness in your positions, but if you can’t even explain what your reasoning is, what else can you expect?
I think it’s a lot closer to passing in MA than Bricker realizes. I haven’t followed the action in MA very closely, but I have done so in CA and we’re only a few votes shy of legalizing SSM here (as I said above). As much as CA has the reputation of being at the liberal bleeding edge of the country, that’s not really true. San Francisco, yes, but there are large chunks of the state that are pretty darn conservative. I suspect that MA is a bit more liberal, as a whole, than CA.
OTOH, Bricker might take solace if MA does defeat the anti-SSM amendment in terms of how that will play out in the rest of the country in the '06 and '08 elections.
What’s close to passing in MA, John?
Bricker, just to clarify, what was your impression of the agreement reached, re: philibusters. One time only block allowed? More then one?
Oops. That should’ve been “close to being defeated” since the amendment in question is to outlaw SSM, not to allow it. Sorry for the confusion. In comparing CA and MA, I mixed up the legislation-- anti-SSM in MA, pro-SSM in CA. Defeat in MA = passing in CA.
My apologies for breaching etiquette, but seeing who is dominating the posting in this thread, I have no desire to read through it all, especially with what appears to be numerous hijacks.
I have one quick question of Bricker: is there anyone currently on the Court, anyone nominated for the court for the last say 30 years, or anyone Bush has already nominated for the federal bench that would amount to “extraordinary circumstances”? Is there anyone being discussed in the media as a possible nominee who meets that criteria? Is there anyone in those groups who you would filibuster?
Thanks.
True. Similarly, the restrictions signed up for by the Democrat half of the gang of fourteen are not binding on other Democrats or their supporters. So how, exactly, does either side of the gang breaking their part of the deal make one bit of difference? Why should the broader audience of Democrats or their supporters, or Republicans or their supporters, care? The entire gang of fourteen represent only a small minority of the Senate and probably an even smaller proportion of the electorate. So if the thread is dedicated only to the proposition that one half of them may bend over for the party now that something important is on the line then what’s the debate? “Senators break agreement, bend over and take one for the party, become partisan shills” is hardly news.
Enjoy,
Steven