Hubris

Is there any other explanation for a party, in the minority, unwilling to even debate matters of substance?

Advertisements

15 comments

  1. From Ames:

    “…the minority, unwilling to even debate matters of substance?”

    From the same article you cited:

    “On the Senate floor, both parties presented their arguments in dramatic terms.

    Seems to contradict your statement. The Right has presented their opinions, the left has countered. The bill will continue to move along and may or may not pass. That is democracy – despite your claims to the contrary.

  2. And, if they’d been confident that those arguments hold, they would’ve stuck it out beyond the initial vote. But.

    1. They’re in the minority Ames. The Left is just as polarized as the Right. It’s not like they are going to win any votes. The best they can hope for is to stall and try to sway public opinion.

      Personally I think the GOP is in dangerous waters here and they may cancel out any electoral edge they gained on healthcare if they don’t get on board soon. Still, to characterize this issue as not being debated is false. You have to actively try to be uninformed to not know the GOP position on this bill. McConnell has been very vocal as have others. You act as though they are sitting around silently because they refuse to debate it further on the floor and risk a vote.

      1. “Sway public opinion” being GOPspeak for “lie to people until they agree with us”, of course (as we have been discussing here).

        1. Woozle – you’ll have to paddle that canoe alone my friend.

        2. I’ll let the evidence speak for itself; there’s certainly enough of it.

          1. Row, row that boat!

          2. I’ve finally realized what Mike is trying to do here: it’s the usual conservative technique of trying to marginalize anyone who disagrees with them — make them feel foolish, make them feel isolated, try to shame them somehow: appeal to their fear.

            It’s what they use when they don’t have a real argument, which is most of the time.

            1. Woozle – we can discuss lying ‘to people until they agree with us’ over at Dana’s place. I’m still waiting for some explanation of the fictional liberal narrative on sex ed and teen pregnancy.

    2. Risk a vote? As in, risk standing up for something?

      1. If you really don’t want something to pass – isn’t blocking it the most principled move?

        1. It would be, but the mater at bar at present in the Senate is not approval of the legislation itself, its whether to debate the measure, which would include amending the measure. From a strictly parliamentary standpoint, there’s nothing to block yet.

          1. So the Left is interested in amendments?

          2. I am sure they would be, if anyone could agree that the amendments wer egermaine, but that’s not the point. You can’t in good conscience run about decrying the provisions of a bill that you won’t allow debate on.

            1. If debate is reopened, can’t the Democrats force a vote at any time?

%d bloggers like this: