I think I'm beginning to see where the disconnect is.
Legolas Send a noteboard - 25/02/2010 07:18:58 PM
Let me not cite such examples as proof I'm right, just that there is clearly some basis for where I'm getting my points on this.
I've never tried to defend Bayh against accusations of hypocrisy or being self-serving? At least not that I'm aware of.
It's when he started getting into specifics, he spent 4 paragraphs, roughly a quarter of the article, complaining about the results of SCOTUS's ruling, while he himself has an 11 million dollar campaign war chest. This is a strong GOP issue, he did not attack the dems in any similar fashion and degree, everything else was 'both sides' except again for the quarter or so devoted to talking about how awful a long-standing core issue of the GOP is. How is this not throwing a rock?
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree that this is a "strong GOP issue", or that it was intended as an attack on the GOP. If indeed there are battlelines on this, they're not between liberals and conservatives or between Democrats and Republicans, but between ideologues and pragmatists. As far as I've seen, the people defending this SC ruling have done so on purely ideological bases, whereas the ones arguing against it have done so because they are more pragmatic and think the practical benefits of the way the system worked until now far outweighed the modest infraction on the First Amendment, if indeed there was any. Same with the suggestions that have been made to partially return to the old system through new regulations, like the thing about requiring corporate sponsors to explicitly announce themselves in the ads they pay for. I haven't seen any evidence that somehow this would disadvantage Republicans or Republican interests, or do the opposite for Democrats or liberals. I haven't even seen anyone argue that it would. All I've seen is "it's an infraction of the First Amendment!".
There was a reason why John McCain was a co-writer of the Feingold-McCain bill, and it wasn't that he wasn't a conservative. It's that the man is more pragmatic than many fellow conservatives, and seems to feel less bound by ideology.
And if senator Bayh is convinced that the greater political influence of corporations resulting from this SC decision will exacerbate partisanship and political polarization, and weaken democracy, he's kind of forced to mention the topic in his suggestions of how to solve those problems. Just because some in the GOP disagree with that analysis doesn't mean that it's somehow an attack on them or their party.
If it's invisible to you, I can't help that, it wasn't to me, and it wasn't to a lot of other people. IF we're wrong, we're wrong, but I've outlined the parts we see as this, so 'invisible' is not the right word, you just don't think that what it was, but you're forcing me to take a strong stance on an article that meant little to me other than to spark some resentment and merit a quick agreement to Cannoli, which you asked me to expound on. As I've said, I do not view this article as some massive hit piece on the GOP, just that it smacks of hypocrisy and an attempt to rise above the fray that high-lit that he wasn't above the fray and maybe has the wrong attitude and reasons for attempting to rise above. The voice of moderation is often laudable, and sometimes it's just vain and disconnected, nobody need to get between the Axis and the Allies and tell them to work together and 'rise above their common differences'. You asked me to go into details, I did so, saying at the time that it was a rush job, just giving my impressions, then my follow up was similarly condensed. Now you're telling me I'm feeling this way over nothing, and I simply don't see that. My take remains the same, Bayh has retired for personal reasons, and like many people making a hard decision, he has engaged in some rationalizing that is not entirely consistent or friendly toward his former coworkers. It isn't a flamethrower piece, but it has all the flavor of someone who quit because he looked like he might get fired and only now sees a lot of the nasty things that went on at his workplace.
Okay, fine, I will just have to take satisfaction in your statements that you would have agreed if not for certain points he makes, since those points are not the ones most important to me anyway.
"Why I'm Leaving the Senate" - Evan Bayh on the state of the US Senate
- 24/02/2010 10:10:55 AM
598 Views
Most of us like Evan
- 24/02/2010 01:13:34 PM
251 Views
"Why I'm Glad to See You Go" by a citizen and taxpayer
- 24/02/2010 05:10:40 PM
413 Views
+1 *NM*
- 24/02/2010 06:31:46 PM
85 Views
You cannot be serious. Might I ask you to write an actual reply? I'd like to hear your thoughts. *NM*
- 24/02/2010 09:20:49 PM
91 Views
All right, it will have to be a condensed version though
- 24/02/2010 10:57:50 PM
245 Views
Only you could call that condensed. 
- 25/02/2010 01:34:50 AM
213 Views
- 25/02/2010 01:34:50 AM
213 Views
Condensed in topic 
I'll try for brevity this time
- 25/02/2010 04:45:38 AM
232 Views
I'll try for brevity this time
- 25/02/2010 04:45:38 AM
232 Views
I really don't see how you can read that tone into it, because it just isn't there.
- 25/02/2010 10:27:10 AM
209 Views
I've explained where I'm deriving this from, if you don't see it I'm not sure...
- 25/02/2010 03:06:53 PM
222 Views
I think I'm beginning to see where the disconnect is.
- 25/02/2010 07:18:58 PM
225 Views
You know, you really need to stop that habit of replying to every single paragraph.
- 24/02/2010 10:07:10 PM
269 Views
Re: You know, you really need to stop that habit of replying to every single paragraph.
- 25/02/2010 05:47:02 PM
252 Views
Okay, I get that you're strongly libertarian and want far smaller government.
- 25/02/2010 06:56:34 PM
232 Views
And not 1 mention of term-limits 
*NM*
- 24/02/2010 07:33:47 PM
87 Views
*NM*
- 24/02/2010 07:33:47 PM
87 Views
We have this thing called "a ballot box." Why shouldn't directly elected legislators be re-eligible? *NM*
- 25/02/2010 05:50:31 PM
94 Views
Well I rather liked it.
- 24/02/2010 11:30:08 PM
209 Views