Oh, and why do you feel you must try to "pin me down" on anything? I've been very accommodating in trying to give answers. You obviously don't think I've been fully forthcoming, but what if the tables were turned? I'm not going to be put on the defensive. I just haven't taken an initiative that could be considered as being on offense yet.
Rick wrote: You have a tendency of hedging your bets and being wishy washy... everything seems to be "well it could be this but it could also be that". It's impossible to ever be proven wrong, so I guess that's a good strategy. I'll have to try hard to pin you down on a solid answer about anything but I doubt I will succeed. Have a good night Z.
I prefer to call it not buying into the one way or the other, my way or the highway, or any number of other cliches' one might come up with. You can try all you want to, but I was professionally trained to analyze and question everything. It isn't being wishy washy. Rather, it's holding others' feet to the fire, so to speak, if I see an inconsistency or fallacy in thought and/or reason. That's me. I can't help it. It's who I am.
You have a good night, too, Rick.
Not that I am an expert but I thought I caught a hint of Socrates in many of your posts.
ZHawke wrote: Not so sure your assessment is totally accurate, Rick. Polls are arguably conducted not to provide a "snapshot", but, rather, to manipulate an outcome. At least that's what I've been hearing lately. One person's poll is another person's idiocy/insanity/ignorance when you come right down to it.
I don't think this election was necessarily a rejection of this administration's policies as much as it was a dissatisfaction with the machinations of politics, in general.
The president himself, prior to the election when he thought the Democrats would have a better night, said that the national elections would be a referendum on his policies. That made Reid and the Senate Democrats furious because they were working hard not to make it about a very unpopular president and his policies. How hard did you see Senator-elect Gardner pounding the "Udall votes with the president 99% of the time " drum during the campaign?
You mentioned that at the local level many States enacted self rule initiatives and stated that conservatives opposed them. Not true. I fully support States deciding what the minimum wage should be in their State and wholly reject the notion of setting a federal minimum wage law. What happened on Tuesday is entirely consistent from that perspective. I fully support States deciding whether or not marijuana for recreation is legal in their State and wholly reject the notion that the federal government was delegated the power to decide what commerce may occur in any State because they were delegated the power to keep interstate commerce regular. Again, entirely consistent with Tuesday's results.
What was rejected Tuesday was the push over the last 8 years (including the last 2 of the former administration) to have ever more of our lives controlled by the level of government which is least representative of the citizens of the States. What you will see over the next 2 years is a defining of principles. Obama doesn't have Reid to keep things off his desk anymore, he can't cause a logjam with that tactic for the next 2 years and use that as justification for acting unilaterally. He's going to be signing legislation or having to explain why he didn't, which is going to further illuminate the differing principles of governing between the two parties. It will also serve to settle the question of whether Obama is a narcissistic, petulant, ideologue with no governing skills, as some allege, or a president who is capable of compromise in the interests of governing as his predecessors have been.
PrintSmith wrote: You mentioned that at the local level many States enacted self rule initiatives and stated that conservatives opposed them. Not true. I fully support States deciding what the minimum wage should be in their State and wholly reject the notion of setting a federal minimum wage law. What happened on Tuesday is entirely consistent from that perspective. I fully support States deciding whether or not marijuana for recreation is legal in their State and wholly reject the notion that the federal government was delegated the power to decide what commerce may occur in any State because they were delegated the power to keep interstate commerce regular. Again, entirely consistent with Tuesday's results.
I believe that is EXACTLY what I was trying to say in my reply to Rick regarding the "machinations" of politics, in general. More "liberal" state initiatives won in several states. I'd also like to ask where I actually stated "that conservatives opposed them"? That conservatives opposed them may, in fact, be true. But I don't believe I actually stated that. If you can show me where I did, I'll apologize.
And, PrintSmith, as you state, the next two years will, in fact, be a defining of principles, not just of Obama and his legacy, but also of Republicans and Democrats in Congress who've been charged with doing their freakin' jobs and passing legislation that will ultimately benefit their constituencies from a "national" perspective.
ZHawke wrote: And, PrintSmith, as you state, the next two years will, in fact, be a defining of principles, not just of Obama and his legacy, but also of Republicans and Democrats in Congress who've been charged with doing their freakin' jobs and ...........
I see reality and the political class as two ships passing in the night but I would like to be wrong.
In the Presidents remarks today I saw the slightest glimmer of reality. He said something along the lines of that for decades Washington's bureaucracy has done less and less with more and more and he and his cabinet are chipping away at the problem.
Sidebar: That is my interpretation so do not even think about asking for me to prove it or for quotes.
In fact, if you look at some of the ballot initiatives on a national basis there appears to be a trend toward more liberal initiatives while, at the same time electing more conservative representatives and senators who oppose those more liberal initiatives. Contradiction? Confusion? It would seem that way.
This was your post, correct? Do you know for a fact that Cory Gardner, or any other "more conservative representatives" elected to national office don't share the view that minimum wage laws are only improper at the federal level? That, after all, is the "more conservative" view with regards to minimum wage laws. Not, necessarily, that there shouldn't be one, but that there absolutely shouldn't be a one size fits none federal one.
