Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because we persuade each other and the better reasoned position slowly wins out. You see a microcosm of this on the board, in the fact that no one is still insisting that the WMD are in Syria, or that Hank increasingly accepts that the President lied to get political support for his war.

OK - but how does one reason out morality? It seems to me rather that we share universal ideas of right and wrong and then explain how different policies conform to those universal ideas. Like I said before, we all seem to agree that the well being of the Iraqi people is important. Some people argue that the war, on balance, has made the Iraqi people worse off. Some people argue that on balance the Iraqi people are better off because of the war. But why should we care about the Iraqi people in the first place? Or the debate on affirmative action. One side argues that affirmative action helps African americans improve their situation, where other people argue that affirmative action actually makes African Americans worse off (by increasing prejudice and making people assume they are less qualified in their jobs etc.) but everyone seems to agree that African Americans need to be better off. Why?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK - but how does one reason out morality? It seems to me rather that we share universal ideas of right and wrong and then explain how different policies conform to those universal ideas. Like I said before, we all seem to agree that the well being of the Iraqi people is important. Some people argue that the war, on balance, has made the Iraqi people worse off. Some people argue that on balance the Iraqi people are better off because of the war. But why should we care about the Iraqi people in the first place? Or the debate on affirmative action. One side argues that affirmative action helps African americans improve their situation, where other people argue that affirmative action actually makes African Americans worse off (by increasing prejudice and making people assume they are less qualified in their jobs etc.) but everyone seems to agree that African Americans need to be better off. Why?

It's in our best interests not to have a large number of people disgruntled. Fewer riots, terrorist acts, etc.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
From Congress Daily PM, via ThinkProgress:

"Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks. "

I would think this is more of a test of the resolve the 7 Republicans in the Group of 14, but that's just me.

Are you ready to rrrrrrrruuuuuummmmmmmbbbbbbbblllleee?

Mark Schmitt posted an explanation (attributed to someone else) a few days ago of how Senate moderates can keep Frist's chain reaction from reaching critical mass:

• [A] handful of Republican moderates can stop the option in its tracks to buy time and essentially take control of what happens next. Let me try to explain it as simply as possible: the cloture vote on Justice Priscilla Owen fails. Frist asks the chair to rule that filibusters are out of order on some judicial nominations. The chair so rules. Reid appeals the ruling of the chair. That appeal is debatable -- that is, it can itself be filibustered. So Frist has to move to table the appeal, which is not debatable.
  
  At that point, the Senate votes, presumably along the lines of support for the Nuclear Option itself. But not necessarily. Some number of Republicans could decide to vote against the motion to table. Combined with the votes of all the Democrats and the Republicans who oppose they option, they would defeat the motion to table. At that point, the underlying question returns: Reid's appeal, which Democrats can now filibuster. But everyone is now on record, and the compromisers who made it happen are now in total control. At any point, they can announce that they are switching their votes on a tabling motion, or that they are switching their votes in favor of Reid's appeal. Or, they can hold out for a compromise.

The underlying point here is that Frist simply doesn't have the power that, say, DeLay and Hastert have in the House to force the outcome he wants.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
On the subject of Hank's Avatars - you need some new ones. You have recycled the ones you have a few times since I have been here. I used to look forward to seeing what your next one would be, but now it seems I have seen them all.

During playoffs Fear the Fro is it every game day. sorry.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


The underlying point here is that Frist simply doesn't have the power that, say, DeLay and Hastert have in the House to force the outcome he wants.

Why does Frist even think he can win this? Isn't Myers precisely the same issue already presented, with just a different candidate, and perhaps a less sympatethic one (at least Brown and Owen had the gender/race card)? If Frist persists in forcing the same issue, how can he expect to flip people?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am not using "social Darwinian" theories.

Yes, you are (or, at least you are arguing about them). Social Darwinism is the idea that social behaviors have a heritable component (e.g.: you have "instincts" that are genetically determined, which influence behavior), and which therefore can be passed on, mutate or die out, and therefore are subject to the process of Darwinian evolution. Darwin never asserted that.

As for the rest, I don't really care one way or the other - fight on!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK - but how does one reason out morality? It seems to me rather that we share universal ideas of right and wrong and then explain how different policies conform to those universal ideas. Like I said before, we all seem to agree that the well being of the Iraqi people is important. Some people argue that the war, on balance, has made the Iraqi people worse off. Some people argue that on balance the Iraqi people are better off because of the war. But why should we care about the Iraqi people in the first place? Or the debate on affirmative action. One side argues that affirmative action helps African americans improve their situation, where other people argue that affirmative action actually makes African Americans worse off (by increasing prejudice and making people assume they are less qualified in their jobs etc.) but everyone seems to agree that African Americans need to be better off. Why?

I disagree with your idea that we share universal ideas of right and wrong, except in the most abstract way. Take affirmative action. Some people think that the government should not take race into account in any way. Others think that this "neutrality" is a false one. So there is a fundamental disagreement on some level. Presumably they all agree that government action should be fair, but that's not much of an agreement.

I keep meaning to point you to the idea of "incompletely theorized agreements", associated with Cass Sunstein. The basic gist is that we may disagree about fundamental principles but nonetheless be able to agree on specific outcomes. But Lawrence Solum describes it better in that piece I've linked to.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why does Frist even think he can win this? Isn't Myers precisely the same issue already presented, with just a different candidate, and perhaps a less sympatethic one (at least Brown and Owen had the gender/race card)? If Frist persists in forcing the same issue, how can he expect to flip people?

Didn't he offer some other senator's son a job or something on that issue that the voting lasted all night or something . . . I don't remember exactly what it was about . . . it was in 2004.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Another reason why the filibuster deal is good or bad, depending on whether you think the other ways Bush could have spent his political capital would have hurt or helped the country.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Didn't he offer some other senator's son a job or something on that issue that the voting lasted all night or something . . . I don't remember exactly what it was about . . . it was in 2004.

I thought that the objection to Myers was that he was a mining interests shill who used his office at interior to keep teh mining handouts coming.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why does Frist even think he can win this?

Having established now that he is an ineffectual Senate leader, he is trying to save his '08 presidential bid by establishing to the religious conservatives that he is pure of heart and will keep fighting for them, however ineffectually.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why does Frist even think he can win this? Isn't Myers precisely the same issue already presented, with just a different candidate, and perhaps a less sympatethic one (at least Brown and Owen had the gender/race card)? If Frist persists in forcing the same issue, how can he expect to flip people?

Because he wants to be President, he thinks the religious right can make him President, the religious right thinks they can make him president, and they want an up or down vote on Bush's seven nominees. It's not whether or not he can win this - it's that he has to give it the old college try.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I thought that the objection to Myers was that he was a mining interests shill who used his office at interior to keep teh mining handouts coming.

No, Frist. Needed a swing vote on something.

Maybe it was just a horrible nightmare that I think was real . . .

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Another reason why the filibuster deal is good or bad, depending on whether you think the other ways Bush could have spent his political capital would have hurt or helped the country.

You don't think this was all to distract from the lack of actual political capital, or at least political support, for the Bush agenda? Social security reform is essentially dead as proposed; tax reform is waiting for a "blue ribbon commission" to provide ideas, none of which (given that they had 6 mos. to develope them) will do much; estate tax is being fought between hard-line repealers and those who are happy with 3/4 of a loaf. And so on. There's very little of the admin's agenda going on. The bankruptchy, class action, and asbestos bills all are left over from previous congresses, and the time was right to push them through.

I have the feeling the next three years are going to be very boring, unless you like posturing for assigning blame in 2008.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Having established now that he is an ineffectual Senate leader, he is trying to save his '08 presidential bid by establishing to the religious conservatives that he is pure of heart and will keep fighting for them, however ineffectually.

Hmm, not doubting you or panda. But isn't the first rule of politics to know when you've lost, and spin it into a win of some sort, rather than continuing to dig a hole?