depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-26-10 04:00 AM
Original message |
A responsible and ethical question would be: Why does Simpson get a pass? |
|
Anyone have an answer?
I mean- objectively, looking at the record.
|
dkf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-26-10 04:14 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Because he is one of the few Republicans who will suggest raising taxes. |
|
Take him out and you only have cuts.
|
BzaDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-26-10 04:38 AM
Response to Original message |
2. It is a bipartisan commission. If a member of one party controls the membership on the commission of |
|
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 04:39 AM by BzaDem
the other, it is no longer a bipartisan commission and will not produce agreement.
Now, this might very well be the best thing. But the issue of whether the commission should exist (and what its scope should be if it does) is a completely separate issue. But if one assumes for the sake of argument that the commission should exist, then Obama can't tell Republicans who their commissioners are any more than Simpson could tell Obama who the Democratic commissioners are.
It's not like Simpson has any real power. Any proposal that passes the commission will require at least 8 Democrats to agree with it, and even then the proposal is simply a proposal. It is subject to the filibuster and requires a vote by both houses and an Obama signature. Replacing Simpson with another Republican who shares the same views (but does so silently) will not change anything.
|
seattleblue
(437 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-26-10 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. Obama did appoint Simpson. The Repubicans did not. |
|
So he did "tell the Republicans who their commissioner" would be. He can fire him since he appointed him.
|
Skittles
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-26-10 05:00 AM
Response to Original message |
3. because he's playing the role that was intended? |
BzaDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-26-10 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. I actually agree. His intended role is to represent the Republicans on the committee |
|
and his quote simply confirms he is doing a good job of this. I would rather have the face of the Republicans out in the open, versus someone who thinks the same thing but keeps their views to themselves.
|
Hannah Bell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-26-10 05:09 AM
Response to Original message |
Bitwit1234
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-26-10 08:51 AM
Response to Original message |
7. You are correct he shouldn't. |
|
If he was a Democrat and caused that fuss he would be gone gone gone. This administration shows over and over they are partial to any hint at saying or doing something bad to a republican.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:46 PM
Response to Original message |