« No Shows | Main | Not Invited to Speak »

Comments

GeorgiaValues

I was so proud to see Saxby's video at Solutions Day. He is one of those elected officials who actually "get it". I appreciate his efforts to bring about meaningful change and progress in Government.

Go Saxby!

Josh

Solutions Day was really great. Whether it was Newt really inspiring people or Hannity doing what he usually does.

It was also interesting to see Senator Chambliss' video. Clearly he's doing the right thing in getting change in Washington. Hopefully we get another 6 years of him.

Nancy Sabin

Thanks for the info on Solutions Day, a grand idea. Ditto on your thoughts about differing viewpoints and the logic that should accompany them. I especially like the kid thing that Newt did and his reference to politics. I'm reeeeeeeal tired of watching our taxes get sucked down a dark, black hole where little gets accomplished due to the "food fights" it's used for.....Nancy Sabin

Greg

Can I ask a question here? Does anyone not remember all the non-partisan things that both Chambliss and Gingrich have done in the past? It seems as if we are going through a do as I say, not as I have done era. I find it interesting that the same people who are calling for bi-partisanship, and non-partisan activities now, are the same people who were guilty of pure partisan behavior in the past.

How non-partisan was Chambliss campaign ad using Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in a clear cut means to smear Max Cleeland? How about the Clinton impeachment, I tend to look at the whole episode as being nothing more than a pure partisan witch hunt. How about all the phony investigation and actions the House took up when Gingrich was Speaker of the House? My memory recalls the time both Houses were under Republican rule, things were done in partisan ways that had never been seen before in government. I find it somewhat interesting how he is talking about non-partisan activities now, given the fact that when he was in charge there was nothing but partisan behavior.

Could it be all this non-partisan talk is brought about because the Republicans are in the minority? If the demographics in those who have chosen a voting preference continues in the manner that it has been going, then the Republicans are going to killed in the next election. But that could not be the case, because if it was, it would make all this bi-partisan talk somewhat hypocritical. I cannot recall of any of this talk about being non-partisan before last years election. Then again I might of been mistaken and thought the term "you are either with us or against us" as a term of bi-partisanship.

Peg

Hey Nancy - thanks for your kind comments. Sure that people will disagree on specifics. But - if we remember that we really ARE all on the "same team" - then perhaps we can begin the tough work to attempt to solve some of the thorny issues of the 21st century.

As you see, though - we have people like Greg here. Somehow, we have to convince Greg that at some point, we have to let the past be in the past, and work in a more positive way for the future.

Some people do not want to let it go....

Greg

Some people like Greg? So did anything I document not true, or was I incorrect in pointing out the actions of Chambliss and Gingrich? What I said was accurate, and all I ask is why are these people saying this now? What is the reason they are motivated for bi-partisanship now? This is a point you clearly missed, or a point you got but was unable to answer.

I believe in bi-partisanship, always have, but the people you highlighted have never sought to do so in the past. Can anyone recall any Republicans listening or seeking any advice from Democrats while Newt was Speaker of the House? I kind of remember when Republicans thought the whole ideal of filibusters was obstructionist. Funny how one election has changed Republicans notions on the filibuster. Am I crazy not to question the motivations of Chambliss, Gingrich or any other Republican seeking bi-partisanship now given their past actions and inclinations on it from their past? Is it not correct to use their past actions as a precursor or guideline for what they might do or seek in the future?

Peg have you ever heard the statement if you forget the past you are doomed to repeat it? How about the notion that past behavior is a precursor to future behavior? Let me draw you a small picture so perhaps you can see my point. Say a man either beats on his wife or cheats on her. Or say someone has an inclination to steal. They been caught several times, and suddenly they are in trouble or things are out of whack, Now they suddenly claim, that what they did in the past is no longer, and they have seen the light. Does one just take their word on lip service, or do you have some concerns that these are just words they are using?

All of this leave me with 3 distinct and logical questions. The first one is why now? The second being what are the reasons they seeking this now? Finally the last question is, given their past, what makes one believe what they say and seek are genuine? Am I crazy to ask these questions, or should I just let bygones be bygones?

Peg

You should let bygones be bygones.

I don't see Democrats screaming too often about having a former KKK member representing them in the Senate.

Do you, Greg?

Greg

Once again you avoid the issue, dodge the question and are unable to articulate any sort of logical response. All I asked was, what should we go by. Should we go by these people's actions or should we go by their words? In response you avoid any direct answer and just rely on spin, and taking the discussion somewhere else.

If Bill Clinton stood up and spoke about the value of husbands being faithful to their wives, would not his past actions kind question the sincerity and authenticity of his words? Of course it would be different in that case because Clinton is a Democrat. I find it very interesting how a person who claims they are against Affirmative Action, and states that everyone should be treated the same has a separate set of rules for those that are Democrats compared to those that are Republicans. But let me not stray and stay on point. Once again let me make it simple for you. If the people you highlighted have never shown an interests in what they are proposing now, does one not begin to question the authenticity of what they are saying? Please just deal with what I said, and not try and spin it into some off base argument of Democrats and the KKK. How hard is it to stay on point?

If your decision is to let bygones be bygones and to simply ignore past actions (something I find completely ridiculous). Let us see how you implement this the next time you come up with another one of your baseless Democrat or Bill Clinton attacks in which I will have to debunk as I have done so many others. If your policy is to let bygones be bygone then cease with your undocumented attacks on Democrats and truly let bygones be bygones.

Peg

Let me make it simple for you, Greg. Some Democrats and Republicans are willing to make an attempt to work together.

My guess is that exceptionally partisan people like you will fight it tooth and nail - particularly if a Republican is pressing for it.

The rest of us can hope, however, that more members of the political class on the right and the left will embrace it, and those who wish to cling to the venom of the past decade or two will be viewed as the shrill and destructive voices that they too often are.

The best way to implement this is for people like Nancy and myself to promote those who do wish to work together.

I'm afraid I do believe in redemption for Republicans and Democrats. If you do not - your right.

The rest of us, however, will work to search for real solutions and compromises.

The comments to this entry are closed.