[rakewell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "must-pass" excuse is just BS. There is no such thing as a "must-pass" bill, in my view. Suppose that instead of a gambling provision Frist had attached, say, a bill repealing the 19th amendment (which gave women the right to vote). Would any senator or representative have said, "Well, we have to pass the port security stuff, so I guess we'll just have to hope that women don't notice this other little provision"? Of course not. They first would have prevented Frist from attaching that amendment in conference committee, or, failing that, they would have denounced it from the hilltops, voted against it, then quickly pushed the port security bill back through committees and to a floor vote, this time unencumbered by the anti-suffrage bits.

So why didn't they have the fortitude to do the same when the unrelated amendment was about gambling? Because they either actually liked the measure, or at least decided that few of their constituents would care deeply enough about it for it to hurt them at the next election. To be blunt, even those who might have thought the bill to be bad public policy put their fingers to the wind and decided that they could be more hurt by political opponents saying "He/she voted against making our ports secure" than "He/she voted to make it really difficult to put money into one's online poker account."

[/ QUOTE ]

The Safe Ports act passed 409-2. Your advice to us is to sit around pissed off at the world and to refuse to work with our allies, because "you won't let them off so easily"? Yeah...that's some useful advice you have for us. Thanks so much for sharing. Now GTFO. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Please feel free to point to the exact point at which I said anything even remotely resembling advice to "sit around pissed off at the world and to refuse to work with our allies."

A good starting point would be to identify who actually is or isn't an "ally."

If a guy hits his wife, then explains that he "had" to do it, then proposes reconciliation that consists of studying the issue, I don't think I'd be convinced that he is his wife's "ally." His case would be more believable if he at minimum started with an apology, an ackowledgement that he had done something wrong.

Has Rep. Berkeley ever openly acknowledged that her final vote on the UIGEA was wrong, that she regrets it, that she wishes she had voted against it instead of for it? Not to my knowledge, but if she has, and I missed it, I'd welcome the news. It would be a good way for me to start seeing her as a genuine ally.