I’m glad that Colby credited Big Sky Cairn with his decision to return to the world of keyboard jockey, although I’d be even more excited if we could convince Baucus to drop out of the race. I kid, I kid. Truthfully, his comments were welcome.
In a tremendously polarized political climate, it’s heartening to find someone who disagrees with us but is willing to actually discuss the differences without resorting to name calling. Wulfgar, I’m talking to you.
When I was in college, I remember long discussions with my liberal friends about politics when both interlocutors were willing to take the risk of putting their beliefs on the line if sufficient evidence was provided to warrant doing so. I changed my mind on some things, and they did too.
It’s been a long time since I’ve had that kind of discussion - sadly some of those same friends I used to talk openly with have since told me that they think I’m a bad person because I’m conservative. I was beginning to think that the right and the left in this country were lacking in common ground; that ideas took a back seat to partisanship.
Someone else had something to say about this - and it’s worth a second look.
As an aside, I didn’t even know that a cairn was a dog until I was using the Google to find a picture of a cairn to use for the banner image. It would seem, Colby, that even with no common ground on the meaning of the word “cairn”, we were able forge a mutual understanding after all!
I like the McCain ad; having never seen it before now. However, I would point out that some policy differences are deal breakers. By that I mean that while I would love to stay on friendly terms with those on the other side of the aisle, some policy avocations I view as too dangerous/subversive to be okay with. Insofar as McCain’s ad speaks of dangers abroad, I truly do think there are dangers at home, in politics, as well. Perhaps many people over-inflate some concerns, but there are certainly, in my book, attempts to subvert the Constitution and liberties that are treacherous at best. People who advocate these things are never going to be ‘okay’ with me.
Colby, I understand your concern - and I share it. The Constitution and civil liberty is very important to me too. But I also think that the left doth protest too much. Remember, ever since Marbury v Madison the Supreme Court has been the arbiter of what is and isn’t Constitutional. If all of the actions that the far left screamed “Unconstitutional” about were really unconstitutional, I think the Supreme Court would have weighed in - don’t you?
Unfortunately, it seems like the Left is throwing that phrase around a bit liberally for the political points it scores. Any policy they don’t like must violate the Constitution right?
Throwing that phrase around too much? Yeah, I agree that has become a problem, but it is a problem that affects both sides; what with the strain of literalist Conservatives who view all kinds of government programs as Constitutional assaults of activist judges. Certainly, there are also Liberals who throw down that accusation at the slightest hint of Executive action as well.
On the point of whether or not the court involvement is the best sign of Constitutional intrusion: the court can’t get involved unless there is an escalated appeal that goes to them (or other means), but they cannot just decide to change something of their own accord. How interesting would things be if they could? In addition, with a fundamental disagreement about what ‘Constitutionality’ actually is (i.e. is it keeping with the literal intents of the Framers or applying their mindset to contemporary dealings), there is no logical way to expect a body of people who harbor various levels of feelings on that issue to act in a way that is uniform as well as ‘fair’ to all Americans.
I would be interested to start some axioms of Constitutional debate much like you did with global warming. I think we often get dragged too much into Connotation in these arguments, and that kind of itemization of beliefs tends to help solidify starting ground and acts as a catalyst for more substantial conversation.
