tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8269594240503661617.post2972553638367041172..comments2023-10-20T05:31:07.939-06:00Comments on The Bipartisan Rules: Random musings from the CommishThe Commissionerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13172240168990272313noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8269594240503661617.post-48574673051980534252009-04-23T11:27:00.000-05:002009-04-23T11:27:00.000-05:00I must be an idiot, because the Commish's poin...I must be an idiot, because the Commish's point was "clearly" something other than how I interpreted it.<br /><br />So addressing what was so clearly the Commish's point:<br /><br />[now] the Commish's reasoning goes like this: Bush spending and Obama spending is equally bad. Ergo, protesting Obama's spending is "ridiculous", "insane" and "unbelievable". Again, non-sequitur. (see my previous post). <br /><br />If both president's spending is bad (as the Commish readily agrees it is/was) then, contrary to the Commish's post, there IS A GOOD REASON for the tea protests. Thus, characterizing the protest premises as "ridiculous" is incorrect. <br /><br />So, we are left with:<br />Protests = Hypocritical AND <br />Protests = With Merit<br /><br />Whether the Commish thinks the protests were ridiculous and insane because their premises was Bush was good while Obama is bad, or their premises was Bush & Obama are both bad, his view in no way supports the conclusion that the premise of the protests was ridiculous and insane.<br /><br />The fact that protesters protested Obama and not Bush was ridiculous and insane. But that doesn't mean the premise of the protests have no merit.Line Judge #2http://www.kickassincorporated.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8269594240503661617.post-14092414232878220562009-04-23T11:03:00.000-05:002009-04-23T11:03:00.000-05:00I generally try to leave reader comments alone, bu...I generally try to leave reader comments alone, but I wanted to quickly clarify. The "premise" to which I referred is not that the new administration spends too much (it clearly does), but rather that the policies of Barack Obama are so much worse than those of George Bush, that protests are in order.<br /><br />My point clearly was that conservative reaction to the president's policies is completely hypocritical. I of course agree that taxes are too high and that the administration's bailout plan was excessive; hence, one of the reasons I vehemently opposed Obama in the first place. <br /><br />And yes, I do believe that many of these protesters are blinded by some sort of hyperpartisan stupor that clouds their judgment. It's the same idiocy that leads people to drool over Gov. Palin and pay $1,000 a plate to listen to Joe the Plumber speak.The Commissionerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13172240168990272313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8269594240503661617.post-34490486609608551352009-04-23T10:28:00.000-05:002009-04-23T10:28:00.000-05:00Here's the problem with the Commish's analysis: Ap...Here's the problem with the Commish's analysis: Apparently if you don't protest something initially, you forgo your ability to protest it at a later time AND any later protest is irrational. Or as the Commish put it: the premise becomes ridiculous.<br /><br />The Commish's reasoning goes like this: Conservatives didn't protest Bush spending but are protesting Obama's spending. This obvious hypocrisy renders the "premise [of the protests] ridiculous." That is what in law school is called a non-sequitur. The Commish should be familiar with not only the term, but why non-sequitur reasoning results in a flawed argument.<br /><br />Maybe conservatives didn't protest Bush's spending because Bush was trading on the rest of his conservative agenda. Maybe conservatives didn't protest Bush's spending because they think spending done by a conservative is OK, whereas spending done by a liberal is not OK. Maybe conservatives didn't protest Bush's spending because Bush is white. (All conservatives are racist, right?) Maybe conservatives didn't protest Bush's spending because they liked Bush's choice of color of necktie. <br /><br />The reason there were less protests of Bush's spending and are more protests of Obama's IS IRRELEVANT to the debate as to whether the spending is prudent.<br /><br />If you want to debate WHY protesters who didn't protest Bush's spending are now protesting Obama's spending - Have that discussion, but don't confuse the issue of the reasons for the differential treatment of Bush and Obama spending with the MERITS of the arguments for and against the spending.<br /><br />Commish: If you think the protesters are hypocritical, fine. You are likely correct. But it is you that is irrational when you conclude that the protester's apparent hypocrisy means that their opposition to spending is necessarily insane.<br /><br />In fact, whether anyone, at any time and for any reason protests government spending, is completely IRRELEVANT to whether the spending is justified on its merits.<br /><br />Give me a break Commish. We have enough people out there adding obviously flawed reasoning to debates over important issues. Don't join the club.Line Judge #2http://www.kickassincorporated.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8269594240503661617.post-70328615890113691532009-04-22T11:02:00.000-05:002009-04-22T11:02:00.000-05:00Good points all. One relatively minor point of di...Good points all. One relatively minor point of disagreement: we centrists shouldn't fall into the trap of dismissing the "tea parties" or more generally conservative discomfort with Obama spending either because Bush did a lot of intemperate spending or because some people who attend open rallies carry obnoxious signs.<br /><br />Both the left and the right engage in instant blame shifting whenever any issue comes up that's hard to make a direct case (e.g., "How can you complain about Obama when Bush did X,Y,Z"). Better to stick to the merits of the case.<br /><br />As for creepy people and signs at demos, there has never been an anti-war or other more or less liberal protest of any size where whacko leftists don't show up to sell The Workers World and similar papers and flaunt their own signs emblazoned with hammers and sickles and the names of various sectarian left-wing "parties." On the whole, people don't focus on these radicals; no need to dismiss the 25 or 30% of Americans who are rock-ribbed conservatives because they have a dew whackos among them too.<br /><br />Great blog!J. E. Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08682657792334163396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8269594240503661617.post-41933793678347170432009-04-21T19:52:00.000-05:002009-04-21T19:52:00.000-05:00"Dick Cheney should take the lead from President B..."Dick Cheney should take the lead from President Bush and Secretary Rice and gracefully ride into the sunset."<br /><br />Maybe she's staying away from spewing a bunch of baloney that incites anger like Cheney, but, Condi hasn't ridden into the sunset. If she had her say she'd be dissecting the Ravens' defensive schemes and interviewing Clemens about his network of apartments across North America to rendezvous with his cadre of ladyfriends:<br /><br />http://deadspin.com/5220142/the-continuing-sports-media-evolution-of-condi-riceGilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10518783873856074282noreply@blogger.com