>> If one congress person had objected to the unanimous consent every one of them would have had to come back to D.C. to vote. He could have stood on principle. >>
Yep, and a kami kaze pilot could decide to end his life in an attempt to sink a single row boat too. I guess you never really understood the concept of “picking the right hill to die on.”
This was not the right hill to die on. It was the right hill to fire a few shots at, which he did.
Makes me wonder if a hill exists that any of them would die on.
They just passed a bill ripping the Constitution to pieces by allowing the Military to arrest an American and put him away with no trial and no rights whatsoever. If ever there was a hill that was it.
c. Edmund Wright graduate of the Neville Chamberlain institute for policy research.
All of you saying Gowdy couldn’t have won. )....McConnell couldn’t have won either but Gowdy was condemning him for not standing on principle. Apparently you didn’t read what Gowdy said. He wants McConnell to stand on principle but he won’t do it. Pot, meet black.
Edmund
I would not put words in your mouth nor thoughts in your head, but it appears that for elected Republicans there is simply no such thing as a hill worth dying for. The GOP controls the House which means they control every penny the government spends. It takes remarkable incompetence, cowardice, and corruption to fail leveraging that into fundamental reform.
Angelo Codevilla was right, there is a Ruling Class with its overwhelmingly gargantuan constituency, and the Productive Class, which will continue to edge towards Going Galt. I do not believe the system can be fixed until thgat gargantuan constituency tells the electeds that they do not want gubmint goodies.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Pete Ferron is right. What we have is two “rival” gangs of train robbers (GOP/Rat) boarding the train, not knowing the bridge up around the curve has collapsed. The actuarial reality is pretty much set in concrete.