Sorry Mr. Durbin, No Sale

By Marcus Traianus Posted in Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Respectfully and with deference to all, I have slept on this offer and given it some deep thought. My apologies for being so circumspect and not that anyone cares but, sorry no sale. I certainly believe in useful dialogue and engaging ones rival for the purpose of creating common understanding. It is also perspicacious to challenge one of 100 Senators representing approximately 300 million people though frank colloquy. However, that is contingent a basis, a scintilla for common understanding and probability for genuine change exists. It also demands the effort is not steeped in parochial motivation, calculated timing or a limited goal which deters furtherance of a primary and continued understanding. In other words, I prefer good faith action as a means of displaying ones ultimate intentions. Good faith by definition is indicative of an overall desire to factually and honestly deliberate using a basis of unmitigated intellectual exchange. It is actionable, tangible proof of a sincere desire to openly promote understanding and negotiate solutions, irrespective of differences. It is exempli gratia Mr. Lieberman consistently supporting the efforts against our enemy, even though we may not agree on many other issues. That builds mutual respect through execution of important policy and impassionate articulation. It is bold, not shallow; consistent, not fleeting; unwavering, not intermittent.

That said, I can not point to one instance where I agree with Mr. Durbin on anything and this issue seems hardly the place to start. He has consistently and unabashedly stood against everything important to me as a conservative and American. Witness, the following retort sent to me from a friend serving this country when informed of this event (graciously reprinted with permission);

So, he (Mr. Durbin) comes offering the olive branch of subsidized broadband and seeks to build a dialogue of consensus? What is the premise here, to build an interactive process of creating legislation? You’ll have to forgive me when I state this seems to be something Durbin should be doing already and thinking about when he votes against the common sense opinion of American’s on every issue which is important to our side, or in my case, the military. What is the goal or hope that he will suddenly consider our concerns and perhaps vote on the side of common sense once? Sorry, if I find that disingenuous since there is no preceding indication of any commonality.

Hopefully in the future, we can be approached by someone from the Democrat Party that displays a reasonable common basis for dialogue; an exchange which provides promise of real, lasting change for our shared country. Unfortunately, IMO this does not seem to the person or the opportunity for that momentous event.

Perhaps I am wrong and my opine is for naught. Nonetheless, I urge you to treat him with the utmost respect, since that is truly what differentiates us.

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

of someone who displays a reasonable common basis for dialogue is someone who isn't even a Democrat?

The fact that both sides are willing to dig their heels in and say "No Surrender!" because of one issue is disappointing.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

There must be common ground, a willingness to compromise and objective proof that a person is willing to pursue their beliefs with action. That is not Democrat or Republican; it is American.

That is why Mr. Lieberman provides a perfect example. Despite being regularly skewered and abandoned by his party, he has stood firm with respect to his views on the war and our safety.

We can agree on that position because it is an intellectual conclusion supported by honest reason and action. In contrast, I know we will not agree on abortion; but we agree to disagree and move on to solve other issues.

The hallmark of this Democrat Party has been an egregious lurch to the left and an inability, with exception of a very courageous few, to break that stranglehold.

IMO and based on the record, Mr. Durbin has been a vocal participant in that destructive process. I can not point to one example where there has been action, plausible move, or intellectual reasoning towards that middle ground. So what are we left to conclude, this is an epiphany? Sorry, but I will respectfully wait for the sequel.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Well said and exactly right...
Project Director
LJF Management Group

That is why Mr. Lieberman provides a perfect example. Despite being regularly skewered and abandoned by his party, he has stood firm with respect to his views on the war and our safety.

We can agree on that position because it is an intellectual conclusion supported by honest reason and action. In contrast, I know we will not agree on abortion; but we agree to disagree and move on to solve other issues.

So he is the perfect example because he.......compromised?..... and agreed completely with you guys on Iraq and did so since Day 1? That's compromise?

The hallmark of this Democrat Party has been an egregious lurch to the left and an inability, with exception of a very courageous few, to break that stranglehold.

This is just excessive rhetoric that is not supported by anything resembling empirical observation.

The hallmark of this Democrat Party has been an egregious lurch to the left and an inability, with exception of a very courageous few, to break that stranglehold.

So, IOW, there really isn't a single Democrat that you would be willing to have a reasonable discussion with. Scored Earth politics aren't very useful.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Sorry not likely to happen. The last one who was is Joe Lieberman, and we all saw what they did to him last election. :(

Nice post by the way. Respectful but firm and leaving no question about what you think.

Personally, I agree with Barak Obama on this one, but with a slightly different perspective:

It never hurts to talk to your enemies. Just

1) Make sure you know where you stand first, and that you are willing to vigorously defend that stance when you talk to them.
2) Don't plan on resolving anything when you meet them.
3) Always be willing to walk away after you've had your say.

I would respectfully disagree with your point on Obama.

Obama wants to speak with a Holocaust denier who is killing our soldiers, destabilizing the region, suppressing his people and preaching a new world order. My apologies, but I could probably have a more meaningful conversation at psychiatric ward.

Overall, that opine is sophomoric and displays a genuine lack of experience and intellectual reasoning, especially with respect to the Middle East; certainly not an articulation from a leader, but rather an appeasing electoral platitude and rather disingenuous.

Contrast his willingness to address these dictators with dialogue against his domestic unwillingness to speak across the aisle and take actions which will make America stronger. That provides a fairly strong visual, when one wants to talk to perpetrators of this worlds most detestable acts, yet can not carry an intellectual dialogue, sans fallacious political conclusions, with a rival party.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Huh? by Catsy

Can you provide an example of Sen. Obama being unwilling to "speak across the aisle" and engage in a dialogue with conservatives and Republicans? Because whatever other disagreements one might have with him, his record so far is such that this is the weakest imaginable argument you could make against him.

Really? I must have missed his reaching across the aisle. It must have occurred somewhere between his lack of support for the troops and the rest of his party's agenda. Please don't be so silly and examine the voting record.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Obama wants to speak with a Holocaust denier who is killing our soldiers, destabilizing the region, suppressing his people and preaching a new world order. My apologies, but I could probably have a more meaningful conversation at psychiatric ward.

Well at least you don't engage in hyperbole.

Overall, that opine is sophomoric and displays a genuine lack of experience and intellectual reasoning, especially with respect to the Middle East; certainly not an articulation from a leader, but rather an appeasing electoral platitude and rather disingenuous.

And you are displaying precisely what is wrong with politics today. Obama made one comment saying he would be WILLING to speak to them. You ignore everything else he has said about the topic and focus on 3 words? Why? Because you can then paint him as being whatever you want him to.

Honestly your position is one of absolutism and if our leaders actually engaged in this sort of mentality our nation would utterly collapse.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Obama wants to speak with a Holocaust denier who is killing our soldiers, destabilizing the region, suppressing his people and preaching a new world order. My apologies, but I could probably have a more meaningful conversation at psychiatric ward.

Unless you were referring to the second sentence (the first one being correct all the way down), which could be excused as a mere rhetorical flourish.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

As I am sure you know and will agree, the vast majority of people in psychiatric wards are not nearly as dilusional and dangerous as those loons that Obama is willing to talk with.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

First off Obama never said he wanted to.

Second of all it may be fun to refer to leaders of adversarial nations as insane however it serves little purpose.

Third of all it has no bearing on Gadfly's original point which had absolutely nothing to do with International diplomacy.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

But what they Did say about him is documented in his own words and is 100% accurate...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

Obama has repeated the position we should talk to Iran and Syria numerous times (60 minutes, et al). You can also find it in his policy statements as broad objectives (I have read them, you may want to read or re-read them).

To paraphrase, Obama has said that not talking to Iran/Syria as punishment was wrong. He also went so far as to compare this situation to the Cold War and evoked Reagan; probably one of the most questionable analogies I have ever encountered.

He has also conversely and in tandem taken the current administrations position that we should not take anything off the table. However, Obama articulated this as "precision" military strikes". Now, I remember hearing that when Clinton bombed Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 and we see how well that worked out. Perhaps Obama will expound further at the KOS event; I await.

Frankly, I think he has covered every potential option. My apologies if that appears a bit, well, political and disengenous. It deserves that designation because of a resolute failure to articulate linear policies which involve an element of risk; his "try everything" does not qualify .

Now, I do not generally engage in responding to misinformed opines or poorly constructed ad hominems. This is especially true when the retort does not directly relate to the thread. But in my humanity, I had a weak moment here. While I can't guarantee it will not happen again, we are done here. Thanks for playing.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

He criticizes Bush for taking pre-emptive measures against Iraq without getting the approval of the Iraqi govt (i.e. Saddam) as well as seemingly every country in the world, and yet today he's saying (HT Drudge) that he'd launch a pre-emptive ground war in Pakistan if he feels like it regardless of what Musharraf or anyone else thinks.

if he thinks he can invade Pakistan.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

So Obama has laid out a plan in which he said that he would be willing to speak to Iran. 28 years of not talking to them hasn't seemed to have done much.

Your paraphrase are fairly incomplete. And honestly I'm not going bother criticizing those comments because they are so vague and pointless there isn't much reason to.

I believe that you skim over Obama's statements to look for ways to criticize his comments. Not surprising as that seems to be the norm for partisans.

Now, I do not generally engage in responding to misinformed opines or poorly constructed ad hominems. This is especially true when the retort does not directly relate to the thread. But in my humanity, I had a weak moment here. While I can't guarantee it will not happen again, we are done here. Thanks for playing.

Uhh how exactly is your comment relevant to the discussion? Someone mentioned that Obama is willing to work with the other side of the ditch. You responded by talking about his views on Iran. Your condescension doesn't change the fact that you went for an unrelated jab at Obama rather than admit even a small scintilla of positive view of the man.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Of men like those with whom Obama "Wants to have a dialogue" will agree to speak With those people. Not if he's sane, anyway.
In the position of strength that is the American Presidency, the sane man would speak plainly and clearly TO those people and explain to them what They will do on pain of His displeasure...

...Oh, and then he would follow up with a Tangible showing of said displeasure...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

once again you have cut to the bone.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I'm a partisan, I expect my opponent to be a partisan. I expect disagreement, however, I expect that disagreement to be grounded in fact. I can agree to disagree.

I frequently find that my liberal friends discount this premise and will engage me in an unreasonable argument for which there are no facts. Furthermore, they will deride ALL facts that support my arguments as lies an deceit while touting their sources (Daily KOS vs. FBI stats for example) as more reliable. An untennable (no win) proposition to be sure. I have facts and stats from dozens of "reliable" sources, but, I'm just falling for the lies generated by the government.

I long ago discovered that I was a pawn of a huge conspiracy while, "luckily", my friends where more open-minded and could read daily KOS and get the facts.

How can you win an argument where all of your sources are discounted as propaganda, while your opponents sources speak "truth to power".

My epiphany occurred when I was 23. You can't win when the ROE is set by your opponent and when he is the arbitrator of what is true.

Whats the point? I realized long ago that my opponents couldn't convince me on the facts (they didn't have any), therefore they had to reshape the argument to get me on their side.

I'll listen to the voices I trust, and join entreaties from my enemies (Democrats like Durbin) when they are from those with credibility (Democrats like Lieberman) or are in my own interest, otherwise call me a fool.

P.S. In air-to-air engagements there is a common saying that the "pilot with the markers in the debrief, wins the engagement." Translations: The person who is allowed to diagram a chaotic aerial engagement on the whiteboard, sets the parameters for the mission debrief, hence, "Fox-2 your all dead, questions?". I fight for the markers before the debrief begins, then I have a fair chance of victory.

"The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." - Anon.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

I don't think we have met before. I am an XHogCrewChief. I server in Suwon before it closed and at DM in the CAMS Squadron.

I also agree with your analogy. Reagan was right. Negotiate from a position of strength.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

Wubbie, didn't get to Suwon, but spent over 5 yrs instructing at DM in the 333TFTS, 357TFS, 355TTS/355OSS, and 354FS. Worked with many crew chiefs and Hog-1's in MX, good men all. At Spang both Hog-1's crashed my going away party to say so-long. Never been prouder or more touched.

"The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." - Anon.

for the rhetorical cesspool that has engulfed the left and the Democratic party, and his contribution to its creation, then maybe.

For some latest bubblings from the cesspool, see (h/t James Taranto of WSJ Opinion Journal):

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/07/31/hateful-left-c...

and

http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/07/30/if-only-theyd-show-this-much-ha...

How about he starts with apologizing for continuing to call Southwick a racist?

I read in one of these Durbin threads to give him the respect a Senator deserves, but how much respect does a man as disgusting as him deserve?

His coming here to get input seems to me like the ploy of Democrats who keep notches on their bedposts of how many judges have been confirmed in which year of which combo of President and Senate to "prove" that they are doing a great job of confirming Bush appointees, while in the background they are not only blocking them but trying to ruin their reputations.

To wear the same letter at the end of his name as those who are saying what they are saying, coupled with the conscious decision to Not speak up about their words is a conscious decision to Support those words and the people who say them...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

no aid, no comfort, period.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Durbin has an opponent in 2008.

"Scott Thomas" - The New Republic's Winter Soldier

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service