DM: 2nd, he voted to move the bill forward into a posture where debate would occur (and he said so a hundred times during his 21 hour speech). How did his “filibuster” (quoting Senator Cruz) increase the efficiency of the government? If it was not about debating a bill, what was it? Showmanship? He should have gotten up, said something like, “I support moving this bill forward into a posture where debate will occur,” shut up, and sat down. I am willing to allow a “because” after that, but it should be as brief as possible in order to facilitate the work of government. Make your point and sit down. You wrote, “He said so a hundred times during his 21 hour speech.” Sounds pretty idiotic to me. Perhaps I am wrong, and I would like to be wrong, but I feel you may see my criticism as a partisan attack. This is not the case. I would slam Obama and the D’s just as hard on this issue as the R’s. Remember, the thread started by me criticizing Obama for a lack of integrity and in order to shut off the attack of partisanship, I pointed to the same category of behavior on the part of an R, which happened to be Senator Cruz. Were someone to defend Obama on the issue of integrity, I like to think I would be equally critical though the particulars would be different. To me, the issue under discussion is not the content of any position. Rational people can rationally disagree. At this point in the discussion, the issue is integrity. I would like to quote three sentences from _The Oxford Companion to Philosophy_. ================ INTEGRITY. The quality of a person who can be counted upon to give precedence to moral considerations, even when there is strong inducement to let self-interest or some clamant [urgent] desire to override them, or where the betrayal of moral principle may pass undetected…. This moral commitment becomes a crucial component in his or her sense of identity as a person: it confers a unity (integration) of character [or conscience], and even a simplicity upon the man or woman of integrity. What integrity cannot guarantee is the soundness of the value-judgments themselves, which form the core of that person’s commitment. ================= I want to repeat and emphasize this clause, “[Integrity] confers a unity (integration) of character [or conscience], and even a simplicity upon the man or woman of integrity.” If Senator Cruz had integrity, he would have voted no based on that simple unity of character, or he would not have undertaken that particular “filibuster” at that time. It seems real simple to me, Senator Cruz lacks integrity, sound judgment, or both. I realize that last sentence probably pushed a button. Let me stress that in a different context, I would write the same sentence about president Obama in the light of his words and votes as a senator and presidential candidate verses his actions as president. And as long as I’m putting it out there, Obama plays the long con; Cruz plays the short hustle. It is just an observation. Each can be effective and lead to Machiavellian success. Once again, the issue at this point is not the content of positions; it is integrity. Both fall equally short.
Posted on: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 21:04:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015