My friend and fellow blogger, John Tierney, has posted a link in his blog to a column by Gail Collins in The New York Times, regarding the desirability of liberals supporting the watered-down version of health care reform now likely to at least pass the Senate, now that Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, the two moths circling the publicity flame, have wrung it enough to deem it worthy of their precious votes.
Well, despite the foregoing sarcasm, I'm forced to agree with her. One of the relatively few advantages of being 53 is that you know a thing or two about how things work, including politics. In America, it always seems to be a choice between one step forward, and ten steps backward.
Given that choice, I vote for one step forward. Even though I think that we need and deserve twenty.
Disclosure: Mr. Tierney is a former student of my father's. But, if you knew my father, you'll know that that fact only recommends him all the more highly!
2 comments:
If your wonderful father were around today, Steve, he would probably be ashamed of his former student. Frank was always temperate in his expression of his views, even though those views were unabashedly liberal. I wish I had more of his equanimity.
I agree with you about the twenty steps. But I'll take three.
Damn the Senate for maintaining rules that keep us hostage to sixty votes.
-- John Tierney
If you wonderful father were around today, Steve, he would probably be chagrined by his former student. Though unabashedly liberal in his views, Frank Rourke was always temperate in his expression of those views. Unlike me. Oh, to be more like him!
I agree with you about twenty steps being more desirable. But, like you, I'll take three.
Damn the Senate for maintaining these idiotic rules that hold us hostage to a 60-vote majority. This is lunacy.
-- John Tierney
Post a Comment