Quote:
Originally Posted by Honus
Sometimes it's obvious, IMO. Honesty in this context goes hand-in-hand with fairness and good faith. Congressional oversight would be much better if the majority party would deal in good faith with the minority, the witnesses, and the subjects of their investigations. I don't see much good faith in the way Rep. Gardner dealt with that witness. Or maybe he's just not very smart. At any rate, his performance in the linked video is an embarrassment.
|
I like the first sentence above. Where the thought process goes astray IMHO is that it is one parties duty to compromise with the other.
I find compromise to be a ridiculous request, but understandable why it is begged for by politicians because almost none of them have any core principles. If you believe in a core principle, then compromise on that principle should be IMPOSSIBLE.
I will use an example that is not something that anyone would compromise on. The reason is that if I were to use a more real world example, the conversation would skew to that specific principle as opposed to the subject of compromise.
As the example let's say that someone goes to Washington with part of their core principles being that it's not okay to rob banks. In the course of their congressional dealings they are asked to take part in the repeal of the law preventing bank robbery. So they compromise and say that bank robbery on Wednesdays will be okay. That person just compromised their principle.
SO, when ANY politician on either side of an issue COMPROMISES, they show just how much lack of commitment they have to their core principles.
To take that one step further, if that congressman believes that bank robbery is bad but his constituency firmly believes that it should be okay, how should he vote on the issue?