Comments on: Rauch Explains All

By: Kent G. Budge

Kent G. Budge — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:48:00 +0000

So explain it to me.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:48:28 +0000

... Can anyonen really be so dim as to not understand concerns with pedophilia? Or have I completely misunderstood what they're talking about here?

The latter.

By: Kent G. Budge

Kent G. Budge — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:14:58 +0000

Young people today just can't understand a world where you had high school assistant principals committing suicide because they were entrapped in a bathroom sexual encounter by cops with nothing better to do. "Ooo! Ooo! Pick me! I know the answer!" ... Can anyonen really be so dim as to not understand concerns with pedophilia? Or have I completely misunderstood what they're talking about here?

By: Steve Plunk

Steve Plunk — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:14:03 +0000

Dr. Taylor's point is spot on. Scoring points just to score points cheapens the democracy and taints trust in the system.

I have seen many instances (especially in local politics) where party affiliations take a back seat to immediate needs and alliances are formed. It happens in congress more than we hear.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:37:50 +0000

The "team" problem isn't that one has to compromise--the "team" problem is that there are some people who join a given team because they want to achieve certain policy goals yet get so caught up in scoring points that they end up supporting the team at the expense of the policy goals. They get to the point where they seem to forget why they joined the team in the first place and only care about the score.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:59:43 +0000

It all depends on whether you want to be right or you want to get somthing done. We have a political system that requires a consensus to act.

Sure. Politics requires deal-making and compromise. But even people in the commentary business tend to bend their analysis to benefit the team.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:44:43 +0000

It all depends on whether you want to be right or you want to get somthing done. We have a political system that requires a consensus to act. I'd hate to throw out the baby to maintain the ideological purity of the bathwater. Meanwhile, I can also agree that there is nothing sacred about a two party system (especially when the two parties are Republicans and Democrats) without desiring some sort of parliamentary factionlaization similar to that of most European countries, can't I?

By: Tlaloc

Tlaloc — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:36:12 +0000

Ironically, the team aspect tends to work against the intellectual coherence that supposedly underpins the political categorization.

Very true. What precisely is the point of having a democracy and then strongly limiting it to two parties?