Gary Gross has responded to my commentary (to be honest, I was a little surprised) on a recent posting he made on 'Let Freedom Ring'. Let me begin by stating that I would be the first to admit that I am an amateur in the blogging world and an even bigger amateur when it comes to politics in relation to Mr. Gross. He is on the inside of the Republican machinery in Minnesota while I am but a lowly outsider (albeit an outsider who is a rabid consumer of politics). The purpose of this blog has always been recreational observations of politics as I see it. That being said, from what I read of Mr. Gross, he is of the opinion that conservative principles are always right while liberal and even moderate viewpoints are always wrong. I will be the first to admit that I am a rabid liberal and tend to view liberal viewpoints as right minded viewpoints. However, the difference is that I am not so arrogant as to believe that my viewpoints are always the right course of action or that a more moderate or compromising stance is tantamount to defeat. This is the problem in politics today! We hold steadfast to our viewpoints at the expense of true compromise or true problem solving. We assume that if we back down, even in the slightest, that we have "lost" some battle. We use terms such as 'DINO' or 'RINO' to describe those amongst us we feel have betrayed those viewpoints and dared to compromise. The prime example of this for me is the treatment given to Joe Lieberman during the past election season. While I disagree with some of his more conservative stances I don't think he deserved to be shunned from the party. I want my party to be a big tent in which ideas and viewpoints are debated and even disagreed upon but that has an understanding that there is far more to connect us than to divide us.
So, what did Mr. Gross have to say?
Gary Gross said...
That's a sloppy bit of commentary. When I used the term "winning the battles of the regular session", I was simply saying that special sessions shouldn't be used for things that properly belong to regular sessions.
I'll stand by my statement that the DFL gets spanked in November 2008 because it isn't possible to compromise with a tax-increase hungry bunch of radical lefties.The only way to get the $5.5 billion tax increases off the table is by getting them from their agenda-setting role as the majority party in the House.
*Gary tries to downplay his rabid partisanship with a little sprinkle of attack the messenger. Yet, it is hard to hide when the next sentence is a confirmation that compromise is not his fault, but rather, the fault of "radical lefties". Isn't it convenient, Gary, that you would discount compromise by portraying people that don't agree with your particular viewpoints as a "radical"? It seems like a cop out so that you don't have to even make attempts at compromise.
You have to ask yourselves a few things about Gary:
- Does he believe conservatives are "right" about everything?
- Does he believe liberals are "wrong" about everything?
- Has he ever supported anything proposed by a liberal or a moderate?
- If he is intent upon the DFL compromising, what compromises is he willing to make?
*If he cannot find anything to support in liberal or moderate positions how can we ever have meaningful dialogue on issues facing Minnesota? If he cannot find any compromise in his own position what possible good can come out of one sided compromise?
*On a side note: I do want to thank Gary for stopping by my little blog and, at the very least, starting a discussion!
3 responses to "Gary Gross Responds..."
Let me answer some of the questions you posed of me. Before I do that, let me first say that I like your blog. In the arena of ideas, a thoughtful man who's willing to examine a differing viewpoint is a man who'll go far. Now for those answers:
You have to ask yourselves a few things about Gary:
1. Does he believe conservatives are "right" about everything?
Not even close, though I believe that the underpinnings of conservatism are principles that have stood the test of time.
2. Does he believe liberals are "wrong" about everything?
Simply put, definitely not. In fact, some of my greatest political heroes are liberals of great repute. Men like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, JFK, RFK, Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey & Paul Wellstone were men that I disagreed with on various issues but I never questioned whether they'd thought things through. I always knew that keeping America prosperous & protected from dangerous outsiders was their highest priorities. In fact, my first vote was cast for Hubert Humphrey.
3. Has he ever supported anything proposed by a liberal or a moderate?
Definitely. I've often agreed with Joe Lieberman's & Daniel Patrick Moynihan's ideas.
4. If he is intent upon the DFL compromising, what compromises is he willing to make?
Frankly, right now, the differences between the two parties are frequently far apart.That said, I'm perfectly willing to agree to a gas tax increase once transportation earmarks are shrunk dramatically. I took a look at the 2005 Highway Bill. There were over 6,400 earmarks that added $24 billion to the bill. The most infamous of those earmarks was for the "Bridge to Nowhere".
I stated in this post that $24 billion was only the federal portion of those earmarks. Part of the USDoT's guidelines mandates that states pick up 25 percent of the tab on transportation projects. In other words, states picked up a $6 billion tab for what essentially amounts to an incumbent's re-election fund.
I don't care whether that incumbent has a D or an R behind their name, either. Wasting taxpayers' money simply can't be justified.
If they cut earmarked spending by half (preferably more), I'd then say that I'd be ok with a gas tax increase with the stipulation that the increase going for inspections, road & bridge repair & other things that make our highways safe.
I'll readily admit that I'm a partisan but I'm also willing to examine any idea if the person can explain their opinion in a logical, rational manner. I demand that opinions be based on verifiable facts, however. If anyone uses those 'techniques', I'm always willing to listen.
Keep writing what you believe in. Disagreeing with someone isn't a tragedy. Disagreeing with someone just for the sake of disagreeing is. I hope I never fall into that second category, though I'm sure that'll happen from time to time.
Gary,
Thanks for stopping back! I appreciate you taking the time to clarify those things. Damned you though for coming back with rational and reasoned responses! It gives me nothing to work with. :)
Since you graciously offered a list of Democrats you found acceptable, I would like to offer my own. However, I am considerably younger so it is a far more recent list!
1. John McCain
2. Rudy Giuliani
3. Colin Powell
4. John Warner
5. Norm Coleman
-They are all statesman of the truest form and despite disagreement on several issues I see them as men who are willing to work with others.
One last thing:
"I believe that the underpinnings of conservatism are principles that have stood the test of time."
This must be the essence that divides us because I truly believe that the underpinnings of liberalism have served this country well. From the classic liberalism of the Revolution to the liberal ideas about progress that have kept us advancing to the goals of the Declaration.
You're really gonna hate me now. I think that the merging of the best of liberal compassion & conservatism's can do attitude & love of freedom makes for the strongest America.
To think that one party has a lock on wisdom is what's best described as dangerous arrogance.
I'm a good friend of King Banaian from SCSUScholars. This August, we got together for breakfast, as is our habit from time to time. That morning's topic was foreign policy. One of the last things King said about the downfall of American foreign policy was that Democrats didn't keep producing men like Scoop Jackson & Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I totally agree.
What's best for America is to have both political parties being pro-victory parties. We can't afford to not defeat the terrorists. If we don't get that right, everything else is immaterial.
Thanks for the reasoned, measured debate. You're definitely a credit to liberalism.