are the Republicans managing to shoot themselves in the foot again?

[winterbadger]

Let's hope so.

Filibuster Rule Change Opposed
But by a 2 to 1 ratio, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees. Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found.

The wide-ranging survey also recorded a precipitous decline in support for the centerpiece of Bush's Social Security plan -- private or personal accounts -- despite the fact that the president and other administration officials have been stumping the country in a 60-day blitz to mobilize support. The Post-ABC poll found that a bare majority -- 51 percent -- opposed such accounts, while 45 percent supported them.

The poll also registered drops in key Bush performance ratings, growing pessimism about the economy and continuing concern about U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Full story

First Social Security, then Schiavo, now changing the rules in the middle of the game. The Republicans are learning the danger of the arrogance of power. Let's home they don't learn the lesson too well or too soon.

Comments

[mazzie.livejournal.com]

Last night on the news I saw a woman interviewed outside that revival or whatever that Frist appeared at (via video) where the sole purpose was to let the faithful know that the filibuster was an attack on their faith. What she said was "Just because we're Christians doesn't mean we're not Americans."
Another gentleman said "They can have their judges and we can have ours."

Talk about Not Getting It (tm). I was stunned.

But! George Bush is a uniter, not a divider!

[winterbadger]

("They can have their judges and we can have ours.") Well, if he'd thinking of the Judges, he should remember that they were (a) tyrants and (b) Jews, not Christians. As much as fundamentalist Christians like the "Old Testament", they need to recall that the religious state that parts of it represent was entirely hostile and intolerant to all other faiths, and *more* so to ones similar to it (who were seen as heretics) than to others. So this obsession with supporting Israel in hopes it will reestablish the ancient kingdom of the Bible...if they got what they want, they wouldn't like it.

Of course, they don't really see Jews as Jews; like Russians, they see *themselves* as Jews and the actual Jews as impostors. And in that sense, the religious, intolerant, destructive kingdom of the Bible that they want to recreate will be run by *them*. And that totally fits with everything they say and do.

In fact, I'm probably being much more imaginaitve than the speaker; he probably was just thinking "We'll have good, fundamentalist Christian judges, and those nasty liberals can have their own judges. Some place far away, where they don't affect anything that has to do with us."

That and the "Just because we're Christians doesn't mean we're not Americans" remark are fuel for the fire burning under the cauldron of my imagination. A post on the basic incompatibility between religious extremism (of whatever faith) and democracy has been brewing in my mind for some time. It needs to simmer a bit longer before it clarifies and I can pour it into a journal entry. But, in essence, I disagree with that woman. You can either be (judging from what I've read about that gathering--her kind of extremist) Christian, or you can be an American; you can't really be both.

[robbysmom.livejournal.com]

"Of course, they don't really see Jews as Jews; like Russians, they see *themselves* as Jews and the actual Jews as impostors"

Harken back to your ganked post where the midset of (many? most?) SBC members as threatned reveals why the concets of REASON and tolerance don't work to engage soem folsk in dicsussion.

I just wonder when it will be that those who join literalist denominatiosn out of a genuien desire to "get it right" but NOT as an expression of inherent distrust of others will see the extenet ot which they're beign led by the very hypocrites against which the Gospel explicitly warns.

Meanwhile, the idea that impartial judges shoudl be mine or yours, our or theirs really brings into question the extent to which these folks have read, thought through and actually respect the structure of the Constitution.

Of course, my views about this a document our understanding of which evolves (and which anyway CAN be ammended) is akin to my view of Hebrew and Christian scripture: to revere the text more than the idea is to make an idol of a moribund thing.

[winterbadger]

I just wonder when it will be that those who join literalist denominatiosn out of a genuien desire to "get it right" but NOT as an expression of inherent distrust of others will see the extenet ot which they're beign led by the very hypocrites against which the Gospel explicitly warns.

The only reason I don't see that happening is because it's my impression people join these groups so they won't have to think about things. "If I need medical advice, I go to a doctor. If I need automotive advice, I go to a mechanic. If I need spiritual advice, I go to my preacher. If I could do those things for myself, I wouldn't need doctors or mechanics or preachers. They know more about those things, so I jsut need to pay them and take their advice."

[robbysmom.livejournal.com]

You may well be right. On what basis they can or should then mobilize politically against others boggles the mind-- except I guess "the preacher says so."

[winterbadger]

That's exactly what I think they want--someoen to tell them what to do, so they don't have to think for themselves.