|
What happens when conscience meets constituency? By conscience I don't mean ideology, but rather a more basic sense of right and wrong. Clearly, despite how simple or difficult it would be to prosecute telecoms, it would be wrong to grand any retroactive immunity for organizations that aided in breaking the law. I cannot imagine a sense of morality that would view that as right, only as either excusable as a necessary evil or as you have said that it's irrelevant in that one cannot prosecute the telecoms regardless of the provision.
I don't see that as compromise, but rather surrender. Again.
The Aceventuras of the world would likely suggest that the Democrats are weak, which simply gives them a string to pull at. Host and I would see the other side of the coin: those whom we have trusted and voted in the office to take a stand are compromising with tyranny. I don't intend to be melodramatic or wax hyperbole, but really there are times when compromise is appropriate and times when it is not. Between 2006 and now, we have expected the Democratic House and narrowly Democratic Senate to fulfill campaign promises for which the constituents voted them to office. We want an end to the war, we want economic stability, we want an end to runaway spending on military, we want and end of the gathering of power to the executive, we want actual protection from that which endangers us, and we want our rights restored. Unfortunately, this recent bill exemplifies the inconsistency of the steps forward being made. Yes, there have been some victories, but there has been squandered opportunity after squandered opportunity to relentlessly fight against Bush and his policies.
|