Anybody out there good at neck-rubs?
Even the Republican Party is starting to split about Bush's Iraq strategy. The latest defector is Senator Domenici of New Mexico, who is a senior, six term Republican senator. Check out the story here.
Just so you know, Domenici is big time, a Republican down the line. If he's breaking with Bush about this, you know Bush is in the wrong.
Posted by
Am Kshe Oref - A Stiff-Necked People
at
7/05/2007 08:56:00 PM
Left Wing Modern Orthodox: 78%
Right Wing Modern Orthodox: 89%
Left Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi: 37%
Right Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi: 4%
This means you're: Modern Orthodox
What does it mean?
Congratulations. You're Modern Orthodox all right, but wait! Just when you were ready to live an idyllic happily-labeled life they announce Left Wing and Right Wing Modern Orthodoxy. What the heck is up with that? Maybe you need to rethink and refine some of your positions, and then take the test again so I can put you in a little box.
See? I'm not such a Kofer after all!!! :)
4 comments:
Since, lulei demistafina, I am a Republican, I feel this is as good a spot as any to comment not on your post, but on your bio:
You write, "I created this blog to discuss the problems proliferating and dividing Klal Yisrael. I am looking for ways to fix things and eventually to get people together to fix these problems."
While this is a noble cause. I believe, lulei demistafina, that it merits an accurate translation of the terms "division" and "problems."
While machlokes is a bad thing, division is not. After all, the nation was immediately split into twelve tribes (not to mention the Levites, not to mention the Cohanim). This was no small matter: each tribe had/has a unique mission. Similarly today, Ashkenazim, Sefardim, Chasidim - all have their own direction toward God.
Furthermore, it is INEVITABLE that there will be some discord. The key is that we don't kill each other over it (and I do, lulei demistafina, use the word kill. It could - and has - come to that). The type of infighting we have today, which everyone bemoans, is relatively - historically speaking - benign.
And then there are the problmes. It is equally important to accept that some problems are actually realities. When someone drops a vase and it breaks, does he balme gravity as the problem? The key is to recognize which are which.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the difference between Machlokes and Division. After all, a machlokes L'shem Shamayim is, at least in theory, a good thing. The idea is to ACCEPT the differences and love one another anyway. I don't agree with you that the key is to not kill each other. The key is Ahavas Chinam, which, I admit, I also have trouble with when it comes to sects that will automatically hate me simply because I'm not the same flavor as them...
there hasn't been much out yet about Domenici since it's just not all that newsworthy--- ok, not all Republicans are Bush supporters--- big deal. Thank God, not all Democrats are Clinton supporters.
But this came out a few days ago from Oliver North about Lugar and I found it interesting.
"Messer's Blair and Castro weren’t the only ones making “war news” this week. Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, depicted as a “wise man of the Republican Party,” also made headlines by declaring in a floor speech that, “In my judgment our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond.” Though his remarks continued for more than 50 minutes, the media hyped his belief that “the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting America's vital interests in Iraq.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Mr. Lugar’s remarks a “turning point” in the war.
Nobody mentioned that the “surge strategy” has actually been in effect for one week. Instead, breathless headline writers and broadcast newsreaders who failed to read the entire text of Mr. Lugar’s remarks cited “GOP leaders defecting” and “Tide shifting on GOP support for war,” as though Mr. Lugar was a longstanding advocate for the appropriate use of force who had suddenly seen the light.
In reality, Mr. Lugar’s long tenure in Congress reveals a pattern of uncertainty when it comes to the forceful prosecution of American foreign policy. In 1986 he led the fight to overturn Ronald Reagan’s veto of Congressionally-imposed economic sanctions on South Africa. He voted against aid to the Nicaraguan anti-communist resistance in the FY '89 Defense budget; voted repeatedly against funding for the B-2 Bomber; "yes" for nuclear disarmament in 1991 and against funding SDI in 1992.
Those are inconvenient facts for those who want to depict Mr. Lugar’s recent statement on the war as some kind of tectonic shift. But for America’s media elites, it’s enough. They have determined that the outcome of the war against radical Islam will be decided not on the battlefields of Iraq — but in the corridors of power in Washington. And about that — they may very well be right."
Upshot? Media sensationalizes these tide shifts in political support. Look at Domenici's history if you really want to analyze his thought process.
Kind of a silly argument. All it means is that if he's breaking with Bush, other Republicans might follow. It says something about Bush's future success in formulating foreign policy.
It says nothing about whether or not he is wrong. Why should you or I take Senator Domenici's opinion as gospel?
Post a Comment