Name:   copperline - Subject:   More irony Date:   8/2/2017 9:56:59 AM

It occurs to me that what Graham did was the same as playing Russian Roulette.   Vote for a bill to pass that he was opposed to, in hopes that the House would revise it into something he would like.... but with no certainty that the House wouldn't just pass along the flawed legislation to the President for signature.    I can't believe a sober conservative legislator would take those kind of chances with a bill that would affect 20% of the US economy, and the only reason I can think of for doing so is the 'hot potato' rule.

Pass all hot potatoes to the next guy so you aren't holding it when someone gets burned.   Maybe the Senate wanted the House to be held responsible for creating the crisis, not them.

If you stop to think about what we mean by the terms "conserative" and "liberal", conservative thinking has always been that which is cautious about change, slow to enact changes out of an abundance of caution and a belief that we need to be extremely careful not to cause unintended consequences.   "Conservative" has always been the opposite of "radical", but now we seem to have blended the two together into a new (and contradictory) political position.... the radical conservative who is willing to tear down everything without the usual conservative values.    Graham seems to vascillate between being the 'radical conservative' who would burn 15-24 million people's insurance while at the same time criticizing Trump for being foolish.

I still think there is enough of a split in the GOP's thinking that the party could break up, perhaps creating a more centerist party that will also attract moderate Democrats.   Listening to Senator Jeff Flake describe his new book that heavily criticizes the party for abandoning it's philosophical roots & supporting Trumpism, that split may be taking shape now IMO.