Reminds me of when he said the reason the GOP (despite majorities in both chambers and the executive branch) couldn't stop the mortgage/housing legislation they knew was ruinous was because Barney Frank might call them racist so it was better to just let the housing market and economy collapse.
I'll give you the same response I did then: Which is better? To be on the side of the guys who wanted to do the right thing, but didn't because they knew they'd be viciously attacked by the other side for doing so? Or to be on the side of the guys who viciously attacked the guys trying to do the right thing?
Given that the "vicious attackers" (seriously? Ha!) thought they were doing the right thing, the question really is"which is better, to be on the side who thinks you're doing the right thing and fights for it or the side who sees their perception of the right thing but declines to fight because it's just too darn hard and someone might say mean words to them?"
I'm voting for the former over the latter. The second group just sounds like a bunch of spineless pussies.
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but if the GOP knew it was illegal and wrong and yet declined to act on it because the big bad liberals would have made it uncomfortable, that's pretty much the definition of getting rolled.
Edited, Apr 13th 2013 11:17am by Jophiel