Emotions change, but principles do not. One can rely on tested principles to form a foundation to guide everything he does. If someone is not settled on the core beliefs on which to base his decisions, he will be unstable and vulnerable to bad decisions based on the emotion of the moment.

We’re seeing bad decisions by liberals (in both parties) in Washington right now because of policy built on emotion-based coffeehouse philosophies rather than on solid principles (healthcare, global warming, stimulus, etc.). Proven principles teach us what the long term effects of policy will be. Emotion causes people with good intentions to make bad long term decisions in an effort to solve a present issue.

Pragmatism in the short term can create some real nightmares in the long term. Entitlement programs are perfect examples.

MAYBE without Speaker Richardson’s threats – and the knowledge that a lot of people are very angry and motivated – we will finally get the right result.

The best politicians we’ve seen over the years have been the ones who understood that compromise gets you closer to your goals than dogmatic principle. Getting a portion of what you want now is better than getting nothing, even if you have to prioritize your goals. And if you’re really really “right” about something, that time is on your side and people will eventually come around to your way of thought… or else you probably weren’t really right to begin with.

A few thoughts about some of the posts on this thread. I think that each legislator should have a set of core beliefs that they want to uphold. There will inevitably come legislation before them where these beliefs will not apply. That is an area where it is safe to compromise, strike deals, reach across the aisle and foster a working relationship. Bipartisanship has it’s place, and so do party line votes. It depends on the legislation. Notice, this applies equally to members of all parties.

There is no such things a pure candidate that you agree with 100% of the time. I think that Johnny is an good US Senator that I agree with a lot more than I disagree with. Some posters on here might have their attitudes improved for a while of the were injected into deep space. Just kidding, kind of. A lot of posters have nothing positive to say about anyone. You know who you are.

“I can’t believe I spend my time reading crap like this. What an idiot.” Is the idiot that you are referring to yourself?

Ah, how is this different than the faith you put in them BEFORE all of this?

Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

Isakson threw these things out the window and now he is demonstrably the biggest fool in Georgia Politics.

You left out one thing I DEMAND …..

That Isakson keep his word.

He didn’t. He lied about being for every element of what he claimed to be – a REPUBLICAN.

I’d rather have pragmatism and realism when it comes to creating legislation. The moralists want everything to be about morality; the “constitutionalists” want everything rolled back to 1780; the corporatists want everything to be about making business more profitable; and the Progressives want everything to look like Europe.

The reality is that none will ever get everything they want because each group taken individually tries to impose a burden on enough other people who don’t believe that those “principles” are the right ones.

Principles are more important that pragmatism (at least most of the time).

-George Carlin

I watch many politicians and wonder if they have any concrete truths that they stand by. Sometimes it seems that many are willing to compromise anything in the name of ‘progress.’ What good is calling something ‘progress’ if you don’t really understand the principles behind the matter and the long term effects?

Some compromise, obviously, is necessary, but bipartisanship should not be a primary legislative goal.