Gay marriage is a tricky issue for the Democrats due to the fact that - like taxes, defense and education - they are forced to lie about their position when running for office. In other words, Democrats are gay marriage supporters trapped in the bodies of candidates who oppose gay marriage. And no issue-reassignment surgery can help them.
Governors of both political parties face a stark choice between unpopular tax increases and drastic cuts in Medicaid, education, public safety and other essential services.
That is our dilemma in Poland. We don't like to be ruled by the East.
One very difficult decision was deciding to vote against the appropriations bill for the war. I had consistently said that I wanted to make sure our troops got the adequate and training in the war effort, despite the fact that I opposed the war at the point that the president decided to double down and send more troops. I had to vote against funding as a way of bringing it back to the table. That was a difficult decision for me.
If I move one way, I lose a couple votes. If I move another way, I lose a couple votes.
Our only goal is to strengthen the opposition and to avoid the dilemma whereby we only have the choice between Bashar Assad and al-Qaeda.
I have reached a conclusion that when we have to make a choice between greater Israel or a Jewish democratic state - and we have to make this choice, it is inevitable - then my choice is a Jewish democratic country.
The G.O.P. is desperately seeking someone who can save the party from the fate of nominating Mitt Romney. But every time a non-Mitt throws his hat in the ring, the hat explodes.
A Foreign Secretaryand this applies also to a prospective Foreign Secretaryis always faced with this cruel dilemma. Nothing he can say can do very much good, and almost anything he may say may do a great deal of harm. Anything he says that is not obvious is dangerous; whatever is not trite is risky. He is forever poised between the cliche and the indiscretion.
Nobody who's thought about politics or democracy over the thousands of years that people have been thinking about democracy hasn't come up against the fact that the people will often be wrong. And what do you do when they are? You can't just say, 'Well, it's the will of the people.'
For many members of Congress, the time for choosing is near - do what the party leadership demands, or do what the people have asked you to do. If my colleagues don't mind some advice from a newcomer, I'd suggest going with the will of the people.
Tensions plagued his [Woodrow Wilson’s] presidency--particularly the one between principal and pragmatism in United States foreign policy. This is perpetual and the defies resolution.
Politics is a labyrinth without a clue.
If the choice is one-state, Israel can either be Jewish or Democratic. It cannot be both.
Issue definition implies the possibility of offending various constituency or interest groups—but if you don't offend them, you'll offend the body politic.
California is choosing between the lesser of, uh, 300 evils.
The president is being denounced for not taking the kind of pre-emptive action in Afghanistan that he has been so passionately denounced for taking in Iraq. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
