Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Looks like the Democrats are seeing their mistakes and arrogance catching up with them in the upcoimg elections:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39143422/ns/politics-the_new_york_times

Relapse wrote:Looks like the Democrats are seeing their mistakes and arrogance catching up with them in the upcoimg elections:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39143422/ns/politics-the_new_york_times

Mistakes yes. Arrogance, perhaps not.

The Democrats tried pulling off every stop in the book to get the Super Majority they needed in order to pass healthcare. Some knew that once that legislation was passed, quite a few would probably not be around the next election cycle to enjoy the benefits of saving uninsured peeps.

Peeps?

WarOne wrote:Peeps?

I had a response but now I'm just hungry. I am curious though, the Republican incumbents/nominees aren't trying to get elected?

Why do I suddenly want a chicken fried steak?

I actually read a similar article, but it was about Republicans doing battle with Tea Partiers. Anti-incumbent sentiments are hitting both parties these days.

Frazzled wrote:Why do I suddenly want a chicken fried steak?

..you're awake.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why do I suddenly want a chicken fried steak?

..you're awake.

...and in Texas.

Ahtman wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why do I suddenly want a chicken fried steak?

..you're awake.

...and in Texas.

True dat. Its hard to get a good one nowdays though, not like when I was young. Mmm chicken fried steak...

LordofHats wrote:I actually read a similar article, but it was about Republicans doing battle with Tea Partiers. Anti-incumbent sentiments are hitting both parties these days.

All parties are falling under siege from reactionary idiocy as a general idiom of politics, it's funny that both are doing so from the same hyperconservative populists this time.

Ahtman wrote:

WarOne wrote:Peeps?

I had a response but now I'm just hungry. I am curious though, the Republican incumbents/nominees aren't trying to get elected?

Well, I was talking about Democrats who passed the health care initiative. They tried every trick in the book to pass a once in a generation bill through the legislation and a few realized that once they did, their chances for re-election would look slim.

That or they realized that their chances would be slim anyway. Getting control of the house, senate, and presidency lets the opposition blame everything in the past 2 years on the current party. The presidents inability to keep the voter turnout high, and the number of Dems in swing states meant that the house or senate would probably switch back to the Republicans in the mid terms so the Dems probably just went for it anyway.

Relapse wrote:Looks like the Democrats are seeing their mistakes and arrogance catching up with them in the upcoimg elections:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39143422/ns/politics-the_new_york_times

I don't see any evidence of your summation. Three Democrats in heavily contested areas downplaying their party affiliation is hardly evidence of the Democrats "seeing their mistakes and arrogance catching up with them."

Also, I have to kind of laugh at the idea of Democratic "arrogance." My god, the majority party -- attempting to pass laws and do what the people elected them to do! How arrogant!

No, arrogance is what we've seen from the Republicans, who have all but demanded that they write the legislation, and that everything be done on their terms, and their terms only -- even going so far as to reject their own proposals when supported or advanced by Democrats seeking bipartianship -- despite having been thoroughly repudiated at the polls. When you have lost so epically, and yet continue to demand to be treated as if you are in charge, that is the real arrogance.

My God! The minority party is attempting to exert some influence over the political process? How arrogant!

dogma wrote:My God! The minority party is attempting to exert some influence over the political process? How arrogant!

Not only arrogant. They're a political part attempting to play politics. It's absolutely absurd. Everyone knows you win elections by telling everyone to vote for the other guy.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why do I suddenly want a chicken fried steak?

..you're awake.

...and in Texas.

True dat. Its hard to get a good one nowdays though, not like when I was young. Mmm chicken fried steak...

The only good ones I get are the ones I make myself. I blame the fact that there's nothing but Chain Restaurants anymore, or so it seems.

dogma wrote:My God! The minority party is attempting to exert some influence over the political process? How arrogant!

It's only arrogant if it's not the party that you affiliate yourself with, Dogma.

As an independent, I say a pox on both of their houses.

dogma wrote:My God! The minority party is attempting to exert some influence over the political process? How arrogant!

What the minority party is doing goes far beyond "attempting to exert some influence over the political process." The Republicans over the last two years have been aggressively attempting to control the entire political process, primarily by using the procedural filibuster. The GOP -- despite their minority position -- has offered no compromise with the majority, instead insisting either they get their way or they gridlock the entire process and nobody gets their way. And they are doing it at a time when the country is in very bad shape, and desperately needs its government to be functioning at its best.

And it is arrogant. Cynically and sarcastically downplaying the significance of the GOP's strategy over the last two years does not change the fundamental nature of that strategy. It is as old as dirt, and familiar to every child: Play the game my way, or I'm taking my ball home.

Gailbraithe wrote:

dogma wrote:My God! The minority party is attempting to exert some influence over the political process? How arrogant!

What the minority party is doing goes far beyond "attempting to exert some influence over the political process." The Republicans over the last two years have been aggressively attempting to control the entire political process, primarily by using the procedural filibuster. The GOP -- despite their minority position -- has offered no compromise with the majority, instead insisting either they get their way or they gridlock the entire process and nobody gets their way. And they are doing it at a time when the country is in very bad shape, and desperately needs its government to be functioning at its best.

And it is arrogant. Cynically and sarcastically downplaying the significance of the GOP's strategy over the last two years does not change the fundamental nature of that strategy. It is as old as dirt, and familiar to every child: Play the game my way, or I'm taking my ball home.

Protip. When you have the executive, and majorities in both parties and reconcilation, and then blaming the other party for what you do or don't do, well thats akin to the robber blaming the home owner for him breaking him.

Frazzled wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

dogma wrote:My God! The minority party is attempting to exert some influence over the political process? How arrogant!

What the minority party is doing goes far beyond "attempting to exert some influence over the political process." The Republicans over the last two years have been aggressively attempting to control the entire political process, primarily by using the procedural filibuster. The GOP -- despite their minority position -- has offered no compromise with the majority, instead insisting either they get their way or they gridlock the entire process and nobody gets their way. And they are doing it at a time when the country is in very bad shape, and desperately needs its government to be functioning at its best.

And it is arrogant. Cynically and sarcastically downplaying the significance of the GOP's strategy over the last two years does not change the fundamental nature of that strategy. It is as old as dirt, and familiar to every child: Play the game my way, or I'm taking my ball home.

Protip. When you have the executive, and majorities in both parties and reconcilation, and then blaming the other party for what you do or don't do, well thats akin to the robber blaming the home owner for him breaking him.

Protip, comparing a political party you don't like to robbers makes you look like a childish tool.

Gailbraithe wrote:

dogma wrote:My God! The minority party is attempting to exert some influence over the political process? How arrogant!

What the minority party is doing goes far beyond "attempting to exert some influence over the political process." The Republicans over the last two years have been aggressively attempting to control the entire political process, primarily by using the procedural filibuster.

Oh, how short our memories are.

I suppose you were this much against it when the Democrats were the filibustering minority?

Meh, the Dems have plenty of "borrowed" seats in normally conservative leaning states. No big surprise a few are going to swing back.

Personally, while I definitely lean Democratic, I'm tickled that the GOP is probably going to snag the Senate. I'm a big fan of there being a split in power between the big 3. I wouldn't even be all that upset if they miraculously swung both the House and Senate as long as the Dems hold onto the White House (and they can refrain themselves from impeaching anybody).

Anything that gets them to work together and compromise (or at the very least mitigate their more extreme views) works for me.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

dogma wrote:My God! The minority party is attempting to exert some influence over the political process? How arrogant!

What the minority party is doing goes far beyond "attempting to exert some influence over the political process." The Republicans over the last two years have been aggressively attempting to control the entire political process, primarily by using the procedural filibuster. The GOP -- despite their minority position -- has offered no compromise with the majority, instead insisting either they get their way or they gridlock the entire process and nobody gets their way. And they are doing it at a time when the country is in very bad shape, and desperately needs its government to be functioning at its best.

And it is arrogant. Cynically and sarcastically downplaying the significance of the GOP's strategy over the last two years does not change the fundamental nature of that strategy. It is as old as dirt, and familiar to every child: Play the game my way, or I'm taking my ball home.

Protip. When you have the executive, and majorities in both parties and reconcilation, and then blaming the other party for what you do or don't do, well thats akin to the robber blaming the home owner for him breaking him.

Protip, comparing a political party you don't like to robbers makes you look like a childish tool.

Again a big sloppy kiss your way Shuma. Mmwa! Warning, I've just had Mexican food.
Why do you think I don't like that party, or more precisely dislike them more than I dislike other parties? If the Republican party made the same sad excuse they would be just as pathetic.

Frazzled wrote:Protip. When you have the executive, and majorities in both parties and reconcilation, and then blaming the other party for what you do or don't do, well thats akin to the robber blaming the home owner for him breaking him.

You can't just ignore reality. You can't pretend that the system works some way other than how it actually works.

The filibuster exists, which means that any bill presented by the majority party -- the party privileged to present laws for consideration -- can be forced to pass cloture before becoming law, if the minority party chooses. The GOP in this congress has used the filibuster more than twice as often as any congress in history. They have forced every single significant bill to pass with 60 votes rather than 51. It's entirely abusive of the process, and they are doing it because they fundamentally do not accept the right of Americans to vote for the other guy's agenda. Hence they are freezing the process to get their way.

Both parties do it.

@1-UP: Erm, no. Here's a preview of the next two years...

Speaking of Boehner, Politico is reporting that House Republicans “have held a series of private discussions to plot their first moves if they win the majority in November — with plans to use spending bills and subpoenas to rein in President Barack Obama and satiate their own ravenous base… The plans presently under discussion include defunding some parts of the new health care law and delaying implementation of others, withholding some of the unspent stimulus funds, and using the oversight power of Republican-led committees to investigate the Obama administration. ‘The goal, obviously, would be to make it a one-term presidency,’ said a GOP lobbyist briefed on the talks.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/09/5075667-first-thoughts-obama-vs-boehner

Now that's working together and working for us!

1-UP wrote:Meh, the Dems have plenty of "borrowed" seats in normally conservative leaning states. No big surprise a few are going to swing back.

Personally, while I definitely lean Democratic, I'm tickled that the GOP is probably going to snag the Senate. I'm a big fan of there being a split in power between the big 3. I wouldn't even be all that upset if they miraculously swung both the House and Senate as long as the Dems hold onto the White House (and they can refrain themselves from impeaching anybody).

Anything that gets them to work together and compromise (or at the very least mitigate their more extreme views) works for me.

If the GOP gains control of the House or Senate, then an impeachment effort is almost assured. It will be a complete repeat of 1994, except without the tech boom. So the recession will just get worse and worse, the Republicans will have no solutions at all, and will try to distract America with a circus side-show of endless hearings and special investigations, and if they can find something that can be twisted into a "high crime" (like lying about a hummer), then they'll go for the impeachment. Even if they only gain a few seats in the Senate, they'll shut down the government.

Republicans have been moving ever and ever closer to a form of political terrorism, where basically if you don't vote for them, don't give them the power, then they just devote themselves to throwing spanners into the works, and preventing the goverment from accomplisging anything, regardless of how damaging it is to the public and the greater good.

Gailbraithe wrote:
And it is arrogant. Cynically and sarcastically downplaying the significance of the GOP's strategy over the last two years does not change the fundamental nature of that strategy. It is as old as dirt, and familiar to every child: Play the game my way, or I'm taking my ball home.

You know what makes for bad social science? Normative statements.

Regardless, I'm shocked that you would take this line of criticism given that you love the line 'liar' so much.

Gailbraithe wrote:

1-UP wrote:Meh, the Dems have plenty of "borrowed" seats in normally conservative leaning states. No big surprise a few are going to swing back.

Personally, while I definitely lean Democratic, I'm tickled that the GOP is probably going to snag the Senate. I'm a big fan of there being a split in power between the big 3. I wouldn't even be all that upset if they miraculously swung both the House and Senate as long as the Dems hold onto the White House (and they can refrain themselves from impeaching anybody).

Anything that gets them to work together and compromise (or at the very least mitigate their more extreme views) works for me.

If the GOP gains control of the House or Senate, then an impeachment effort is almost assured.

I'd love to see some evidence of this.

Gailbraithe wrote: It's entirely abusive of the process,

Spluh?

What is this process which you are referring to that can be abused? Cloture did not exist at the Constitution of the state, and filibuster has undergone many changes over time (mostly temporal).

The process appears to be the sort of thing outlined by the body, and you appear to be woefully ignorant of any fact to the contrary.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Protip. When you have the executive, and majorities in both parties and reconcilation, and then blaming the other party for what you do or don't do, well thats akin to the robber blaming the home owner for him breaking him.

You can't just ignore reality. You can't pretend that the system works some way other than how it actually works.

The filibuster exists, which means that any bill presented by the majority party -- the party privileged to present laws for consideration -- can be forced to pass cloture before becoming law, if the minority party chooses. The GOP in this congress has used the filibuster more than twice as often as any congress in history. They have forced every single significant bill to pass with 60 votes rather than 51. It's entirely abusive of the process, and they are doing it because they fundamentally do not accept the right of Americans to vote for the other guy's agenda. Hence they are freezing the process to get their way.

Reconciliation vitiates your filibuster argument. Next!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
You know what makes for bad social science? Normative statements.

What does that mean Dogma?

Normative statements are value judgments. Statements regarding how things ought to be, rather than how things are. Social science is predicated on the what of things, the why is only reached after extensive argument. Hence, normative statements are abd social science.

Also, how is iit that you and I have come to take issue with the same person?

Frazzled wrote:Reconciliation vitiates your filibuster argument. Next!

Reconciliation only allows budget bills to avoid filibustering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I suppose you were this much against it when the Democrats were the filibustering minority?

The Democrats did not use the filibuster in an attempt to prevent the Republicans from governing, and you are -- as conservatives always do -- drawing false equivalencies between the two parties.

Look:


See the spike in the 110th congress? That's what I'm talking about. That's the difference between filibustering the most extreme bills offered by the opposing party, and filibustering everything, all the time, as a matter of course, even if its a bill containing nothing but ideas promoted by the current batch of Republicans two years ago.

Where the Democrats invoking cloture too much during the 104th to 109th congresses? Yeah, probably. Did they start all this nonsense? No. Were they being any worse than the Republicans they took over from? No.

But the Republicans of the 110 went insane, and they're on track to match in the 111th.