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.

Gailbraithe wrote:

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.

It looks like the 104th, Democratic, was the record holder until now.

I wonder why that might be?

Monster Rain wrote:It looks like the 104th, Democratic, was the record holder until now.

I wonder why that might be?

You're just constitutionally incapable of addressing the actual point, aren't you?

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It looks like the 104th, Democratic, was the record holder until now.

I wonder why that might be?

You're just constitutionally incapable of addressing the actual point, aren't you?

What point am I not addressing?

Gailbraithe wrote:

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!

This part of the article explains it a bit more:

"The advertisements from these three vulnerable Democrats offer a window into the party’s strategy to try to keep control of the House in November at a moment when Republicans and their allies are substantially outspending Democrats and their backers."

Basically, the article uses these three candidates as examples of how a lot of Democratic candidates are handling the upcominig elections. They have good reason to be nervous with reports like the one in this link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/06/political-scientists-fore_n_706643.html

As far as arrogance goes, Pelosi and Frank are put forward as exibits A and B. If you don't think Pelosi has hurt the Democrats with her statements and actions you haven't been paying attention.

Gailbraithe wrote:
See the spike in the 110th congress? That's what I'm talking about.

Why do prior conditions seem to indicate partisan dependence?

Oh, that's right, you can't do real social science.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

If it happened they would, but the democrats are in the business of running a functioning government, not acting like idiots catering to a voterbase of idiots. If you think for a single second that a democratic filibuster wouldn't be everything fox talked about for a month then you're high as a fething kite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

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.

It looks like the 104th, Democratic, was the record holder until now.

I wonder why that might be?

They felt like going 2% higher then the previous republican record? It's a modest thing to do, nothing like that big 'ol spike at the end.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

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.

It looks like the 104th, Democratic, was the record holder until now.

I wonder why that might be?

They felt like going 2% higher then the previous republican record? It's a modest thing to do, nothing like that big 'ol spike at the end.

Hey, if you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly.

I agree with Shuma

So if you were to compare the number of times cloture was invoked as to the number of motions filed then you would have a actual decrease in the % of cloture? So if the Dems were spamming motions then there would be an increase in the number of times it was invoked.

Heh. In 2006 there was a case of a Republican putting GOP on his advertising stuff instead of Republican after finding people said they were more likely to vote for him. The Democrats threatened to take him to court over it. Then 2006 happened like it happened. When people start running away from their own party only bad things can follow.

BrockRitcey wrote: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.

They also backed themselves into a corner with healthcare. They managed simultaneously to completely fail to sell the bill and attach it directly to their own party. A worst of both worlds situation that meant that despite their best efforts to the contrary, the Democrats were forced actually have to vote for a progressive, useful bill for once.

Gailbraithe wrote:

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.

Umm, look at your graph more carefully. The orange spike shows an increase in the number of times cloture was invoked to end debate, the second spike shows the number of times cloture was actually carried out, and the last graph shows the number of times cloture was successful. The number of successful efforts to invoke cloture in this most recent congress shows a huge spike, indicating the Democrats were in fact able to bypass Republican stalling tactics a lot. It can be argued this is a measure of the power of their 60 (later 59) votes, and that the obstruction of the GOP forced more cloture votes, and I'd think these were reasonable arguments. But purely in terms of bringing debate to an end and getting a bill passed, the graph shows the exact opposite of what you were claiming.

sebster wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Umm, look at your graph more carefully. The orange spike shows an increase in the number of times cloture was invoked to end debate, the second spike shows the number of times cloture was actually carried out, and the last graph shows the number of times cloture was successful.

No, the orange line is the number of motions to invoke cloture were filed, which is a filibuster. The second line shows how many times a motion to invoke cloture came to a vote, the third line shows how many times that vote successfully invoked cloture (i.e. ended the filibuster).

The number of successful efforts to invoke cloture in this most recent congress shows a huge spike, indicating the Democrats were in fact able to bypass Republican stalling tactics a lot. It can be argued this is a measure of the power of their 60 (later 59) votes, and that the obstruction of the GOP forced more cloture votes, and I'd think these were reasonable arguments. But purely in terms of bringing debate to an end and getting a bill passed, the graph shows the exact opposite of what you were claiming.

The Democrats have had a high rate of successfully invoking cloture and ending the filibusters primarily because the Republicans have been filibustering many bills that are of vital necessity, such as unemployment extensions.

What you don't seem to understand is that the filibuster is a massive delaying tactic, it doesn't prevent all legislation from getting passed, what it does it slows down the passage of legislation to a trickle, and make an already moribund procedure take far more time than simply allowing a yes or no vote on the bill...you know, like the constitution says.

Gailbraithe wrote:No, the orange line is the number of motions to invoke cloture were filed, which is a filibuster. The second line shows how many times a motion to invoke cloture came to a vote, the third line shows how many times that vote successfully invoked cloture (i.e. ended the filibuster).

Yes, that's what I just explained to you.

Except you added the part in there that a motion to invoke cloture was automatically related to the level of filibustering going on. That's a big assumption, and the part you will need to prove to make your case.

It is entirely possible that the Democrats, due to their greater level of power from holding 60 seats, were much happier to call cloture. It is entirely possible that in previous sessions there was no willingness to call for cloture as it was believed the vote would not have been won. In those instances there would have been filibustering anyway, it just wouldn't have shown a motion for cloture.

The Democrats have had a high rate of successfully invoking cloture and ending the filibusters primarily because the Republicans have been filibustering many bills that are of vital necessity, such as unemployment extensions.

That's a very dubious claim. The nature of the bill or the motivation for the filibuster doesn't significantly affect the likelihood of cloture being successful. The primary determinant of successful cloture has to be the number of seats you hold. Which can be observed by the number of times cloture was successful in this last session.

What you don't seem to understand is that the filibuster is a massive delaying tactic, it doesn't prevent all legislation from getting passed, what it does it slows down the passage of legislation to a trickle, and make an already moribund procedure take far more time than simply allowing a yes or no vote on the bill...you know, like the constitution says.

No, I understand it perfectly well. I even agree that this Republican minority has been particularly obstructionist in its delaying tactics, particularly since the passing of the healthcare bill. I've just been pointing out that your graph doesn't actually prove that, it only shows the number of times the Democrats have been willing to call for cloture, which is not automatically linked, particularly when the majority party holds enough seats to win a call for cloture by voting along party lines.

Gailbraithe wrote:
No, the orange line is the number of motions to invoke cloture were filed, which is a filibuster.

No, that's the red line.

Didn't you go to art school?

sebster wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:No, the orange line is the number of motions to invoke cloture were filed, which is a filibuster. The second line shows how many times a motion to invoke cloture came to a vote, the third line shows how many times that vote successfully invoked cloture (i.e. ended the filibuster).

Yes, that's what I just explained to you.

Except you added the part in there that a motion to invoke cloture was automatically related to the level of filibustering going on. That's a big assumption, and the part you will need to prove to make your case.

I see what you're getting at, but that's not a big assumption. A motion to invoke cloture occurs in response to a filibuster, and the filibuster is why the motion to invoke cloture exists.

Assuming that the Democrats are making unprovoked calls for cloture in order to make it harder to pass their own bills and appoint their own nominees seems the more outlandish suggestion. If the Republicans aren't threatening a filibuster, then the bill could simply be brought to a vote, and then only require 51 to pass. Which means problematic Dems like Ben Nelson and (ex-Dem) Lieberman would have far less power. It doesn't make sense for Reid to be invoking cloture if there isn't the threat of a filibuster.

At anyrate, the number of motions to invoke cloture is the only metric we have for estimating the actual numbers of filibusters, since no one has to go on record saying they are going to filibuster.

It is entirely possible that the Democrats, due to their greater level of power from holding 60 seats, were much happier to call cloture. It is entirely possible that in previous sessions there was no willingness to call for cloture as it was believed the vote would not have been won. In those instances there would have been filibustering anyway, it just wouldn't have shown a motion for cloture.

I suppose that's possible, but you'll never be able to prove it.

The Democrats have had a high rate of successfully invoking cloture and ending the filibusters primarily because the Republicans have been filibustering many bills that are of vital necessity, such as unemployment extensions.

That's a very dubious claim. The nature of the bill or the motivation for the filibuster doesn't significantly affect the likelihood of cloture being successful. The primary determinant of successful cloture has to be the number of seats you hold. Which can be observed by the number of times cloture was successful in this last session.

Uh, yeah, the nature of the bill does significantly does affect the likelihood of invoking cloture. Obviously its easier to get every Democrat and maybe a few Republicans to vote yes on a bill that's seen as much needed and popular with the public.

What you don't seem to understand is that the filibuster is a massive delaying tactic, it doesn't prevent all legislation from getting passed, what it does it slows down the passage of legislation to a trickle, and make an already moribund procedure take far more time than simply allowing a yes or no vote on the bill...you know, like the constitution says.

No, I understand it perfectly well. I even agree that this Republican minority has been particularly obstructionist in its delaying tactics, particularly since the passing of the healthcare bill. I've just been pointing out that your graph doesn't actually prove that, it only shows the number of times the Democrats have been willing to call for cloture, which is not automatically linked, particularly when the majority party holds enough seats to win a call for cloture by voting along party lines.

Uh, yeah, the nature of the bill does significantly does affect the likelihood of invoking cloture. Obviously its easier to get every Democrat and maybe a few Republicans to vote yes on a bill that's seen as much needed and popular with the public.

Aha. So having a supermajority is not why Dems win cloture votes. That's irrelevant. What matters is the fact that the Democrats are TOTALLY right on all the issues, and have so much popular support.

Got it.

Wait, isn't this thread about how the Democrats are set to take a pounding in November, because their legislation has been so unpopular?

Yup, it all adds up. Art school math.

Phryxis wrote:

Uh, yeah, the nature of the bill does significantly does affect the likelihood of invoking cloture. Obviously its easier to get every Democrat and maybe a few Republicans to vote yes on a bill that's seen as much needed and popular with the public.

Aha. So having a supermajority is not why Dems win cloture votes. That's irrelevant. What matters is the fact that the Democrats are TOTALLY right on all the issues, and have so much popular support.

Got it.

Hello Strawman!

The part that I've bolded in your comment, there is no possible way for you to justify that interpretation of my comments. That is like this:

Me: "The sky appears to be blue."
Phryxis: "Oh ho! So I see, you're saying that pigs can fly. Well, that is just ridiculous."
Me:

Phryxis wrote:

Uh, yeah, the nature of the bill does significantly does affect the likelihood of invoking cloture. Obviously its easier to get every Democrat and maybe a few Republicans to vote yes on a bill that's seen as much needed and popular with the public.

Aha. So having a supermajority is not why Dems win cloture votes. That's irrelevant. What matters is the fact that the Democrats are TOTALLY right on all the issues, and have so much popular support.

Got it.

Wait, isn't this thread about how the Democrats are set to take a pounding in November, because their legislation has been so unpopular?

Yup, it all adds up. Art school math.

Did the supermajority help them break a fillibuster in any contentious vote? Did a contentious vote even occur during the short time that they had it? Most of the successes they had were due to cross aisle converts like Olympia Snowe making up for minor obstructive elements within the democratic party itself. Did the Dems actually vote together as a supermajority on any single item?

Also, as an aside the reason they are set up to take a beating (besides being the incumbents) is due to economic stagnation. Most of the public opinion on reforms tracks with confidence in the economy right now. When times are good all decisions made are good, when times are bad no one is doing the right thing. The decisions themselves are largely irrelevant as the public at large knows very little about the reforms that have actually gone through (due to a mix of yellow media and blue hype). At the voting booth people vote based on just how much they have in their wallets during this kind of environment. Even then the actual projected democratic losses aren't nearly so heavy as most pundits and conservative choirs sing. The tea party is doing great things for the Dems.

Gailbraithe wrote:
At anyrate, the number of motions to invoke cloture is the only metric we have for estimating the actual numbers of filibusters, since no one has to go on record saying they are going to filibuster.

The filibuster is not a discreet action in US parliamentary procedure. It is a right accorded to all members of Congress, and is therefore not something that is invoked.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Hello Strawman!

The part that I've bolded in your comment, there is no possible way for you to justify that interpretation of my comments. That is like this:

Me: "The sky appears to be blue."
Phryxis: "Oh ho! So I see, you're saying that pigs can fly. Well, that is just ridiculous."
Me:

Really, because this...

Gailbraithe wrote:
Uh, yeah, the nature of the bill does significantly does affect the likelihood of invoking cloture. Obviously its easier to get every Democrat and maybe a few Republicans to vote yes on a bill that's seen as much needed and popular with the public.

...appears tro disagree with you. Nice try though.

Gailbraithe wrote:I see what you're getting at, but that's not a big assumption. A motion to invoke cloture occurs in response to a filibuster, and the filibuster is why the motion to invoke cloture exists.

Assuming that the Democrats are making unprovoked calls for cloture in order to make it harder to pass their own bills and appoint their own nominees seems the more outlandish suggestion.

That wasn't my suggestion at all. My suggestion was that in the past efforts at cloture were not attempted because the party would not have been able to get anywhere near 60 votes, so the senate likely moved on to debate other issues.

In an almost split house, neither party would have the numbers to successfully call for cloture, the practical reality of which is that both parties look for a bipartisan way for a bill to get the 60 votes needed to beat a potential filibuster.

At anyrate, the number of motions to invoke cloture is the only metric we have for estimating the actual numbers of filibusters, since no one has to go on record saying they are going to filibuster.

Yes, which makes obstruction hard to prove. Like you, I believe this has been a particularly obstructionist minority. But that's different to actually proving it.

I suppose that's possible, but you'll never be able to prove it.

No, I couldn't prove and I suspect that even if it was part of the explanation, it wouldn't be the whole explanation or even a major part of it. But the point here is whether your graph proves an obstructionist GOP minority - it doesn't. I think you'd be better off going with the claims made by McCain and other members of the senior leadership following the passage of healthcare that they would obstruct everything.

Uh, yeah, the nature of the bill does significantly does affect the likelihood of invoking cloture. Obviously its easier to get every Democrat and maybe a few Republicans to vote yes on a bill that's seen as much needed and popular with the public.

The difference between needing one member of the minority to cross the floor, and getting six or seven to cross the floor is a really bigr deal.

sebster wrote:That wasn't my suggestion at all. My suggestion was that in the past efforts at cloture were not attempted because the party would not have been able to get anywhere near 60 votes, so the senate likely moved on to debate other issues.

I see, so you're thinking that the number of filibusters may not have risen, only the motions to invoke cloture. But that would require that in previous congresses there where three times as many filibusters as cloture motions, which seems unlikely. Which ever party was being hammered like that would be screaming bloody murder.

In an almost split house, neither party would have the numbers to successfully call for cloture, the practical reality of which is that both parties look for a bipartisan way for a bill to get the 60 votes needed to beat a potential filibuster.

No, the practical reality is that when they are in power, Democrats routinely disregard the desires of their base and make massive compromises to Republicans, and then don't get any Republican votes anyway, and then get accused of "cramming it down people's throats" by obstructionist Republicans. And when Republicans are in power, the Democrats routinely cross party lines to show how committed to bipartisanship in

No, I couldn't prove and I suspect that even if it was part of the explanation, it wouldn't be the whole explanation or even a major part of it. But the point here is whether your graph proves an obstructionist GOP minority - it doesn't. I think you'd be better off going with the claims made by McCain and other members of the senior leadership following the passage of healthcare that they would obstruct everything.

I wasn't intending the graph as a proof, but a graphic representation of the problem. You're right, the graph alone is not enough evidence, but the GOP is on record as saying this is the plan. The graph really shows the effects of that plan.

dogma wrote: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?

Just messing with your mind Dogma. I am sure things will return to normal presently. Thanks for the definition.

Most of the successes they had were due to cross aisle converts like Olympia Snowe making up for minor obstructive elements within the democratic party itself.

The cross aisle stuff does happen, I don't mean to suggest it doesn't. I'm just saying that when you've got a supermajority, all you need is a straight party line vote, or one or two crossover votes. If you've got 51% majority, you need a LOT of people to cross over.

It's a completely obvious, nearly tautalogical point: if you have more people voting for you, you have a better chance of winning a vote.

I apologize for having to make this point. I realize you're trying to be thoughtful here, and address the true details of the situation...

I guess you didn't notice that G-baby is in the thread. When he's around, the topic isn't thoughtful detail. It's all hyperbolic comic book prattle. So, in this case, he's decided that having a supermajority is not salient, it's just a matter of being on the right side of important issues.

G-baby world: The Democrats don't get cloture because they have a lot more votes in Congress, it's cause they're on the right side of the issues.

The tea party is doing great things for the Dems.

Meh. I don't think so. I know they're screwing up a few races, doing a Perot spoiler thing, but in the big picture they're mobilizing more opposition against the Dems.

I know you hate these guys, but hating somebody doesn't mean they're not winning. The Lakers keep winning NBA Titles, after all.

And when Republicans are in power, the Democrats routinely cross party lines to show how committed to bipartisanship in

Right, because Democrats good, Republicans evil.

Please, dude. You're not going to learn anything or get anywhere if you insist on living in a comic book version of reality.

Both parties obstruct when they think it's politcally beneficial, pretend to cooperate when it's not. They don't make concessions to each other, the make concessions to popular opinion.

The Democrats basically cut the Republicans out of having a say on Obamacare. They did it so extensively and so obviously that it nearly cost them the legislation, and even liberal pundits were bemoaning the misstep. In the end they STILL got the bill passed, and it was STILL unpopular with the public and generally viewed as excessive by the same.

This is not about "Democrat good, Republican bad." This is about two parties of relatively corrupt, incompetent, intellectually bankrupt politicians battling over the field of public opinion.

Both parties obstruct when they think it's politcally beneficial, pretend to cooperate when it's not. They don't make concessions to each other, the make concessions to popular opinion.

I would argue that the conservative media machine strongly guides popular opinion towards that which would see them benefit from extreme obstructionism. Both sides certainly proselytize for their agenda, but in modern times conservative media and now the self generating tea party (where once they were reliant on the fox machine) has been a powerful force for the debasement of most forms of debate. There is a good reason this has been the most obstructionist minority party in history by a significant margin, the unified effort to paint the opposing party as something bad for the country has gone well beyond the norm and the truly politically expedient choice is to simply refuse to deal, debate, or discuss issues at large. I would suspect that many in the conservative aisles strongly dislike how the modern media framwork has forced them to act.

The Democrats basically cut the Republicans out of having a say on Obamacare.

They tried to deal them in but "No" "It's not the right time" and "You are trying to kill the elderly" aren't realistic sentiments when you want to cut a deal. The republicans had absolutely no interest in having a say on Obamacare beyond "This is bad go away". It would not be politically wise for them to interface with the bill as it would severely jeopardize their chances of re-election against the insurgent tea party and hardliners within their own.

They did it so extensively and so obviously that it nearly cost them the legislation, and even liberal pundits were bemoaning the misstep. In the end they STILL got the bill passed, and it was STILL unpopular with the public and generally viewed as excessive by the same.

The public that, when polled and interviewed, apparently knows less then 10% of the contents of the bill while knowing 60-70% of fox news' false take on it (harsh soundbites are easier to remember then legalistics). Yes, it's very unpopular, and democracy works so very well when the media is the color of yellow.

This is not about "Democrat good, Republican bad." This is about two parties of relatively corrupt, incompetent, intellectually bankrupt politicians battling over the field of public opinion.

One just happens to be much more intellectually bankrupt then the other! Or they just decided to throw out their ideals to cater to rush and Becks tea party heroes (which has gone very poorly for the conservative party). Who knows. I'll agree that the dems are hugely incompetent concerning the methods by which one defeats an obstructionist minority party, and their fractiousness has shown strongly.

Phryxis wrote:I guess you didn't notice that G-baby is in the thread. When he's around, the topic isn't thoughtful detail. It's all hyperbolic comic book prattle. So, in this case, he's decided that having a supermajority is not salient, it's just a matter of being on the right side of important issues.

G-baby world: The Democrats don't get cloture because they have a lot more votes in Congress, it's cause they're on the right side of the issues.

Nothing I've said supports this interpretation. You are simply making up nonsense whole cloth and attributing it to me.

Right, because Democrats good, Republicans evil.

That's not what I said. But good job attacking that straw-man. You're really kicking the hay out of him.

A more reasonable interpretation of what I said would be "Democrats are weak, spineless and constantly getting played; Republicans are more disciplined and better at manipulating the process."

All I know is that I pay these guys to represent my wishes in congress, and since my rep didn't, he won't be getting my vote.

Democrat, Republican, I don't care, but they are there to represent the people, not themselves, and so Ole Pomeroy is getting the boot. Not sure I like/trust the republican though >.>

I would argue that the conservative media machine strongly guides popular opinion towards that which would see them benefit from extreme obstructionism.

Well, right, I think we both know that we have differing opinions on this issue.

While I agree that the standard of debate isn't very high, I don't think it's a conservative problem, I think it's a function of the way news media is operating these days. The competitiveness of it, the sensationalism of it, the need to be most visible in the cycle, etc. etc.

I also don't think that the conservative rhetoric causes obstructionism, it's more a fundamental function of conservatism as an ideology. When you're trying to be conservative (in the terms we understand it outside of politics) then obviously you're going to oppose doing anything big or anything fast, or at least you'd do so more often than people who are often labelled as "progressive."

I would suspect that many in the conservative aisles strongly dislike how the modern media framwork has forced them to act.

I don't know about your exact wording here, but I think they certainly don't like the Tea Party, for example. People who spend a long time in DC get indoctrinated into the culture, and the Tea Party is very anti-that. The Republicans in DC think they can play the game, get along, get their kickbacks and their deals, and not make waves. The Tea Party is loudly trying to make waves.

They tried to deal them in

We've already disagreed on this in the past, so it's probably not worth arguing, but my perception was that the Republicans were deliberately cut out, to the point that even left leaning pundits saw it as a tactical gaffe. That's not to say that there wasn't lots of false rhetoric flying, but just because Sarah Palin says something, or a FOX news commentator says something, that doesn't mean that actual lawmakers can't talk to each other.

I don't think the Republicans were looking to cooperate at all. I don't necessarily BLAME the Democrats for cutting them out. But by doing so, by not extending the hand at all, they lose credibility. They should have at least made the gesture, and I think they chose instead to play hardball, and it backfired.

Let's not forget, there are people like G-baby who think they're spineless and constantly getting played. It would be a calculated decision to not engage the Republicans, a demonstration that they have the seats, and they don't need to talk. You want it to be about honest, bipartisan attempts that were rebuffed... Maybe. I wasn't there. But I think what's more likely is that they tried to play hardball and it blew up in their face.

Tough way to go, too, because there really are of people shrieking at them to "get a spine." Problem is, I think they're a comparitively small number of squeaky wheel nutjobs, and polls don't account for how loud you yell.

Or they just decided to throw out their ideals to cater to rush and Becks tea party heroes

I don't think so, I think the Republican establishment is trying to opposed Beck and the Tea Parties as aggressively as they can, without killing themselves. The populist backlash is there, it's real, it scares establishment Republicans, so all their resistance has to be pretty surreptitious, but I think they're all about it. They're trying to do it quietly in state primaries, and in a lot of cases, they're losing.

Another one tonight in Delaware.

A more reasonable interpretation of what I said would be "Democrats are weak, spineless and constantly getting played; Republicans are more disciplined and better at manipulating the process."

See? I got you to criticize Democrats. Progress, G-baby!

Slarg232 wrote:All I know is that I pay these guys to represent my wishes in congress, and since my rep didn't, he won't be getting my vote.

Democrat, Republican, I don't care, but they are there to represent the people, not themselves, and so Ole Pomeroy is getting the boot. Not sure I like/trust the republican though >.>

It would be nice if you could trust your representative to represent his riding but normally they just toe the party line.

Phryxis wrote:See? I got you to criticize Democrats. Progress, G-baby!

Stop calling me "G-baby," it's a pretty obvious violation of rule #1 and you know it.

And you didn't get me to do anything. I'm highly critical of the Democrats, and make no secret of the fact that the sole reason I support Democrats is because I believe that Republicans are actual fascists. If you think I am some idolizing, fawning supporter of the Democrats because I think they can be fairly described as "a better alternative to fascists" (a very low bar to leap over), then, frankly, you're kind of dumb.

As for as the nonsense claims that the Democrats didn't offer Republicans any input on the health care bill: The Obama health care bill is almost the exact same bill presented by Bob Dole in 1995, and most of the onerous, contentious parts of the bill that the public doesn't like -- such as the mandate -- were Republican ideas. The entire bill was watered down and watered down further and further from what progressives wanted, all to garner Republican support. Did you watch the health care summit? Republicans were given opportunity after opportunity to provide input, and all they did was repeat the same tired talking points month after month, long after those points were refuted.

Which is why, when it became clear that Republicans weren't going to support any health care bill ever, despite almost 50 years of continuous argument over what to do about health care and despite the obvious and pressing need for reforms, the Democrats should have scrapped the health care bill and just powered through a real progressive bill.

Except, of course, there's this little problem of reality. Despite right wing loons frequent claims to the contrary, few Democrats are actual progressives, and even fewer are actual leftists. And most of those are in the House, not the Senate. The reality is that America has two parties: a center-right party, and a extreme right party.

Gailbraithe wrote:
As for as the nonsense claims that the Democrats didn't offer Republicans any input on the health care bill: The Obama health care bill is almost the exact same bill presented by Bob Dole in 1995, and most of the onerous, contentious parts of the bill that the public doesn't like -- such as the mandate -- were Republican ideas.

No, that's false. The mandate for insurance coverage was an original component of the Clinton bill as floated in '93. Quite a few Republicans support that sort of policy, but to nominate as something that is exclusively their idea is simply wrong.

Regardless, the fact that was an idea floated by a Republican in the past has no bearing on the fact that it was an idea floated by a Democrat during the debate surrounding the health care bill.

dogma wrote:No, that's false. The mandate for insurance coverage was an original component of the Clinton bill as floated in '93. Quite a few Republicans support that sort of policy, but to nominate as something that is exclusively their idea is simply wrong.

The concept of the individual mandate was developed in 1990 by Mark Pauly at the Heritage Foundation for George Bush Sr., and its first appearance in a bill was not Clinton's '93 health care bill, but rather Chuck Grassley's alternative bill from the same year, the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act.

Sorry, dogma. But it's true. The individual mandate is a Republican idea.

Regardless, the fact that was an idea floated by a Republican in the past has no bearing on the fact that it was an idea floated by a Democrat during the debate surrounding the health care bill.

Sure it does.

If you and I are supposed to be working towards a compromise, perhaps because we have been elected to run the government, and I suggest that we consider your proposal -- an idea you put forward and supported in the past, perhaps even a few months before -- and you reject that suggestion, then that does strongly suggest that you are not interested in compromise, but rather obstruction. And if "let's try your idea" isn't a legitimate attempt at compromise, then really, nothing is.

Seriously, when you have Chuck Grassley proposing the individual mandate in various bills for 15+ years, and making arguments in its favor in the months leading up to the Democrats decision to embrace it, and then suddenly about facing and repudiating the individual mandate right after Democrats embrace it, something fishy is going on. When you start denying that political maneuvering that obvious is political maneuvering, you really bring your own credibility (and credulity) into question.