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.

That is the way it looks to me. If they would just say "NO. We rule this congress now" to the republicans they might actually Get something done fast. Democrats arent forceful at all. The reason republican are blocking so much is becuase they are so forceful in there opinions. What do you guys think?

Is it just me... or does this question anwser itself?

1. republicans have a very solid base while democrats have to pull lots of little groups together.

2 Democrats don't have a spine.... at all. Nowhere.

3. Democrats want to work with republicans because BI partasianship was the big word in last election.

4.Bill clinton was a better president than Obama. I think Bush Jr, may have done more for minorities.

5. Democrats are weak, spineless, ineffective, BO is the leader of that bunch.

Ha sexiest_hero wins the thread!

The Democrats are a pretty disorganised lot. There are a lot of different political philosophies in there, and almost no party control on votes. I mean, Lieberman supported McCain in the last election and it cost him very little. On the other hand the Republicans are a lot more disciplined, and it's members split from the party line very rarely.

This is because, quite frankly, the GOP has a central ideology and the Democrats do not.

In most circumstances this would mean the Republicans would be the ones to vote for, but unfortunately their ideology is crazy.

garret wrote:That is the way it looks to me. If they would just say "NO. We rule this congress now" to the republicans they might actually Get something done fast. Democrats arent forceful at all. The reason republican are blocking so much is becuase they are so forceful in there opinions. What do you guys think?

They don't have a filibuster proof majority and aren't as cohesive as they could be. They are a political party that represents a group with many varied views. You don't just get to say "I rule" in American politics, by design it's easy for minority parties to obstruct processes to the point of deadlock with ease. By contrast the bizarrely cohesive conservative politicians have a singular and easy platform "no". Even within the environment of hyper partisan party politics and a psychotic minority party health care and financial reforms have still been passed so I'm not sure where the ineffectiveness you see is. I think you should be asking why the conservatives are being hyper obstructionist to the point of inanity and insanity.

Even within the environment of hyper partisan party politics and a psychotic minority party

Awesome. Allow me to translate. "Those guys are SO partisan! Oh, whoops, so am I!"

The talk of obstructionism is humorous. Not long ago we had Democrats blocking judicial nominees, talk of the "nuclear option," etc. That was politics.

Republicans try to do the same, and suddenly it's an OUTRAGE at how obstructionist they are. Even as they successfully obstruct nothing.

By contrast the bizarrely cohesive conservative politicians have a singular and easy platform

It's not bizzare, it's completely expected. When a party takes major losses, two effects conspire:

1) The survivors come from the most conservative districts, where conservative candidates can survive in the worst of times. Thus, they themselves tend to be very conservative.

2) When you're down to 40 people, it's a far smaller group to get marching together.

So, what's bizzare about 40 die hards thinking alike? Nothing.

Awesome. Allow me to translate. "Those guys are SO partisan! Oh, whoops, so am I!"

Theres a difference between being political and being psychotic. Screaming death panels and frightening the elderly because of care terminations and last will and testament discussions (both things that insurance companies actively do) is psychotic. It's cowardly. Most of all it's harmful to the nation.

Stating such is just political.

The talk of obstructionism is humorous. Not long ago we had Democrats blocking judicial nominees, talk of the "nuclear option," etc. That was politics.

I'm sure it's humorous, you agree when it happens now and you disagreed when it was talked about then.

Republicans try to do the same, and suddenly it's an OUTRAGE at how obstructionist they are. Even as they successfully obstruct nothing.

Well, y'know, except when a single one of them obstructs the renewal of jobless benefits to several million people for weeks because byzantine house procedural traditions allow him to do this. But then I guess the "Democrats did that" at some point in weird shadow past that you remember.

It's not bizzare, it's completely expected. When a party takes major losses, two effects conspire:

1) The survivors come from the most conservative districts, where conservative candidates can survive in the worst of times. Thus, they themselves tend to be very conservative.

2) When you're down to 40 people, it's a far smaller group to get marching together.

Those are both certainly true.

So, what's bizzare about 40 die hards thinking alike? Nothing.

I was thinking more the bizarrely united mischaracterization of things like the healthcare bill and the united stance against financial reform (something they would have undertook in the exact same fashion were they the majority with the presidency). It takes something bizarre to go against the previous precedents of your own party just to oppose something another party puts fourth. A significant portion of the financial reform bill was taken straight from documents penned by conservative republicans. When faced with their own words they still not only voted no, but characterized their own plans as socialist, partisan, and liberal. If you can't see the childishness in your own party then you're blind.

It's cowardly. Most of all it's harmful to the nation.

It's also politics as usual, and hardly the most extreme example.

The "death panel" thing was more of a mischaracterization of a desire to offer "end of life" counselling, which is nothing more than advising dying people as to their options, not actually picking and choosing who dies, and then killing them. That said, there were real and concurrent discussions about rationing care, about the fact that end of life care is often the most expensive and the least like to have a positive outcome.

So, put simply, I agree it was a clear mischaracterization, but it wasn't far from the real issues.

Now, compare that to the calls for war crimes charges against George W Bush? John Conyers held a mock hearing to impeach him. When the Democrats took control they actually DID have hearings to impeach him. Is trying to impeach a President helpful for the nation? Is threatening him with CRIMINAL ACTION, literally trying to CRIMINALIZE policy good for the nation?

No.

It wasn't good when it was done to Clinton. It wasn't done when it was done to GWB. None of it was good.

I can see that, and I'm pretty damn partisan. You can only see it when the Republicans do it. How partisan does that make you?

I mean, seriously? "Scaring the elderly?" This is the first time that was done? "They're going to take your Medicare" was a perennial mantra for years.

I'm sure it's humorous, you agree when it happens now and you disagreed when it was talked about then.

Wow, 0-2. First off, I don't agree with it. I don't agree with filibustering, period. Either we should change the rules to require 60% majority, or we should stop allowing filibustering. If we can't do that, then we should require that they ACTUALLY filibuster, instead of just sorta say "we might" and then nothing, maybe test votes.

Second, NOBODY actually filibustered. Nobody took the floor and did it. They just threatened. And then eventually didn't, or failed to have the numbers. How exactly are the Republicans doing anything besides talking about it, when the votes keep passing, the bills keep getting signed? Obama is passing his legislation at quite a clip for somebody getting filibustered. Cause he's not.

What I'm pissed off at is the slant. It's bad when Republicans do it, acceptable for Democrats. And then you have the hypocrisy to pretend I'm the one with a double standard, simply because you imagine I think things that are convenient to your arguments.

But then I guess the "Democrats did that" at some point in weird shadow past that you remember.

Yeah, they delayed judicial nominees far longer. In the end they stopped. And in the end, the Democrats got their enemployment insurance extension. It's all delay via one rules trick or another, and in the end, it prevents nothing. What's the difference now?

It takes something bizarre to go against the previous precedents of your own party just to oppose something another party puts fourth.

It's interesting how quickly you can vacillate between arrogant cynicism and childish naivete. "But... But... They're lying!" They're politicians, sweetie. All they do is lie. Both parties. All the time.

Speaking of lying, and because you're so quick to presume that the Republicans are "my party," here's how I summarize my political views: I prefer the Republicans' lies to the Democrats' lies.

They're all lying. But I like the guy who's lying about leaving me alone, more than the guy who's lying about being my new mommy.

As far as "childishness" goes, let's see how "childish" it looks in November. All this Republican obstruction may strike you as ridiculous, but it's looking to prove to be a winner for them with the voters. They're not doing it because they're stupid, they're doing it because they're douchebag politicians. It's the voters that are stupid.

Basically, Republicans are the party of "no", while Democrats are the Party of "yes".

Basically, Republicans are the party of "no", while Democrats are the Party of "yes".

No, the minority party is the party of "no" and the majority party is the party of "yes."

It's also politics as usual, and hardly the most extreme example.

It's the most extreme example of it since mcarthyism in my opinion.

So, put simply, I agree it was a clear mischaracterization, but it wasn't far from the real issues.

I don't understand. How was it not far from real issues to tell the elderly that they will die for months?

Now, compare that to the calls for war crimes charges against George W Bush? John Conyers held a mock hearing to impeach him. When the Democrats took control they actually DID have hearings to impeach him. Is trying to impeach a President helpful for the nation? Is threatening him with CRIMINAL ACTION, literally trying to CRIMINALIZE policy good for the nation?

He broke U.S. law, lied to the nation, and led us into a disastrous and ludicrously expensive war from which there is seemingly no end all the while interfering politically within military matters and politicizing his generalship. The dude did just about everything he could to get himself impeached. The fact that it didn't happen is paramount to how much the nation just wanted to move past it all. But hey, at least he didn't get a BJ. Thats the real stuff a political party impeaches a president for.

It wasn't good when it was done to Clinton. It wasn't done when it was done to GWB. None of it was good.

I can see that, and I'm pretty damn partisan. You can only see it when the Republicans do it. How partisan does that make you?

Bush wasn't actually impeached. I'm pretty sure that your highlighting your own massive blinders here. Like I said, you think it's equal because the democrats talked about doing something the republicans actually did. Talk isn't action.

Wow, 0-2. First off, I don't agree with it. I don't agree with filibustering, period. Either we should change the rules to require 60% majority, or we should stop allowing filibustering. If we can't do that, then we should require that they ACTUALLY filibuster, instead of just sorta say "we might" and then nothing, maybe test votes.

I agree.

Second, NOBODY actually filibustered. Nobody took the floor and did it. They just threatened.

Senate and house proceedure has been to declare a fillibuster as valid when threatened for years. It's kinda goofy, but all you have to do is threaten and it's assumed that you will, thus it requires the supermajority to overcome the threat. The traditions of our political system are stupid but thats seriously how it works, threatening is the same as acting.

And then eventually didn't, or failed to have the numbers. How exactly are the Republicans doing anything besides talking about it, when the votes keep passing, the bills keep getting signed? Obama is passing his legislation at quite a clip for somebody getting filibustered. Cause he's not.

The Democrats used the nuclear option and passed the bill as a finance bill which can't be filibustered. The republicans were going to fillibuster it otherwise.

What I'm pissed off at is the slant. It's bad when Republicans do it, acceptable for Democrats. And then you have the hypocrisy to pretend I'm the one with a double standard, simply because you imagine I think things that are convenient to your arguments.

What your pissed off at is the fake line of events you've made up in your head where the democrats used a minority filibuster to block a major reform bill forcing the republicans to invoke the nuclear option. That never occurred. The opposite of that occurred. The democrats attempted to filibuster a few times during the bush years but never actually got it off the ground due to generally weak support. The republicans actually did it, repeatedly, for months, while continuously decrying socialism and talking about death panels and how the bill would bankrupt the nation immediately.

Yeah, they delayed judicial nominees far longer. In the end they stopped. And in the end, the Democrats got their enemployment insurance extension. It's all delay via one rules trick or another, and in the end, it prevents nothing. What's the difference now?

Obama still has unfilled cabinet positions two years after entering office because of the delay tactics. Thats whats different. The degree.

It's interesting how quickly you can vacillate between arrogant cynicism and childish naivete.

And it's interesting that you've invented a complicated shadow planet in your head where everything is just a tiny bit different then how it is in the real world. It must be hard to keep track of.

"But... But... They're lying!" They're politicians, sweetie. All they do is lie. Both parties. All the time.

How is this a response to what you're quoting..?

Speaking of lying, and because you're so quick to presume that the Republicans are "my party," here's how I summarize my political views: I prefer the Republicans' lies to the Democrats' lies.

Your first presumption is assuming I care what your professed political beliefs are. I don't. I don't know you so I will continue to infer your beliefs from your arguments, you seem to be a level headed moderate conservative with good knowledge of politics and current events. You come to wacky conclusions about things sometimes but your pretty good at being middle of the road.

They're all lying. But I like the guy who's lying about leaving me alone, more than the guy who's lying about being my new mommy.

It's interesting then that the dude that was leaving you alone is sending you to war and outsourcing your jobs to china while refusing to fix the issue of border hoppers coming into your house. I would characterize that more as the layabout dad.

As far as "childishness" goes, let's see how "childish" it looks in November. All this Republican obstruction may strike you as ridiculous, but it's looking to prove to be a winner for them with the voters.

Probably, the senate and house often swing against the incumbent as a form of soft protest though I don't expect their gains to be as heavy as many believe.

They're not doing it because they're stupid, they're doing it because they're douchebag politicians. It's the voters that are stupid.

I agree!

Because it is in the Constitution -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Rather ask why the Republicans don't want everyone to be happy.

Captain_Trips01 wrote:Basically, Republicans are the party of "no", while Democrats are the Party of "yes".

Well, the Republicans are the party of “No” and the Democrats are the party of “Yes, hopefully, somewhere down the line we’ll totally put a real effort into doing that so please keep voting for us. What, the other guys are calling us socialists? Well in that case then no, we never supported that… do you think they’ll stop calling us names now?”

Politics of compromise is what America is all about. If the Democrats or Republicans actually pushed foward their agendas too fast, their public support would erode quickly because America does not have the stomach for radical change.

2008 - Yes We Can.
2012 - We Thought We Could.
2016 - Re-elect Kodos.

Kilkrazy wrote:Because it is in the Constitution -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Rather ask why the Republicans don't want everyone to be happy.

Maybe because the Democrats don't have a monopoly on good ideas. Seriously, why is a mod just baiting people with this crap?

Kilkrazy wrote:Because it is in the Constitution -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

ARARARARGHGHGH!!!!



(You're actually mixing the Constitution up with the Declaration of Independence. )

It's the most extreme example of it since mcarthyism in my opinion.

More extreme than, say, impeaching a President? I mean, what? You're not just incongruent with reality here, you're incongruent with your own contempt for the impeaching of Clinton.

That was PREPOSTEROUS. Slightly misrepresenting end of life counselling doesn't even come close. It doesn't even come close to other misrepresenatations that have occurred.

How was it not far from real issues to tell the elderly that they will die for months?

The fact that end of life care is very expensive, and generally accomplishes very little besides eking out a few more months of pain, is an issue that people WERE talking about at that point (and still are). It REALLY is on the table to consider if this is something that should be addressed with legislation.

The fact is, "letting old people die" is a real issue. The reason it's an issue is because it's actually a rational thing to consider. Not so much to traditional Republicans, obviously, but still.

So, they yelled about "death panels." And while they were misrepresenting the facts, I'm not sure they even entirely realized it. I think they were conflating many things, conflating quotes they heard, and thinking that the end of life counselling really was taking old people off life support. I'm sure some of them knew what was going on, but I think somebody like Sarah Palin probably thought she was accurately representing a possible outcome.

He broke U.S. law, lied to the nation, and led us into a disastrous and ludicrously expensive war...

Ohh, I get it, it's ok to impeach him because he REALLY IS bad!

None of what you're saying is emperically true. Sure, arguments can be made. Some are decent, most are ridiculously stupid and wrong. I have my opinions, you have yours. We can't possibly get into the details of all this... Broken laws, lies, costs... Long discussions. If it was all fact, then how come none of it made amounted to actual impeachment? Wanting to heal the nation's wounds is a conveniently noble excuse. I think we know how noble everyone in DC is.

Bush wasn't actually impeached. I'm pretty sure that your highlighting your own massive blinders here.

For what it's worth, I meant to type "It was't good when it was done to GWB." You bolded it, but I don't know why, but that made me notice I typed it wrong.

Regardless, threats of impeachment are bad, and impeachment is worse. I realize that Bush wasn't actually impeached, it only amounted to hearings and prattle, but at the same time, it happened after Clinton. In many ways I consider even starting the process to be just as bad, because SURELY a lesson was learned after Clinton, SURELY these idiots see what it did to our political discourse to be so flippantly draconian.

So, yeah, the Republicans took it farther, and that was bad. The Democrats didn't go as far, but they did it at a time when they should have known to not do it at all.

The Democrats used the nuclear option and passed the bill as a finance bill which can't be filibustered.

Well, formally speaking, the "nuclear option" was an actual change to rules, or at least a procedure that would permanently remove the option of filibuster. This has not been done.

That said, I'm not clear what we're talking about right now. The extension of enemployment benefits? Two Republicans voted to end the filibuster on that, and one Democrat against it, giving the 60 votes needed. Not precisely on party lines...

Also, FWIW, this benefit extension is going to cost $35B, and $130B total for all extensions since 2008. That's not a small amount, even when compared to the "ludicrously expensive" Iraq war, which has cost us about $700B. You'd need a word better than "ludicrous" to describe Obama's $790B stimulus...

Orkeosaurus wrote:

I played this guy at a tourney once. But he had a Star Wars T-shirt on at the time.

Phryxis wrote:

Basically, Republicans are the party of "no", while Democrats are the Party of "yes".

No, the minority party is the party of "no" and the majority party is the party of "yes."

Thats how its supposed to work. They say no until the majority puts something forth that both can agree on. Much of our best legislation was done with a Congress and executive from different parties. Its worked well for decades.


Of course things would run so much more efficiently if Frazzled were in charge



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Because it is in the Constitution -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

ARARARARGHGHGH!!!!



(You're actually mixing the Constitution up with the Declaration of Independence. )

Cut him some slack. He's British and hampered by British cuisine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking of keeping everyone focused. What are they going to do without JournOlist?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html

Phryxis wrote:Ohh, I get it, it's ok to impeach him because he REALLY IS bad!

None of what you're saying is emperically true. Sure, arguments can be made. Some are decent, most are ridiculously stupid and wrong. I have my opinions, you have yours. We can't possibly get into the details of all this... Broken laws, lies, costs... Long discussions. If it was all fact, then how come none of it made amounted to actual impeachment? Wanting to heal the nation's wounds is a conveniently noble excuse. I think we know how noble everyone in DC is.

That's pretty circular, dude. Efforts to impeach Bush were partisan because there was no substance to them because they didn't follow through, and we know if there was substance they would have followed through because we know they're all partisan.

The basic reality is that the effort to impeach Bush polled badly so the Democrats dropped it. Outside of a couple of issues (that they more or less fell into and could back out of like healthcare) the Democrats will basically chase good poll numbers and run away from the bad.

The effort to impeach Clinton polled worse, but the Republicans are true believers and chased that all the way.

Also, FWIW, this benefit extension is going to cost $35B, and $130B total for all extensions since 2008. That's not a small amount, even when compared to the "ludicrously expensive" Iraq war, which has cost us about $700B. You'd need a word better than "ludicrous" to describe Obama's $790B stimulus...

"Too small according to the opinions of major economists, and loaded with too many political elements like tax cuts, and too few effective elements like infrastructure expenditure" Admittedly that isn't one word though.

And yeah, there really is a different scale for a stimulus bill needed to prevent depression and a war that no-one really knows the point of. Even if they cost roughly similar amounts, one can be too cheap and the other ludicrously expensive, because you really have to consider the utility of the item.

With geniuses like this I'm shocked, just shocked Congressional poll numbers are so low.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/21/harry_reid_auto_bailout_probably_saved_ford.html

Wow, way to pat ones self on the back over something that is so far from being real it's laughable.

Ford saved Ford because Ford has had the better vehicles for a long time and know what the hell they are doing.

Leave it to Reid to give his party credit over something it had no hand in.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Because it is in the Constitution -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

(You're actually mixing the Constitution up with the Declaration of Independence. )

Surely that gives him right to a seat in congress, no?

Scrabb wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Because it is in the Constitution -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

(You're actually mixing the Constitution up with the Declaration of Independence. )

Surely that gives him right to a seat in congress, no?

Oh no, if you can quote either you're out of the running. You're allowed to know The Star Spangled Banner, though.

Because if they dont make people happy they lose their job during the next election.

Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of keeping everyone focused. What are they going to do without JournOlist?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html

A Free Republic poster compiled this list of known members of the Journolist

Save this--a poster at FR has compiled a list of known journolist members

The following 65 names are confirmed members of the now-defunct JournoList listserv.
1. Ezra Klein
2. Dave Weigel
3. Matthew Yglesias
4. David Dayen
5. Spencer Ackerman
6. Jeffrey Toobin
7. Eric Alterman
8. Paul Krugman
9. John Judis
10. Eve Fairbanks
11. Mike Allen
12. Ben Smith
13. Lisa Lerer
14. Joe Klein
15. Brad DeLong
16. Chris Hayes
17. Matt Duss
18. Jonathan Chait
19. Jesse Singal
20. Michael Cohen
21. Isaac Chotiner
22. Katha Pollitt
23. Alyssa Rosenberg
24. Rick Perlstein
25. Alex Rossmiller
26. Ed Kilgore
27. Walter Shapiro
28. Noam Scheiber
29. Michael Tomasky
30. Rich Yesels
31. Tim Fernholz
32. Dana Goldstein
33. Jonathan Cohn
34. Scott Winship
35. David Roberts
36. Luke Mitchell
37. John Blevins
38. Moira Whelan
39. Henry Farrell
40. Josh Bearman
41. Alec McGillis
42. Greg Anrig
43. Adele Stan
44. Steven Teles
45. Harold Pollack
46. Adam Serwer
47. Ryan Donmoyer
48. Seth Michaels
49. Kate Steadman
50. Matt Duss
51. Laura Rozen
52. Jesse Taylor
53. Michael Hirsh
54. Daniel Davies
55. Jonathan Zasloff
56. Richard Kim
57. Thomas Schaller
58. Jared Bernstein
59. Holly Yeager
60. Joe Conason
61. David Greenberg
62. Todd Gitlin
63. Mark Schmitt
64. Kevin Drum
65. Sarah Spitz
Sources:
(http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/25/the-death-of-journolist-does-privacy-end-at-the-edge-of-your-th/)
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html)
(http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/after-journolist)
(http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/17/politico-the-secret-liberal-journalist-cabal/)
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/03/26/journolist-revealed-inside-the-liberal-media-email-cabal.aspx)
(http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/03/who-doesnt-love-the-journolist.html)
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jun/25/usa)
(http://www.frumforum.com/the-inside-scoop-on-journolist)
(http://twitter.com/TimFernholz)
(http://twitter.com/DanaGoldstein)
(http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/9/22/142845/064?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime+%28TalkLeft%3A+The+Politics+of+Crime%29)
(http://www.fr/ umforum.com/responding-to-john-hawkins)
(http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/obama-wins-and-journolisters-rejoice/)
(http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/a-few-excerpts-from-journolist-journalists/)
(http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/)

Wait, people are surprised that journalists who identify with political parties engage in (or at least discuss) biased, manipulative behavior?

garret wrote:That is the way it looks to me. If they would just say "NO. We rule this congress now" to the republicans they might actually Get something done fast. Democrats arent forceful at all. The reason republican are blocking so much is becuase they are so forceful in there opinions. What do you guys think?

Blocking policies the name of the game for the minority party. The Democrats did it to the Republicans while W was in office. W and the Reps tried in '03 and '05 to put an oversight committee over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they saw their collapse coming. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac responding by buying the Democrats and some of the Republicans with lobbying dollars and blocked the reform. What really hurts is that the top 3 people they gave money to back in '03 were John Kerry(ran against W in '04),Hillary Clinton(finalist for the Dem nomination),and Barack Obama(our current president). Members of a party will only tow the party line so much. Money talks,and politicians listen.