This analogy is stupid because it's not like filibusters were the only thing they did. Ignore the judicial holds all you want, it's not going to disappear.
yes and since Harry Reid thinks turn-about is fair play, and just announced that he and Dems won't be working with the Reps or with Romney, anyone who support Reid can go ahead and stop complaining about Reps because at this point it's starting to sound a little hollow. it is pretty hypocritical to complain about the exact same thing you plan on doing very, very soon.
Hey as long as you agree that Republicans are doing it and Democrats didn't do it first, I'm fine with that. No use trying to change the topic to a hypothetical.
Edit: Once again the problem is not filibustering, the problem is volume and the problem is judicial holds. Keep trying to change the topic because you have no way to refute me (instead you've agreed with me by saying that's what you hired your politicians to do so I don't know why you're trying to argue against it now).
Dems are responsible for the longest filibusters in US history, they have blocked and branded Rep. justice nominations, they have done all the same stuff and you want to complain now that it's being done to you, despite your side planning on doing it immediately after the election.
I haven't changed the topic once. I have made two assertions: 1) Republicans were elected to "obstruct" to some degree Obama's agenda, and 2) Democrats have done the exact same thing, and will continue to do so, with or without a "mandate" from an election. that is the difference. Republicans obstruct when the American people tell us to. Democrats obstruct whenever they feel like it.
LOL what?
So when Americans elect Democrats to office it's Democrats doing whatever they want, but when Americans elect a minority of Republicans to the Senate and they have record-breaking amounts of filibusters (two Congresses in a row) and hold the judiciary hostage, that's what they were "hired" to do?
Nice. Logic.
was there wide support of the Democrats in the 60s when they filibustered the Civil Rights bills? was there wide support of their racist attacks on Clarence Thomas?
we will see very soon what they were "hired" to do.
The way you grasp at straws by citing things from half a century ago is amazing. Is that how you justify all your actions when you have nothing else to work with in the current reality?
I hope the majority of Muslims never think like that. Now that would be disastrous.
Clarence Thomas was half a century ago?
The 60s was half a century ago. Clarence Thomas was 21 years ago. Not to mention this is comparing apples to bananas.
But hey! It's all good man, when you start peering way into the irrelevant past I don't even want to argue this stuff anymore. We might end up dragging Jefferson and Madison into this biz.
you can't just arbitrarily decide which obstructionist policies and which time-periods you are going to exclude and include and then claim some kind of overarching theory based on that cherry-picked evidence. you've basically established that in one sense, these Republicans in Congress are the most obstructionist in Congress since the 2008 election! omg, great conclusion!
Dems are obstructionist when they feel like their ideology or primary goals are threatened and then they turn around and point fingers when Republicans do it to. it's hypocritical to the highest degree and no matter how much you cherry pick or argue about degrees, the fact is there that filibustering and obstructing are nothing new and they are not exclusive to Republicans.
how does passing attempts or completions make any difference whatsoever? either way, the most passing yards does not mean one is the best offense, nor would it make one the champion.
This analogy is stupid because it's not like filibusters were the only thing they did. Ignore the judicial holds all you want, it's not going to disappear.
yes and since Harry Reid thinks turn-about is fair play, and just announced that he and Dems won't be working with the Reps or with Romney, anyone who support Reid can go ahead and stop complaining about Reps because at this point it's starting to sound a little hollow. it is pretty hypocritical to complain about the exact same thing you plan on doing very, very soon.
Hey as long as you agree that Republicans are doing it and Democrats didn't do it first, I'm fine with that. No use trying to change the topic to a hypothetical.
Edit: Once again the problem is not filibustering, the problem is volume and the problem is judicial holds. Keep trying to change the topic because you have no way to refute me (instead you've agreed with me by saying that's what you hired your politicians to do so I don't know why you're trying to argue against it now).
Dems are responsible for the longest filibusters in US history, they have blocked and branded Rep. justice nominations, they have done all the same stuff and you want to complain now that it's being done to you, despite your side planning on doing it immediately after the election.
I haven't changed the topic once. I have made two assertions: 1) Republicans were elected to "obstruct" to some degree Obama's agenda, and 2) Democrats have done the exact same thing, and will continue to do so, with or without a "mandate" from an election. that is the difference. Republicans obstruct when the American people tell us to. Democrats obstruct whenever they feel like it.
LOL what?
So when Americans elect Democrats to office it's Democrats doing whatever they want, but when Americans elect a minority of Republicans to the Senate and they have record-breaking amounts of filibusters (two Congresses in a row) and hold the judiciary hostage, that's what they were "hired" to do?
Nice. Logic.
On November 05 2012 08:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 05 2012 08:26 Risen wrote:
On November 05 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 05 2012 08:23 Souma wrote:
On November 05 2012 08:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 05 2012 08:19 Souma wrote: [quote]
This analogy is stupid because it's not like filibusters were the only thing they did. Ignore the judicial holds all you want, it's not going to disappear.
yes and since Harry Reid thinks turn-about is fair play, and just announced that he and Dems won't be working with the Reps or with Romney, anyone who support Reid can go ahead and stop complaining about Reps because at this point it's starting to sound a little hollow. it is pretty hypocritical to complain about the exact same thing you plan on doing very, very soon.
Hey as long as you agree that Republicans are doing it and Democrats didn't do it first, I'm fine with that. No use trying to change the topic to a hypothetical.
you missed my edit. Democrats are responsible for the longest filibusters in history.
I enjoy how you bring up the Dem party of the 60s in support of your argument. Rofl. Stay free Republicans.
well if you're going to act like this is something new than I'm going to prove you wrong...
sorry?
Gee with this logic, who needs compromise, let's just beat the shit out of each other till we're satisfied because that's obviously how governance politics is supposed to work.
was there wide support of the Democrats in the 60s when they filibustered the Civil Rights bills? was there wide support of their racist attacks on Clarence Thomas? stop pretending like the Democrats are rosy little heroes who have never been obstructionist for ideological purposes and maybe I'll stop doing the same with Republicans. you keep it up and I'll keep it up. turn-about is fair play.
we will see very soon what they were "hired" to do.
as long as compromise means: "do everything that I want and maybe I'll toss you a bone or two" then yeah, we do without that "compromise".
wasn't it Abe Lincoln who said something about the idiocy in trying to find a middle ground between good and evil?
I suspect Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush (let alone Eisenhower, Lincoln, and other visionary Republicans) would recoil at anyone characterizing the Democratic party as "evil." Just as any sane Democrat does the same when people characterize the Republican party as "evil."
Edit: That's certainly not why the Republican party is currently obstructing bills, anyway. They don't think the jobs bill was "evil", or Obama's judicial appointments were "evil."
Edit2: Well, except some of the more loony tunes reps that are going to lose their seats this election.
I didn't characterize the Democratic party as evil, though i was perhaps not so accurate as I could be. of course i would consider certain positions of the Dems to be "evil", but not really any of the jobs bills. mainly, my point is that compromise itself is not an admirable goal or even something desirable. effective compromise, maybe, but just compromising doesn't suddenly mean that the problems have been solved or that the desirable state has been achieved.
And that's a rational position. It makes perfect sense for Republicans to be obstructing bills to do things they sincerely believe are evil or ones where no compromise can be made; if the Senate had drafted a bill allowing abortion throughout the term, for example, no one would call the Republicans "obstructionist" for filibustering it; they'd be living up to their principles.
The problem that most of us see is that Republicans have started obstructing bills and refusing to play ball simply because they want to win the next set of elections and have stated as much. This is repugnant behavior, and if Romney wins and the Senate democrats decide to do the same thing it will be equally repugnant. There are some places compromise is unacceptable, but the current Republican party leadership seems to have decided that means you should never compromise.
Edit: Added "ones where no compromise can be made."
Christ, what's so hard about criticizing your own party's politicians? It's not like we're making fun of your ideologies nor your policies - we're saying your politicians are being stupid and it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
I criticize Democrats all the time and it's why I'm voting Jill Stein. They're politicians, they inevitably do shit that piss you off. It doesn't help anyone to close your eyes to the facts--certainly not you, a voter who wants your representatives to put your interests above theirs.
On November 05 2012 07:58 DoubleReed wrote: Fine, when Republicans lose in the House, then can I say they weren't doing the job they were hired to do? Sheesh.
if Romney loses and Republicans make no gains in the Senate (or only gain 1 seat), than you can, in my opinion, make a determination as to the perceptions of the American people.
whether Republican have done the job they were hired to do or not is... subjective. I, as a conservative, would say that they have done much of what I hired them to do. most conservatives would probably agree. most liberals didn't vote for the Reps, so I don't know about them, and most Independents... I'm not sure why they went so Republican last time, so again, I don't know exactly what they "hired" the Tea-Party candidates to do.
If you "hired" your Congressmen/women to block the Senate from getting anything done instead of compromising and actually doing their job, then you deserve to be smacked. Congress's job is to compromise and come to solutions to help the country. It's well known that the Republicans did little to no compromising over the past several years.
what jobs bill? if it was the 2011 jobs bill, than even a lot of Democrats were wary of that one.
the President's idea of "compromise" during the debt ceiling debate was to force Republicans to put the issue past the election so he wouldn't have to actually fix it in the plain view of the American people. yeah, real fucking classy that move was.
"hey! either help my election by kicking the fiscal can down the road or I'll accuse you of obstructing!"
Republicans have NO excuses for the debt ceiling debacle. Raising the debt ceiling is a standard procedure and it is the definition of childish and selfish acts to hold it hostage because you aren't happy with the administration. There is literally no excuse for what the Republicans did, and it's pathetic for you to even try to justify it.
On November 05 2012 09:16 Souma wrote: Christ, what's so hard about criticizing your own party's politicians? It's not like we're making fun of your ideologies nor your policies - we're saying your politicians are being stupid and it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
I criticize Democrats all the time and it's why I'm voting Jill Stein. They're politicians, they inevitably do shit that piss you off. It doesn't help anyone to close your eyes to the facts--certainly not you, a voter who wants your representatives to put your interests above theirs.
First time I've agreed with a post you've made. Why are people defending these politicians? Because they feel somehow attached to a party? Well then that's the problem. Really stupid debate, but it started with the stupid "obstructionists suck" argument so...
On November 05 2012 09:16 Souma wrote: Christ, what's so hard about criticizing your own party's politicians? It's not like we're making fun of your ideologies nor your policies - we're saying your politicians are being stupid and it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
I criticize Democrats all the time and it's why I'm voting Jill Stein. They're politicians, they inevitably do shit that piss you off. It doesn't help anyone to close your eyes to the facts--certainly not you, a voter who wants your representatives to put your interests above theirs.
First time I've agreed with a post you've made. Why are people defending these politicians? Because they feel somehow attached to a party? Well then that's the problem. Really stupid debate, but it started with the stupid "obstructionists suck" argument so...
Having you agree with me is kind of a funny feeling.
this isn't about defending Republicans or defending Republicanism. I've got more complaints about Republican behavior than can be listed without making this more of a tome than a post. personally, I think the majority of them are cowards and hypocrites, and I think their grandstanding and half-measures are contemptible to perhaps an even higher degree than the straight-up political hitjobs that the left has taken to ordering. what I'm arguing, essentially, is that our system is so ass-backward by now that compromise is a pipe-dream, and if you try to put all that on Republicans than you're out of your mind. you'd have to ignore the entire Bush presidency, and most of modern history, to suggest that the way Obama's term has gone is surprising or even unprecedented.
whether or not you like Sarah Palin, or think that she is qualified to hold any office at all, can you really argue that the treatment she received, from the left, was proportional to whatever crime or sin she was apparently guilty of? you want to talk about obstruction? how about Democrats in Alaska who filed baseless ethics violations against Palin in a concerted effort to drive her from office (by taking up literally all of her time fighting them in court)? and how did they treat her when she finally gave in because the ethics complaints were becoming too much of a distraction for the State to function? they called her a quitter. don't come crying to me about Republican obstructionism of Obama when Sarah Palin was crucified for even daring to run against him.
Democrats want to pretend like Republicans just decided to hate Obama one day and have worked against him for every second since then. as if Obama didn't make it clear from day one that he would be running a left-wing Presidency. you want to talk about Woodwards book? let's talk about it:
Woodward places particular blame for the failure to reach a deal with Obama, writing that the seeds of discord were planted early in his administration. He displayed "two sides" of his personality in early meetings with congressional leaders, Woodward said.
"There's this divided-man quality to President Obama always. Initially he meets with the congressional leaders, he says you know, 'We're going to be accommodating, we're going to listen, we're going to talk, we're going to compromise," Woodward said.
"But then they -- Republicans ask some questions and challenge him a little bit and he says, 'Look I won. I'm in charge here,' " Woodward continued. "And the Republicans feel totally isolated and ostracized. And this was the beginning of a war."
but for all your posturing, some of you don't want to present both sides of the story. you'll call for conservatives and Republicans to take responsibility for their failures, but won't recognize the failures of your own side. I'll admit it: conservatives, from day one, wanted Obama to fail in implementing his specific agenda as we understood it. if he wanted to overcome that hurdle, he needed to do some real reaching across the aisle. he never did any of that. he decided, by all accounts, to run the country as if he had been granted a mandate by the people. how the fuck can he complain when 2010 Republicans do the same exact thing? and it seems clear to me that the 2008 Republican obstruction paid off in 2010 and was validated by the American people in 2010, and depending on this next election's outcome, might be validated and reaffirmed doubly. or perhaps it will be rejected. either way, it's beyond ridiculous to keep playing the "but let's not think about the past!" line when you're talking about the reason why one side is completely disillusioned with the idea of compromising. Democrat behavior led to this as much as Republican behavior.
edit: though, i do agree that Republicans could have been muuuuuuuuuch better at working across the aisle. I will give you that.
and for the record, the fact that raising the debt ceiling without any discussion has become routine behavior is reason enough to prevent raising it. Republicans did an awesome thing by requiring discussion and debate over the issue, and even more so because it was historically unprecedented. that should be the norm, not the exception.
they just sucked ass at communicating this to the public.
On November 05 2012 09:16 Souma wrote: Christ, what's so hard about criticizing your own party's politicians? It's not like we're making fun of your ideologies nor your policies - we're saying your politicians are being stupid and it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
I criticize Democrats all the time and it's why I'm voting Jill Stein. They're politicians, they inevitably do shit that piss you off. It doesn't help anyone to close your eyes to the facts--certainly not you, a voter who wants your representatives to put your interests above theirs.
Yet you fail to criticize the Democrat obstructionism. You point a finger at Republicans and say "it's their fault, all this obstructionism." I never said the Republicans weren't being total morons. I think both sides are total morons. In fact, I don't think anyone here has denied what the Republicans are currently doing, unless I missed a post.
And you know why the Bush judicial nominations went through faster? The Republicans stood up to Bush and compromised with the Democrats. Again, a pretty number that makes you look right, but doesn't when you actually know the circumstances.
On November 05 2012 10:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: this isn't about defending Republicans or defending Republicanism. I've got more complaints about Republican behavior than can be listed without making this more of a tome than a post. personally, I think the majority of them are cowards and hypocrites, and I think their grandstanding and half-measures are contemptible to perhaps an even higher degree than the straight-up political hitjobs that the left has taken to ordering. what I'm arguing, essentially, is that our system is so ass-backward by now that compromise is a pipe-dream, and if you try to put all that on Republicans than you're out of your mind. you'd have to ignore the entire Bush presidency, and most of modern history, to suggest that the way Obama's term has gone is surprising or even unprecedented.
whether or not you like Sarah Palin, or think that she is qualified to hold any office at all, can you really argue that the treatment she received, from the left, was proportional to whatever crime or sin she was apparently guilty of? you want to talk about obstruction? how about Democrats in Alaska who filed baseless ethics violations against Palin in a concerted effort to drive her from office (by taking up literally all of her time fighting them in court)? and how did they treat her when she finally gave in because the ethics complaints were becoming too much of a distraction for the State to function? they called her a quitter. don't come crying to me about Republican obstructionism of Obama when Sarah Palin was crucified for even daring to run against him.
Democrats want to pretend like Republicans just decided to hate Obama one day and have worked against him for every second since then. as if Obama didn't make it clear from day one that he would be running a left-wing Presidency. you want to talk about Woodwards book? let's talk about it:
Woodward places particular blame for the failure to reach a deal with Obama, writing that the seeds of discord were planted early in his administration. He displayed "two sides" of his personality in early meetings with congressional leaders, Woodward said.
"There's this divided-man quality to President Obama always. Initially he meets with the congressional leaders, he says you know, 'We're going to be accommodating, we're going to listen, we're going to talk, we're going to compromise," Woodward said.
"But then they -- Republicans ask some questions and challenge him a little bit and he says, 'Look I won. I'm in charge here,' " Woodward continued. "And the Republicans feel totally isolated and ostracized. And this was the beginning of a war."
but for all your posturing, some of you don't want to present both sides of the story. you'll call for conservatives and Republicans to take responsibility for their failures, but won't recognize the failures of your own side. I'll admit it: conservatives, from day one, wanted Obama to fail in implementing his specific agenda as we understood it. if he wanted to overcome that hurdle, he needed to do some real reaching across the aisle. he never did any of that. he decided, by all accounts, to run the country as if he had been granted a mandate by the people. how the fuck can he complain when 2010 Republicans do the same exact thing? and it seems clear to me that the 2008 Republican obstruction paid off in 2010 and was validated by the American people in 2010, and depending on this next election's outcome, might be validated and reaffirmed doubly. or perhaps it will be rejected. either way, it's beyond ridiculous to keep playing the "but let's not think about the past!" when you're talking about the reason why one side is completely disillusioned with the idea of compromising. Democrat behavior led to this as much as Republican behavior.
The way you bring up irrelevant events to try and make a point is so one page ago. There's a lot more to that Woodward book and p4ndemik posted a critical piece of it. Did that not deserve a response from you or are you just hiding from the facts again?
And I told you, if you want to play the "let's think about the past card" go ahead. Pretty sure I've already described on the previous page how the past couple Congresses have been, by any historical measures, crazier than any other Congress to date (multiple times dumber than the Congresses during Bush's terms aside from the 110th in which Republicans began their nonsense after being voted to take a back seat).
Also, I wish, I truly wish beyond anything that Obama did not try to compromise at all with Republicans. I wish he and the Democrats would have passed the full stimulus and not just $700 billion dollars of it. I wish he would have slapped the public option onto Obamacare (or push for universal healthcare) but he didn't. He tried to appease the Republicans and it backfired, and now I'm not voting for him because honestly, he had his chance to make a bigger difference but he missed out on it.
On November 05 2012 09:16 Souma wrote: Christ, what's so hard about criticizing your own party's politicians? It's not like we're making fun of your ideologies nor your policies - we're saying your politicians are being stupid and it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
I criticize Democrats all the time and it's why I'm voting Jill Stein. They're politicians, they inevitably do shit that piss you off. It doesn't help anyone to close your eyes to the facts--certainly not you, a voter who wants your representatives to put your interests above theirs.
Yet you fail to criticize the Democrat obstructionism. You point a finger at Republicans and say "it's their fault, all this obstructionism." I never said the Republicans weren't being total morons. I think both sides are total morons. In fact, I don't think anyone here has denied what the Republicans are currently doing, unless I missed a post.
And you know why the Bush judicial nominations went through faster? The Republicans stood up to Bush and compromised with the Democrats. Again, a pretty number that makes you look right, but doesn't when you actually know the circumstances.
You guys misunderstand me pointing out your partisan bullshit for me defending the Democrats. I've mentioned before in this thread that I hate obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism period. Do you think I'm voting third party BECAUSE I LOVE DEMOCRATS? Get real. And when you say something so factually incorrect as, "It's the same thing!" you deserve to be called out.
No, the judicial nominations went through faster during Bush's term because moderates from both sides of the aisle, the Gang of 14, got together and said, "Let's stop this nonsense." So stop trying to put Republicans on some kind of high pedestal. Did you see what happened to moderate Republicans during the recent elections? They got trashed by the Tea Party.
On November 05 2012 10:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: and for the record, the fact that raising the debt ceiling without any discussion has become routine behavior is reason enough to prevent raising it. Republicans did an awesome thing by requiring discussion and debate over the issue, and even more so because it was historically unprecedented. that should be the norm, not the exception.
they just sucked ass at communicating this to the public.
Your previous post was good. But this one.. I'm not American so I only watched the whole debt ceiling debate externally but the way you are describing it is not how it appeared at the time. Nobody issaying "raising the debt ceiling for no reason is routine and a great idea" - you are COMPLETELY ignoring the context it was being raised under. The prevailing circumstances at the time necessitated an increase in the debt ceiling (this is not necessarily a terrible thing) yet it came across as the Republicans were doing all they could to delay this simply because it was lead by Obama. Just my interpretation of the events at the time.
On November 05 2012 10:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: and for the record, the fact that raising the debt ceiling without any discussion has become routine behavior is reason enough to prevent raising it. Republicans did an awesome thing by requiring discussion and debate over the issue, and even more so because it was historically unprecedented. that should be the norm, not the exception.
they just sucked ass at communicating this to the public.
You need to talk to an economist son.
There is nothing ok about what they did. You realize we were a matter of hours away from a catastrophic collapse of EVERYTHING we've grown up taking for granted? If you read Woodward's book, or any book on the matter, you don't have to agree on who is to blame or anything, but there is no denying the consequences of default. Boehner himself says he appreciated Tim Geithner, because Geithner knew what was at stake and was constantly reminding them. I'll paraphrase almost every reaction of Geithner and every other respected economist in the book: "If you don't resolve this we are utterly, inexorably FUCKED." Republican denial of this fact is terrifying. It is utter abandonment of reason, of connection to reality.
On November 05 2012 09:16 Souma wrote: Christ, what's so hard about criticizing your own party's politicians? It's not like we're making fun of your ideologies nor your policies - we're saying your politicians are being stupid and it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
I criticize Democrats all the time and it's why I'm voting Jill Stein. They're politicians, they inevitably do shit that piss you off. It doesn't help anyone to close your eyes to the facts--certainly not you, a voter who wants your representatives to put your interests above theirs.
This. You can be a Republican and not have to make excuses for every single member of their Caucus. Personally I don't put very much blame on Moderate Republicans. There are elements of the party that want what is best for this nation. Fiscal reform and putting together a structure where we can get the deficit in check is not a partisan issue in my mind. Leaders of both parties recognize this, and there was reason to hope they'd come together on it. Ultimately Republican wishes to sabotage the President's chances at winning this election won out. It's difficult to point out the exact faces of GOP Senators and Congressmen that caused this to happen. My own senior state Senator McConnell was the one to come out and explicitly state that, "Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny Obama a second term."
That said, when push came to shove McConnell and Speaker Boehner were willing to include at least some kind of revenue in a deal while simultaneously not asking for too much in entitlement cuts per additional dollar in revenue to make the deal completely unpalatable to Senate Democrats and the President. Repeatedly, over and over again, the problem lied with Boehner not being able to proceed with negotiations without angering farther right members of his caucus [see Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, et al]. For me to say that all Republicans are unreasonable, self-righteous, and uninterested in compromise would be a lie. There are clearly GOP members on Capitol Hill who are reasonable and interested in resuming the democratic process without all this partisan bullshit. The issue is that there has been a growing number of extreme GOP politicians that will not work with the White House at all costs. I sincerely hope that we'll soon see a swing back towards more moderate, reasonable, GOP politicians, in combination with a Democratic caucus that is more receptive to Republicans who are not so crazy.
Changing the composition of Congress to get something that resembles in any way a functional and not self-harming institution starts with voters realizing that they are going to far, or allowing themselves to buy into a narrative that is pulling them too far from the center. Democrats don't have to, and simply cannot replace every Republican out there, that would lead to even worse things down the road. But the Republican party imo has to look at itself, and realize that their pride is not worth pushing their ideals so far right of where the originally were.
On November 05 2012 10:23 Souma wrote: Did you see what happened to moderate Republicans during the recent elections? They got trashed by the Tea Party.
Is that the debt ceiling crisis where several members of Congress were calling for forcing the United States government to default on its debt, that "it would be a good thing" ?
On November 05 2012 10:41 Saryph wrote: Is that the debt ceiling crisis where several members of Congress were calling for forcing the United States government to default on its debt, that "it would be a good thing" ?
No one thought that default was a good thing, which is why it didn't happen. It's called political theater everyone.
On November 05 2012 10:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: this isn't about defending Republicans or defending Republicanism. I've got more complaints about Republican behavior than can be listed without making this more of a tome than a post. personally, I think the majority of them are cowards and hypocrites, and I think their grandstanding and half-measures are contemptible to perhaps an even higher degree than the straight-up political hitjobs that the left has taken to ordering. what I'm arguing, essentially, is that our system is so ass-backward by now that compromise is a pipe-dream, and if you try to put all that on Republicans than you're out of your mind. you'd have to ignore the entire Bush presidency, and most of modern history, to suggest that the way Obama's term has gone is surprising or even unprecedented.
whether or not you like Sarah Palin, or think that she is qualified to hold any office at all, can you really argue that the treatment she received, from the left, was proportional to whatever crime or sin she was apparently guilty of? you want to talk about obstruction? how about Democrats in Alaska who filed baseless ethics violations against Palin in a concerted effort to drive her from office (by taking up literally all of her time fighting them in court)? and how did they treat her when she finally gave in because the ethics complaints were becoming too much of a distraction for the State to function? they called her a quitter. don't come crying to me about Republican obstructionism of Obama when Sarah Palin was crucified for even daring to run against him.
Democrats want to pretend like Republicans just decided to hate Obama one day and have worked against him for every second since then. as if Obama didn't make it clear from day one that he would be running a left-wing Presidency. you want to talk about Woodwards book? let's talk about it:
Woodward places particular blame for the failure to reach a deal with Obama, writing that the seeds of discord were planted early in his administration. He displayed "two sides" of his personality in early meetings with congressional leaders, Woodward said.
"There's this divided-man quality to President Obama always. Initially he meets with the congressional leaders, he says you know, 'We're going to be accommodating, we're going to listen, we're going to talk, we're going to compromise," Woodward said.
"But then they -- Republicans ask some questions and challenge him a little bit and he says, 'Look I won. I'm in charge here,' " Woodward continued. "And the Republicans feel totally isolated and ostracized. And this was the beginning of a war."
but for all your posturing, some of you don't want to present both sides of the story. you'll call for conservatives and Republicans to take responsibility for their failures, but won't recognize the failures of your own side. I'll admit it: conservatives, from day one, wanted Obama to fail in implementing his specific agenda as we understood it. if he wanted to overcome that hurdle, he needed to do some real reaching across the aisle. he never did any of that. he decided, by all accounts, to run the country as if he had been granted a mandate by the people. how the fuck can he complain when 2010 Republicans do the same exact thing? and it seems clear to me that the 2008 Republican obstruction paid off in 2010 and was validated by the American people in 2010, and depending on this next election's outcome, might be validated and reaffirmed doubly. or perhaps it will be rejected. either way, it's beyond ridiculous to keep playing the "but let's not think about the past!" when you're talking about the reason why one side is completely disillusioned with the idea of compromising. Democrat behavior led to this as much as Republican behavior.
The way you bring up irrelevant events to try and make a point is so one page ago. There's a lot more to that Woodward book and p4ndemik posted a critical piece of it. Did that not deserve a response from you or are you just hiding from the facts again?
And I told you, if you want to play the "let's think about the past card" go ahead. Pretty sure I've already described on the previous page how the past couple Congresses have been, by any historical measures, crazier than any other Congress to date (multiple times dumber than the Congresses during Bush's terms aside from the 110th in which Republicans began their nonsense after being voted to take a back seat).
Also, I wish, I truly wish beyond anything that Obama did not try to compromise at all with Republicans. I wish he and the Democrats would have passed the full stimulus and not just $700 billion dollars of it. I wish he would have slapped the public option onto Obamacare (or push for universal healthcare) but he didn't. He tried to appease the Republicans and it backfired, and now I'm not voting for him because honestly, he had his chance to make a bigger difference but he missed out on it.
On November 05 2012 09:16 Souma wrote: Christ, what's so hard about criticizing your own party's politicians? It's not like we're making fun of your ideologies nor your policies - we're saying your politicians are being stupid and it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
I criticize Democrats all the time and it's why I'm voting Jill Stein. They're politicians, they inevitably do shit that piss you off. It doesn't help anyone to close your eyes to the facts--certainly not you, a voter who wants your representatives to put your interests above theirs.
Yet you fail to criticize the Democrat obstructionism. You point a finger at Republicans and say "it's their fault, all this obstructionism." I never said the Republicans weren't being total morons. I think both sides are total morons. In fact, I don't think anyone here has denied what the Republicans are currently doing, unless I missed a post.
And you know why the Bush judicial nominations went through faster? The Republicans stood up to Bush and compromised with the Democrats. Again, a pretty number that makes you look right, but doesn't when you actually know the circumstances.
You guys misunderstand me pointing out your partisan bullshit for me defending the Democrats. I've mentioned before in this thread that I hate obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism period. Do you think I'm voting third party BECAUSE I LOVE DEMOCRATS? Get real. And when you say something so factually incorrect as, "It's the same thing!" you deserve to be called out.
No, the judicial nominations went through faster during Bush's term because moderates from both sides of the aisle, the Gang of 14, got together and said, "Let's stop this nonsense." So stop trying to put Republicans on some kind of high pedestal. Did you see what happened to moderate Republicans during the recent elections? They got trashed by the Tea Party.
You misunderstand what happened in the ACA. Obama had the votes to pass single payer. You know why he didn't? It's not because he was trying to appease Republicans. He was trying to undercut them. He tried to reform it in a way previously suggested by and old Republican congress. He thought that if he did that, they couldn't object to it like they did. Obama wasn't being noble, he was trying to be sly.
And you say it's not comparable, but I don't exactly see any Democrats standing up to Obama like the Republicans did to Bush... I'll give you that it's not a direct comparable, but if you're going to throw that number around you have to also acknowledge that no Democrat is going to conspire with a Republicans to limit Obama's influence. And without the Gang of 14, there likely would have been an equivalent stonewalling of judicial confirmations.
BTW, in case this confuses you--I'm not that partisan.
EPT
