I object i object i object i object i object i object i object i object i object

[bascule]

Apparently the Republicans have learned their latest debate tactics from pre-schoolers:

 

eMdlcnK_MI4

 

Wow. I'm surprised they don't mute their microphones. Are there actually recourses for dealing with douchebags who refuse to play by the rules and just want to scream NANANANANANANANA (or should I say I OBJECT I OBJECT OBJECTION OBJECTION) and prevent any actual discussion from happening? I am afraid I am not up on my parliamentary procedures.

 

Someone needs to remix this into a music video.

[John Cuthber]

Bascule, your comment is unfair.

Most pre-schoolers are better behaved than that.

[insane_alien]

Perhaps the senate(? not sure onthe US goverment system) should implement a naughty corner for the senators?

 

or maybe they just need a(nother) nap.

[JillSwift]

Hmmph.

 

Senator, Ayn Rand's philosophy is Objectivism, not Objectionism.

 

Silly senator.

 

Seriously, how can that not be viewed as anything other than an infantile hissy-fit? Where are the republicans who have dignity, and why aren't they telling their colleague to drink decaf?

[DJBruce]

A republican was actually asked about this incident this morning and said that the measure the representative asked to introduce required unanimous consent, and that his colleague was simply objecting the the motion. However, even if that was the case it was still in bad form to yell it over and over again.

 

Also just to be nit picky this was from the US House of Representatives, not the senate.

[padren]

They need to be able to call "Contempt of Congress" and send the guy to jail for the night. Of course, that would never be abused...

 

It's just really, very sad. Maybe they are trying to drum up more "you lie!" contributions.

[JohnB]

I admit to be entertained. Bad behaviour is standard in politics, one of our Prime Ministers called his opposition "scumbags" on the floor of Parliment.

 

But the reaction of left leaning US citizens is hilarious. Politics is politics, it's a carnival sideshow.

 

Most entertaining is that even though the Dems now control the House of Representative, the Senate and the Presidency, they still have trouble getting anything done. And it's still somehow the fault of the Republicans.

 

In any other Parlimentary Democracy the constituents (and media) would be after the gov with both barrels blazing. "You control all branches of government, what more do you bloody well need to get something done? A sign from God?"

 

This partisanship is ruining you. It's stopping you from seeing that the bunch running both houses are incompetent fools. Come on, they have total control, what more do they need?

 

I would also point out that if total control of government is not enough to pass very much needed legislation, then your system is in dire need of major reform.

[iNow]

This partisanship is ruining you. It's stopping you from seeing that the bunch running both houses are incompetent fools.

TBH, I wish I saw less of it... That seems to be all I can see. It's not that I (personally) cannot see it. It's that my fellow voters are too stupid to vote in large enough blocks to change it, and to elect people who are capable, cultured, and competent.

 

 

I would also point out that if total control of government is not enough to pass very much needed legislation, then your system is in dire need of major reform.

QFT.

[Moontanman]

It seems that all of America has degenerated into nothing but a shouting match, no right no wrong just who can shout the loudest and be the most obtuse. I am so very tired of polarization it has the potential to screw us all. Far to many people who only want to hear what they believe in or agree with and far too many people willing to tell them what they want to hear. Really very sad, what ever happened to really looking at the issues? Doesn't any one ever get tired of getting sunshine pumped up their skirt? Why is it so popular to be selfish and smug?

[bascule]

Most entertaining is that even though the Dems now control the House of Representative, the Senate and the Presidency, they still have trouble getting anything done. And it's still somehow the fault of the Republicans.

 

Yep. They're threatening to filibuster any healthcare bill, rather than working towards an alternate proposal of their own. I'm certainly convinced that the health insurance industry has most of the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats in their pocket.

 

In any other Parlimentary Democracy the constituents (and media) would be after the gov with both barrels blazing. "You control all branches of government, what more do you bloody well need to get something done? A sign from God?"

 

I am not happy with the Democrats performance so far. They lack the ability of the Republicans to tow the party line in lock step. The Democrats are the party of the "big tent" (such that on one hand you have the Blue Dogs voting against the healthcare bill because it's too liberal and Dennis Kucinich voting against it because it's too conservative)

 

But that said, you can't completely blame the Democrats. The Republicans have thoroughly demonstrated a stubborn unwillingness to compromise. Know how many Republicans are even considering voting for the healthcare bill? One! The Democrats have tried, and tried, and tried, to neuter the healthcare bill into something the Republicans might actually vote for. So far, all they've accomplished is ONE "maybe". And the Republicans are going to filibuster any bill. Unless the Democrats can wield the supposed "supermajority" (which would mean convincing Lieberman to side with them, which won't happen) the Democrats will not be able to force a cloture vote and thus the legislation will not get passed.

 

And please keep in mind that the Republicans make your Conservative Party look like a bunch of tie dye wearing patchouli scented pot smoking Marx worshiping hippies. Also, anyone describing themselves as "socialist" has absolutely no chance of holding a higher office as socialism is taboo.

 

I would also point out that if total control of government is not enough to pass very much needed legislation, then your system is in dire need of major reform.

 

As I hope you've gathered from my earlier statements, the Democrats don't have "total control of government", and they are not a stratified group. They are a nuanced group with many differing viewpoints. And unless there's just the tiniest bit of compromise from the opposing site, it's very difficult to pass legislation.

[Saryctos]

I would also point out that if total control of government is not enough to pass very much needed legislation, then your system is in dire need of major reform.

 

This made me wonder if perhaps increasing the difficulty in passing legislation would be helpful. As right now it's a struggle to get hard line partisans to vote along party lines to force things through. If it was harder to pass measures perhaps it would trend things towards moderation.

 

-Proposing legislation(assuming you want to get it passed) would need more support meaning it needs to appeal across party lines more than the current situation.

-The increased difficulty of getting legislation passed could result in smaller proposed changes, instead of blanket changes with huge impacts. Smaller gradual change is much more desirable than leaps and bounds of almost irreversible changes.

-Electing officials who are capable of passing legislation therefore would need to be somewhat moderate if they had any hope of getting things done.

[A Tripolation]

And please keep in mind that the Republicans make your Conservative Party look like a bunch of tie dye wearing patchouli scented pot smoking Marx worshiping hippies.

 

This is spot on. Instead of sitting down and voicing their concerns to the democrats in a mature manner, they resort to this and make all conservatives look like idiots.

 

But I also have to wonder if the democratic party would have the maturity to listen and compromise, if the republicans did the same.

[bascule]

This made me wonder if perhaps increasing the difficulty in passing legislation would be helpful.

 

Are you smoking crack?

 

In order to pass legislation the Republicans have vowed to filibuster, the Democrats need a successful cloture vote.

 

This means the bill must be agreeable to the entire Democratic supermajority, including Joe Liberman (who's not a Democrat). So far, this has not happened, and I really have to wonder if it ever will. It seems to be the only way they'll pass the healthcare bill in the Senate in the near future, so we'll see.

 

This is especially hard for the Democrats, because they encompass a far greater portion of the political spectrum than the Republicans. Republicans cover the range from extremely conservative to moderately conservative. Democrats cover the range from moderately conservative to extremely liberal.

 

Bottom line, the way the system is set up now is preventing the Democrats from passing legislation because the Republicans are threatening to filibuster. I'm not saying that's a bad thing per se, but I can't imagine trying to make the system even more restrictive.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But I also have to wonder if the democratic party would have the maturity to listen and compromise, if the republicans did the same.

 

Examine their voting record in 2001-06... for example, the absolutely atrocious Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, a Republican-sponsored bill which was effectively a huge handout of government money to the pharmaceutical companies, and also the one which established the so-called "donut hole" Democrats are trying to close in the new bill.

 

That legislation passed with a small amount of Democratic support. Some Democrats were willing to compromise.

Edited November 10, 2009 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[CaptainPanic]

So, it's just allowed to ignore the chairman? Did the republicans get away with this?

 

This is really amazing. It's an act of sabotage against democracy. Sabotage against the Freedom that the Americans (both parties) like to preach.

 

I was already convinced that the USA isn't a democracy anymore - but it's worse than I thought. I think the only thing worse than this would be a complete Coup d'Etat!

[JohnB]

Fair enough bascule. Our systems are very different.

 

Two biggies that come to mind are;

 

1. Party Loyalty. Members of a political party are expected to toe the party line. Sort of "We put up the money to pay for your campaign and you said you would endorse our policy initiatives. Vote yes or get out."

 

Peope do vote with the other side, we call it "Crossing the Floor", but in general pollies are expected to vote for the policies they were elected to enact into legislation.

 

In your shoes I would be far more p*ssed at the Dems who are not behind the Bill. They were voted in to enact certain legislation and are failing to do so, which is basically "Breach of Promise". They should get with the program or resign. The Repubs have at least been consistent in their (wrong) opposition in this matter.

 

2. We have strictly enforced limits as to how long a pollie can speak on the floor. Filibusters are not possible under our system. You need to change the rules.

 

I had to look up "cloture" as we don't have it and have no need for it. Get rid of filibustering and the need for cloture disappears.

 

Either way, the Dems need to put pressure on their own people and get them to toe the line and do what they promised to do. "Vote yes or stand as an independent next time" strikes me as a good line to take.

 

If the Dems got their collective acts together then the filibustering by the Repubs would be easily seen and recognised for the useless delaying tactic that it is. This would only hurt the Repubs in the long run.

 

All of the above is not to say that we don't have many differing viewpoints even within our partys. However part of being a pollie is the agreement between the individual pollie and the party he represents. This is basically that if you are going to stand for election under the banner of a given party, then you will act to enable the policies of that party.

 

To do anything else is dishonest behaviour and you will pay for it at the next election. The party will disendorse you and the voters won't vote for you.

 

You know, it's probably not too late to go to Her Majesty and apologise and ask her to set up a good government for you.

[Mr Skeptic]

Looks like we need to get some new rules for discussion, or enforce the ones we have if we have them already.

 

Either way, the Dems need to put pressure on their own people and get them to toe the line and do what they promised to do. "Vote yes or stand as an independent next time" strikes me as a good line to take.

 

And I wish they could go independent. In fact, I wish we could do away with the silly party system we have. However, if they want to be elected they pretty much have to run as Republican or Democrat. There is no requirement to tow the party line, which is a good thing. I'd expect elected people to keep most of their promises, but I don't think these promises have to include doing whatever the party as a whole wants, nor should they.

 

My proposed solution is to change our voting system to a rated voting system, which should eliminate the moronic wasted vote mentality that has us stuck with these two clownfests.

[JohnB]

Hm, I"m not sure I was clear.

 

Down here, to stand for one of the partys, you agree to support their policies in certain areas. This means that before the election the candidate has agreed to vote in favour of the partys main policies. This way everybody knows where they stand.

 

On this basis it is acceptable to make the pollie toe the line. "You said you'd vote yes. We endorsed you because you promised to vote yes. The people voted for you because you said you'd vote yes. Do what you said you would do."

 

For the pollie to not toe the line on major matters exposes them as liars and frauds and they will suffer the consequences.

 

Note that this really applies to major policy matters and not minor ones. People vote their conscience on the more minor matters.

 

But politicians must be made to live up to the major promises they make.

 

To keep it simple. If a party campaigns on the basis that they will introduce a UHC system (and the other one says they won't) and wins on that basis then there is a contract between the party and the people and the party must fulfil it's obligation and introduce a UHC system.

 

"Vote for us and we will do such and such" means just that. It doesn't mean "Vote for us and we will try to do such and such, provided we can talk our own people into agreeing with the policy."

 

It's very cut and dried. If you do not support the basic Democrat (or Republican) policies, don't stand in their name. To do anything else is deceptive.

 

A person who stands as a Democrat candidate, on a Democrat ticket and with Democrat policies that has no intention of furthering those policies is a liar and a cheat. (Same goes for Republicans, of course)

[Mr Skeptic]

A person who stands as a Democrat candidate, on a Democrat ticket and with Democrat policies that has no intention of furthering those policies is a liar and a cheat. (Same goes for Republicans, of course)

 

Unless they have clearly stated beforehand where they don't agree with the party they are running for, and the party elects them as their candidate anyways.

[padren]

On this basis it is acceptable to make the pollie toe the line. "You said you'd vote yes. We endorsed you because you promised to vote yes. The people voted for you because you said you'd vote yes. Do what you said you would do."

 

For the pollie to not toe the line on major matters exposes them as liars and frauds and they will suffer the consequences.

 

That would mean each side is duty bound to support/oppose ideological legislation, which would effectively require a filibuster proof super-majority to ever pass anything. Your side could win the majority, a huge majority, but if it's not a super-majority than nothing could get done because it could be effectively vetoed by the opposition.

 

The system is designed to encourage bipartisanship and collaborations, but Republicans have effectively gone on strike and refuse to vote for anything that is not 100% unabashedly hardline Republican. Since it would be conscionable for Democrats to support anything 100% Republican (at least, now that there is a Democrat in the White House) they have imposed a stalemate.

Also, technically since Liberman is an independent, he can pander to lobbyists from both sides of the isle without drawing the ire of his party.

[John Cuthber]

I don't know how your system works but If I voted for someone to act as my representative and they chose to behave like a naughty school-kid they wouldn't get my vote next time.

If I were running in oposition to this guy I would be laughing myself silly. All I would need to do to win votes would be to play that clip and finish with the tag line "Vote for me or vote for an idiot".

Whether they system favours this sort of thing or not he can hardly expect to get away with it in the long run.

[padren]

I don't know how your system works but If I voted for someone to act as my representative and they chose to behave like a naughty school-kid they wouldn't get my vote next time.

If I were running in oposition to this guy I would be laughing myself silly. All I would need to do to win votes would be to play that clip and finish with the tag line "Vote for me or vote for an idiot".

Whether they system favours this sort of thing or not he can hardly expect to get away with it in the long run.

 

Except that his constituents are probably donating money to his campaign like crazy because of his behavior, since many districts contain very upset conservative voters that believe if such tactics are needed to "save America from that Muslim" than they just hope their representative is brave enough to make such an ass of himself. Did I say "make an ass of himself?" I mean, "bravely denounce the communist take over of America that would put our elderly in death camps where they are impregnated and forced to have abortions to harvest stem cells."

[bascule]

I don't know how your system works but If I voted for someone to act as my representative and they chose to behave like a naughty school-kid they wouldn't get my vote next time.

 

Unfortunately there are many Republicans who approve of this behavior.

 

When Joe Wilson shouted "You Lie" to Obama's face during a joint session of Congress, he was met with an outpouring of support.

 

[Mr Skeptic]

But aren't the crazies that approve of such behavior and donate for it, a very small minority? After all, it doesn't matter how much money a small minority donate if the majority don't vote for the guy.

[bascule]

Doesn't help if they're in a district full of people who eat that stuff up with a spoon.

 

Ever watch Idiocracy?

[JohnB]

Unless they have clearly stated beforehand where they don't agree with the party they are running for, and the party elects them as their candidate anyways.

 

Of course. It's just important that the electorate know what they are getting. We have anti abortionists standing on pro abortion tickets. They just make it clear that they disagree with their partys stance on that particular issue.

 

That would mean each side is duty bound to support/oppose ideological legislation, which would effectively require a filibuster proof super-majority to ever pass anything. Your side could win the majority, a huge majority, but if it's not a super-majority than nothing could get done because it could be effectively vetoed by the opposition.

 

Again a difference in our systems. Our pollies can't filibuster, it's not allowed under the rules of Parliment.

 

Also, (under our system) if a party controls the majority of votes in both the Lower and Upper House, then they are the Government. (The Prime Minister is simply the Leader of the party that has the most seats.)

 

If you have the majority in the Lower House, the Bill passes to the Senate. If you have the majority there, the Bill passes and becomes law. It's that simple.

 

This is why I have so much trouble understanding why things aren't getting done over there. Take the vote and pass the bloody Bill already.

 

I"m sure your system looks quite logical from there, but from the outside it looks very strange.