Should we treat the US Democrat/Republican parties as equally corrupt/depraved/etc

[ParanoiA]

Funny how the very first example on that list makes my earlier point for me, beautifully.

 

You can't flip out -- and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a parliamentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that's centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.

 

So here, the lesson the author is taking, and bascule and others have presumably taken, is that republicans are worse and blah blah blah.

 

Nowhere is it considered that maybe both are screwing the american people with "deem and pass" political cover. It's a chickenshit procedure, but when you're invested in this "game" of red and blue, all you can see is "well that red shirted guy did it even more!!"

 

What a joke.

 

I tried to read more, but they're just so stupid. They'll point to a republican, and then associate all republicans in their charge - the same crap this forum will shoot down in a heartbeat and run someone out on a rail for such carelessness. But TPM ragging on republicans doing it? Just fine. Even has standing.

 

Whatever.

[Pangloss]

It was the assertion by Bascule in post #55, but his full non-paraphrased quote is:

 

"They (Republicans) care more about winning political victories against the Democrats than they do about improving the country"

 

Which is not true at all. They believe that stopping the Health Care bill is better for the country and are acting accordingly.

 

I'm sure they do, and no amount of ridicule-posing-as-reason will change that fact.

 

 

The Democrats did a stellar job compromising among themselves: they achieved a 95% agreement of 89% agreement necessary in the Senate, and achieved a 85% out of 85% agreement necessary in the House.

 

Yes, and I think that's interesting given how many people tried to tell me that it was impossible for Democrats to accomplish this in spite of a 60-seat majority because, somehow, Republicans were the problem.

 

But I wholeheartedly agree with this:

 

The Republicans have fully betrayed their constituents in this: they failed to kill the bill, and they failed to compromise for a better bill.

 

Well put.

 

 

Without a quick' date=' "Sorry it happened, didn't do it on purpose", it sort of makes it look intentional, doesn't it?[/quote']

 

No, it doesn't.

 

I haven't seen this video, but I guess you're suggesting that somehow in the midst of conversation he managed to put extra spittle in his mouth and land it on the face of his opponent while making it look like an accident. That's a neat trick. Do they teach that on the Glenn Beck show? I guess I wouldn't put it past the guy, but I really have no idea.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Nowhere is it considered that maybe both are screwing the american people with "deem and pass" political cover. It's a chickenshit procedure, but when you're invested in this "game" of red and blue, all you can see is "well that red shirted guy did it even more!!"

 

What a joke.

 

QFT.

 

 

I tried to read more, but they're just so stupid. They'll point to a republican, and then associate all republicans in their charge - the same crap this forum will shoot down in a heartbeat and run someone out on a rail for such carelessness. But TPM ragging on republicans doing it? Just fine. Even has standing.

 

Whatever.

 

Exactly. Also, guilt by association is a logical fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

[bascule]

Nowhere is it considered that maybe both are screwing the american people

 

I think that's the de facto position, especially around here. I am making the audacious claim that one party is objectively worse than the other

[Phi for All]

No, it doesn't.

 

I haven't seen this video, but I guess you're suggesting that somehow in the midst of conversation he managed to put extra spittle in his mouth and land it on the face of his opponent while making it look like an accident. That's a neat trick. Do they teach that on the Glenn Beck show? I guess I wouldn't put it past the guy, but I really have no idea.

Well, jeez, then please watch the video before saying, "No, it doesn't [make it look like he did it on purpose, Phi]".

 

I commented because jryan said the video showed clearly it was an accident and not purposeful, so I watched it. And there's a man who has his hands cupped around his mouth to amplify his voice (so you can't see if it's intentional) booing and chanting "KILL THE BILL" at the reps walking into the building, and he probably accidentally spits on the passing Congressman Cleaver (I don't think it was purposeful, myself). My point is, when Cleaver stops and swings around, wiping his face and obviously asking the guy why he spat on him, the guy keeps right on chanting. If the guy doesn't set the record straight and tell Cleaver he didn't mean to spit, then why should anyone be surprised or dismissive when Cleaver thinks it was purposeful? If the spitter doesn't have the common courtesy to say, "Sorry, didn't mean to spit", maybe he was capable of the discourtesy of spitting on purpose.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, and I think that's interesting given how many people tried to tell me that it was impossible for Democrats to accomplish this in spite of a 60-seat majority because, somehow, Republicans were the problem.

 

To be fair, they did do some rather creative strategy and ended up not needing to use 60 votes after all. I don't really think they could have achieved 100% agreement if it came down to it.

[Pangloss]

I think that's the de facto position, especially around here. I am making the audacious claim that one party is objectively worse than the other

 

I always applaud your forthright manner of posting in this subforum. I also know you well enough to know that you're not saying that all Republicans are bad. (It's not association fallacy.) Logically one party probably has a higher number of cases of bad behavior (however that's defined) than the other, just because of the unlikelihood that they have exactly the same number.

 

The only thing I would say in opposition is that a handful of examples don't make a factual case. An objective assessment would require a statistical analysis, and even then it may be tainted by reporting bias. It also doesn't give us an indication, even if we accept the judgment, of how much worse it is.

[ParanoiA]

It's a plague...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/republicans-dispute-charges-stalling-judicial-nominees/

 

Republicans are pushing back on Democratic claims that they're stonewalling President Obama's judicial nominees, saying things may be bad now -- but they were far worse under President Bush.

 

I have to ask...how does it feel to sound just like Fox news?

[bascule]

Of course, Massachusetts tried their damnedest to recreate European style social program, and have earned top honors as most debt ridden state in the union.

 

And that state's health plan was the model for Obamacare.

 

That legislation was also signed into law by Mitt Romney. Rather than actually creating a European-style social program, the Democrats passed legislation that originally came from Republican ideas. Ideas Republicans would subsequently wash their hands of...

 

I've visited the the European country with a system closest to the proposed hybrid public option system, Switzerland. The Swiss aren't particularly happy with their system but say it's better than before. America didn't even get that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The only thing I would say in opposition is that a handful of examples don't make a factual case. An objective assessment would require a statistical analysis, and even then it may be tainted by reporting bias. It also doesn't give us an indication, even if we accept the judgment, of how much worse it is.

 

I think it's more than a handful of examples at this point. The Republicans are routinely washing their hands of their own ideas then opposing them after their ideas are embraced by Democrats. It's sort of like bipartisanship, except usually when one party adopts the ideas of another the two can work together towards a common solution. That's not what's happening with the Republican party right now.

 

The WSJ article I linked (the WSJ being a conservatively leaning source) goes into this in exhaustive detail on the issue of healthcare.

Edited March 28, 2010 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

The Republicans are routinely washing their hands of their own ideas then opposing them after their ideas are embraced by Democrats. It's sort of like bipartisanship' date=' except usually when one party adopts the ideas of another the two can work together towards a common solution. That's not what's happening with the Republican party right now.

 

The WSJ article I linked (the WSJ being a conservatively leaning source) goes into this in exhaustive detail on the issue of healthcare.[/quote']

 

I agree that it's getting worse. With each passing election the dangerous precedents set by the party in power lead to more egregious transgressions when their opponents come to power. The recess appointments late last week are a good example -- that number keeps growing from one administration to the next because of increased willingness to hold up those appointments by the opposition party.

[bascule]

http://www.gop.com/

 

The front page of the Republican web site now bears the image "FIRE PELOSI!" and all in all looks like the sort of web design you'd get for free from your cousin. (screenshot here for if it changes)

[Phi for All]

http://www.gop.com/

 

The front page of the Republican web site now bears the image "FIRE PELOSI!" and all in all looks like the sort of web design you'd get for free from your cousin. (screenshot here for if it changes)

I can hardly believe that's what gop.com looks like. There's like one little arrow at the bottom to take you to the rest of what the GOP is all about.

 

I think they got FOX to design it.

[Pangloss]

http://www.gop.com/

 

The front page of the Republican web site now bears the image "FIRE PELOSI!" and all in all looks like the sort of web design you'd get for free from your cousin. (screenshot here for if it changes)

 

Yes, and the Democratic Party seems perfectly content to leverage a different fear to fuel its own fundraising efforts. Here's an excerpt from an email I got from chairman Tim Kaine the other day:

 

At a time of historic achievement for our country, Republicans and the extreme right wing are responding by pushing fear and intimidation.

 

They've launched a campaign to "fire" Nancy Pelosi, complete with imagery of the first female Speaker of the House surrounded by flames. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter had a brick thrown through her office window. A Virginia blog posted Congressman Tom Perriello's home address, urging tea partiers to "drop by."

 

The Democratic National Committee is already fighting back hard, with a sophisticated ad strategy, events on the ground, and the best rapid-response program in the history of politics. But we need your help to keep it up.

 

Please chip in $5 or more:

 

Around and around and around we go, where it stops nobody knows.

[iNow]

Considering the vast advertising dollars being spent right now to whip up the mob and pitchfork mentality, is it really that surprising that the targets of said mentality are trying to raise money to fight back and defend themselves in the face of this disproportionate rage?

 

There are people throwing bricks through windows and spitting on representatives, and the ones you are castigating are those trying to raise funding to defend themselves against spin and lies. This "up is down" ..."black is white" ... "war is peace" ... "slavery is freedom" mentality baffles me.

[Pangloss]

Considering the vast advertising dollars being spent right now to whip up the mob and pitchfork mentality, is it really that surprising that the targets of said mentality are trying to raise money to fight back and defend themselves in the face of this disproportionate rage?

 

There are people throwing bricks through windows and spitting on representatives, and the ones you are castigating are those trying to raise funding to defend themselves against spin and lies. This "up is down" ..."black is white" ... "war is peace" ... "slavery is freedom" mentality baffles me.

 

Representatives from both parties have been threatened, attacked, ridiculed, and dramatically confronted. Some of the brick-throwers are upset thanks to right-wing demagogues like Glenn Beck; others are upset thanks to left-wing demagogues like Bill Maher. Or in this case, Courtland Milloy, liberal columnist for the Washington Post:

 

I know how the "tea party" people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their "Obama Plan White Slavery" signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032304018.html

 

Or if you don't like that, how about all those times during the Bush administration that Democrats fanned the flames of outraged liberals and progressives, who promptly ran off to some pretty emotional rallies over the wars in the Middle East?

 

And Neal Boortz highlighted this well last week (and I reported here earlier), saying that the media has focused heavily on one side of the story, making the situation even worse:

 

If you're opposed to the Democrats attempt to gain control over health care you're a dangerous, violence-prone right-wing radical who needs to be investigated by the FBI. We're being told that "our heroes are under attack." The culprits? Out-of-control right wing haters who want to visit violence on the wonderful Democrats who brought us this government intrusion into our health care system. James Clyburn from South Carolina .. the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus .. is saying that the Republicans are "aiding and abetting terrorism."

 

Hmmmm ... When Republican Senator Jim Bunning was getting death threats because he was holding up an extension of unemployment benefits (he wanted them to be paid for) did Clyburn speak up? Hell no, he didn't. Not in the game plan. The plan is to demonize anyone who dares to speak out against ObamaCare. The ObamaMedia will play the game.

 

So cliche has the phrase "health care heroes" already become that it was leveraged in a sketch by Saturday Night Live week before last, in an obvious nod to the fact that the word heroes is being misused to an extent that even an ostensibly liberal group of comedians think it'll resonate with the public as a simple joke. For what it's worth, I hope they're right -- I hope the violent jokers prove to be the exception rather than the norm, and that most people will relax and get down to the business of making sure we give this new law our best effort.

 

It shouldn't be surprising that Democrats are behaving exactly like Republicans. What should be surprising, in my opinion, is that there are still people in this country who always see one of these two parties as superior to the other one.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Pangloss

[jryan]

That legislation was also signed into law by Mitt Romney. Rather than actually creating a European-style social program, the Democrats passed legislation that originally came from Republican ideas. Ideas Republicans would subsequently wash their hands of...

 

I've visited the the European country with a system closest to the proposed hybrid public option system, Switzerland. The Swiss aren't particularly happy with their system but say it's better than before. America didn't even get that.

 

I am well aware that Mitt Romney signed that bill. He even used it as a selling point in his primary bid. Who says I support Mitt Romney? He became unelectable as soon as his compromise plan in Massachusetts went haywire. But arguing that Mitt Romney signed a demonstrably bad bill does not make it OK for the whole nation to adopt a demonstrably bad bill.

 

Here's another nugget: The Republican compromise of 1993 on the Hillary plan was very similar to Romney's plan in Massachusetts... that still doesn't change the fact that the Massachusetts plan is untenable and is ruining the state financially.

 

That is the nice thing about being conservative. Since I evaluate programs based on how they have performed in the past, I can learn from Republican and Democrat mistakes alike. Obama and this crop of Democrats seem unable to learn from any actual "teachable moments" and run full steam into programs that are shown to be bad and deem them a success based solely on what might happen if the planets align.

[iNow]

...arguing that Mitt Romney signed a demonstrably bad bill does not make it OK for the whole nation to adopt a demonstrably bad bill.

 

Here's another nugget: The Republican compromise of 1993 on the Hillary plan was very similar to Romney's plan in Massachusetts... that still doesn't change the fact that the Massachusetts plan is untenable and is ruining the state financially.

"Bad" is not an objective quality which can be demonstrated in the way you suggest. While you're welcome to hold that opinion, it's important to note that is all it is.

 

Also, the cost issues you mention can be addressed. Just something to consider. I agree there were issues in the Massachusetts bill, and also this new law out of DC, but to suggest it's "untenable" when the cost issues can, in fact, be directly addressed seems a bit hyperbolic and inaccurate. Perhaps you meant to choose a word other than "untenable?"

 

 

 

* indefensible: (of theories etc) incapable of being defended or justified

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

* Not able to be held, as of an opinion or position; unholdable, indefensible

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/untenable

 

 

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It shouldn't be surprising that Democrats are behaving exactly like Republicans. What should be surprising, in my opinion, is that there are still people in this country who always see one of these two parties as superior to the other one.

 

Yes, you are correct. I appreciate you bringing to my attention that the two are equal, and for pointing out the error of my thinking that the actions of one side are ostensibly more vitriolic, violent, and common than anything we've seen from the other in over a century.

 

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGc00FR9o4OUr36gm80mOpG00ccwD9EOB0HO2

Two law enforcement officials tell The Associated Press that members of the group in the Midwest had planned multiple attacks on police officers or other law enforcement personnel as a way of acting out their hatred for the government.

 

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29094078/Stone

Nine members of a militia group arrested in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Ohio were planning to "levy war" against the United States and "oppose by force" the nation's government, according to an indictment released this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

 

The eight men and one woman are members of the "Hutaree," identified as an "anti-government extremist organization" in the indictment, and each faces three to five charges, including sedition, attempts to use weapons of mass destruction, teaching/demonstrating use of explosive materials and two counts of carrying weapons in relation to a crime of violence.

 

The Adrian-based group Hutaree says it is training in modern combat techniques for a prophesized battle with the anti-Christ.

 

The indictment says they were planning to kill a member of law enforcement, possibly after a traffic stop, to "prompt a response by law enforcement."

 

The goal: To "intimidate and demoralize law enforcement, diminishing their ranks and rendering them ineffective," according to the indictment.

 

 

http://www.freep.com/comments/article/20100328/NEWS06/100328017/Fed-raids-in-Michigan-may-be-tied-to-Hutaree-a-Christian-militia-group

Just once I wish the Michigan Militia would bring out the multiple 50 clibe3r machine guns they own and teach Obama's Gestapos they phucked with the wrong group of sheep. My weapon gets confiscated only from my cold dead fingers. Would someone please read article two of our US constitution to these looney toon Democrats? before we start the revolution again

 

Hey Feds--Concentate your investigations on the Politicians of The city of Detroit.You guys start fooling with the Militia,your going to get another Oklahoma City

 

 

 

Even at the highest levels, it's gone ridiculous:

 

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35096.html

The Republican National Committee has rejected a proposal from its Democratic counterpart to sign a joint “civility” statement, POLITICO has learned.

 

Various members of the DNC — including Chairman Tim Kaine, Executive Director Jen O’Malley Dillon and Communications Director Brad Woodhouse — contacted their respective RNC counterparts this week in hopes of getting RNC Chairman Michael Steele to co-sign a document with Kaine that, in part, called for “elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry.”

 

“We also call on all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior,” read the proposed joint statement, which came at the end of a week that saw acts of vandalism and threats of violence directed at members of Congress from both parties, but mostly aimed at Democrats who voted yes on the health care bill.

 

<...>

 

Woodhouse told POLITICO that the DNC is “disappointed” that the RNC would not agree to a statement that “would carry a lot weight symbolically.”

 

“It’s very disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that Chairman Steele, who authored a fundraising presentation that depicted the president as the Joker, the speaker of the House as Cruella de Vil, raised money online showing the speaker on fire and said she should be put before a firing squad would refuse to do a joint statement with Chairman Kaine to ratchet down the rhetoric and condemn the violence and threats which Republican supporters have engaged in since the passage of health reform,” Woodhouse said.

 

“Chairman Steele’s own overheated rhetoric and the Republican Party’s fear tactics have contributed to an environment of anger and frustration that is unhealthy and counterproductive to our political dialogue,” he added. “Rather than take responsibility for their own actions, Chairman Steele not only refused the good-faith offer of issuing a joint statement, he then sent his spokesperson out to go on the attack in a breathtaking display of chutzpah and hypocrisy. Chairman Kaine and Democrats will continue to work towards a civil and responsible debate on the issues of the day even as Republicans continue to be pulled farther and farther towards the radical extreme.”

Edited March 29, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[jryan]

"Bad" is not an objective quality which can be demonstrated in the way you suggest. While you're welcome to hold that opinion, it's important to note that is all it is.

 

Also, the cost issues you mention can be addressed. Just something to consider. I agree there were issues in the Massachusetts bill, and also this new law out of DC, but to suggest it's untenable when the cost issues can be directly addressed seems a bit hyperbolic and inaccurate.

 

It should also be pointed out that your assertion that the cost can be addressed is not an objective quality of the cost and can not be demonstrated as you suggest. It has not been brought under control so assumptions that it CAN be brought under control has no basis in fact.

 

Creating a bill that mimics a bill that has not performed any cost saving function in what amounts to a test program in Massachusetts on the grounds that on a larger scale it will save money is actually the meat of the hyperbole surrounding this bill.

 

The bill in Massachusetts failed to provide the cost savings that it planned to provide. Ergo it is a bad bill. I define a bad bill as one that fails to accomplish it's goals. This same bill is now slated to be rolled out nationally, ergo I consider it to be a bad bill as well.

 

We can also add in the requirement of the Massachusetts bill that it wanted to reach 95% coverage for it's citizens... which in the short term it did. But I don't see evidence at the moment that that is sustainable for the state if left to itself. It needs external injections of cash to remain solvent, it is not self sustaining... so the goal to cover 95% of it's citizens has not been met yet in perpetuity.

[iNow]

It should also be pointed out that your assertion that the cost can be addressed is not an objective quality of the cost and can not be demonstrated as you suggest. It has not been brought under control so assumptions that it CAN be brought under control has no basis in fact.

So, if I understand your position, you're saying it's impossible to control costs via smart and well thought-out changes to the legislation? I'll have to disagree with that.

[bascule]

I am well aware that Mitt Romney signed that bill. He even used it as a selling point in his primary bid. Who says I support Mitt Romney? He became unelectable as soon as his compromise plan in Massachusetts went haywire. But arguing that Mitt Romney signed a demonstrably bad bill does not make it OK for the whole nation to adopt a demonstrably bad bill.

 

Here's another nugget: The Republican compromise of 1993 on the Hillary plan was very similar to Romney's plan in Massachusetts... that still doesn't change the fact that the Massachusetts plan is untenable and is ruining the state financially.

 

Well, this is all a non-sequitur. The issue at hand is one of whether the Republicans care more about improving the country or winning political victories. You seem to have done a great job making the argument that the ideas behind the healthcare bill are Republican in origin. Now that the Democrats have passed these Republican ideas into law, the Republicans are up in arms... it's "armageddon!"

 

When Democrats take Republican ideas and create a bill around them, that should be a prime opportunity for a bipartisan effort, not the partisan sh*tstorm we saw surrounding this bill.

[Pangloss]

Yes, you are correct. I appreciate you bringing to my attention that the two are equal, and for pointing out the error of my thinking that the actions of one side are ostensibly more vitriolic, violent, and common than anything we've seen from the other in over a century.

 

You're welcome. Of course, many people will think that one party is always better than the other anyway, but as you say, while they're welcome to hold that opinion, I suppose "it's important to note that is all it is."

[jackson33]

I've visited the European country with a system closest to the proposed hybrid public option system, Switzerland. The Swiss aren't particularly happy with their system but say it's better than before. America didn't even get that.[/Quote]

 

bascule; Population of Switzerland about 8 Million, Massachusetts 7 Million, both basically with all the same conditions leading to health care cost. The US has 310 Million People, several urban areas, equal in population to the above and very different conditions than to any rural area, not to mention environmental and economic conditions. Then Switzerland, is not a very good example, second only to the US in per capita cost. (4500 vs. 7200) and in 1970, both were around 5% of GDP. Today the US is 16% and Switzerland, Canada and Germany are all over 10% of GDP. I might ask, why have NOT members of the European Union, created a UHC, if the more included the cheaper the averages.

 

 

The recess appointments late last week are a good example -- that number keeps growing from one administration to the next because of increased willingness to hold up those appointments by the opposition party. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; Many of those on 'Hold' (kept from getting to the floor debate) may be or have been from Democrats, not necessarily Republicans. Keep in mind, until early January 2010 (some appointments go back to January 2009), any cloture vote (confirmations can be filibustered, in addition to holding) or would have had 60 Democrats to 'cloture' to begin debate and or bring to a vote.

 

 

Floor Consideration. The Senate meets in executive session to consider nominations, but may not begin floor consideration of a nomination until it has been on the Executive Calendar for at least one day, except by unanimous consent. Nominations are subject to unlimited debate, subject to cloture being invoked. In some instances, one or more Senators may place a “hold” on a nomination, thereby delaying or preventing it from reaching the floor for further action. Under Senate Rule XXXI, the final question on a nomination is, “Will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?” The Senate has three options: confirm, reject, or take no action on the nomination. Confirmation requires a simple majority vote. [/Quote]

 

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Senate_Confirmation_Process_An_Overview.pdf

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Rules_of_the_United_States_Senate,_Rule_XXXI

 

 

Then when they lost that majority, Richard Shelby (R-AL, one Republican) did place a blanket hold on all appointments, but again there must be some reason the Democrats have not tried for cloture, the probability more than a few Democrats would also vote no. You may recall, during the 'Jobs Bill' debate here, when one Republican (Bunning) filibustered, it was known a cloture vote would shut him off, instantly.....

 

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary "blanket hold" on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold. [/Quote]

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/report-shelby-blocks-all-obama-nominations-in-the-senate-over-al-earmarks.php

 

Has it occurred to a few of you the political games being played, may not be coming from the Republicans??? I do feel the Republicans are going to be using the 'Obstructionist" accusations in the elections, this year and for a generation, as the National Debt increases and as each little complaint roles in for what's not working in Medical Care.

[swansont]

The Republican compromise of 1993 on the Hillary plan was very similar to Romney's plan in Massachusetts... that still doesn't change the fact that the Massachusetts plan is untenable and is ruining the state financially.

 

That's the second time you've made a claim like this, and the second time you have not supported your "fact" with anything.

 

If you look at this spending chart, you might think that Mass. adopted their healthcare plan in 2003, but it was actually 2006. I don't see any indication that things are proceeding any worse under the new plan.

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1993_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=10-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=MA&color=c&local=s

 

Welfare and education, etc. have upward trends, too. Massachusetts' population is increasing (and getting older, I suspect). If costs are up across the board, how is it that health care is targeted as the financial ruin of the state?

[Pangloss]

I've heard little bits and pieces here and there about Senate Democrats holding up one confirmation or another, to get White House attention, and then letting them proceed. This just over the last, cantankerous year. But I don't think that was the case with these recess appointments, since we likely would have heard about it. If you run across any reports of such, please pass them along.

 

But certainly not all of the games being played are coming from Republicans. That's the problem with having rules and having ways around them. Sooner or later you just go around them all the time.

 

Does anyone really wonder what the White House would have done if Republicans had held up only the most objectionable appointee on their list? They would have appointed him in recess, of course, and blamed Republicans for the "need" to do so. They could have played that as an improvement over the Bush administration.

 

In my opinion we no longer have the constitutional protection of Senate confirmations for Executive branch appointees.

[jryan]

Well, this is all a non-sequitur. The issue at hand is one of whether the Republicans care more about improving the country or winning political victories. You seem to have done a great job making the argument that the ideas behind the healthcare bill are Republican in origin. Now that the Democrats have passed these Republican ideas into law, the Republicans are up in arms... it's "armageddon!"

 

When Democrats take Republican ideas and create a bill around them, that should be a prime opportunity for a bipartisan effort, not the partisan sh*tstorm we saw surrounding this bill.

 

Ok, follow me here Bascule: Accepting that the bill is a larger version of the Massachusetts bill, and that the Massachusetts bill was signed by a Republican Governor, does not make the national bill a Republican bill. Indeed, any Republican can say quite honestly "WE (Republicans) tried this before and it doesn't work."

 

The national bill is most assuredly NOT a Republican plan because they can already tell you that it doesn't work in Massachusetts, will almost assuredly not work on a larger scale, and therefor they all voted against it.

 

In this same way, if the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate and White House and filed a resolution to intervene militarily in Vietnam it wouldn't be a Democrat plan even though Democrat majorities once intervened in Vietnam militarily... especially is no Democrats vote on the bill.

 

Also, on a more specific note, Constitutional conservatives (like me) have always seen health care regulation as a state issue, not a federal one. So conservatives (like me) could support the Massachusetts bill (insofar as it is constitutional) and reject the national version of the very same bill because it bestows too much power on the federal government over the individual states without even a hint of hypocrisy.

 

Massachusetts is free to render their economy FUBAR to their hearts content based on their own state charter.

[bascule]

Ok, follow me here Bascule: Accepting that the bill is a larger version of the Massachusetts bill, and that the Massachusetts bill was signed by a Republican Governor, does not make the national bill a Republican bill. Indeed, any Republican can say quite honestly "WE (Republicans) tried this before and it doesn't work."

 

You should really read this incredibly well-sourced article from the conservative Wall Street Journal on that matter:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704117304575138071192342664.html

 

Unfortunately I'm guessing you didn't read it when I originally linked it and now it's blocked by their paywall.