Obama lifts debt ceiling, reinstates paygo

[The Bear's Key]

Edit: Pangloss, the issue with conservative Dems is hardly new.

 

Blue Dog Coalition: 1995 to present.

 

Conservative Coalition: a potent force until mid-80s, they included Southern Democrats.

 

Boll weevils: conservative southern Democrats from 1940s until 80s.

 

New Democrats: from late 80s to present, side with conservatives on expanding the supposedly "free" market.

 

 

Show us the Republican/conservative equivalents who today struggle for progressive ideals, and tell us why Democrats must compromise even further until they become a new Republican Party while the other moves further rightward and labels the converted Dems as "left wing, Big Government progressives".

 

Are you really missing the patterns here?

 

 

Exactly -- Democrats thought they had an ideological mandate, and they discovered that they did not, because many of the Democrats who came in represented very conservative districts who were simply tired of Republican representation. Those districts didn't change their minds about abortion, health care, Federal spending, or social programs.

Here's why making unsupported statements is a problem.

 

Besides the fact that your statement (in bold) is pure assumption with no specifics, how do you know that a lot of the people who voted Obama in by a landslide weren't people who usually stay at home on election day, and maybe they just voted Democrat across the board in places where conservative Democrats happened to be the only candidates for that party?

 

I can show why it's entirely feasible. You're aware, people who tend to not show up on election day more often would've voted Democrat?

 

They didn't wake up one morning and decide to change the radio station from Rush Limbaugh to Air America, or to switch the TV from Fox News to MSNBC.

Thanks for reminding me . Perhaps Democratic voters aren't as drawn to choir preaching as Fox News viewers. i.e. their "high" ratings. Works out to the Republican leadership hijacker's advantage, as they need to drown out and combat reality on a 24-hour basis.

 

I put "high" in quotations as Fox News plays all day in many banks, doctors offices, and whatever tricks Fox News might use* to artificially boost numbers.

 

There is no filibuster when you have 60 seats. Do you mean filibuster by conservative Democrats?

No, I mean the incredible number of them by Republicans. And not including the mere threat of filibusters shuts down the process.

 

But that DOES mean they couldn't make compromises.

Wrong, for they actually did make a whole lot of compromises. So essentially you're blaming them for not giving away the whole pie.

 

None of which has anything at all to do with Republicans. How could it? Should they vote for a bill that they don't believe in just because you need to get your agenda passed? How could that make any sense in a democracy?

Exactly. After a lot of compromises by Democrats, which in essence means voting for a bill with many parts they don't believe in, how can you blame them for not caving in 100%?

 

You can't pretend that the agenda wasn't too progressive just because Michael Moore wasn't leading the way. The proof that it was too progressive is the fact that none of it was signed into law.

Or could be a more real proof is the overwhelming filibuster uses/threats even after the Dems' many compromises.

 

 

*rollcall.com's article doesn't show to non-members, however I had read something like it in a real newspaper a few years back, I'll try finding it.

 

The newpaper was a request that Fox's parent company made to the Supreme Court about Nielsen Ratings changes (to benefit Fox News).

Edited February 16, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[Pangloss]

No, I mean the incredible number of them by Republicans.

 

Such a filibuster would be irrelevent if Democrats found sufficient compromise within their own party. Again, your point seems to be that even-more-conservative Republicans need to farther to the left than conservative Democracts, and you seem to think that this makes actual sense. I mean okay, if that's what you think, more power to you, but I don't really see why you feel that that should make sense to people.

 

 

Edit: Pangloss, the issue with conservative Dems is hardly new.

 

Blue Dog Coalition: 1995 to present.

 

Conservative Coalition: a potent force until mid-80s, they included Southern Democrats.

 

Boll weevils: conservative southern Democrats from 1940s until 80s.

 

New Democrats: from late 80s to present, side with conservatives on expanding the supposedly "free" market.

 

Show us the Republican/conservative equivalents who today struggle for progressive ideals, and tell us why Democrats must compromise even further until they become a new Republican Party while the other moves further rightward and labels the converted Dems as "left wing, Big Government progressives".

 

Are you really missing the patterns here?

 

I have no idea what you mean by "patterns". Certainly you're not telling me anything I'm not familiar with -- I've been following Blue Dog Democrats for more than twenty years, and I've posted about them on this forum many times. Yes, the Democrats are a bigger tent than Republicans; this is a political trusim, and it is beside the point.

 

I can understand how you might misconstrue my previous post to mean that I was saying that there were no conservatives in the party prior to the 2008 election, but that's not what I actually said, and a comprehension of my Zell Miller reference would have revealed this to you, as his book explains in great detail how the big tent once existed with the party but has declined in recent years (way it goes, not everyone reads everything). I said that they WANT to be the big tent, meaning that they've faded from that mantle and wanted to recapture it. They got exactly that, but they'd forgotten what it means to have it. I hope I've made this more clear.

 

 

Besides the fact that your statement (in bold) is pure assumption with no specifics

 

Mainstream political observation supports my opinion quite clearly. Radical left political observation queues a response of "give 'em hell, Harry Reid". Radical right political observation is outside of our scope. MAINSTREAM political observation is that Democrats are disconnected from political reality at the moment.

 

I would be happy to support that position, and to that end I offer today's will-not-run announcement from Evan Bayh, which follows similar announcements from Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, all Democrats, and three dozen members of the House. (source)

 

Why are they resigning? Bayh had a double-digit lead in the polls, so a pending loss in November ain't it. The most oft-stated reason is the increase in political partisanship in Washington. Nor are these men singling out Republicans for their ire, either. Bayh was one of YOUR enemies -- one of the conservative Democrats who wasn't playing ball. He was as tired of the progressive push from his "peers" as he was of Republican blockage.

 

But as that article states, other Dems are dropping out because of polls -- Congressional Democrats are threatened in Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Colorado. Congress is looking at a whopping 71% disapproval rating, and even though Dems are likely to hold the majority come December, they'll be doing it with a new majority leader because the old one's likely to lose his own re-election!

 

This ABC News piece looks at the issue of failing bipartisanship as well:

 

Aides say one key difference in the Senate since Bayh's arrival in the U.S. Senate in 1999 is that the center doesn't hold these days. When Bayh arrived in the Senate, he believed he was part of a core of people in the ideological middle who achieved results, said a senior adviser, but the senator believes the split between left and right is much sharper today than it was in 1999.

 

Here's Bayh talking earlier about Democrats not listening to reality, from the same article linked above:

 

In an interview with ABC News last month, Bayh warned that if Democrats ignored the lessons of the Massachusetts Senate race -- in which Republican Scott Brown emerged as the victor -- it will "lead to even further catastrophe" for the party.

 

"There's going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this," Bayh said, but "if you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up."

 

Wow. Here's another one, an article quoting former Democratic Governor Douglas Wilder:

 

“I think the problem that we have is that some people have been whistling by their graveyard, as if nothing is going on -- ‘Well, everything is fine,’"

 

He told us that, aside from replacing [DNC Chairman Tim] Kaine, the president needs to widen the circle of advisers he listens to.

 

“Why the people around the president -- if they’re advising him to stick with health care, stay with health care, give the kinds of monies for the stimulus package that were given with no strings attached, and then to come back and say ‘well, we’re going to get on jobs,’ – but when?” Wilder said. “And the confidence of the American people is dwindling on a steady basis.”

 

He continued: “Do you need to listen to other people? Do you need to reach out to other people who’ve had some experience in governing, rather than getting elected? He had the most brilliant team to assemble to get him elected. The question is: are these people capable of governance?”

 

 

And yet you feel that the left-most members of the party should somehow dig in their heels and push harder. My question to you is a simple one: With what votes, my friend? With what votes?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

By the way, just want to add a brief follow-up: I've made the mistake of buying into your premise that there are "conservative Democrats". Frankly I don't think that label is accurate. They're centrists is what they are.

 

I'd be surprised if you can pull up a single name of a current Congressional Democrat who falls into the "Right Conservative" section of the political meter at On the Issues, which is often cited as an objective source by bascule.

 

Evan Bayh scores as a "left liberal" on their chart, which can be found here:

http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Evan_Bayh.htm

 

And he's the LEADER of your so-called "conservative Democrats", my friend.

 

Even Louisiana's Mary Landerieu, who's often cited as being in that "uncooperative" group of Senate Democrats, is left of the centerline in the Moderate box:

http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Mary_Landrieu.htm

Edited February 16, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Such a filibuster would be irrelevent if Democrats found sufficient compromise within their own party. Again, your point seems to be that even-more-conservative Republicans need to farther to the left than conservative Democracts, and you seem to think that this makes actual sense. I mean okay, if that's what you think, more power to you, but I don't really see why you feel that that should make sense to people.

 

It defies common sense that, having been unable to win over moderate Democrats, you expect Republicans to jump on board. I hear this all the time so I'm not surprised -- liberals seem to be frustrated, and seem to have forgotten what the word "compromise" actually means. But it's understandable, of course. The religious right felt the same way during much of the Bush administration.

 

You've said it before, and I'm sure you'll say it again. But, I'm still not buying it. Why does being a Republican mean that someone is automatically more conservative than a Democrat? You really think we will just take your word for it that there is a single dimension in politics, conservatism vs liberalism and that there is an exact point that separates Republican and Democrat?

[Pangloss]

You've said it before, and I'm sure you'll say it again. But, I'm still not buying it. Why does being a Republican mean that someone is automatically more conservative than a Democrat? You really think we will just take your word for it that there is a single dimension in politics, conservatism vs liberalism and that there is an exact point that separates Republican and Democrat?

 

Who are these right-wing Congressional Democrats? What are their names?

 

Personally I don't care how "conservative" or "liberal" a politician is. I don't see one as good and the other as evil. If broad ideologies are more important to you than the issues than, again, I applaud you for having an opinion, and I refer you to the above sources that amply demonstrate that most voters don't see it that way.

 

If that IS important to you, then in answer to your question I refer you to the source I mentioned previously, OnTheIssues.org, which charts politicians on the political map, and has been used as a source on this forum by someone who shares your ideological preference (bascule). I listed two of your so-called conservative Democrats above who's charts actually show them to be liberal or moderate on this objective scale.

 

Also, I didn't say that there's an exact point separating Democrats and Republicans. What I said, in response to your claim that this is significant, is that Republicans are farther to the right than Democrats, and therefore your logic regarding whom Congressional leadership should compromise with breaks down. As far as I'm aware, there are no Democrats in Congress currently who are to the right of Republicans, or even in the general vicinity of the right wing of conservative politics. And, per your request, I've produced a source that supports this.

 

So who are these right-wing Democrats?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Pangloss

[Mr Skeptic]

Who are these right-wing Congressional Democrats? What are their names?

 

How's that? You make a claim, and you want me to disprove it rather than you have to prove it?

 

Personally I don't care how "conservative" or "liberal" a politician is. I don't see one as good and the other as evil. If broad ideologies are more important to you than the issues than, again, I applaud you for having an opinion, and I refer you to the above sources that amply demonstrate that most voters don't see it that way.

 

Who said anything about me?

 

If that IS important to you, then in answer to your question I refer you to the source I mentioned previously, OnTheIssues.org, which charts politicians on the political map, and has been used as a source on this forum by someone who shares your ideological preference (bascule). I listed two of your so-called conservative Democrats above who's charts actually show them to be liberal or moderate on this objective scale.

 

According to that, here's a democrat more conservative than a republican.

http://ontheissues.org/House/Dan_Boren.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Senate/John_Chafee.htm

 

Remember, when you make a claim it is your job to support it.

 

Also, I didn't say that there's an exact point separating Democrats and Republicans. What I said, in response to your claim that this is significant, is that Republicans are farther to the right than Democrats, and therefore your logic regarding whom Congressional leadership should compromise with breaks down. As far as I'm aware, there are no Democrats in Congress currently who are to the right of Republicans, or even in the general vicinity of the right wing of conservative politics. And, per your request, I've produced a source that supports this.

 

Yes, you said that every single Republican would hold a stance less favorable than every single Democrat, on issues relating to the Universal Health bill. Because if not, then of course the most supportive Republican would be easier to convince than the most opposed Democrat. And, this would be on an individual issues basis, not by ideology as a whole.

 

As for your source, you basically told me to go look at a hundred different web pages.

[Pangloss]

I think you and I are having a slightly different discussion than myself and The Bear's Key, and I may have conflated them unintentionally in my previous post (he's the one claiming that there are far right wing Democrats). You asked me to respond to this specific question:

 

Why does being a Republican mean that someone is automatically more conservative than a Democrat? You really think we will just take your word for it that there is a single dimension in politics' date=' conservatism vs liberalism and that there is an exact point that separates Republican and Democrat?

[/quote']

 

I agree that some Democrats are more moderate than others, and may be slightly "to the right" of some Republicans.

 

I didn't say that there's an exact point separating Democrats and Republicans. What I said, in response to The Bear's Key's claim that this is significant, is that Republicans are farther to the right than Democrats, and therefore his logic regarding whom Congressional leadership should compromise with breaks down.

 

As far as I'm aware, there are no Democrats in Congress currently who are even in the general vicinity of the right wing of conservative politics. And I've produced a source that supports this.

 

Tell me what other questions you have, and I will try not to confuse your argument with TBK's again. Do you share his opinion that Congressional Democrats should forget compromise and push harder with an ideological platform, and that conservative Dems and Republicans should just cooperate, because, I guess, they're just... s'posed to?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here's an article from tomorrow's Washington Post that supports what I've been saying about the lack of bipartisanship.

 

But there is no question that the Senate of Evan Bayh is a far different body than was the Senate of his father, Birch Bayh, who served there in the 1960s and 1970s. In those days, both parties were ideologically diverse, with liberals, moderates and conservatives in both caucuses.

 

"No matter where you stood on the spectrum, you had an ally in the other party," said David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University. "Today, only if you are in the center do you have people who are like you [in the other party]."

 

Since 1994, when Republicans ended 40 years of Democratic domination in the House and retook the Senate, control of both chambers has been at issue in virtually every election.

 

"Partisan control is extraordinary valuable for both political and policy reasons," Rohde said. "So every decision [made by lawmakers] has to take into account how it might affect probabilities of majority control. That makes it much more difficult to work across party lines."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605974.html?hpid=topnews

[The Bear's Key]

I have no idea what you mean by "patterns".

The way I see it continually unfolding...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would be happy to support that position, and to that end I offer today's will-not-run announcement from Evan Bayh, which follows similar announcements from Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, all Democrats, and three dozen members of the House. (source)

 

This ABC News piece looks at the issue of failing bipartisanship as well:

 

Wow. Here's another one, an article quoting former Democratic Governor Douglas Wilder:

Here's an article from tomorrow's Washington Post that supports what I've been saying about the lack of bipartisanship.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605974.html?hpid=topnews'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605974.html?hpid=topnews

 

They were good articles, interesting, but they didn't really support your conclusion that Dems were ramming stuff down the public's throats.

 

First, more Republicans are quitting than Democrats. Second, do you expect members of Congress stay in for life? No one ever quits?

 

Third, in the articles, only Evan mentioned being sick of the partisan divide, that's it. Also he didn't elaborate, meaning it could be sick of Dems and Republicans bickering to the point the middle's in effect a lame duck, but he didn't say Dems were trampling over the middle and expecting the world.

 

None of the quitters made any comments that support your hypothesis.

 

From the Washington Post link...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605974.html

But it was as much Bayh's stated reasons for leaving as the consequences that stirred controversy. "If in fact he believed that the Senate was broken and dysfunctional, then he had a responsibility to stand and man the pumps rather than run for the lifeboat," said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.

 

During a round of early morning interviews Tuesday, Bayh responded to criticism that he had left his party in the lurch and defended his decision to retire rather than stay and try to fix the system. "If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months," he said on CBS's "Early Show."

 

He also sought to squelch talk that he is disenchanted with Obama's agenda or has presidential aspirations, saying Obama is making "a sincere effort" to work with Republicans.

 

Still, Baker said Bayh's depiction of Congress overstates the case that lawmakers are dealing with something unprecedented in American politics. While acknowledging that there is "an extreme level of partisanship" right now, Baker said there have been other periods of partisanship and venomous politics in the Senate.

 

"I won't say it's cyclical, but from time to time . . . even the Senate goes berserk," he said. He cited the red-baiting era of the early 1950s, saying, "The McCarthy period was a terrible time, in which reputations were ruined, senators attacked each other and questioned each other's motives."

ad_icon

 

But there is no question that the Senate of Evan Bayh is a far different body than was the Senate of his father, Birch Bayh, who served there in the 1960s and 1970s. In those days, both parties were ideologically diverse, with liberals, moderates and conservatives in both caucuses.

 

"No matter where you stood on the spectrum, you had an ally in the other party," said David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University. "Today, only if you are in the center do you have people who are like you [in the other party]."

 

I tend to agree with the sentiments in the first paragraph's. It had disheartned me sometimes when loads of good people quit the Bush Administration in disgust, rather than stay as a vigilant guard to expose and deter abuses. I could understand that quitting in protest might invite the spotlight onto the Administration, but I thought it a less effective solution than keeping an eye directly and preventing someone worse filling in that position.

 

Now, about Evan, it seems he's upset with both parties not just Dems. And surely you were a bit disheartened over his quitting. But perhaps you should focus on the party with no middle votes, rather than the Dems who helped Bush pass many laws that Democrats would naturally vote against.

 

Onto the last two paragraphs. Notice the last time Congress was bitterly divided, it had to do with "conservatives" making a big scare. History's likely repeating itself. Thus I'll ask: what steps have you taken to ensure it's not the Republican leadership's hijackers that are poisoning the whole Congress? It's not for you to answer here, but to reflect on.

 

And yes I put quotations because they're not real conservatives. I'd actually prefer if our Congress were run by true money-saving people who didn't use that excuse to chop away solely at Democratic laws, for the purpose of strengthening their very own agenda/ideology.

 

Onto the MSNBC link...

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714651/ns/politics-capitol_hill

That said, the GOP has troubles of its own, with even more Republicans than Democrats leaving Congress and governors mansions instead of running again.

 

In the House, 14 Republicans and 10 Democrats are retiring or seeking other offices.

 

In the Senate, six Republicans, including several in swing states requiring expensive campaigns, and four Democrats, including Dodd and Dorgan, aren't running.

........

Prominent Democrats had been privately urging Dodd to step aside to make way for a stronger candidate. His retirement in Democratic-leaning Connecticut cleared the way for Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, one of the state's most popular politicians, to run, thereby bolstering the prospects the seat will remain in Democratic hands.

 

Saying the past year has been tough, Dodd announced his retirement Wednesday in Connecticut. "I lost a beloved sister in July and, in August, Ted Kennedy. I battled cancer over the summer, and in the midst of all of this, found myself in the toughest political shape of my career," he said.

 

If Dodd's decision saved a Democratic seat, Dorgan's retirement put one in serious jeopardy.

 

"I have other interests, and I have other things I would like to pursue outside of public life," said Dorgan, 67, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership.

The above speaks for itself, but Dodd obviously wasn't quitting in protest. At least not openly. It could be different behind the scenes. Who knows? Maybe. Yet I wouldn't be so quick to assign motives without stronger circumstantial evidence.

 

 

And yet you feel that the left-most members of the party should somehow dig in their heels and push harder.

To be real men/women and stand up for the values they're losing. The Dems already compromised far more than Republicans did when in power. How can you expect more?

 

 

By the way, just want to add a brief follow-up: I've made the mistake of buying into your premise that there are "conservative Democrats". Frankly I don't think that label is accurate. They're centrists is what they are.

I could see how you got that assumption, but I didn't mean the group's equal to or more conservative than Republicans, just mainly unbudging on their particular issues and more conservative than the Democratic Party's core values. It wouldn't be an issue had the Dems not already compromised too much. You don't believe in having too much compromise? It's the Dems party in a nutshell.

 

 

I think you and I are having a slightly different discussion than myself and The Bear's Key

Our conversation is not the same as what I've been saying either

[Pangloss]

First, more Republicans are quitting than Democrats. Second, do you expect members of Congress stay in for life? No one ever quits?

 

Oof, that last question is obviously a straw man, but I'll take it as humor. Really the whole question is a straw man, but that may be my fault -- I can understand how you took that meaning from the context of my post. I brought up two separate issues and I did mingle them a bit. The first issue that I raised was that a large number of members, which I agree consists of both Democrats and Republicans, are quitting. This has been remarked on by many observers in the mainstream media, as demonstrated in my previous posts. I believe this supports the notion that partisanship is at a pinnacle, and I've supported that point with evidence as requested.

 

The bit about Democrats quitting in the face of the fall elections is a completely separate subject, and I had the thought that it might help demonstrate to you that people in your preferred party are disillusioned about the state of partisanship in Washington. I agree that that's highly interpretable, and it's really not relevent to our discussion, which is the question of why Congress accomplished so little in 2009.

 

(BTW, I know well that Republicans are also quitting. My congresscritter, 9-timer Lincoln Diaz-Ballart, announced his retirement last week. His brother Mario is moving into my neighborhood so he can run for his brother's seat. What's so strange about that, you might ask? Why, my friend, only the fact that Mario is already a congressman, representing the district next door! Talk about a slap in my moderate-middle face -- he's basically saying "I'm moving into your district, Pangloss, because I know that I'll have a much easier time getting re-elected each year." (SIGH!) I haven't voted for Lincoln in years and I wish we had a strong candidate from either party to step into that race. He angered me greatly when the Assault Weapons Ban expired and he promised me in a personal letter that he would introduce new AWB legislation in the next session, but he never did.)

 

 

Now, about Evan, it seems he's upset with both parties not just Dems.

 

I agree.

 

 

And surely you were a bit disheartened over his quitting.

 

No, I really have no feelings on the matter one way or the other. On the whole, as a moderate and a believer in compromise, over the past year when his name has come up my reactions have mainly been negative. He was not out in front when Olympia Snowe attempted to work with Democrats on health care, and he has not been out in front on very much of anything. I know he's a moderate, but he's been playing politics with the GOP's current practice, which I disagree with, so I say "buh-Bayh!"

 

(Well okay, I guess I do have some feelings on the matter.) (lol)

 

 

But perhaps you should focus on the party with no middle votes, rather than the Dems who helped Bush pass many laws that Democrats would naturally vote against.

 

I have been strongly criticizing both parties, and will continue to do so. But this contention is fascinating -- it looks like the popular liberal meme that Democrats under Bush were forced to vote against their will. Forgive me if I've just misunderstood you? Let's try a specific question:

 

What are these laws that you say Dems helped Bush pass that they would normally have voted against? Which Democrats are you saying voted or a bill they didn't believe in? What are their names?

 

I really want to get to the bottom of this notion that the losing team should vote however the winning team tells them to vote. It's a fascinating perception, and quite common, and not just from the orbital-mind-control-lasers crowd, either. Though again maybe I just misunderstood. I don't mean to put words in your mouth.

 

 

what steps have you taken to ensure it's not the Republican leadership's hijackers that are poisoning the whole Congress?

 

Again, on the issue of why so little was done in 2009 this question is irrelevent because 60 votes were held by Dems. You haven't answered my question about how you expect Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to have compromised with Republicans when they couldn't even find compromise with all Democrats. You've got all these Democrats milling about, unable to accomplish anything, and a small group of sullen, woebegone Republicans standing in a corner looking like someone stole their moustache gell. I just don't see how that group in the corner is responsible for the failure of a 60-seat majority.

 

I've offered you my opinion on why they've largely (and I'm not saying entirely!) failed -- my evidence on the lack of bipartisanship, my evidence on Reid and Pelosi feeling like they had a progressive mandate, my reminder that people only have two parties to choose from here, and so on. Dunno what else to tell you -- you don't agree, way it goes. Intelligent people often disagree.

 

 

To be real men/women and stand up for the values they're losing. The Dems already compromised far more than Republicans did when in power. How can you expect more?

 

I don't expect more. I don't expect anything at all. If, however, you and/or they want to have progress on your liberal agenda, you're going to have to get something done. That means getting people to go along with what you want. That means giving them something that they want. Compromise is not like extra credit left over from your mid-term exam. You don't get bonus points on health care for a compromise you made on immigration (unless of course it's a stated part of the deal). And there's no teacher at the front of the room deciding which side has compromised more -- it's the right amount of compromise when both sides have gotten something that they want.

 

 

Whatever our differences of opinion, though, I'm enjoying the conversation.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Pangloss

[Mr Skeptic]

I have been strongly criticizing both parties, and will continue to do so. But this contention is fascinating -- it looks like the popular liberal meme that Democrats under Bush were forced to vote against their will. Forgive me if I've just misunderstood you? Let's try a specific question:

 

What are these laws that you say Dems helped Bush pass that they would normally have voted against? Which Democrats are you saying voted or a bill they didn't believe in? What are their names?

 

I really want to get to the bottom of this notion that the losing team should vote however the winning team tells them to vote. It's a fascinating perception, and quite common, and not just from the orbital-mind-control-lasers crowd, either. Though again maybe I just misunderstood. I don't mean to put words in your mouth.

 

The way I see it, is that Democrats are voting for what they believe in, even if the rest of their party hates that idea and even if it is a Republican-backed project. Meanwhile, the Republicans are for the most part voting the same as their party, against Democrat-backed legislation. It kind of looks like they are putting party loyalties ahead of their individuality, though they could just be a less diverse group. Or both. But that seems to me to be the accusation: not that people should work with the other party cause they won, but rather that they should not put party loyalty ahead of their beliefs to sabotage things they believe in cause that's what their party wants. I know some Republicans have promised some liberal things and then not voted for them, but then again politicians do that all the time.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'd have to agree that Democrats insisting that, for example, healthcare pay/not pay for abortions would be a particularly bad case of not compromising, being willing to sink the bill over something rather trivial just to make a point. They could pass it without the abortions and then change it later to include it at a less contentious point.

 

It seems to me though, that if they weren't going to reach any compromises with Republicans they should have just held a meeting with just the Democrats and done the whole thing completely partisan. Making concessions to people who aren't going to vote in favor of it is just silly. Let the Republicans buy concessions with votes, or just do the thing yourselves without them. Otherwise they will just ask for concessions and then filibuster anyways.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I just don't see how that group in the corner is responsible for the failure of a 60-seat majority.

 

It's an imaginary majority

[Pangloss]

The way I see it, is that Democrats are voting for what they believe in, even if the rest of their party hates that idea and even if it is a Republican-backed project. Meanwhile, the Republicans are for the most part voting the same as their party, against Democrat-backed legislation. It kind of looks like they are putting party loyalties ahead of their individuality, though they could just be a less diverse group. Or both. But that seems to me to be the accusation: not that people should work with the other party cause they won, but rather that they should not put party loyalty ahead of their beliefs to sabotage things they believe in cause that's what their party wants. I know some Republicans have promised some liberal things and then not voted for them, but then again politicians do that all the time.

 

There you go intercepting TBK's questions again! I'll try to keep you two straight, but with the stipulation that I'm aware that he hasn't answered my question yet. (Hmm, sounds like a weekly joint venture between SFN and BBC: "Weekly Questions for The Bear's Key".) (grin)

 

Okay, so you're saying that when Democrats voted for the Patriot Act, and said that they believed in it, then that wasn't an example of voting for it just because Bush won the election. Ditto WMDs, Afghanistan, warrantless wiretapping, etc. They said they believed in those things, and you don't feel they were liars, because you feel that they vote for what they believe in. Cool.

 

I guess if you want to believe that Republicans are liars, and that the truth is that they believe in public-funded health care reform, open borders, and whatever else came up in 2009, that's your prerogative. I'm afraid it seems counter-intuitive to me. One has to look no farther than Olympia Snowe to see an example of what happened any time a Republican tried to get consessions toward a compromise they could believe in -- far-left Democrats bailed, and the leadership had to dump the consessions. (The abortion example you mention is similar, just with moderate Dems instead of Repubs.)

 

At any rate, it's not all bad news for progressives. The health care reform bills were pretty massive pieces of legislation, and that always makes things harder. They're going to take a shot at it piecemeal in 2010, so you may see more progress even without major compromises. We'll see what happens. For what it's worth, I admire the tenacity of Democratic leadership.

 

 

It's an imaginary majority

 

Real or imaginary, you don't get better opportunities than the one Dems had in 2009.

[Pangloss]

Evan Bayh wrote an op/ed piece for today's New York Times, outlining his reasons for departing. Amongst other things, he calls for a reduction of the number of votes required to end a filibuster from 60 to 55, and requiring members of the Senate to remain present during any filibuster. Changing the filibuster last came up in 2005, when it was reviled by Democrats. Now some of those same Democrats support the idea (source). Funny how that happens.

 

But getting back to Bayh's op/ed piece, I've pasted some interesting quotes below that support my point about the present climate of partisanship.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21bayh.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion

 

Our most strident partisans must learn to occasionally sacrifice short-term tactical political advantage for the sake of the nation. Otherwise, Congress will remain stuck in an endless cycle of recrimination and revenge. The minority seeks to frustrate the majority, and when the majority is displaced it returns the favor. Power is constantly sought through the use of means which render its effective use, once acquired, impossible.

 

There are many causes for the dysfunction: strident partisanship, unyielding ideology, a corrosive system of campaign financing, gerrymandering of House districts, endless filibusters, holds on executive appointees in the Senate, dwindling social interaction between senators of opposing parties and a caucus system that promotes party unity at the expense of bipartisan consensus.

 

When I was a boy, members of Congress from both parties, along with their families, would routinely visit our home for dinner or the holidays [Note: Bayh's father is Birch Bayh, who was a prominent Senator in the Democratic Party in the 1970s. --Pangloss]. This type of social interaction hardly ever happens today and we are the poorer for it. It is much harder to demonize someone when you know his family or have visited his home. Today, members routinely campaign against each other, raise donations against each other and force votes on trivial amendments written solely to provide fodder for the next negative attack ad. It’s difficult to work with members actively plotting your demise.

 

I’m beginning my 12th year in the Senate and only twice have all the senators gathered for something other than purely ceremonial occasions. The first was during my initial week in office. President Bill Clinton had been impeached and the Senate had to conduct his trial. This hadn’t happened since 1868, and there were no rules in place for conducting the proceedings.

 

All of us gathered in the Old Senate Chamber. For several hours we debated how to proceed. Finally, Ted Kennedy and Phil Gramm, ideological opposites, were given the task of forging a compromise. They did, and it was unanimously ratified.

 

He goes on to talk about the need for campaign finance reform and some interesting aspects of the filibuster problem that I had not heard before. Worth a read.