Yes, it is the doctor (this is a pediatrician’s office, by the way) that’s leading the way, but the “person I know” (who, I will admit, is my aunt) is totally on board and all excited about her part in the Revolution!
Hope she’s equally excited about her part in the unemployment office line.
Of COURSE you’re in favor of it. That’s the whole point. The Democrats are forced to vote Nay on these amendments, or else start the whole shebang over again. Then when election season rolls around, it’s “Senator So-and-So is in favor of giving Viagra to rapists and child molesters!”
Lots of people are. The problem is that
- It can’t be passed without going back to the House
- It can’t be passed at all under the rules of reconciliation (which the Republicans are distinctly aware is the case)
- And here’s the seven hundred million dollar reason: Congressman Democrat is in favor of helping violent sexual offenders keep committing crimes…is this the sort of person you want representing you in Washington? Vote Mr. Republican to the Senate in November. He’ll protect your children.
ETA: or…er…what Drain Bead said in about half as many words as I did.
This is exactly so. So why talk about how politicized it is now when it’s always been that way?
Not necessarily career lawyers. There are lots of them that advocate for specific causes and organizations largely because of their political beliefs. I’m thinking of attorneys that execute the policies that they work under without prejudice, or attorneys that have a base of published works that may favor one position or another but are based upon jurisprudence rather than political beliefs.
It is not terribly difficult to find people like that. But a political party actively seeks people who agree with their particular bent, which only makes sense when the goal is to shape the legal system or to retain power. That’s not to say that they can’t go in an apolitical direction, rather that they won’t. And since they won’t, again, it’s absurd to maliciously accuse one party of politicization when it is a common characteristic of all involved.
Because there have always been political appointments there and career, apolitical ones. What shifted was the politicization of the career appointments. We were told in 2003/4 by our career services department at law school to make damn sure we were Federalist Society Members if we were going to apply.
It hasn’t been polarized to THIS extent, Airman. This is not business as usual. It’s a whole new level.
Mitch McConnel decided that the Republicans would unify against any kind of HCR even before Obama was sworn in. The content of the legislation was irrelevant. The Republicans have now abandoned even the pretense of normal government and are simply putting on a full court press to stop Obama from achieving anything, even if they would normally ideologically agree with it. The HRC Bill was filled with Republican additions and left out the thing Dems wanted most (a public option), but all we’re hearing from the Republicans is that it was “jammed down our throats.”
This complete desertion of any attempt to actually do their jobs and try to craft legislation in order to focus purely on an all out, ad hominem assault on the President is something new, not old. Dems didn’t flat out refuse to work with Bush. Pubs didn’t do it to Clinton. Dems didn’t do it to Reagan. This is new.
It’s incredibly short-sighted too, since they will never get a filibuster proof majority in both houses, so their best case scenario would involve payback in kind, not a gusher of new conservative legislation.
Jesus, what a bunch of fuckin’ crybaby sore losers:
I would love to hear any of our resident Republicans (or quasi-Republicans like Sam Stone) try to defend that shit.
Isn’t there anything Reid can do to stop this bullshit? Jesus, what children. Don’t try to tell me that the lunatic fringe isn’t running that party.
As far as repeal goes, I think they’re doubling down. When the rest passes, as it will, they don’t want to admit they fought 14 months for nothing, especially when they had everyone convinced it would lose. So they bray about repeal so as to cover up their screwup, confident that their target audience is too stupid and innumerate to realize repeal is impossible. In that, they are right.
Not until January 2011. Rules can’t be changed midterm without 60 votes (or is it 66? No matter).
If they’re running it, they’re not the fringe, by definition.
Well, some cars are mid-engined, some are rear-engined, but most are front-engined…
“Government is like a car. Select R to go backward, D to go forward.”
So the Japanese government never stops?
Please. I don’t see how this kind of crap is possibly defendable; if it is a solid healthy working democracy that you want, it has got to go.
I see a separation due to irreconcilable differences. It’s brewing in Canada too and has nothing to do with the Quebec separation question.
That the Republicans are rudderless only allows the nastiness that has been bubbling just below the surface to show. The Democrates are learning to fight fire with fire, slowly and before long the war for North America will begin.
I’m just remembering with interest this thread which noted that a certain Senator was trying to get movement on a bill about employment contract arbitration by linking the issue to a horrific case of rape. The politics of the issue were pretty clear - vote against the bill and you appeared to be supporting rape, sexual abuse and all kinds of nasty things.
This was pointed out - and didn’t trouble you in the least. Proof is in the link.
I’ve said before on these boards that while I may wish for a more civil political sphere I will not advocate for unilateral disarmament for my side. Putting on the gloves when your opponent has bare knuckles and a crowbar isn’t smart. So I’m happy Senator Coburn did this, and I hope he keeps it coming.
I recall that Senator Coburn worked with Senator Obama on major legislation in the past, so he isn’t opposed to such and presumably will support it again sometime. But if the Democrats insist on passing this kind of legislation in this kind of way, and even do things like stage a health care summit with no intention of working bipartisan solutions out then that may have to wait a time.
I realize this won’t be a popular answer. Tough. It is the same answer you’d get from about half the country, and more polite than some.
What are these bipartisan solutions of which you speak? Please tell me what the Republicans wanted besides to “start over”?
He ain’t got shit. No Republican does. They decided to try and sink Obama’s presidency a year ago, and now they’re just sad that it didn’t work,* this time*. They’ll be trying again, because that’s all they have.
The Republican outrage every day seems to be increasingly of the nature of “hey, they can’t do that. Only we can do that. Why aren’t they playing fair?”