Democrats - please explain this to me

[Polerius]

OP - please explain this to me:

[QUOTE=Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell]
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
[/QUOTE]

Given the above, and given the well-documented subsequent record-breaking use of the filibuster (or the threat of it), how can you not know the answers to the questions in your OP?

BTW, I like the fact that the single most important thing for the Republicans is not “fix the economy”, “reduce unemployment”, “create jobs”, “reduce taxes”, “improve education”, “improve national security”, etc. Out of dozens of things that could be the Republicans’ “single most important thing”, they chose “make sure Obama is not re-elected”. Nice to see they have their priorities straight. Party before country.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

No, the thing is that I’m too lazy to sit here and engage in a pissing contest. But, hey, I’m perfectly content with you holding Democrats on some kind of moral high ground or something or another.

OMG. It’s not a pissing contest. I constructed an argument with 2 propositions, each with multiple lines of evidence supporting them. Now I can appreciate wanting to kick back. But if you’re just going to post unsubstantiated characterizations… maybe, possibly, it’s a waste of the reader’s time.

Anyone remember 2005 when Bush tried to reform social security and Democrats were (uniformly) opposed to it?

There was a bipartisan commission on social security during the 1980s. But when Bush tried to privatize it, as opposed to prop it up with a mixture of tax hikes and benefit cuts, he ran into some rather understandable opposition. The Dems have actually been pretty flexible with SS: noises that Clinton made took it off of the “Third Rail” category.

Again. No equivalence, just imagination.

ETA:

@Polerius

I like the fact that the single most important thing for the Republicans is not “fix the economy”, “reduce unemployment”, “create jobs”, “reduce taxes”, “improve education”, “improve national security”, etc. Out of dozens of things that could be the Republicans’ “single most important thing”, they chose “make sure Obama is not re-elected”. Nice to see they have their priorities straight. Party before country.

The kicker is that McConnell received absolutely no pushback from the conservative movement. I could understand something said in error. But this isn’t an example of that: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell meant what he said at the time and never saw a need to retract it.

[AlienVessels]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Good luck substantiating that Republicans do it for every issue. That’s going to require a rather large helping of partisan hackery, but amuse me.

No point. You’ll happily point out the dozens of post office naming legislative efforts the GOP has passed.

If I wanted, I’d point out to you that you don’t know what an argument is. But I don’t want to. Rather, I’ll just point out how big of hypocrites some of you are, where you deem it to be acceptable for one party to engage in certain rhetoric/tactics but unacceptable for another party to do the same.

Ah, the “you do it too” argument again. As degree didn’t matter at all.

Pay more attention to what your own party says and does.

If your guys didn’t keep eclipsing the Democrat foolishness. The increase in what passes for fillibusters in today’s environment alone should end the argument.

[elucidator]

nm

[WillFarnaby]

The president isn’t a force to be obstructed. He carries out the laws enacted by Congress. Besides that he has a few enumerated powers. If there is no solid consensus in Congress, nothing happens. This isn’t obstruction. This is inaction by the people. Power originates from the people. Congress is the best indicator of public support that we have.

[AlienVessels]

@WillFarnaby

If there is no solid consensus in Congress, nothing happens. This isn’t obstruction.

Uh, this presupposes both sides are willing to negotiate. The GOP decide that the only possible compromise was total capitulation on the part of the other side.

This IS obstruction.

[adaher]

The Republicans control the people’s chamber. The Senate is obstructing the people’s chamber. And frankly, the Senate would be in GOP hands if all the seats had been up for a vote in 2010.

Oh, and for the guy who said I’m wrong about the people being on my side? Until the Democrats win an election, the GOP are the undisputed champions. The Democrats only maintain some control today because the President wasn’t up for reelection and the Senate had only 1/3rd of the seats up for reelection. If Democrats win something in 2012, then we can talk.

[Fear_Itself]

@adaher

And frankly, the Senate would be in GOP hands if all the seats had been up for a vote in 2010.

That darned obstructionist Constitution, thwarting the will of the people. We gotta do something about that!

[adaher]

Don’t get me wrong, I support the Senate. The government shouldn’t undergo massive changes because voters are reacting in the heat of the moment. Just pointing out that Democrats only control part of the government today because of that outdated document written by rich white guys. The public was ready to throw them out and give the keys back to the GOP in record time.

[ElvisL1ves]

@adaher

The Republicans control the people’s chamber. The Senate is obstructing the people’s chamber.

A. Who the fuck do you think elects the Senate?
B. What the fuck are they obstructing? The GOP alternative health care bill?

[gamerunknown]

@moonshot925

The unemployment rate has been over 8% since Feb 2009 and the national debt has skyrocketed to over 100% of GDP.

I’ve got a chart here showing the historicald debt to GDP ratios for context. Here are the rest of the countries. Now the US has a debt to GDP ratio significantly higher than the frugal Scandinavian countries which have a sensible tax policy, but the US doesn’t approach the level of Japan.

@adaher

However, the very first rule of health care reform was that people like what they have.

and Medicare consistently ranks as more satisfactory than private insurance.

[moonshot925]

@gamerunknown

I’ve got a chart here showing the historicald debt to GDP ratios for context.

Yes. It shows that under 0bama gross federal debt surpassed 100% of GDP for the first time since WW2.

[ElvisL1ves]

@gamerunknown

Medicare consistently ranks as more satisfactory than private insurance.

It’s far more efficient, too.

[Chronos]

Quoth OMG A Black Conservative:

1.) If Republicans are unilaterally opposed to a piece of legislation, they’re obstructionists. If Democrats are unilaterally opposed to a piece of legislation, they’re principled.

You don’t get it. Unilaterally opposing a single piece of legislation doesn’t make you an obstructionist. But unilaterally opposing every single piece of legislation, even the ones you yourself proposed to begin with, does. Show me the Democrats, in any Congress whatsoever and in either house, doing that, and then you can get to crow about Democratic hypocrisy.

[ElvisL1ves]

Demanding amendments to a bill so in the promise of voting for it, getting those amendments, then voting against the bill anyway is another one.

So is promising to “repeal and replace” the bill, calling 33 different votes to repeal it in toto with no consideration of anything it actually does, and never doing shit to propose what you’d replace it with, all while actually nominating for President the guy whose primary state-level accomplishment is pretty much exactly the same thing.

[Jas09]

Well, I will answer the OP as a Democrat, and it’s a twofold misunderstanding of reality, IMO.

First, the statement that we are not better off than 4 years ago is completely misguided. Four years ago we were in recession - and a very deep one. Now we are growing slowly. Four years ago we were on the cusp of steep job losses - steeper than at any time since the Great Depression. Now we have slow job growth. Four years ago we had banks failing, mortgage meltdowns, and very nearly the collapse of the financial sector and the loss of one of our largest industries (automobile manufacturing). Now we have a stable Wall Street (although still frighteningly risk-happy) with stronger regulations and a GM that is profitable (and other domestic manufacturers doing quite well too). And in foreign policy, four years ago OBL was alive, Qaddafi was alive and in power, Egypt was an autocracy, as were Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen.

So the notion that we are not better off in our current situation is laughable. The test is easy - would any Republican on this board go back to the economic situation or foreign policy situation of Fall 2008 if given the chance? Of course not.

The second falsehood is the notion that Obama did nothing with Congressional majorities. It was one of the most productive Congresses ever - the list of legislation was provided above. But I’ll just focus on two: health-care reform and Dodd-Frank. Both of these are massively important, although imperfect, pieces of legislation. Now the GOP has very successfully attacked them, but you will see that they will not repeal them fully even if they have Congress and the Presidency - there is far too much good and popular in them.

Now, as to the last part - that the last 2 years don’t count because of obstruction. Quite frankly, while it’s annoying and unprecedented, it’s the new reality. And if the past is any guide the Democrats will enforce the new normal if they lose control - a potential President Romney will have a difficult time getting much of his agenda passed. So yes, complaining about GOP obstruction is both expected and also misguided - the Democrats should rather speak passionately about the great progress they have made in helping those without health insurance, turning around the worst economic disaster in modern times, and reforming Wall Street.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Measure_for_Measure

OMG. It’s not a pissing contest.

Yes, it is.

I constructed an argument with 2 propositions, each with multiple lines of evidence supporting them. Now I can appreciate wanting to kick back. But if you’re just going to post unsubstantiated characterizations… maybe, possibly, it’s a waste of the reader’s time.

No, you didn’t. You made three statements, one of which you took to be some grand evidence of whatever. I said-- and this isn’t an exact quote-- that’s cool that you take that as whatever damning evidence in Regards to Republicans you want it to be. If I could be bothered, I could sit here and post lists of every little move Democrats do, but there’d be no point in that as we’ll inevitably come back to the “well, that’s not nearly as bad as Republicans!” or “well, they were just being principled!” lines. So I’ll kindly skip that part.

There was a bipartisan commission on social security during the 1980s.

What about today?

But when Bush tried to privatize it, as opposed to prop it up with a mixture of tax hikes and benefit cuts, he ran into some rather understandable opposition.

Hey, waitaminute! Didn’t Clinton hold an open mind to privatizing social security in the 90’s as opposed to tax hikes and benefit cuts? Why yes. Yes, he did.

The Dems have actually been pretty flexible with SS: noises that Clinton made took it off of the “Third Rail” category.

Aside from the above being laughable as social security reform IS the third rail in American politics, no. No, they haven’t. Again, I say that you should pay more attention to what the Democrats have been saying the last four years, because it’s evidently clear you’ve had your head in the sand or are spending so much time trying to find fault with every little thing that the Republicans do that you’ve simply ignored the proverbial other side. The Democrats have said, repeatedly, that talks involving social security are a non-starter. As in they won’t consider touching it. At all. In trying to work out a budget, they said-- multiple times-- that they would rather fail to reach an agreement than to touch social security.

@AlienVessels

No point. You’ll happily point out the dozens of post office naming legislative efforts the GOP has passed.

Or let’s just call it like it is. Your comment was a load of horse dung and you have no way of substantiating it.

Ah, the “you do it too” argument again. As degree didn’t matter at all.

Did you even READ what I typed? There’s a stark difference between “you do it, too!” and “you make up different sets of rules and/or standards based on the political/ideological affiliation of the person or group in question”.

If your guys didn’t keep eclipsing the Democrat foolishness. The increase in what passes for fillibusters in today’s environment alone should end the argument.

What does the increase of of filibusters have to do with anything?

Take a look at that graph. If you notice, there are are really four spikes in the graph; the 92nd Congress, the 102nd Congress, the 107th Congress and the 110th Congress. Do you know the binding factor in all four of those Congresses? I’ll give you a hint; they were controlled by Democrats.

What perplexes me is that certain people here go on about Republican obstructionism and the like, but fail to note that the 110th Congress filed 139 cloture motions compared to 137 for the 111th Congress. So does that make Democrats, by their own standards, obstructionists?

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@samclem

One does necessarily follow from the other. Perhaps 1934 midterm was an outlier.

Now, now, he had to go back to 1934 to find an example. Clearly it’s a trend not an outlier. It’s a very bad sign for the democrats in 2090. I worry for them.

[RTFirefly]

@Robot_Arm

Even before Kennedy’s death, his illness prevented him from attending and voting in the Senate. The last recorded vote I can find for him was on April 27, 2009.

Specifically, the Dems only gained vote #60 on September 25, 2009, when Paul G. Kirk was appointed to Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat until the special election on January 19, 2010.

So the Dems had 60 votes for less than 4 months, and only if/when they voted in lockstep, which Republicans always tell me is a bad, bad thing for Democrats to do. And it depended on one Senator, Joe Lieberman, who was no longer a Democrat, having spent a great deal of his time in office running against the Democratic Party almost as much as he ran against the GOP.

There’s nothing wrong with that, but to say that the Dems could pass their full legislative programme due to a filibuster-proof majority that relied on Lieberman is a crock. (Just one for-instance: one thing that was briefly on the table in the negotiations leading up to the vote that got health care reform through the Senate was the idea of allowing persons 55 and older to buy into Medicare. This was an idea that practically the entire Senate Dem caucus supported. But Lieberman didn’t, so the idea was axed.)

Not to mention, Senator Robert Byrd, who turned 92 during that brief interval, was one of those 60 votes, and was having the health issues that come with advanced age, so he couldn’t be there all the time. (He died in June 2010.)

IOW, the oft-repeated lie that the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority for 2 years is bullshit. They had 60 *potential *votes a good deal of the time during a 4-month period, and they had 60 actual votes during that subset of those 4 months for whatever Lieberman and Ben Nelson could be persuaded to go along with.

Also, due to Senate rules, there were stringent limitations on how many pieces of legislation the Senate could pass. After a successful cloture vote (the vote that requires the 60-vote supermajority), the minority - or even a single Senator, AFAICT - can require 30 hours of debate after the cloture vote. That’s 30 hours of floor time with a quorum, not clock time. And the Republicans were using this all the way: get a cloture vote on a judicial appointment? 30 hours of debate, then a vote.

This isn’t to whine about the unfairness of it all: politics ain’t beanbag, or so they say. The point is that it’s easy to exaggerate how much the Dems could accomplish with their 4 months of ‘full control.’

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

I said-- and this isn’t an exact quote-- that’s cool that you take that as whatever damning evidence in Regards to Republicans you want it to be. If I could be bothered, I could sit here and post lists of every little move Democrats do, but there’d be no point in that as we’ll inevitably come back to the “well, that’s not nearly as bad as Republicans!” or “well, they were just being principled!” lines. So I’ll kindly skip that part.

@Chronos

You don’t get it. Unilaterally opposing a single piece of legislation doesn’t make you an obstructionist. But unilaterally opposing every single piece of legislation, even the ones you yourself proposed to begin with, does. Show me the Democrats, in any Congress whatsoever and in either house, doing that, and then you can get to crow about Democratic hypocrisy.

It’s not enough to speak in generalities. You need to drill down into the specifics. As I did and as the researchers Mann and Ornstein did. You may not have heard of Ornstein, but he’s a fairly well respected conservative from the American Enterprise Institute.

Aw, heck don’t believe me and don’t believe him. Mitch McConnell has actually been pretty explicit about all of this. I’ll quote Ezra Klein, but the blog post is worth visiting: Those three comments outline the three most important dynamics driving the modern political system. (1) The top priority of the minority party is getting back into power. (2) Being bipartisan is bad politics, as it makes the country think the majority is doing a good job. And (3) bipartisanship increasingly relies on the lowest-common denominator, the things everyone “would do anyway,” not the things they can be persuaded to do as part of a more ambitious deal.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/mitch_mcconnell_the_most_hones.html
My take is that Republicans have successfully gamed the US constitution’s systemic vulnerabilities. If the economy crashes and burns, the majority party will be blamed. So there’s every reason for the minority to sabotage the economy. If a bipartisan bill passes, the President gets the credit. So there’s every reason for the minority to oppose bi-partisanship including opposing things they previously supported. Like Romneycare for example. Given this innovation, I predict that the politicos will wake up and curb the filibuster within the next 10 years regardless of who controls the Senate. That said, Republicans have better messaging: during the mid 2000s they continually called for “Straight up or down votes” which is pretty solid rhetoric actually.