Except that the public hates deadlock and gridlock. The Republicans got so much blame for their recent escapades in the House (naughty word, I know) that they’ve already had to swear they won’t do it again in the next few battles. I don’t believe it and it appears that you don’t believe it either. That’s incredible. You are stating that the Republicans have no intention of being part of the process, confirming all our worse fears. With friends like you…
The Democrats just decided to govern. And I guarantee that all the whining being heard now has a distinctly Republican accent.
This is an enormous win for the Democrats. That makes two in a row. Republicans should be feeling very scared now, especially with more budget battles ahead. No wonder the tone here is so bitter.
That Dems will extract some good from this (for them), no doubt. But it will cost them, as well. Especially with Independents. Fortunately, there is there is the stink of Obamacare on all who supported it. A powerful stench indeed.
How do you figure? You think independents like what Republicans have done with the filibuster? I’m thinking this is the icing on the 2014 cake. Your boys are going down, in both houses.
That’s the wonderful thing about the Internet. Posts are always available for checking. We can look back at this thread and find out which one of us was more correct. Just like the posts leading up to the 2012 election.
When you talk about “governing”, talking about just the Senate is kinda pointless. Go ahead and pass your bills in the Senate - when the House shoots them down see how far that takes you.
Yeah, I’m trying to envision a world in which you admit that any conceivable occurrence was an enormous win for the Democrats, including Obama’s two electoral victories. I’m failing miserably.
The minority party is always the “obstructionist” party. The difference then was that the Dems were in the minority. That and and the Dems were aware that principles are important. Yep, things change.
I’m not surprised that none of the GOP apologists have responded to this. That Democrats let Bush make his choice despite having 55% of the Senate, while Republicans take the opposite position with only 45% demonstrates that the two Parties have opposite views on the country’s power sharing and role of opposition.
It might be informative if GOP apologists did dare to respond. I’ll make it easy; just click one of the boxes:
[ul][li] ( ) This example just shows how timid and stupid the Demos are. As long as they had at least 41% of the Senate they should have obstructed either of the Bushes at every turn, whining and threatening so they could get their way.[/li][li] ( ) Bad example. Clarence Thomas is an upstanding centrist Justice free of the slightest whiff of personal scandal, while Elena Kagan is probably a card-carrying Marxist lesbian.[/li][li] ( ) When we do it, we’re doing the Baby Jesus’ bidding. If the Democrats did it, it would be Satan acting through the zombies he controls.[/li][li] ( ) Gee, thanks for pointing this out, septimus. I guess the present-day GOP really is shamefully despicable after all.[/li][/ul]
That’s amusing, when the example I gave was that the removal of the filibuster on Executive branch appointments would enable Obama to replace people he was unhappy with.
But it’s good to know that in the overall discussion, we’re talking about the House and the Senate both, because there seemed to be some confusion on that point.
To back up your claim, you’d have needed to produce a cite of Obama saying it won’t result in dismissals anywhere across the Executive branch, rather than in one particular part of it, which is all your cite says.
In order to fight ignorance, you have to be able to distinguish between things like this.
Much could be said about attitudes about the 40 vote blocker in the Senate prior to the time, the last twenty years, where parties and their positions have become so diametrically opposed. Once upon a time, each majority party had liberal and conservative wings…and support for some legislation could be found by approaching people from each party.
Today? Nope, one party has moved so far from the middle…and have deliberately financed campaigns against the more moderate members of their party…that ‘compromise’ is not generally available for most issues. Perhaps for some major issues…a big bargain on the future budget, for example, a compromise can be reached, by each side getting some major concession from the other.
But, frankly, the parties are so philosophically opposed to each other today, not just in Washington, but all over the USA, that cracks in the fabric are appearing and will only get worse. Young people today are choosing to live where the political system they support is in control, not just 'where the best jobs are, or the climate suits us, or the sports available are to our liking…
“Though the threshold for Obama to get his nominees confirmed fell by nine votes Thursday’s change in Senate rules, it doesn’t mean he’s going to be firing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius** or others** anytime soon, press secretary Jay Carney said.”
Of course they’re not going to fire anyone. But the typical pattern is that the White House expresses complete confidence in the person right before he resigns to spend more time with his family. I’m not saying it’s going to happen to Sebelius or anyone else, but Carney’s statement doesn’t rule it out.
