Why is that worthy of respect?
She did this to a degree during the health care and stimulus debates, but the picture you’re painting of the situation is not realistic. Snowe was on the fence and so were a couple of other moderates. She was not any more influential or powerful than any of the others and had no more ability than they did to bring people along. They each had to be won over individually, which is what happened on those bills. You don’t just win over another Senator by writing a bill the way you want and saying 'I’m to the right/left of you, so you should support this, too: you have to make it make sense for them to vote based on their own interests - the support of their own constituents and things of that nature. And yes, the party structure is a piece of that because if you lose the support of the party, you can get primaried.
It’s because of people like these that any legislation at all has got passed in the last two years. I find your argument absurd if I am interpreting it correctly – that the people who on occasion willing to cross party lines and vote against their party leadership are more responsible for the current stalemate than those who aren’t willing to do that. Tell me how I’m getting this wrong.
Well, “more respect”. I don’t particularly respect, say, J. Inofe’s view on abortion. I think he’s wrong, and wrong in a way that’s bad for his country. But I accept their his honestly held views and that he feels strongly about it in such a way that there isn’t room for much compromise. Just about everyone in the Senate is going to have things that they’re categorically against and some of those things I’m going to disagree with. So I respect that he has such views, and that he feels he can’t compromise, even if I don’t particularly respect his actual positions.
And that’s fine, I’m sure if I was in the Senate, there would be some things I simply wouldn’t be willing to budge on. That shouldn’t be a huge problem, since to pass legislation you only need 60% of the Senate, and it shouldn’t be that hard to get 60 people out of 100 that can compromise their way to something, even if some people are set against it.
But that only works if people that are closer to the middle, and who aren’t categorically against the bill in question are willing to take action, make changes, and get things through. That’s pretty much the entire job of being a legislator, and it bothers me that Snowe and other seem to have pretty much abdicated that job.
In the case of the Healthcare bill, it was pretty clear that Snowe was generally OK with the concept of the bill. And her negotiating position was strong enough that if there were some things she didn’t like, she didn’t even need to compromise, the Dems would’ve made pretty much any change to get her support. She passed it out of Conference talking about how historic the bill was. But in the end, she decided she’d rather play the hyper-partisan then legislate.
Good for Senator Snowe. Washington Republicans have gone from innumerate to batshit insane and its past time for any nondelusional conservative with self respect to bolt out of the party. It’s time for them to start afresh, just like the liberal Whigs did when they became Republicans. Jon Chait notes that Snowe’s resignation language exactly parallels that of the empirical conservative party, Americans Elect.
Democrats are a big tent of liberals, moderates and conservatives. Republicans used to be that way in the 1960s. Then they dumped their liberals in the 1970s and purged their ranks of moderates in the 1990s and 2000s. All that are left are crazies and those afraid of being primaried by crazies. It’s time to clean house.
I think they’ve done more than enough “house cleaning”. What they need is a lot more clutter.
This could make Susan Collins weak as well. She’s basically been Olympia Jr. for the last 14 years. The tide could wash over her too.
And I don’t think our governor, LePage, is going to serve but one term either. He pretty much got Nadered into office and he’s ruffling all sorts of feathers.
Interesting turn of events.
What tide? Snowe is stepping down because she doesn’t want to be a Senator anymore, not because she’s “weak”. She and Collins have the best approval ratings of any sitting Senators, Snowe had to run for re-election in the worst year for Republicans since Watergate and still won 75% of the vote. The tea-parties brief attempt to primary Snowe went no where. Both woman are pretty much immune to electoral challenges.
Collins will be in the Senate until she decides she doesn’t want to be in the Senate anymore.
Somewhat off topic - but that is the problem with the Senate. You shouldn’t need 60% to pass most things in the Senate.
I’m not sure of the exact timeline, so the Democrats may have started using the filibuster more when they initially lost the majority, but the Republican’s have made it so that everyone just agrees that, yeah, you need 60%. It’s become the new normal, and, given the Republican whip discipline, it is hard to reach that threshold. Plus, of course, it also gives the fringe Democrats (Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman) and the ‘moderate’ Republicans the ability to demand goofy things for their votes. If I remember correctly, Nelson originally had some sort of Nebraska exemption in the ACA, as an example of what happens.
I’m suggesting that Olympia’s stepping down could create a tide. Yes, Collins has always been sympathetic to the left somewhat, but she always had the aura of riding Snowe’s coat-tails, like one came with the other. With Snowe retiring, we could see a sea-change in this state, and you might see two Democratic Senators before too long.
No respect is due to an honestly held but wrong view
but she quit anyway.
You make a fair point. Lugar (who I liked for Prez in '96) might have been a better President than whatever he is now. But perhaps a man as meek (or modest?) as that had no chance to win.
To where?
Right. To retirement. Too many bridges burnt by the last 18 months of Tea Partying to pull a Specter.
. . . . aaaaand this is why the nation is so polarized.
I can retain respect when we are discussing ideas in the abstract, moot, or libertarian mode. When it gets toward things that are genuinely harmful, like restrictions on women’s health, I don’t feel so obliged.
This is interesting:
Me: It’s time to clean house.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/02/where-were-you-in-1993-david-brooks.html
and
Admittedly, supporting a reality-based conservative think tank might be a reasonably start. But honestly, there’s nothing within the Washington Republican collective that is worth saving. I can point to honest attempts by Republicans to govern at the state level (as well as the opposite of course). But in Washington liberal Republicans went extinct in the 1970s and moderate Republicans -labeled insultingly by the crazies as RINOs- are thoroughly whooped. You know you have problems when after the worst financial crisis since WWII, the Senate holds up appointments to the US Treasury, not because the candidates are objectionable, but simply because they can.
A party that mocks good governance deserves no votes. None.
Everybody fails to note that in 2010 the moderate Republicans elected three new faces Ayotte of NH, Kirk of Illinois, and Brown of Massachusetts while Murkowski reasserted herself. They have potential for growth IMO especially if Rubio joins them and more new people get elected in 2012 and 2014.