Conversely, you could look at all the above and conclude that when the Republicans controlled congress they acted in a more bipartisan manner, and made an effort to find legislation that the minority could support.
As evidence, you would note that when the Republicans did propose legislation that the Democrats disliked, they opposed it vociferously, e.g. Medicare Reform.
If you start from the premise that the Republicans are always the Bad Guys, or that their ideology is extreme, you would naturally draw the conclusions that you do. But that’s circular.
yes, the skyrocketing use of the filibuster in Republican hands is a dead giveaway … they do not participate as a minority party, only obstruct. Would that the Dems had treated Bush this way. He sure deserved it.
The new house leader Blubbering Boner does not sound like he is interested in meeting in the middle. He acted like he thought he was going to set policy. The Dems have the Executive and the Senate.
As evidence, you would note the provisions of the various helathcare “reforms” proposed by the Republicans during the 2009 debate.
Specifically, the Republicans offered no proposal which would expand coverage for the uninsured by more than a token amount–an obvious dealbreaker for Obama. They claimed such a goal was unaffordable, but that doesn’t jibe with the CBO scoring that showed a total deficit reduction of $104 billion (over 10 years) for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Finally, when the Republicans (or their Tea Party surrogates) repeatedly sidetrack the debate with demonstrably false claims of Medicare cuts and deathpanels, it’s completely fair to question how seriously they are negotiating.
Conversely, if you start from the premise that the Republicans are always the good guys, you would naturally draw the conclusions that you imply. The difference is, my interpretation survives Occam’s razor–yours doesn’t.
That would almost sell except when you remember that Boehner and McConnell were both preaching the no-compromise party line, that they welcomed micro legislation where if the bill only included areas where Dems came over completely to Republican stands they’d offer support, and Republican withdrawal of support even from legislation that originated with Republican lawmakers.
I predict a huge amount of legislative activity from Boehner centered around stuff he knows can’t pass the Senate, especially when McConnell will be over their doing his level best to make sure nothing happens. McConnell’s stated number one priority is making sure Obama is a one term president.
They are willing to cause short term harm to the government and people as acceptable collateral damage in exchange for the long term good of having a Republican tri-fecta.
The supposed deficit reduction comes about through huge tax increases. That doesn’t count as affordable. (IMHO, persistant liberal/Democrat obfuscation about this issue doesn’t speak well of their integrity.)
Which is even besides for the fact that the “deficit reduction” is a total fantasy - it’s an accounting gimmick and additionally relies on future events that no one believes it will actually happen.
That’s a semantic game. The core of these claims are valid. All politicians use some hyperbolic rhetoric. Even some message board posters, sometimes.
What a ridiculous idea. Maybe that’s the way YOUR side thinks, though.
The ‘prize’ for us Dems would be getting the economy going and getting people back to work. (I would hope that both parties would have that goal, but I can’t see much evidence that it’s much of a priority among elected Republicans.)
Another ‘prize’ would be effective legislation dealing with the U.S. contribution to global warming.
A third one would be to take advantage of the current low interest rates and availability of resources to repair and modernize numerous aspects of our infrastructure that we’ve neglected in good times and bad alike.
A fourth would be to stop sinking more blood and treasure into nation-building wars where the likelihood of meaningful success is minimal.
A fifth would be to acknowledge that overall, immigration makes us as a nation richer rather than poorer, and increase the avenues of legal immigration in accordance.
A sixth would be to require all organizations seeking to influence elections or governmental policy to list their major donors (say, all who give more than $5000/year) so that we know who’s trying to influence our government officials and our own votes.
A seventh…well, you get the idea. For us Democrats, the ‘prize’ isn’t to get elected; it’s to change things for the better.
BRICKER: Now, remember, craft your resume to each job. Don’t worry about the rejections; the goal is to get the face-to-face interview. That’s the prize.
JOB-SEEKING KID THAT LOOKS LIKE RTFIREFLY: What a ridiculous idea! The prize is the job, not the interview. That’s just a necessary step! What a blind spot!
JOB-HOLDING YOUNG ADULT THAT ALSO LOOKS LIKE RTFIREFLY: Ha! Madness! The prize is the career, not the individual job. You may change jobs many times, but the career path is the prize. What a short-sighted fool!
THIRD GUY THAT ALSO LOOKS LIKE RTFIREFLY: What utter rubbish. The PRIZE is the complete, holistic life that a good career allows you to have, able to help support a family, hobbies, charity, travel, and a rich experience of this wonderful world. THAT is the prize, not just a career.
BRICKER: Um… guys, maybe ‘prize’ is a context-dependent word that refers to ending milestone of a particular set of steps? Maybe being elected is the prize that allows you to go on and be a force to change things for the better; and maybe changing things for the better is the prize that allows you to enjoy a better country and world. Maybe all of you are focusing a bit myopically on the word ‘prize’ here?
ALL THREE, IN UNISON: Yeah, you’re right.
BRICKER: Not to worry. Probably just a problem in your cloning growth settings; we’ll fix that glitch in the next set of clones. After all, being able to clone platoons of useful foils for debate purposes is the real prize!
Yes, in the sense that inevitable decisions about end-of-life matters will come to rest in the hands of government bureaucrats.
The main reason this type of self-righteous posturing doesn’t repulse even more people than it actually does is because it’s so widely engaged in by politicians on both sides of the aisle that people write it off as just typical political slime.
Um, no. The claim was based language in the bill that required patients to discuss end of life matters with their doctors. It wasn’t hyperbole; it was a lie.
This is all very amusing, but I’m sure you realize that he means merely getting “your guy” elected is not a prize in itself, as it seems many have come to believe. I’m pretty fucking tired of the football game mentality that pervades now, where an election victory is merely a chance to rah-rah and scream “you SUCK!” at the other side for a couple of days. Yes, it provides the same superficial thrill as it does when “your” team (who don’t know who you are, and couldn’t give a shit to save their lives, and are only interested in making money and hopefully landing a bunch of lucrative corporate sponsorships before their knees blow out) scores a big touchdown on game day.
If the end result is deadlock, why should anyone give a shit who wins?
