I wasn’t happy with the last minute push for START. There seemed to be a discrepancy in what the Russians thought we were agreeing to in respect to anti-missile technology. There was no pressing reason to rush it through. The one paragraph of contention is ambiguous in meaning and should have been stricken:
"Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties."
The President says it doesn’t interfere with defense systems aimed at Iran and North Korea but I don’t see how we could have systems in place that accomplish that and not be viewed by Russia as applicable to them given the proximity to an ICBM launch.
Oh, what a load of bullshit. You know why Reid and Obama had to bribe Nelson, Landrieu, etc.? Because it was perfectly clear that no Republican was going to vote for it no matter what. Grassley started the ‘death panel’ lie, and he introduced the goddamn thing! Compromise requires both parties to cooperate, and Republicans were completely unwilling to do so.
Yeah, debating for five days on the schedule instead of nine, or two weeks, after talking about it informally for months, is definitely rushing through. This is like the claim that health care, which took over a year to pass, was jammed down people’s throats and that they were going too fast.
The paragraph was not addressed and there was no reason to rush it through. This is a document meant to codify specific policy. Read the paragraph and tell me it’s not vague. They can debate it 5 minutes or 5 years and the paragraph is still vague.
The reason no republicans would vote for it is that no democrat would actually compromise on it. Do I have to drag out the ‘STFU, we won, we’re doing it out way’ quotes floating around from prominent Dems over the last couple years?
Reid and Obama had to bribe Nelson, Landrieu, etc because Reid is astoundingly bad at his job. So much so that I’m surprised Pelosi or Obama didn’t go over and bitchslap the guy live on the Senate floor. God knows he deserved it after his incompetence fucked the dems over and over again.
Anyway, there was exactly one serious attempt to compromise with Republicans. That was the Bush tax cut extension. After that, Republicans didn’t block START, DADT repeal, or the budget. Sound like, despite the talking points, republicans really are willing to work with democrats. Assuming, of course, democrats don’t have the attitude of ‘we get everything we want, and you get nothing you want’.
Other than the Bush tax cuts, I’d love to hear what compromise Democrats even tried. Note, I mean a compromise that actually involved the majority of Republicans, not the half-ass attempts to court a sole Republican. Olympia Snowe is a single person, and one who isn’t in a party leadership role so can not speak for her party.
Yes, I see. By a similar reasoning, if the US Navy hadn’t insisted on parking its battleships right where the Japanese were going to test their new torpedoes, a great deal of trouble might have been avoided.
Actually, a majority of GOP senators opposed START, all but a few opposed repealing DADT, and Republicans blocked a budget from being passed. On the budget, Republicans had pushed all year for spending cuts, which Senate Dems finally agreed to in December. Once the budget was cut to the exact level that Republicans wanted, the budget was blocked by unanimous Republican opposition.
And what was the first effort by Obama to do anything in the White House? The stimulus. At Republican request, more than half the package was useless tax cuts, and then not a single Republican voted for it.
I argued that debating for five days after months of discussions is not even in the same zip code as “rushing it through”. You said the paragraph was vague and shouldn’t have been rushed through, thus ignoring my argument entirely. And since you asked, no, I don’t think that paragraph is particularly vague.
And yet somehow once the Republicans were negotiated with and given something they want, all threats of filibusters and other obstruction techniques disappeared and these things were given straight up and down votes. Sure, not a lot of Republicans actually voted for them, but they did allow them to go for a vote knowing full well they’d pass.
How exactly does this disprove the idea that compromise leads to both sides getting some of what they want while a ‘we won so STFU’ attitude leads to, well, the last two years?
Except that what they said was more like “We lost, so you STFU.”
Did the people elect a Dem President and a Dem Congress? Yes, they did.
Were the proposals of the Dems largely popular with a majority of the American people? Indeed, they were.
Was the insistence of the Pubbies of extra money for people who already had more than they need largely unpopular with the majority of the American people? Quite so.
Can we then fairly conclude that you are full of beans? Yes, we can.
That’s a lot of words to cover over the fact that you credited Republicans with cooperating on three major issues which, in fact, they attempted to prevent from ever coming to a vote.
Let’s be clear on the budget again: Dems cut spending to the amount that Republicans wanted. After seeing this, Republicans moved the goalposts and wouldn’t allow a vote on the budget. Dems caved, Republicans thought that wasn’t good enough.
How does that square with your “if you negotiate, the GOP is reasonable” thesis?
Over half the people think cutting SS payroll taxes by a couple points is a bad thing
Only one in three think the stimulus has helped
Two out of three people think the country is heading the wrong way.
Twice as many people say it’s good Republicans will be taking the house as say it’s bad (although, admittedly, 30% think it makes no difference at all)
This is your definition of ‘popular’?
all taken from this poll
I will grant, repealing DADT was hugely popular. Republicans were clearly on the wrong side of that one. Although I think, as a matter of morality, republicans were wrong there anyway, so it’s nice to see 80% of the nation supporting dems on that.
And yet that ‘unpopular’ proposal has 54% approval, higher than any of the ‘popular’ democrat stuff. Strange how the definition of popular seems to change so much depending on which party you’re talking about.
Out of idle curiosity, how can a site dedicated to fighting ignorance have so much of it?
Lets be clear on what happened. Dems ‘caved’ on Bush era tax cuts by allowing them to be extended even for the rich. Republicans ‘caved’ on DADT, the budget, & START by not using procedural methods available to a minority to block them. How does that NOT square with my ‘if you negotiate, the GOP is reasonable’ thesis?
Also I note, strictly by a political tactics method, Republicans would have been in a far better position if they blocked this stuff until next term. They would have been in a majority in the House and had a better hand to play. Which makes it all the more surprising to me they didn’t block stuff. I like START and DADT repeal, so I’m glad they didn’t, but politically they could have benefited from being the party of no they’re accused of and they choose to negotiate now anyway.
When a poll, unlike the one you cited, asks if it didn’t go far enough, a solid majority agrees. :rolleyes:
The poll didn’t ask why, either. Nor are you cherry-picking the rest of the revenue-reduction items in the poll. Or the item that showed Obama gets more credit for wanting to reduce the deficit than the Reps.
That is your definition of “objective”?
Then why do you insist that a third of them, defying their leadership, voting for it anyway is “caving”?
By not wearing blinkers. Try it sometime.
Yes, let’s be clear. Negotiating is not a process of “If you want it, I’m going to oppose it, now let’s talk”. Please. What the GOP did, or at least those members who refused to follow their leadership’s orders, was to recognize that their automatic oppositionism is not only a problem in general but would damage them politically on these issues in particular. The leaders still don’t get it, or they wouldn’t have engaged in automatic oppositionism on them, and they wouldn’t have made such public statements about their goal being to simply defeat Obama, not serve the American people.
Yet you call automatic oppositionism, politically advantageous, and the actions of a minority in refusing to go along, “caving” by the party. And you decry ignorance along with it. Wow.
Maagiver: It means neither the US nor Russia currently has effective means to defend themselves against a nuclear attack by the other, and that defensive arms, even if not covered under this treaty, may have to be addressed in the future if that fact changes.
Why do you want it out? Why do you think it’s unclear?
Virtually every person I know thinks the country is heading in the wrong direction. My friends are overwhelmingly liberal, but the vast majority think it’s heading in the wrong direction because the Democrats failed to implement parts of their agenda or allowed Republican obstruction.
Left or right, most people think the country is headed in the wrong direction; we just aren’t all equally good at knowing why. If there was a time when liberals were optimistic about getting to make progress it’s definitely passed.