One might also note that that poll shows the number of people thinking the country is on the wrong track (67%) is lower than at any time during the second Bush administration (peak: 90%). It also shows the public has more confidence in Obama than the GOP overall 43-38. On specific items, the only one in which the Reps have the benefit of more confidence than Obama by more than 1 or 2 points is the deficit, even though the same poll shows the people think he’s more serious about it than they are (go figure). When asked who can be better trusted to help the middle class, Obama is way ahead. On the topic of whether the party switch in the House is good or bad, more said “bad” than in any previous poll. When asked who is not compromising enough, far more answered that the Reps were than Obama. On the stimulus package, although most think it won’t make a difference, far more thought it would help than hurt.
Interesting set of conclusions you drew from it there, godix.
There were no negotiations with Republicans over START. There was no compromise, no changes were made to the treaty. Only 11 Republicans voted for cloture, only one of which is in the leadership. The Republican leadership didn’t want to have a vote on START. The Republican leadership didn’t cave; one does not cave simply by losing.
DADT: Only 7 Republicans voted to end the filibuster, only one of which was a junior member of the leadership. There was no deal on DADT. The leadership didn’t cave, they lost.
Budget: there was no budget passed. You’re wrong if you think there was. Congress now has to return next year to pass a budget for a fiscal year that will be half over. Republicans in the House unanimously opposed one version of the budget. In the Senate, a few Republicans negotiated out a second version, only to turn around and threaten a filibuster. There was no budget passed, there was no caving.
You are just completely wrong on the facts here. Republican leadership wanted to filibuster all three of these items, they failed on two and succeeded on one.
Note that Democratic leaders all voted for thr tax deal. No senior Republican leaders voted for any of those three things. You are so wrong on your facts that you might as well be arguing that red is green.
I speak on behalf of the visual wavelength perceptually challenged community (please! don’t call them “colorblind”!), I hasten to remind you that for a VWPC person, red is green! Take a moment to reflect upon a child for whom Christmas colors are bright grey and darker grey! And don’t tell them “Don’t cut the red wire!”. Because its not funny.
Donations on their behalf are being accepted by the Mother’s March Against Cognitive Dissonance. For your security, all checks should be written as payable to “Cash”.
So if you interpret it as no effective means of missile defense and President Obama says it won’t limit missile defense then the Russians will think …?
I thunk Magiver is just trying to invent some controversy with that provision. It isn’t vague. Henry Kissinger said it is only a reflection of reality.
We have what, several dozen interceptors. The Russians will have 1,500 weapons. If we had 1,500 interceptors, things would be different. That’s all the provision says. It isn’t confusing at all; provided that one isn’t trying really hard to be confused just to have something to criticize Obama about.
There are no numbers associated with the paragraph. This is a treaty and treaties are specific documents spelling out exactly what each party can and cannot possess.
Uh what? You think we only have 24 anti-ballistic missiles?
You think Reagan’s missile shield is not only already in place but would be 100% reliable against everything the Russians could throw at it? Really? :dubious:
The GMD missiles? Something like that. I’m not talking PAC-3s or SM-3s, which are probably useless against Russia’s strategic arsenal. Why, how many do you think we have?
But what you said about the importance of treaties masks the fact that (a) the provision is part of the non-binding preamble and (b) if Russia wants to leave the treaty because of missile defense, they can do so, because both the US and Russia are allowed to leave the treaty for any reason they find quite important. So, it doesn’t really make a difference to anyone if you think it is vague.
Oh, come on now. You have to be sporting. How about 50% reliable against something that the Russians could throw at it if they told us in advance what that something was, what the warhead and any decoys looked like, and where they were planning to launch it from? You gotta give the man a chance.
The claim was the policies Democrats policies are ‘popular’. On this issue, Dem ideas are not, and really never have been, supported by the majority. UHC does have some popularity, but that’s not what Democrats proposed.
While thinking one guy or another is better trusted is important in politics, it wasn’t we were talking about. We were talking about specific policies of Democrat party. I included some general stuff, but mostly I tried to stick to specifics like health care reform, cutting SS payroll taxes, and the stimulus. So yes, Obama gets more credit for wanting to reduce the deficit than republicans. Do you have a specific deficit reduction policy that is popular and supported by the democrat party to point to?
Parity in terms. Since I frequently heard Democrats supporting extending bush tax cuts described as ‘caving’, I figured the reverse where Republicans support democrat policies must be ‘caving’ as well.
The problem with this entire paragraph is that the last two years prove it absolutely wrong. For two years Republicans have held together as a block. We didn’t see crossovers to vote for health care reform or other dem proposals. Remember all the ‘party of no’ stuff? That was because they were able to stick together and say no in unison. They were rewarded for it too, the election results were an ass-kicking. Yet a few months after reaping the rewards, you believe they suddenly fell apart and defied their leadship on the eve of taking over the House? That just doesn’t make sense.
The only thing that does make sense is that the Republican leadership let their members vote as they pleased. Which means while the leaders as individual lawmakers may have opposed this stuff, they did not have a policy where the Republican party was expected to stand united. Coincidentally, this happened right after Obama compromised and the Republican party got their way on a bill they thought was important.
You don’t see a connection between compromise with republicans and the leadership then allowing members to vote as the wish? Seriously? You believe a lot of Republicans suddenly thought ‘being unified just won us an election, what a horrible tactic this is…’?
The exact same thing can be said in response to Ravenman’s post, so I’m not gonna bother quoting that and repeating myself.
And Obama’s approval/disapproval rating has what to do with a conversation about congressional Democrats?
I do want to note, I’m analyzing the tactics, not saying if the policies are good or bad. From a political tactic standpoint, the Republicans did good. They won the 2010 election at least and got their way on what they said was their most important issue. From a moral standpoint, well, I ain’t taking positions for or against any specific subject. Some I support democrats, some I support republicans. However, from a purely political perspective, the last couple weeks prove Democrats got more of what they wanted, and with far less hassle, by compromising with Republicans instead of the ‘we won, STFU’ attitude they had for two years.
That’s not a reasonable definition of “caved.” It makes the term meaningless. Early this summer, 3 Republicans defied their leadership and voted for the financial reform bill. Characterizing this as “the Republicans caving” when 90% of the caucus opposed the bill is defining the word in a way not worth taking seriously.
There was no ‘we won, STFU’ attitude. The Republicans could have achieved similar compromises on health care if they’d decided to be involved in the legislation itself. Instead they decided that strategically, their best move was to deny Obama the bipartisanship he had campaigned on. They decided, and there was some logic to this, that they were not going to get any of the credit if they compromised, so the soundest strategy was to kick up a fuss, refuse to give an inch, and later, try to convince their base that the government was passing a health care bill because it wanted to kill them. And yes, by some measurements this worked and it its way it contributed to their successes in November. You’re right that there were a lot of "fuck you"s in Congress in the last two years, but you’re wrong about where they came from.
what? Seriously, what? You are way of track with this line of debate.
Russia threw a fit over the US/Poland anti-missile agreement. If they interpret the paragraph as you did and President Obama says otherwise then it’s already a deal breaker. What’s the point of the treaty?
There’s no “dealbreaker” involved, there is no enforcement clauses, its simply two parties agreeing to do something sensible. We aren’t forcing the Russians to do anything, we’re not trying to force them to do anything!