Or we could just replace them all with robots using random number generators to vote along a predetermined statistical distribution, which would be cheaper, waste less paper, result in fewer DUI incidents inside the Beltway, and probably be more effective to boot. It would have the additional virtue of freeing up the bandwidth currently used by the CSPAN channels which could then be leased to porn distributors at a healthy profit.
Stranger
Mr Moto, surely you understand that the number of party line votes depends not only on an abstract notion of party discipline, but also the size of majorities in Congress, which parties hold control of the White House and Congress, the membership of Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans, the election cycle issues, and so on.
Let me run through some data on the House of Representatives. With Republican control and President Clinton, in the 104th Congress (95-97) R’s voted party line 89% of the time, D’s 79%. In the 105th, R’s were 87%, D’s 82%. 106th: R’s 86%, D’s 84%. With Speaker Foley and President Bush in 1991-1993, D’s voted together 82% of the time, and R’s 79%.
I don’t really care to spend more time going through the Senate numbers to knock down your facile theory, but suffice it to say that there seems to be a tendency for the party in control of Congress but not the White House to stick together slightly more often. So, what say you, Mr Moto?
“Partisan”–like “treasonous” and “unamerican”–is a meaningless word used when you want to get others to agree with your own personal hatred of someone/something. Arguments over “partisanship” are simply the latest in a long line of pointless debates which only provide a stage for ridiculous political preening. Save it for Chris Matthews; there’s nothing to talk about here.
Gee, if we go back to 107th Congress (2001 - 2002) and look at the House, using the arbitrary number put forth as our benchmark, we find that 123 Republicans voted Republican 95% of the time or more. That is 28% of the entire House. In fact, 67 Republicans had more partisan votes than the most partisan Democrat who voted with his party 96.6% of the time. Altogether, 19 Democrats were “excessively” partisan that session. And since there were 228 Republicans to 214 Democrats, we find that Democrats were only 8.88% excessively partisan while of Republicans 29.39%were more partisan than any Democrat and a whopping 53.94% were excessively partisan (based on Mr. Moto’s guidelines.
Obviously, . . .
Is Moto ever going to propose an honest argument or is he going to keep horsewhipping the same old bullshit talking points?
Hmmm. In the recent Immigration debates, the President supported the Immigration Reform Bill, while a lot of Republican Senators (and enough Democrats, as well, to ensure that it didnt get enough votes to pass) were opposed.
So who “owned this issue”? Was it a Republican Party issue, as represented by the President, or the Democratic Party, as evidenced by the majority of the (R.) Senators who were opposed?
It seems the OP might be a bit oversimplified…
When the Republicans gained congress they locked it up by holding impeachment proceedings over a blow job. When Democrats gained congress, they wouldn’t hold impeachment proceedings over clear mismanagement by the president because they didn’t want to lock up congress.
I wonder which side is more partisan when they gain power.
Has it ever occurred to the OP that the reason why the current crop of Repubs is voting less “partisan” is because the Democratic leadership is offering bills that many Congressmen of both parties can agree on, such as raising the minimum wage, whereas the previous Republican leadership offered very divisive legislation, such as the Terry Shiavo mess, in order to stir up the base. Yet under your definition, it is the Democratic party that is clearly more partisan. Hi-larious!
Could you be specific about what ‘they’ you are referring to? Because probably the biggest division amongst the center-left is between those still living back in 1986, who think they can reach across the aisle and make deals if they only compromise enough (call it the Broder-Lieberman school of thought), and those who realized years ago that the game had changed (how about the Great Orange Satan school?).
If you conflate the two on questions of bipartisanship and comity, it’s gonna be about as useful as mixing milk and orange juice. So specificity is a must.
The way you (mis)state the evidence suggests the question should be, “Which party in Congress has better party discipline?” In many countries, party discipline is considered a good thing.
Yeah, I think it’s pretty clear what sort of games you want to play, Mr. Moto. This is an exceptionally cheap OP.
Perhaps another reason for Republican “bipartisanship” is that the party leaders have lost touch with the American people to such an extent that members feel they must vote against them to have a chance of being re-elected? On the other hand, those radically liberal Dems can vote with their party. Is it really so odd that the Republican members would vote against the leaders who led them into the debacle of 2006?
So, you’ve put the past six years of Republican ultra-partisanship down the memory hole. Have the Dems pulled the Rove and Delay K Street Project trick? Have they agreed not to let any legislation on the floor without vetting by the party caucus first? Have they called the opposition party traitors? Ah, but voting with the leadership is no different, is it?
Your OP is the moral (or immoral) equivalent of a Creationist quote mining exercise.
Although it does not flesh out in recent years, Democrats are historically the party of bigger government while Republicans tend to be special interest of their constituent businesses.
Republicans don’t seem to have a central philosophy to vote on (exept smaller government), while Democrats do. Take unions and the minimum wage as examples.
In my opinion, the OP is correct by the nature of the two parties in the long run.
However, the last Republican majority made the Democrats look like uncle Scrooge in spending, and the Democrats of this congress are running pork like it’s going out of style.
Lets say that a bill favors unions, the Democrats will all vote for it, and the Republicans will say “Which union?”.
I do seem to hear a ton more about the Republicans putting conservative people in political positions for political reasons that they have every right to do than when the tables are reversed. Of course they both do. Democrats just whine about it more when it happens to them. Why don’t we just pass a law against gerrymandering or hiring and firing based on partisan bias? 'Cause that is the way that we Americans like it to be when OUR party gets the power.
Partisanship is essentially putting the goals of your party above the goals of the country.
Voting records somewhat speak to the goals of your party. There is no data about the goals of the country in voting records or any objective data, so there’s no way to compare them, so there’s no way to evaluate partisanship.
Something about the OP doesn’t ring quite right to me. It seems like it was posted as a foregone conclusion, with conditions picked that would TRY to support that conclusion. My reply would be, WHO CARES. Washigton is partisan and is drawn around party lines. Big news flash. A better question would be, what party appears to do a better job when in power, but even that would be a trick question depending on what time period you look at. So, let’s toss the whole thing out.
:dubious: I beg your pardon. Partisanship is identifying the goals of your party with the good of the country – and if you don’t, why belong to a party at all?
Just out of curiosity, what exactly happens when a “nonpartisan” Democrat (i.e. one who votes in favour of a Republican initiative) gets “savaged”? Does the party whip shove rabid weasels down the offender’s pants? Seriously, what form does the savaging take?
Sorry to focus on this minor aspect of the OP, but since other posters have already demonstrated the rest is bullshit, here I plant my flag.
The whigs…
Lots of ways exist to enforce party discipline in the US system, even if they’re not as strong or simple or clear as with a parliament and can’t be used as often or as effectively. The party can reduce or deny campaign support, both with money and with organization. Pet projects in that district may somehow just not get funded. Committee assignments can be changed. Even office space can get reassigned.
I don’t suppose the OP has ever considered that sometimes Congressfolk actually vote the way they think is right for the country, not just their party? If members of one party have a much better position on an issue than the other does, it can, ya know, simply be that they all recognize that fact, and so do some members of the other party. But then, to a reflexive partisan, it must seem that the *other * guys are just as reflexively partisan. That’s the only explanation that does not require one to consider a different way of thinking.