That was a cheap political shot. Republicans aren’t in favor of legalizing rape. They want it prosecuted to the fullest extent that the non-binding civil arbitration tribunal set up by the rapist’s corporation allows.
Whew! Forgive my hyperbole.
Let’s keep the empty political jabs out of this thread. Thanks.
Geez, Marley.
In answer to this
the thrust of my reply was that “scrapping” SS was about as politically feasible as legalizing rape and murder. Fuzzy’s response
misses the point as you seem to have. WTF?
Anyhoo, sorry.
No I got it. I was making a cheap political jab I thought was amusing. Marley nailed it, at least for me.
Then you have my apologies. But let’s move along here.
Vaccination. There are two major themes the Pubbies might use in the upcoming election. One, they will claim that the Dems didn’t accomplish anything. Obama wants to be sure that it is clear in the public mind that the Pubbies obstructed him every step of the way.
Alternatively, the Pubbies could claim that Obama rammed through his socialist agenda by sheer force, and call out their base to rush to the barricades. To vaccinate against this, Obama wants to be seen as reaching out to the Republicans at every turn (see also, alternative #1).
As it happens, both of these dovetail neatly with a sincere effort to include the right. I think he really means it, though I acknowledge this puts me in the dangerous position of believing a politician. But when sincere intent coincides with strategic advantage, its a safer bet.
I forget his name but to quote (as good a my memory will allow) one of Racheal Maddow’s guests:
“It is telling that there was something called a “Nuclear Option” and Dick Chaney didn’t deploy it.”
Please help me.
Obama and the majority of Democrats (herein, Good Guys/Gals, GG/G) have said that they favor a significant public option (if not a single payer) health plan.(cite)
WTF hasn’t it happened? I suspect corporate malfeasance but perhaps someone can prove me paranoid.
National Party Line is the Pubs keep sayin’ no and they get to 'cause they can endlessly amend progress and … filibuster. The filibuster is simply the regressive’s nuke to progression. So, if the GG/G pull the plug on filibusters they can save us all by writing reform into statute with minimum reference to ass-muffled mouthings … if they had the slightest wish to do so. Correct me if I err.
What’s the downside?
Because they are pussies and/or incompetent! They can blame the Republicans all they want but the fact remains they had a filibuster-proof 60/40 and still couldn’t pass UHC
Filibustering goes way back to Rome. Ontario experience a 9 day filibuster back in 97.
This is the big mystery (and painful reality) of present-day American politics. I don’t know if there’s a best single answer, but I think various aspects of today’s America are more to blame than “Congressional malfeasance”: corporate money, dysfunctional opinion-making, ignorance, etc. Despite the assumption that “Americans want a public option”, Congressmen believe (probably correctly) that that is not the way to get re-elected. (Term limits seemed to me like a brutal foolish idea, but I’m beginning to change my mind.)
(With the 2010 census coming up, one thing I might like to see a Democrat Congress pursue would be an anti-gerrymadering statute. But how much actual good that would do, I don’t know.)
The “chumminess” of Senators may be a problem; these guys are more devoted to their “noble institution” than any political cause. And of course, it’s wishful thinking for “the left” to identify with the Democratic Party. Demos are rightish by any sensible standard and only seem “leftish” when contrasted with Glenn Beck, etc.
Finally, don’t forget that to count up to 60 Senators, obscene concessions were made. I would definitely favor a “Nuclear Option.” But I’m afraid you can’t even find 50 right-minded courageous Senators.
When books are written a decade or two from now, Obama’s brief “honeymoon year” with its “super-majority” will be treated with great sadness and bitterness as a lost opportunity.
The reason being that the Democrats are really quite conservative in the traditional language sense of the word, preserving procedure and traditions. Republicans are quite radical and always have been in trampling over everything to get their programs implemented and appointees seated. Consider Bush’s tax cuts in 2001. Quite a radical thing to ruin a balanced budget, but a high priority for the Republicans to cut taxes for the rich, despite there being little evidence that it is effective and most economists outside Chicago thinking that it works. But it benefits their constituents. And the constituents of Republicans has since 1870 been the New York banking crowd, not the Sarah Palin crowd.
Only during the Great Depression when the Republicans had virtually no power did a Democratic program sail through easily. And even then, when it went too far with “court packing” Democrats pulled the plug on it.
The inherent conservatism in Democratic operating procedures is what socialists like Ralph Nader despise about the party. Yeah, we are more socially progressive, but consider how long it took us to come around (and some still are) on gay rights and gay marriage.
Republicans will do anything to win because they have more money at stake. They make bargains with the Dixiecrats to play on racial sentiments in the south and affirmative action resentment all over the country, and embrace bringing religion in the form of fundamentalist Christianity into government policy in order to lure the vast majority of the population to vote for them, and incidentally for the shifting of the future tax burden somewhat off the rich and heavily onto the middle class. This is financially highly against the interest of the middle class.
How about just meet in the middle and make 55 votes to close debate?
The repubs were pissed because the dems threatened to filibuster the terrible nominees for the Supreme Court that Bush kept offering. After last weeks ruling, I wish the Dems did not back down. The gang of 14 was just a capitulation.
Sen. Sessions was so clear that the party with the majority had the right to pass their policies. It seems he has forgotten his ethical stand.
It was court of appeal nominees, not supreme nominees.