And if the President isn't on board with getting rid of healthcare reform and allowing the insurance companies to deny care to children again, then just shut down the government! Voila!

That's some good policy, man.

kopphanatic wrote:Because the other party is acting like a spoiled two-year old and blocking everything that comes through. This goes beyond the idea of a "loyal opposition". These clowns are all about gaining and maintaining power. They have no interest in actually serving the needs of the people that elect them.

Right, so it's all the other party's fault and you've got a roster full of rock stars. Right. The Dems are unfortunately being caught up in the recession wreckage, but they have blood on their hands. You have 59 votes and a couple republican senators who will swing on a social issue and you still can't get it done. Come the f on.

Also, I remember 94 and being pretty bummed about that election and that worked out great for America.

When push comes to shove, Snowe, Collins and Brown usually go with their more conservative masters. And like Pacino said, Ben Nelson and a couple other jerkoffs in the Democratic caucus might as well call themselves Republicans because they usually join in on the obstruction.

Philly the Kid wrote:Would any of you here -- on whatever side of the line you stand -- would you support a new Constitutional Congress?

Would you support a massive national vote on some of the big issues like Abortion?

Would you support computerized voting, done with finger-print ID or retinal scan for 98% and some fall back for the 2% who couldn't use those for some reason -- where there is an election window of say 2 weeks. Machines are deployed at post offices or something and the voting process is exactly the same in every county and state for national voting. No election results or exit polls are allowed to be published during the ongoing vote. If 2 weeks is too long how bout a Sat and Sunday or Fri and Sat or Tues and Wed or make it a national holiday.

1. I think the Constitution is quite good in its present form.
2. There are some massive issues for which a national referendum might have some value. Hot button issues, where you are dealing with people's constitutionally-protected rights are not among them. Should we have a referendum over whether a mosque may be built in America? It might very well vote for something like approval/rejection of the recommendations from a nonpartisan committee of experts to develop a plan to balance the budget or a national energy program. These are big issues that Congress lacks the courage to deal with. A ground rule of all this would have to be that constitutionally protected rights remain -- can't solve the energy crisis by seizing property without compensation, instituting a one-child policy like China's.
3. I don't think this would improve voter turnout. How many Americans are going to give their fingerprints and retinal scans to the government in order to vote? You'll likely see a record low turnout.

I just saw ptk's post. Putting democracy and rights up to a vote is never a good idea. Retinal scans, wtf? Is this demolition man?

kopphanatic wrote:Do what they always do. Completely destroy the government, and then use that as an excuse to say "Government sucks, its broken". Then sell everyone and everything to the highest corporate bidder.

Go ahead and vote GOP. Just don't complain when unemployment is around 15% in two years and your social security and medicare is gone. This country deserves everything it gets.

The Great Depression of the 1990s is something I think we can all agree we don't want to go back to.

So I'm assuming that you don't think our current economic crisis wasn't caused largely by policies and deregulation enacted by Republican Congresses in the 1990s and 2000s?

I guess the economic collapse began on January 20, 2009 then.

Go ahead and vote GOP. Just don't complain when unemployment is around 15% in two years and your social security and medicare is gone. This country deserves everything it gets.

You typed this. This might be the most overwrought, dramatic garbage ever posted on this board, immediate reactions to the Eagles losing in the playoffs included.

For Jeff:

These are the moderates of the Republican Senate Caucus:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0921/Why-Sen.-Susan-Collins-is-blocking-vote-on-don-t-ask-don-t-tell

Back to my post as to why I think a GOP Congress is something I'm ready for: I think Obama needs it to succeed. I think he has an instinct for compromise and an instinct for working towards the middle on a lot of issues. The GOP won't be able to take over Congress and then do nothing for 2 years - they will need to show their own ability to govern.

I think an Obama/GOP dynamic could be helpful, especially if O wins re-election in '12, as I expect he will.


Also, congressional dems are inept. So I see no reason why they somehow "deserve" to stay in office.

kopphanatic wrote:Do what they always do. Completely destroy the government, and then use that as an excuse to say "Government sucks, its broken". Then sell everyone and everything to the highest corporate bidder.

You forgot about the endless investigations of the Democratic president, which do two things:

1) drain time and resources from the executive branch, exerting a big opportunity cost; and

2) furthers public disgust with Congress ("why are they doing this shit rather than addressing the country's business?"), which helps in the larger narrative sense

Gomes wrote:Back to my post as to why I think a GOP Congress is something I'm ready for: I think Obama needs it to succeed. I think he has an instinct for compromise and an instinct for working towards the middle on a lot of issues. The GOP won't be able to take over Congress and then do nothing for 2 years - they will need to show their own ability to govern.

I think an Obama/GOP dynamic could be helpful, especially if O wins re-election in '12, as I expect he will.


Also, congressional dems are inept. So I see no reason why they somehow "deserve" to stay in office.

But here's the thing. Obama has tried to compromise, often to a fault. The Republicans have ignored his attempts at compromise at almost every turn.

Anyhow, the most depressing thing is that article dajafi posted about the GOP possibly looking to interfere with the cost savings in Medicare, not their desire to dismantle it entirely in the next two years while also plotting 15% unemployment and destroying social security and whatnot. All with a Democrat in the White House wielding a veto.

As far as what the GOP will do once they are in power, I don't think any of us can answer convincingly. I do know that strict obstructionism is always a loser when you are seen as being part of the structure of government. Look at 2002, 1996, 1948. If the GOP is unwise enough to take this tact, Obama will be reelected, and he'll have a Dem House to work with again. I really hope that the GOP will work with Obama on some major bipartisan initiative (tax reform, entitlement reform, something), and I think there's a decent possibility something like this will happen. If it doesn't, and it's because of GOP obstinacy, we'll pay the price electorally in 2012. There has been no electoral upside to Republicans to compromise with Obama. That lack of incentive will disappear with Boehner as speaker.

I don't know if Boehner can control the "hell no" wing.

It occurs to me, and maybe a poly sci guy can help me out, that perhaps the best way to move things ahead in Congress is to enact some type of administrative rule that says that introduced bills need to be about one thing and one thing only.

You shouldn't be able to, for example, tuck the repeal of DADT into a military budget bill. All that did, was cause a non-vote to repeal a stupid, backwards ass policy and prevent some of our bravest Americans from getting a pay raise.

traderdave wrote:It occurs to me, and maybe a poly sci guy can help me out, that perhaps the best way to move things ahead in Congress is to enact some type of administrative rule that says that introduced bills need to be about one thing and one thing only.

You shouldn't be able to, for example, tuck the repeal of DADT into a military budget bill. All that did, was cause a non-vote to repeal a stupid, backwards ass policy and prevent some of our bravest Americans from getting a pay raise.

I'm much more okay with that--it's pertinent to defense policy--than I am with Reid sticking the DREAM Act in there... and I absolutely love the DREAM Act. But it shouldn't be in a military aprops bill.

dajafi wrote:

traderdave wrote:It occurs to me, and maybe a poly sci guy can help me out, that perhaps the best way to move things ahead in Congress is to enact some type of administrative rule that says that introduced bills need to be about one thing and one thing only.

You shouldn't be able to, for example, tuck the repeal of DADT into a military budget bill. All that did, was cause a non-vote to repeal a stupid, backwards ass policy and prevent some of our bravest Americans from getting a pay raise.

I'm much more okay with that--it's pertinent to defense policy--than I am with Reid sticking the DREAM Act in there... and I absolutely love the DREAM Act. But it shouldn't be in a military aprops bill.

The House has a requirement that amendments must be germane.

No doubt there are abuses to the amendment process, but often reforms produce rather undesirable consequences.

jerseyhoya wrote:As far as what the GOP will do once they are in power, I don't think any of us can answer convincingly. I do know that strict obstructionism is always a loser when you are seen as being part of the structure of government. Look at 2002, 1996, 1948. If the GOP is unwise enough to take this tact, Obama will be reelected, and he'll have a Dem House to work with again. I really hope that the GOP will work with Obama on some major bipartisan initiative (tax reform, entitlement reform, something), and I think there's a decent possibility something like this will happen. If it doesn't, and it's because of GOP obstinacy, we'll pay the price electorally in 2012. There has been no electoral upside to Republicans to compromise with Obama. That lack of incentive will disappear with Boehner as speaker.

I hope you're right. The abstract appeal of divided government isn't a hard sell to me; if you look at the last 30 years, its track record is a hell of a lot better than unified government.

The question, to which I don't have a good answer, is whether this bunch of Republicans is truly as intransigent ("principled") as they claim to be. A Republican caucus led, in tone/spirit if not in title, by Michele Bachmann in the House and Jim DeMint in the Senate isn't likely to want to work with Obama to overhaul the tax code or put the country on a compromise path to fiscal sustainability--because "compromise" in their eyes is exactly why we have the problems we have.

Also, the next party to show a concern over deficits that rises to the level of action while in power will be the first. Endless servings of policy broccoli and cauliflower don't win elections.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

traderdave wrote:It occurs to me, and maybe a poly sci guy can help me out, that perhaps the best way to move things ahead in Congress is to enact some type of administrative rule that says that introduced bills need to be about one thing and one thing only.

You shouldn't be able to, for example, tuck the repeal of DADT into a military budget bill. All that did, was cause a non-vote to repeal a stupid, backwards ass policy and prevent some of our bravest Americans from getting a pay raise.

I'm much more okay with that--it's pertinent to defense policy--than I am with Reid sticking the DREAM Act in there... and I absolutely love the DREAM Act. But it shouldn't be in a military aprops bill.

The House has a requirement that amendments must be germane.

No doubt there are abuses to the amendment process, but often reforms produce rather undesirable consequences.

Sadly you are spot on about that, TV. I also agree with dajafi's comment regarding the DREAM Act; another example of what I am talking about. Now there are three things within this bill (and maybe more) that may very well pass if they were debated and voted on individually but all three get voted down (actually, they won't even have the chance to get voted down) because they are considered together.

I mean I think it is absolutely shameful that somebody like Susan Collins votes to block a vote on a bill that she obviously favors strictly for political reasons. And my comments don't apply just to GOPers either. Democrats are just as guilty of this crap and the "politics as usual" BS is the reason why fruitcakes like Christine O'Donnell end up in office.