kopphanatic wrote:

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.

This is true and yet despite that it should be noted that the Dems had majorities in both houses. Big ones. However, they were unwilling to make the Repubs actually filibuster. Every time the Repubs threatened the filibuster the Dems ran and hid. Why?

Because a lot of them, frankly, are pansies.

Squire wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:

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.

This is true and yet despite that it should be noted that the Dems had majorities in both houses. Big ones. However, they were unwilling to make the Repubs actually filibuster. Every time the Repubs threatened the filibuster the Dems ran and hid. Why?

My understanding, and I'm sure that jh or TV will correct if I'm wrong, is that a rules change at some point obviated the recourse to an old-timey "Mr. Smith" style filibuster. It's enough to state your intent to continue debate without actually having to, y'know, continue debate.

That said, it's true the Democrats are a bunch of fucking pussies.

no queers in the military are allowed to say they're horrible, terrible people just yet. GOOD JOB EVERYONE

dajafi wrote:

Squire wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:

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.

This is true and yet despite that it should be noted that the Dems had majorities in both houses. Big ones. However, they were unwilling to make the Repubs actually filibuster. Every time the Repubs threatened the filibuster the Dems ran and hid. Why?

My understanding, and I'm sure that jh or TV will correct if I'm wrong, is that a rules change at some point obviated the recourse to an old-timey "Mr. Smith" style filibuster. It's enough to state your intent to continue debate without actually having to, y'know, continue debate.

That said, it's true the Democrats are a bunch of $#@! pussies.

Right. There have been ideas like while a filibuster is in place no other votes could occur, but they haven't gone anywhere. Of course, Republicans some years ago wanted to do away with the filibuster. The Gang of 14 (a group of modoerate Dems and Reps) kept it in place. For this, the right lambasted John McCain.

Yeah they don't have to stay in the chamber to filibuster I don't think, but all Reid has to do is file for cloture and get 60 votes to pass things. For like 35% of this Congress the Dems had 60 votes. Additionally Brown, the Maine women and Voinovich have provided the Dems with 60th votes on a lot of the more contentious issues so far this Congress.

I get kind of annoyed when people point to the 90's as evidence of what works economically. The. Internet.

dajafi wrote:

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 $#@! rather than addressing the country's business?"), which helps in the larger narrative sense

And yet, because the Dems are such hacks and corporate whores they have no real answer for it. Clinton was horrible and now Obama is aligned with the assault on SS.

Stand for something.

The reps are at least clear in their tactics and their extremism. People actually chanted" drill baby drill" like that was cool? I was horrified. Who are these morons. My fellow Americans...?? I guess...

The Dems are more than capable of defeating and exposing the Rep tactics, but they can't -- because they don't really stand for anything. The differentiation is not a moral one. A little funding for some poor folks here, a union something there -- but really -- they are just another part of the same problem.

How in the world could the Rep mount any juice this election season? Based on what? What answers to problems do they have? What wisdom to they bring? What are the big mistakes in 2 years of Obama they are clearly able to articulate and correct? But they are very good at winning the perception and framing battle.

America is ignorant, the system is busted. The media facilitates.

I'm sorry. I really really do not like John McCain. Country first, my ass. The man who had no problem seeing Sarah Palin as a Vice-President, acts like gay soldiers weaken the military. God forbid you let these Americans serve and give their lives for their country.

What an asshat.

Philly the Kid wrote:And yet, because the Dems are such hacks and corporate whores they have no real answer for it. Clinton was horrible and now Obama is aligned with the assault on SS.

Stand for something.

The reps are at least clear in their tactics and their extremism. People actually chanted" drill baby drill" like that was cool? I was horrified. Who are these morons. My fellow Americans...?? I guess...

The Dems are more than capable of defeating and exposing the Rep tactics, but they can't -- because they don't really stand for anything. The differentiation is not a moral one. A little funding for some poor folks here, a union something there -- but really -- they are just another part of the same problem.

How in the world could the Rep mount any juice this election season? Based on what? What answers to problems do they have? What wisdom to they bring? What are the big mistakes in 2 years of Obama they are clearly able to articulate and correct? But they are very good at winning the perception and framing battle.

America is ignorant, the system is busted. The media facilitates.

Well put

I hadn't heard about this bit of whorishnessfrom Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Talk about a broken system.

Now you read something like that and it is hard to imagine why people don't trust government. Ms. Norton should be removed from office tout de suite. Of course if she were removed on these grounds you'd have to remove 95% of the rest of Congress.

Convergence?

The nomination of Christine O'Donnell, and possibly some opposition to the Republican's stance on the Bush tax increase.

TenuredVulture wrote:Convergence?

The nomination of Christine O'Donnell, and possibly some opposition to the Republican's stance on the Bush tax increase.

I think the Dem base is waking up a bit to what's going on

kopphanatic wrote:I'm sorry. I really really do not like John McCain. Country first, my ass. The man who had no problem seeing Sarah Palin as a Vice-President, acts like gay soldiers weaken the military. God forbid you let these Americans serve and give their lives for their country.

What an asshat.

The thing that gets me is that we don't know the real John McCain. If it was 2000 McCain, I want that guy as president. Not the one we have now. It's like the Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos take over for Clinton and Dole.

Those fingers in my hair
That sly come hither stare
That strips my conscience bare
It's witchcraft...

Rev_Beezer wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:I'm sorry. I really really do not like John McCain. Country first, my ass. The man who had no problem seeing Sarah Palin as a Vice-President, acts like gay soldiers weaken the military. God forbid you let these Americans serve and give their lives for their country.

What an asshat.

The thing that gets me is that we don't know the real John McCain. If it was 2000 McCain, I want that guy as president. Not the one we have now. It's like the Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos take over for Clinton and Dole.

And always twirling, twirling towards freedom!

Brad DeLong uncorks an awesome takedown of the whiny-ass bitchery that seems to be our norm in political discourse these days.