sounds like you want obama

That was alot of platitudes and nothing of substance.

Also, if I'm chair of the DNC, I'm recruiting candidates right now. I'm going to bet heavy that Republican primaries are going to produce more Akins and Mourdocks and will present prime opportunities for major pick ups. In addition, I can see scenarios where it is difficult for many Rs to raise money.

FTN wrote: im not advocating for 435 different opinions and 435 different solutions. im arguing for a pragmatic, logic-based approach to creating and passing legislature. one that makes sense from a realistic, real world perspective, not something that openly caters to party lines and deep campaign contributor pockets. pragmatism is a dying art. its dying because our government is infested with partisan hacks. behind every piece of legislation should be a smart compromise grounded on common sense, not trying to "win" or make the other side "lose"...because americans are the ones losing, not career politicians.

it seems you and werthless are after the same thing...essentially, a politics that does not involve human beings.

There was this fella named Madison, you ought to look into his thinking on this subject....

but both sides are the problem. everyone is exactly equally culpable for the historically terrible legislative record of the 112th congress

td11 wrote:but both sides are the problem. everyone is exactly equally culpable for the historically terrible legislative record of the 112th congress

can't speak for FTN but my guess is he would suggest there's some fixable systemic reason(s) for our current asymmetric asswipery

td11 wrote:but both sides are the problem. everyone is exactly equally culpable for the historically terrible legislative record of the 112th congress

As a result of its good works, the 112th Congress was the least popular since pollsters began keeping score. According to the Gallup Organization, the 112th’s approval rating fell to 10 percent in February 2011 and again in August that year. Those are the lowest readings in Gallup’s 38 years of surveying. When another polling firm, Rasmussen, asked Americans in March 2011 how they’d feel about the U.S. turning into a communist country, 11 percent said they’d approve. So congratulations, 112th: You were, at multiple points, less popular than communism.

love her

that's like holding down guitar on hammer on notes pointing motion thing

FTN wrote: im not advocating for 435 different opinions and 435 different solutions. im arguing for a pragmatic, logic-based approach to creating and passing legislature. one that makes sense from a realistic, real world perspective, not something that openly caters to party lines and deep campaign contributor pockets. pragmatism is a dying art. its dying because our government is infested with partisan hacks. behind every piece of legislation should be a smart compromise grounded on common sense, not trying to "win" or make the other side "lose"...because americans are the ones losing, not career politicians.

I don't disagree with you about the need for more compromise and less partisanship, but are you seriously arguing that this is a new phenomenon? As a poli sci guy, you should know better than that.

Two problems as I see them are, one, the variance in how different folks define terms like "compromise," "pragmatism," and "common sense"; and two (and related), that we now routinely if not unconsciously dismiss the legitimacy of those on the other side. I don't think the two parties are equally guilty on either point, but there is some guilt on both sides.

Underlying everything, and more relevant to what TV and FTN are talking about, is that everyone in office now seems utterly convinced of their own irrefutable rightness. Obviously this goes to disdain for compromise and dismissal of the other side's legitimacy. Basically, we're all John Galt now, and he thinks compromise is for collectivist pussies.

As we've discussed, we now have a parliamentary political culture mismatched to a system that requires compromise and consensus. Add in the collapse of institutions (mainstream media, political parties, "the business community") that either comprised or reinforced "the center," and it's difficult to see how the system can be made to function without a painful and damaging crisis, fundamental structural change or both.

Happy new year!

The thing is "how we got here" isn't at all mysterious. It was unpleasant when the New Deal coalition fell apart in the 70s, and it's unpleasant now that the same thing is happening to the Reagan coalition. Eventually, for better or worse, the Republican Party will find their Clinton, which will really piss off people like Dajafi and me and we'll probably start posting crazy shit on facebook and bsg about whatever the equivalent of Vince Foster is. If that doesn't happen, then we'll see a split in the Republican party or a new party emerge from its ashes.

The other, less noted but probably vastly more important force out there right now is the way in which institutional authority has steadily eroded since the nineties. Elites (political, academic, moral, business, bureaucratic) have failed. They have little credibility regarding public opinion. I think there's a democratic correction on the way--in some sense, I see both Occupy and the Tea Party as part of this. It also leads to all kinds of nuttery like the anti-vaccine people and various conspiracy theorists. But ultimately, I see this as a positive development, as unpleasant as it might be to witness its unfolding.

there's also a vast lack of knowledge by the general voter. if i have to hear 'we'll never get down this deficit, it's destroying our economy' anymore, and various other fascimiles of it, i'll flip. deficit /= debt

pacino wrote:there's also a vast lack of knowledge by the general voter. if i have to hear 'we'll never get down this deficit, it's destroying our economy' anymore, and various other fascimiles of it, i'll flip. deficit /= debt

I dunno pac, I mean, it could just be people mixing vocabulary, and understandably at that. Replace "deficit" with "debt," and your theoretical voter has a point. Not a fully formed point, and one that even if it were formed would have nothing even resembling subtlety, but a point nonetheless. No country can endlessly amass debt, and we've done, and continue to do, precious little to pay down the debt, or close structural deficits for that matter.

my point is that many don't know the difference/don't care

more evidence: somehow not raising the artificial debt ceiling will stop us from accruing debt when it is actually just a tacit acknowledgement that we are good for what we owe? it doesn't sink in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... d=webmail1

boo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 26225.html

BOO.

Boehner reelected. 9 GOPers voted for someone else. A handful of others, demonstrating true conservatism and bravery, abstained. At least the dumb 'will Boehner fall?' stories go away now.

soren, we'll tell you whether you deserve your rights or not.

Norquist called this a tax cut, because the vote officially happened on Jan 1st instead of Dec 31st. based on grover norquist's logic, the tea partiers who voted no then voted against a tax cut and for a tax hike by not voting for this. you can't all have voted for tax cuts.

pacino wrote:there's also a vast lack of knowledge by the general voter. if i have to hear 'we'll never get down this deficit, it's destroying our economy' anymore, and various other fascimiles of it, i'll flip. deficit /= debt

Lack of knowledge has to be compared to something--who knows more than the aggregate knowledge of public opinion and what do voters really need to know?