Reid Snowed in by Republicans

Wrong answer (0.00 / 0)

Jay. It is hard to accept that you really believe such nonsense.  The answer is, and always was, to shape policy objectives that appeal to the vast majority of voters, live up to campaign promises, and explain deviations from those promises.  Nobody has twisted Obama's arm to run away from his promises of openness and inclusion.  He is a politician and wedded to established political process.  Reid has a problem.  It stares at him in the mirror.  

When the progressive movement reflects Robespierre methods, something is wrong internally.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 17:28:06 PM UTC

"Appeal to the vast majority of voters" (0.00 / 0)

If ever there was a fools errand, you and Max "80 votes" Baucus would be the leaders of the pack.

Your "vast majority" is an illusion created by your own inflated sense of political awareness. When a radical minority party decides to use what political force it has to obstruct the majority at every turn, in order to reap political gain at every possible moment--regardless of the impact on the "vast majority"--then you do not have the necessary elements to ever politically reach "policy objectives that appeal to the vast majority of voters."

Get real.

---

by: JC @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 18:11:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

JC, Thomas Jefferson (0.00 / 0)

was very real.  From the Declaration of Independence:

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Your argument is a specious straw man, as the only obstacles to Dem authoritarian rule are other Dems...AND the declining precipitous drop in voter approval.    

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 18:57:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"The only obstacle" (0.00 / 0)

WHile Mark T may whole-heartedly agree with you, the main obstacle to dem majority rule is that too many of our dem politicians do not operate independent of the corporate influence of the lobbying and campaign contribution industry.

A politician would point to the other politician as the source of the problem. A populist, on the other hand, points to the source of the problem--the culture of crony capitalism--and works to solve that problem.

And I find it most amusing that you would refer to dem "authoritarian rule" when the dems are in power. Yet when republicans are in power it is majority rule for "the vast majority."

If ever there was a straw man, it would be your illusory "vast majority" that does not, and will not exist in our current political environment dominated by crony capitalists and petty out-of-power conservative and republican politicians.

---

by: JC @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 20:07:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

JC, did you not read Jay's post? (0.00 / 0)

Jay: "...steamroll the GOP into obsolescence."

Sounds authoritarian to me when the presidency, House, and Senate are all in control of the same steamroller.  Bickering among those at the wheel and levers is where the problems are, and where the finger deserves to be pointed.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 20:31:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If it sounds authoritarian to you (0.00 / 0)

then you're just being overly sensitive. Politics in America has devolved into a pissin match between the two parties trying to "steamroll" each other into obsolescence. That's the definition of power politics.

Of course, it's just a colloquialism to write like Jay did. He knows as well as the next political observer that one party is never able to obsolete the other. What usually happens is that a party obsoletes itself. Kinda like the GOP is doing these days, especially by putting their faith in politicians like Sarah Palin, and refusing to participate in the legislative process.

Authoritarianism, on the level of communism or dictatorship is far, far away and distant from what we have, or will have in this country. Especially with the current occupant in the WH.

By your definition ("Sounds authoritarian to me when the presidency, House, and Senate are all in control") a mandate (majority control of Congress and WH) is authoritarian. That's laughable.

---

by: JC @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 22:09:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's laughable JC (0.00 / 0)

is resorting to quoting me out of context to make your point. Quite humorous.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 22:33:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Out of context" (0.00 / 0)

You're grasping at straws again, Craig. Nothing out of context at all. The context is there in your comments for everybody to see.

---

by: JC @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 22:36:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quite the bluster, Craig (0.00 / 0)

So the answer is:

to shape policy objectives that appeal to the vast majority of voters, live up to campaign promises, and explain deviations from those promises.

Let's see, the number one goal is fine, but number two and number three can be construed as contradictory, just as you weakly attempt with Obama in this very comment.  So let's us focus on the explanation of deviation, okay?   Oh wait, that's exactly what Jay did when he wrote:

There was a lot of talk this election of ending the partisan rancor in Washington. People dug it. Obama ran a campaign on it. Only thing is, the GOP realized by upping partisanship a notch, they won't be the ones who catch h*ll.

Now let's talk about that whole "shaping of policy objectives that appeal to the vast majority of voters" hooey.  Taking on the cause of universal health care reform does just that; score one for most of the Democrats.  The first obstacle was the Senate Finance committee, slammed by the letter from the vaunted "gang of six".  3 of those identify as Democrats, 2 as Republicans and 1 is the biggest self-serving jerk-off ever to pollute the Congress.  Fun with mathematics, how many of the majority (the US populace) do those 6 represent? 3%.  Repeat that:  3%.  So, pretty simply put, those who represent 3% had uncommon power to help derail, curtail and thwart the very first Senate efforts at doing the people's work.  But wait; it get's better.

Because of the Senate rules of filibuster, 41 Senators can stop the will of the people dead in it's tracks.  More fun with math; the majority of Americans live in ten states.  That's only 20 votes in the Senate, and Texas has two of those.  That means that the minority of Americans control the majority will 4 to 1.  You see where I'm going with this, I'm sure.  The illusion of Democratic control favors the GOP and the self-serving, just as you use it to shift blame here, Craig.  The Senate does not favor the majority of voters, and in fact was designed not to.  That we have castrated the House with an arbitrary cap on representation makes it equally worthless for representing the majority.  There's a damned site fewer than 1 million GOoPers in Montana, but they have no voice in the House.  Your manipulation of what should be populist thinking is just pap, because the populace isn't in control.

Jay's complaint was timely and spot on.  The only way to fulfill the goals of the majority is to electorally crush the NO-sayers with their own obsolete views.  If you find that "authoritarian" then you don't really understand the word any better than you understand the mathematics of the Senate.  Authoritarians are those who use power granted under false pretenses to thwart the will of the majority of the governed.  That sounds like the GOP to me.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 22:41:45 PM UTC

The only "hooey" Wulfgar (0.00 / 0)

was for anyone to have convinced themselves that Obama was different than status quo pols and was a man of his word. He is no different than any other "campaigner."  People have caught on regarding healthcare:   http://www.pollster.com/polls/...

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 22:59:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

Your poll as posted makes my very point.  The people aren't being served because our government is dysfunctional and persons such as yourself refuse to actually examine why.  Barack Obama didn't write the legislation, he didn't submit it to committee, and he hasn't passed it in either house of Congress.  Do us all a favor, and post a contrasting poll for how many favored HCR before the Senate got a hold of it.  Never mind, you don't have to.  Your argument makes my point.  People favored Obama because his "word" was that we would have HCR, and now they don't because they aren't getting what they want out of the sausage grinder.

But you're just itching for people to blame Obama anyway, ain't cha, even at the expense of the people getting what they want?  That's your lie, Craig, and I call that total hooey.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 23:20:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No lie Wulfgar (0.00 / 0)

People don't like the healthcare sausage that's coming out.  They hold him responsible for his broken healthcare promises including an open process on C-span. They hold him responsible for failed leadership on his signature issue.  That's what the Pollster graph shows.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 00:13:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh wait ... (0.00 / 0)

And here I thought you wrote :

and explain deviations from those promises.

People don't really want that at all, do they Craig?  And doesn't it serve others to recognize that they don't?  As a matter of fact, it's useless to explain, and that's the very point.  You certainly indicated that here.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 00:49:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whatever Wulfgar. (0.00 / 0)

BTW, claiming Obama is not part of the sausage process is just pure fantasy (or is that wishful thinking?):  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201...

In a major breakthrough, union leaders bowed Thursday to White House demands for a new tax on high-cost insurance plans as part of landmark health care legislation taking final shape in intensive negotiations. "We are on the doorstep" of success, President Barack Obama said.

The tentative agreement on the tax, which included significant concessions by the administration, was disclosed as leading lawmakers set an informal timetable of Friday for a compromise on the health care bill that Obama made a top priority in taking office a year ago.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 00:58:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Foolishness (0.00 / 0)

I never wrote that the White House wasn't involved, Craig.  Kindly show where I did.

What I wrote remains true.  You want the White House, and that man who sits the Oval Office, to bear the brunt of anger that you don't get what you want, and many of the rest of us don't either.  That isn't the problem.  The problem is the Senate and Congress as a whole, but you don't want people to see that, do you?  Why not?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 01:19:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's what you wrote: (0.00 / 0)

Barack Obama didn't write the legislation, he didn't submit it to committee, and he hasn't passed it in either house of Congress.

He is deeply involved.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 01:21:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

??? (0.00 / 0)

And what I wrote is wrong ... Why?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 01:28:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

authoritarian? (0.00 / 0)

Whatever. I never have, and never will, favor authoritarian power. That's essentially why I'm a liberal.

My point -- and you chose to twist it for whatever reason -- is that good progressive policy will make the GOP obsolete. It's popular. It works. Single-payer health care, I'm sure, would be very popular if it could ever pass the industry hacks in the Democratic party and the political animals on the right.

But you can't play ball with people who don't want to play ball. The Republicans don't want to participate. Based on their actions during the health care debate, it's obvious they'd rather American families continue to throw money at health care costs, and even seen people die because of lack of coverage, than risk any hint of bipartisanship.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:37 AM UTC

Good progressive policy (0.00 / 0)

doesn't need a steamroller to crush the GOP inorder to win the hearts of voters.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 01:23:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, it does. (0.00 / 0)

The GOoPers have become the party of "NO".  Quite simply.  Voters favor progress and action.  The GOP offers none of the above.  So yeah, the GOP needs to be shown as obsolete.  Even the Teabaggers recognize that as they wail and moan about W's spending for no advantage.  The Democratic platform:  Offer people affordable health care.  The GOP:  NO!  

Steamroll them into the dirt from which they came.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 01:34:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]