quote:Romney simply has a better track record when it comes to working with those on the other side...
Well, yes...because the people he has to work with *aren't* Congressional Republicans. Romney has a better record of not getting mugged because people don't try to mug him near as much as the guy targeted by a gang of muggers.
quote:...nothing to do with the republicans in congress. They are two different branches of government...
Except that members of that branch are behaving the way they are in large part to win the *other* branch. I don't see how, if we're involving bipartisanship, the two aren't linked.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, you do a fine job of explaining how Gov. Romney would be better at getting stuff passed but you don't address whether the stuff getting passed is good or bad.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Err, isn't his answer pretty obvious, based on his politics as expressed on HR? Not unlike it wouldn't be hard to guess who, or to a lesser extent why, you think Obama would work to pass better things than Romney?
Put another way, Romney is right of center and so is Geraine, making your question unexpected.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Romney simply has a better track record when it comes to working with those on the other side...
Romney doesn't have much of a track record in politics at all. He served as governor of Mass. for only 4 years. He was a republican Gov. in a liberal state so he had to work with Dem. if he wanted to do anything. During the first half of his term, the Dem's were willing to work with him but by the end of his term, his relationship with congressional Dems had completely disintegrated.
I don't think that track record says anything about whether or not he will be able to work across the aisles in a highly charged partisan environment.
If the democrats decided to close ranks and obstruct anything the GOP tried to do, I can't see why Romney would be more successful than Obama has been.
The only reason Romney is more likely to be able to work with Democrats than Obama has been able to work with the GOP, is that the Democrats have historically been far less effective at closing ranks to oppose anything. Its simply easier to get a few Democrats to cross the aisle and support a GOP proposal than it is to get Republicans to do the same.
Voting for a Republican President because congressional democrats are more likely to compromise than their GOP counterparts, punishes political parties that are willing to compromise to get things done and rewards those who care more about having power than solving problems. That's a very dangerous precedent to set.
I mean, it is remotely possible that if the GOP tactics work, the Democrats could get organized enough to do the same thing. Then we'd have complete government stalemate regardless of who was in the majority.
edited to add: I guess we could get around that stalemate if one party held the Presidency, the majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate but moving to a one party system would have a host of disadvantages of its own.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's more apathy, than ignorance I think that is getting in the way.
I think the apathy is a result of the disfunctional, money driven two party system. Both parties are beholden the same monied interest and so the difference between them is very small and rarely of real consequence to the average citizen.
Take health care for example. People may care very much about getting affordable insurance and still not be motivated to vote because they don't believe either party will do anything that makes a real difference. Can you blame them? Health care reform has been being debated for over 3 decades. The party in power has changed several times and still nothing has really changed. Despite the viciousness of the fights over Obama care, its at best a baby step that may create more problems than it fixes. The same thing is true with lots of other issues. Voters aren't apathetic because they don't care about anything. They are apathetic because they don't believe the election will make a difference to the things they care about.
I also don't think apathy is the major problem. If we could get 90% of the people to the polls but they didn't have any better judgment than the current voters, we wouldn't be any better off.
If we could get 90% of the people to the pools, then politicians saying that they have a national referendum on something, might actually be accurate.
Because so few people are voting, legislators recognize they don't actually need to appeal to all voters, just placate the constituancies that actually vote. As for people being ignorant voters, that's just a feature of democracy, there's no way out, short of requiring people pass some sort of exam to qualify for voting.
You can of course try requiring people vote or else face a fine, in which case some may educate themselves to a degree before going to the voting office, but most would then just vote to get it over with without thinking.
I just don't see any serious way you could get only knowledgable people voting, without just going back to the days where only the rich, educated, land owner class were permitted to vote.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]If we could get 90% of the people to the pools , then politicians saying that they have a national referendum on something, might actually be accurate.
But just imagine the urine content of the water if you actually got that kind of turnout.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I do believe there are many Republicans who are of the opinion that the main thrust of our economic policy must be shrinking the size of government and cutting spending, and that everything else must follow that first.
I also believe the Democrat's plan for fixing our economy is lackluster at best. We do need infrastructural development, and teachers in classrooms, but we need to make things here in the United States. It doesn't have to be machine parts, though that might be a part of it, but it could be high end electronics, machines that only exist on paper now, but will be built en masse.
The objects like the Iphone should be constructed here. Sure it's cost would go up significantly, but we could find a way to stagger the cost, as more and more industries move back here. Americans need practical skills, and jobs that require them. Pay to train Americans in a variety of jobs and technical professions, that can be cross applied into the private sector.
Stimulus for clunker cars, new home owners, were good in intention, but the real problem here is people don't have jobs, and more importantly they don't have disposable income they are comfortable spending. So jump start industries that in the long term will provide those goods and services. The one thing good thing Obama's plan does is reward businesses that hire the unemployed. It has surface level tax changes that are generally good, but we have to dig deeper into our pockets and actually start paying back the debt.
This post is incomplete, but I won't be able to finish these thoughts piecemeal at work, so this will have to suffice for now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit is pretty much sucking my thoughts directly from my brain and typing them up as posts.
I totally agree with her.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
No one clicked my link
Another means of solving the problem is to have a viable system to allow for third parties in the House and Senate, but stay out of the presidency OR have a staggered voting system based on preference so that if Preferred Candidate Loses go to Secondary.
Suppose we have Dems (Right-Center to Right), Republicans (Right to Far Right) and while we're fantasizing here the (making up name) Social Liberal American Workers Solidarity Party (Left of Left-Center) who had say, a decent 80 seats in the House and 20 Seats in the Senate.
The dems could easily work with them, the replicans would need serious concessions to get any votes from them, they could filibuster every bill to the moon if they wanted to because they're base is likely to be willing to vote for them based on principle instead of governence and eventually we can drag the political system of America kicking and screaming back leftwards.
And then they could strategically work with dems to either not run in strong or border line dem districts to prevent vote splitting (or if we have a by preference ballot, etc) while focusing efforts with dems to combat republicans while only tokenly competing with each other and then having the vote if the dems lose to the socialists, and if the socialists lose and vice versa to prevent a split vote and hopefully turn a few red districts.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: No one clicked my link
I watched a little bit of it. I thought it was funny that in a video supporting Ron Paul's position of closing foreign bases, they also violated a stance of Ron Paul's which is not to use inflamed rhetoric to motivate action. Specifically, Ron Paul thinks it's bad to marginalize countries with faulty war rhetoric, yet in this video they emphasized 'evil' countries with, "Imagine if CHINESE or RUSSIAN troops were based in Texas!"
... Um... yeah. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul's, but if you're going to make a video supporting him a couple suggestions. 1) Don't use Mind Heist for your background music. 2) Don't defend your candidate in a means that goes against what your candidate stands for.
ETA: Apparently the author created his own music. So I guess my suggestion is not to rip off Mind Heist.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Possibly, but it is an excellent example to make because it is the point most easily able to exploit the cognitive dissonance of the American right. "Its okay for US to occupy THEM" - When asking about the justification of the Iraq war and other foreign adventures, while pointing out for example, that China owns significant interests in the United States and for example owns a stake in the Panama canal (and attempting to buy various American oil companies) "OMG CHINA OWNS WHAT!?"
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Possibly, but it is an excellent example to make because it is the point most easily able to exploit the cognitive dissonance of the American right. "Its okay for US to occupy THEM" - When asking about the justification of the Iraq war and other foreign adventures, while pointing out for example, that China owns significant interests in the United States and for example owns a stake in the Panama canal (and attempting to buy various American oil companies) "OMG CHINA OWNS WHAT!?"
I'm not sure you are fully getting what "cognitive dissonance" is all about.
These two beliefs: that America should be allowed to exercise global influence, and that other specific countries should not, is not per se, logically inconsistent. One might feel that America, for all its faults, has a positive impact on the world, and that an aggressive China would not be so benevolent. One could believe that and not experience a great deal of cognitive dissonance. They might be wrong, but having those beliefs doesn't necessarily mean that a person is doing the kind of mental arithmetic wherein 2+2=5 when it comes to China, and 4 when it comes to the US- China and the US are different enough that you can base that kind of belief on a broader set of terms.
Cognitive dissonance comes in when, for example, you are extremely hawkish and pro-American in foreign affairs, and believe that American values are the answer to the world's problems, and then you decry American society at home and talk about bringing down the government because it is treading on you. Loving what your government does to other people "in their best interest," and hating when that same government gets involved in your life. I think a lot of people suffer from that kind of cognitive dissonance.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Republicans are destroying the economy on purpose" is the Obama-era version of "Democrats who oppose the war want al-Qaeda to win." It's a facile accusation that, in order to be believed, requires you to imagine that a broad swath of the country cares more about short-term political gain than the lives of their fellow Americans. That Obama and his team would stoop to making such an accusation lowers my opinion of him and the strength of his conviction in those ideals that were the centerpiece of his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Republicans are destroying the economy on purpose" is the Obama-era version of "Democrats who oppose the war want al-Qaeda to win." It's a facile accusation that, in order to be believed, requires you to imagine that a broad swath of the country cares more about short-term political gain than the lives of their fellow Americans.
It does not require that at all. Obama's accusation isn't that rank and file Republicans care more about political gain that people's lives. If it were, there would be absolutely no point in making the claim. The claim is some Republican leaders are more concerned with political gain than with the lives of their fellow Americans and the point in making that claim is to persuade the vast majority of republican who do care more about people than partisan politics to stop supporting these sociopaths.
The idea that a huge number of basically decent people could be duped into following sociopathic leaders is entirely believable. It happens all the time. The question you need to consider is whether or not these accusation accurate describe that the GOP congressional leadership has been doing for the past several years or not. In my mind, its spot on.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's a facile accusation that, in order to be believed, requires you to imagine that a broad swath of the country cares more about short-term political gain than the lives of their fellow Americans.
Well, heck, I would say that's indisputable fact, depending on how you're defining "broad swath." If you mean a broad enough swath, I don't see how you could even contest the claim.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, you do a fine job of explaining how Gov. Romney would be better at getting stuff passed but you don't address whether the stuff getting passed is good or bad.
I can't explain whether it is good or bad, because we are dealing with a hypothetical.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Romney doesn't have much of a track record in politics at all. He served as governor of Mass. for only 4 years. He was a republican Gov. in a liberal state so he had to work with Dem. if he wanted to do anything. During the first half of his term, the Dem's were willing to work with him but by the end of his term, his relationship with congressional Dems had completely disintegrated.
I this paragraph fairly strange since Obama had no experience whatsoever working in an executive role prior to becoming President, and now with Romney it all of the sudden matters.
quote:
I don't think that track record says anything about whether or not he will be able to work across the aisles in a highly charged partisan environment.
If the democrats decided to close ranks and obstruct anything the GOP tried to do, I can't see why Romney would be more successful than Obama has been.
Romney could have played Mr. Obstructionist as governor during his four years. Instead he worked with Democrats to get some pretty massive legislation passed. He could have vetoed every bill that came across his desk. Relations with Democrats may have deteriorated over time, but there was a lot that was accomplished during the time they worked together.
I think Democrats have shown in the past few years that they want to get things done, they haven't really obstructed anything. I'm not sure if you are saying they will or not. I'm hoping they don't.
quote:
The only reason Romney is more likely to be able to work with Democrats than Obama has been able to work with the GOP, is that the Democrats have historically been far less effective at closing ranks to oppose anything. Its simply easier to get a few Democrats to cross the aisle and support a GOP proposal than it is to get Republicans to do the same.
Voting for a Republican President because congressional democrats are more likely to compromise than their GOP counterparts, punishes political parties that are willing to compromise to get things done and rewards those who care more about having power than solving problems. That's a very dangerous precedent to set.
I mean, it is remotely possible that if the GOP tactics work, the Democrats could get organized enough to do the same thing. Then we'd have complete government stalemate regardless of who was in the majority.
edited to add: I guess we could get around that stalemate if one party held the Presidency, the majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate but moving to a one party system would have a host of disadvantages of its own.
My point is this. If you look at all of the other candidates running and if one of them won against Obama, who would you want that person to be? Bachmann? Perry? The only two candidates that I think would do a good job working with Congress and not obstructing every little thing would be Paul and Romney. The rest in my opinion are nut jobs. I know it is extremely early in the election cycle, but right now it isn't looking good for the President. Generic Republican is now higher than he is in the polls, and that does not bode well for him.
Clinton is a very good example of a president that was able to work with the other side of the isle, often times against his own party. I realize that the political atmosphere right now is completely different, but my hope is that some of the hardcore Tea Party representatives get voted out and the House is a little easier to work with. Believe it or not if a Romney won I would be happy if the Democrats took the majority in the House back. In my opinion government works best when one party controls the legislative branch and the other party controls the executive branch.
Likewise, I would be fine with Obama winning re-election if the Republicans won the Senate. This would pretty much force the President and Congress to work together to get stuff done. I'd prefer Democrats take back the House though, I think they are more willing to work with the other side of the isle.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Possibly, but it is an excellent example to make because it is the point most easily able to exploit the cognitive dissonance of the American right. "Its okay for US to occupy THEM" - When asking about the justification of the Iraq war and other foreign adventures, while pointing out for example, that China owns significant interests in the United States and for example owns a stake in the Panama canal (and attempting to buy various American oil companies) "OMG CHINA OWNS WHAT!?"
I'm not sure you are fully getting what "cognitive dissonance" is all about.
These two beliefs: that America should be allowed to exercise global influence, and that other specific countries should not, is not per se, logically inconsistent. One might feel that America, for all its faults, has a positive impact on the world, and that an aggressive China would not be so benevolent. One could believe that and not experience a great deal of cognitive dissonance. They might be wrong, but having those beliefs doesn't necessarily mean that a person is doing the kind of mental arithmetic wherein 2+2=5 when it comes to China, and 4 when it comes to the US- China and the US are different enough that you can base that kind of belief on a broader set of terms.
Cognitive dissonance comes in when, for example, you are extremely hawkish and pro-American in foreign affairs, and believe that American values are the answer to the world's problems, and then you decry American society at home and talk about bringing down the government because it is treading on you. Loving what your government does to other people "in their best interest," and hating when that same government gets involved in your life. I think a lot of people suffer from that kind of cognitive dissonance.
My point is consistent with your definition, I know what cognitive dissonance means I am a PoliSci student. The American people want America to be Number 1, even if it means abusing their superpower status to keep down 5.7 billion people;. and go completely insane once the tables are turned and those countries start doing likewise to increase their standard of living.
On a related note I believe Pawlenty just basically justified Chinese military spending increases to the point that several Chinese Generals watching the debate just punched the air (since now they will get MORE money) with his "I want to go to war with China, I want to beat China." I can't even be sure watching the whole thing that if it could even be taken out of context. Even if Xinhua was to spin it as a "metaphor" there's still going to be a huge nationalist backlash for America "trying to keep China down."
IP: Logged |
I'll amend the statement to read "requires you to imagine that <edit>the accuser's political opponents</edit> care more about short-term political gain than the lives of their fellow Americans."
I still call it contemptible, a slander that is beneath the politician who once said "[T]here are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America." It's a long way from an embrace of the politics of hope over the politics of cynicism to "[Republicans'] strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The American people want America to be Number 1, even if it means abusing their superpower status to keep down 5.7 billion people;. and go completely insane once the tables are turned and those countries start doing likewise to increase their standard of living.
Again, that's not cognitive dissonance. If you believe that America should be #1, even if it means abusing our superpower status, it is perfectly consistent with your worldview that America go insane once other countries challenge that status.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still call it contemptible, a slander that is beneath the politician who once said "[T]here are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America."
Odd. I think it's perfectly consistent with that statement; it requires only the belief that his policies have largely been opposed by the spinmasters and ad peddlers, rather than people concerned with America. I suspect that Obama did not realize how thoroughly national politics had been corrupted by those "spinmasters" when he made the statement; his actions certainly imply someone who genuinely tried in good faith to work with people who surprised him by being a bunch of unreasonable jerks.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interpreting it that way seems tantamount to sucking any goodness out of Obama's original sentiment. In your reading who are the spin-masters? Obama's opponents. Who are those who seek to divide us? Republicans. It turns Obama's paean to unity into a tool of crass partisan politics.
I think your characterization of Obama's actions, and the reactions of his opponents, is seriously biased.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Geraine: Likewise, I would be fine with Obama winning re-election if the Republicans won the Senate. This would pretty much force the President and Congress to work together to get stuff done. I'd prefer Democrats take back the House though, I think they are more willing to work with the other side of the isle.
I don't see how you could have lived in America for the last three years and think this is true.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In your reading who are the spin-masters? Obama's opponents.
Not quite. In Obama's original statement, he is saying that there are spin-masters out there trying to divide America, but that this shouldn't be permitted; the implication is that he will do his best to work across the partisan divide. He then, as President, made herculean attempts to be be bi-partisan, only to see those attempts spun as either weakness or, ludicrously, liberal extremism; he encountered an opposition determined -- for purely political reasons -- to reject any of his actions. This clearly caught him and his administration off-balance. I don't think he expected the level of vitriol and self-serving demonization that he suffered at their hands, and I'm willing to forgive him for coming to the conclusion that I came to much earlier: that the "spin-masters" already own most of his opposition.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, I think your interpretation of the events of the last two years is significantly biased.
Imputing opposition to "purely political reasons" suggests you can't envision a principled oppositional stance. I don't like what the Republican leadership has done in the last three years and I don't agree with them on many things. But suggesting that Republicans' opposition has necessarily been a bad faith effort to obstruct for the sole purpose of political gain is the heart and soul of the politics of cynicism.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SenojRetep, I think all of us are biased but honestly I can't think of any examples where the Republican leaders have demonstrated a willingness to work with Obama and the congressional democrats, but the democrats have refused. Since you seem to be aware of such things, can you please give us some examples?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Imputing opposition to "purely political reasons" suggests you can't envision a principled oppositional stance.
I can envision quite a few of them. I don't think any of them were held, however.
---------
I'm actually a bit surprised to hear The New Republic still described by people as a liberal mag. In the circles in which I travel, it's been considered a Trojan Horse for neocons since the mid-'80s.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I this paragraph fairly strange since Obama had no experience whatsoever working in an executive role prior to becoming President, and now with Romney it all of the sudden matters.
This smacks of...well, a total dodge. You were the one who mentioned Romney's experience, thus it's hardly unfair or strange to have that statement examined.
quote:Romney could have played Mr. Obstructionist as governor during his four years. Instead he worked with Democrats to get some pretty massive legislation passed. He could have vetoed every bill that came across his desk. Relations with Democrats may have deteriorated over time, but there was a lot that was accomplished during the time they worked together.
He could have, theoretically, yes. If he were akin to a modern Congressional Republican, he very likely would have. Fortunately that doesn't appear to be the case, though you do wish to reward Republican obstructionism in Congress with the White House.
quote:My point is this. If you look at all of the other candidates running and if one of them won against Obama, who would you want that person to be? Bachmann? Perry? The only two candidates that I think would do a good job working with Congress and not obstructing every little thing would be Paul and Romney. The rest in my opinion are nut jobs. I know it is extremely early in the election cycle, but right now it isn't looking good for the President. Generic Republican is now higher than he is in the polls, and that does not bode well for him.
Well, I'll agree with this. Perry and Bachmann are pretty awful (though I don't actually think they're nutjobs, I think they're scumbags). I don't understand how that translates as a vote for Romney unless the rationale is 'not Obama', and I still don't understand how you can divorce Congressional Republican behavior from the Republican contenders for the White House.
After all, they don't-that is, Republican leadership. Getting Obama out of the White House and a Republican in is the point of the behavior you're objecting to.
quote:Likewise, I would be fine with Obama winning re-election if the Republicans won the Senate. This would pretty much force the President and Congress to work together to get stuff done. I'd prefer Democrats take back the House though, I think they are more willing to work with the other side of the isle.
Like Lyrhawn, this is just baffling to me. I don't understand how someone could look at Congress right now and say it would be better if, should Obama win, Republicans have more control if you're also going to object to obstructionism.
--------
quote:I still call it contemptible, a slander that is beneath the politician who once said "[T]here are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America." It's a long way from an embrace of the politics of hope over the politics of cynicism to "[Republicans'] strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory."
*shrug* In effect I believe similar things to what Rabbit and Tom are saying. I think the intent is different. "We've gotta, we've just gotta, get Obama out of the White House. For America! That's what's most important, because we are what's best for the country! Therefore the long-term good will be served by the short-term constant pissing contest."
Put another way, I really do believe that Republican leaders believe (though for some of them, I think-much like any politician-it's a matter of telling themselves what they want to hear) that America will be better off if Obama loses, Republicans win, and etc. I don't understand how you can claim, though, that the method they've chosen to pursue this long-term good is anything other than obstructionist and short-term destructive.
"Win back the White House and Congress, and then..."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a few data points: - McConnell has said his number one job is to make Obama a one-term president. - At the outset of the debate over healthcare DeMint talked of making it Obama's Waterloo. - The healthcare plan is based on a Heritage foundation devised plan and is very similar to a plan introduced by a Republican governor, yet is characterized as socialism. - A Republican inserts some provisions for end of life care into the healthcare reform, which Republicans subsequently characterize as "death panels".
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm actually a bit surprised to hear The New Republic still described by people as a liberal mag. In the circles in which I travel, it's been considered a Trojan Horse for neocons since the mid-'80s.
posted
You know, I swore to myself when I made that post that I'd let it sit all day and not waste work time responding to people's posts. I'm so weak-willed.
natural_mystic, extrapolating from those few data points (primarily distilled from the healthcare debate rather than that over how best to help the economy recover) to "Republicans want to destroy the economy, thereby destroying millions of Americans' lives, just so they can win the next election" takes an enormous amount of squinting. Suggesting that opposition, even baldly partisan opposition, is necessarily equivalent to treason is Ann Coulter sort of stuff. I expect better from our President.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Suggesting that opposition, even baldly partisan opposition, is necessarily equivalent to treason...
Do you believe that no baldly partisan opposition can be "treasonous," or at least constitute -- as is actually being claimed here -- a deliberate decision to harm America or Americans in order to secure power?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: SenojRetep, I think all of us are biased but honestly I can't think of any examples where the Republican leaders have demonstrated a willingness to work with Obama and the congressional democrats, but the democrats have refused. Since you seem to be aware of such things, can you please give us some examples?
Rabbit, my argument isn't that Republicans haven't acted in a partisan way. It's the suggestion they've done it with the intent of destroying the economy. To equate partisan opposition to willfully destroying the economy purely for political gain is reprehensible.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Suggesting that opposition, even baldly partisan opposition, is necessarily equivalent to treason...
Do you believe that no baldly partisan opposition can be "treasonous," or at least constitute -- as is actually being claimed here -- a deliberate decision to harm America or Americans in order to secure power?
No. I accept that its possible, but I find it exceptionally unlikely. To believe such an accusation, I'd need pretty damning evidence (along the lines of John Boehner saying, "This is going to lead to an absolute disaster. Thousands of people hurt or dead. Obama will be totally hamstrung! Yipee!") I think jumping to such a conclusion on the basis of the somewhat elevated partisanship of the past two years seems pretty cynical.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, my argument isn't that Republicans haven't acted in a partisan way. It's the suggestion they've done it with the intent of destroying the economy. To equate partisan opposition to willfully destroying the economy purely for political gain is reprehensible.
I agree that they're not doing this with the intent to destroy the economy. I don't even think, were they entirely successful in all their aims, even hypothetical guessed-at unspoken aims, those things would destroy the economy if done.
I do think, though, that this goes quite a lot further than 'partisan opposition', rather like someone mouthing off to a cop is generally described differently than a protestor engaging in some civil disobedience. I also think that they're willing to obstruct just about all Democratic efforts to fix the economy. And not just because they're afraid they'll be bad for the economy, but also to get Obama out of the White House.
It's all very circular. We're not going to find a cache of secret documents that reveal what is actually being thought at the high levels of Republican politics. Their secret minds aren't ever going to be known. What can be known is that, in recent history, there's Democratic partisan politics in one area, and then on a whole other level there's Republican partisan politics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj - My data points were supposed to be illustrative rather than definitive. I think they do show that the GOP are not acting in good faith as far as finding the right policy. Btw where did the word 'treason' come from?
Do you believe, say, that the decision to replace/repair infrastructure now is bad policy in light of the favorable borrowing costs the US government currently has, the fact that the infrastructure is demonstrably aging and will have to be replaced/repaired in the near future, the fact that the construction labor market is such that labor costs should be lower than when at full employment?
So, if it's good policy AND it's good for the economy, including employment, then what conclusion should be drawn about someone who prefers that it not be enacted?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Suggesting that opposition, even baldly partisan opposition, is necessarily equivalent to treason...
Do you believe that no baldly partisan opposition can be "treasonous," or at least constitute -- as is actually being claimed here -- a deliberate decision to harm America or Americans in order to secure power?
No. I accept that its possible, but I find it exceptionally unlikely. To believe such an accusation, I'd need pretty damning evidence (along the lines of John Boehner saying, "This is going to lead to an absolute disaster. Thousands of people hurt or dead. Obama will be totally hamstrung! Yipee!") I think jumping to such a conclusion on the basis of the somewhat elevated partisanship of the past two years seems pretty cynical.
Sufficient negligence is indistinguishable from malice.
IP: Logged |
quote:It's the suggestion they've done it with the intent of destroying the economy.
That's not their end goal. That's just the means.
If Republicans were accused of opposing Obama's proposals for the sole purpose of opposing, I wouldn't find that particularly objectionable. It's the accusation that they're blocking Obama's proposals in order to destroy the economy, because it will hurt people and that will in turn hurt Obama, that I find cynical and objectionable.
That politicians can be short-sighted I have no doubt; that they can be petty and partisan I whole-heartedly agree; that they sometimes care more about their jobs than acting responsibly, I'd sadly concur; that they care so much about political power that they would deliberately set out to hurt people just to win an election, I think is cynical beyond reason. That that was necessarily the case here, as is suggested in Carney's quote, I find extremely objectionable.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I still don't understand the argument that I want to "award" the Republicans with the White House. I don't. What I want is for Congress to work. Regardless of who the President is. Obama has been a weak President and to me isn't showing the kind of tenacity and attitude to get Congress going. Clinton was able to do it, though he royally pissed off some of his Democratic colleagues.
Obama has been unable to do the same. The policital landscape is different, but not all that different. There were still filibusters and obstruction in the 90's, but somehow we were able to get stuff done. Clinton realized that he wasn't going to get everything he wanted, and compromised. He also didn't cave. Republicans threatened a government shutdown, he called their bluff, and republicans suffered for it.
Obama just doesn't have that. Instead of being firm and calling republicans bluff, he just cowers and whines, and ultimately gives them what they want.
Now, that doesn't excuse the behavior of the Republicans. Some of the bills they have blocked were just silly. But if you want to know why republicans keep blocking legislation, the reason is simple: It works.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: So, if it's good policy AND it's good for the economy, including employment, then what conclusion should be drawn about someone who prefers that it not be enacted?
That they disagree that it's good policy or that it'll be good for the economy or both. That would be my default assumption. Maybe, given some evidence of baser motives, I'd think that they believe the outcome is ambiguous but they don't want to give the President a win. It would take a lot more evidence than I see present to jump to, "they know it'll help, and they see that as a problem, because they believe the more people who are hurting, the better for them politically."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: That politicians can be short-sighted I have no doubt; that they can be petty and partisan I whole-heartedly agree; that they sometimes care more about their jobs than acting responsibly, I'd sadly concur; that they care so much about political power that they would deliberately set out to hurt people just to win an election, I think is cynical beyond reason. That that was necessarily the case here, as is suggested in Carney's quote, I find extremely objectionable.
There have been many public sector layoffs in the last few years. I have no doubt that the politicians who decide to make these cuts knew it would suck for the workers in question but did some sort of cost-benefit analysis and decided it would be 'best' to do this. Likewise when politicians decided to [eta cut] treatments available under Medicaid. Why do you think it terrible to suggest that Republicans have done this sort of cost-benefit analysis to say that the suffering induced on the unemployed is worth it as it will take us all a step closer (or step back) to that time of unfettered freedom, as it was in the 1880s, or whatever? In particular, what is cynical about suggesting that Republicans believe that better policy now leads to worse outcomes later?
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: So, if it's good policy AND it's good for the economy, including employment, then what conclusion should be drawn about someone who prefers that it not be enacted?
That they disagree that it's good policy or that it'll be good for the economy or both. That would be my default assumption. Maybe, given some evidence of baser motives, I'd think that they believe the outcome is ambiguous but they don't want to give the President a win. It would take a lot more evidence than I see present to jump to, "they know it'll help, and they see that as a problem, because they believe the more people who are hurting, the better for them politically."
You can, to a degree, test these hypotheses against what is said. For example, have substantive arguments been made for why this is bad policy. If they haven't made such arguments then why not?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: In particular, what is cynical about suggesting that Republicans believe that better policy now leads to worse outcomes later?
I'm not sure how you got from "[t]heir strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory" to "better policy now leads to worse outcomes later." If you understand Obama's statement to be, "Republicans are blocking my legislation for what they misguidedly believe to be the long-term good of the country" I'm not sure what we're talking about. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd grant to SenojRetep that the Republican leadership's end goal isn't to destroy the economy. That would imply that they want to achieve a destroyed economy, and I don't think that's their goal. Their goal is to make President Obama a one term president as evidenced by natural-mystic. The issue is that there are a sufficient number of influential republicans who are so focused on that goal of making President Obama a one term president that they'll use whatever means necessary. President Obama has made the claim that there are Republicans purposefully destroying the economy for political gain. So the question isn't whether they want to destroy the economy, the question is whether they're willing to destroy the economy to achieve their objectives. I'm inclined to believe that there are those who would be willing to burn the country down if it means they get to be king of the ash pile. As Tom Davidson put it, it's not that destroying the economy is their end goal, it's the means.
ETA: Blayne, to clarify the cognitive dissonance. Tom's right that it isn't cognitively dissonant to want America to be number one, but then be pissed off when others want to be number one as well. What would be cognitively dissonant is if you embrace a realist worldview of international politics that says that all countries seek to better their position relative to others. Then from this worldview, you view the United States as justified in their foreign presence, but to then argue that others are not justified in pursuing a presence of their own would be cognitively dissonant. The difference between the two positions is that one embraces a more liberal worldview which posits that American supremacy is best and should be modeled around the world, the other is a realist perspective. You're claiming that people who support Americans abroad are cognitively dissonant because it goes against their realist view. The issue is that they're not realist when they're angry with others coming in, they're liberal.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I still don't understand the argument that I want to "award" the Republicans with the White House. I don't. What I want is for Congress to work. Regardless of who the President is. Obama has been a weak President and to me isn't showing the kind of tenacity and attitude to get Congress going. Clinton was able to do it, though he royally pissed off some of his Democratic colleagues.
Obama has been unable to do the same. The policital landscape is different, but not all that different. There were still filibusters and obstruction in the 90's, but somehow we were able to get stuff done. Clinton realized that he wasn't going to get everything he wanted, and compromised. He also didn't cave. Republicans threatened a government shutdown, he called their bluff, and republicans suffered for it.
Obama just doesn't have that. Instead of being firm and calling republicans bluff, he just cowers and whines, and ultimately gives them what they want.
Now, that doesn't excuse the behavior of the Republicans. Some of the bills they have blocked were just silly. But if you want to know why republicans keep blocking legislation, the reason is simple: It works.
What I keep missing is what you mean my Congress "working". What would it mean for to for Congress to "work"? "Get going" and do what?
You do understand that the consequences of President Obama and the congressional Democrats calling the bluff of the Republicans in at least two recent major standoffs would have resulted in even more serious blows to the economy (not extending unemployment and defaulting). That would have been harmful to a lot of people who can't stand much more harm. The Republican have nothing to lose by this politically. The worse off people are the more likely they are to vote against the current President.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Republicans were accused of opposing Obama's proposals for the sole purpose of opposing, I wouldn't find that particularly objectionable. It's the accusation that they're blocking Obama's proposals in order to destroy the economy, because it will hurt people and that will in turn hurt Obama, that I find cynical and objectionable.
I don't understand what it even means to oppose something for the sole purpose of opposing it. It's equivalent to saying the republicans have no reason for opposing these proposals whatsoever. Their doing it for laughs or out of habit or something.
But even if that was the case initially, there are consequences to opposing something that could help a lot of people. Politicians have a moral obligation to think about the how their votes will effect people. I don't really care whether the republicans don't care that their political tactics are hurting people or just aren't concerned enough to think about whether their political tactics are hurting people. That seems like splitting hairs. Either way, they care more about scoring political points for the long term than they do the immediate welfare of the American people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
