...Pass a thing!!
It seems that because Dems lack the discipline of the GOP their numerical majority in both houses means little when it comes to passing legislation.
Only in America right?
Or is this still the best feature about Democrat politics, that all these diverse caucuses actually ensure that only bills that satisfy the most diverse group of Americans can actually be passed while the Dems hold a majority. Surely a win for all.
Discuss................
Originally posted by kmax87What do you mean? I think you started your thread a little prematurally. Just because there has been a few apparent bumps in the road does not mean they will not ultimately get their way. In fact, perhaps these bumps in the road are nothing more than an attempt to try and show that we are not being dictated to.
...Pass a thing!!
It seems that because Dems lack the discipline of the GOP their numerical majority in both houses means little when it comes to passing legislation.
Only in America right?
Or is this still the best feature about Democrat politics, that all these diverse caucuses actually ensure that only bills that satisfy the most diverse group of ...[text shortened]... ually be passed while the Dems hold a majority. Surely a win for all.
Discuss................
As for the majority, the majority of Americans do not favor the current NHC plan nor other bills such as cap and trade. So perhaps the majority may get their way still? We shall see.
Originally posted by kmax87I agree with whodey on this one, lets reserve judgement for a final bill and how statist versus how conservative it turns out.
...Pass a thing!!
It seems that because Dems lack the discipline of the GOP their numerical majority in both houses means little when it comes to passing legislation.
Only in America right?
Or is this still the best feature about Democrat politics, that all these diverse caucuses actually ensure that only bills that satisfy the most diverse group of ...[text shortened]... ually be passed while the Dems hold a majority. Surely a win for all.
Discuss................
I think something will get passed. The result will probably be so burdened with concessions to please everybody that it will be a big hunk of junk. At this point the Dem's have to get something out there to save Obama and the party some face. Then we can all go back to business as usual. Republicans can decry the bill as a surrender to Al Qaeda and the Dem's can champion it as the most important legislation since the Bill of Rights.
Originally posted by kmax87The more I see of the current Congress the more I believe that the Dems can't govern by themselves because they're an artificial majority born of GOP incompetence.
...Pass a thing!!
It seems that because Dems lack the discipline of the GOP their numerical majority in both houses means little when it comes to passing legislation.
Only in America right?
Or is this still the best feature about Democrat politics, that all these diverse caucuses actually ensure that only bills that satisfy the most diverse group of ...[text shortened]... ually be passed while the Dems hold a majority. Surely a win for all.
Discuss................
Essentially, what I'm saying is:
1) The majority of Americans are Conservative, or at least lean Conservative.
2) The 2006 and 2008 elections put the Dems in power because of Republican incompetence and because of the "50 state strategy" which included poaching a bunch of conservative seats with conservative Democrats running on conservative or moderate platforms.
3) Ergo, the Democratic majority contains a sizeable moderate wing who simply do not see eye to eye with the larger liberal wing.
4) As this is the case, the liberal wing of the Democratic party does not have the votes to govern by themselves. The GOP's greater "discipline" is merely based on the facts that most of the GOP moderates/liberals are out of office (or, in Specter's case, having defected). There are, by and large, conservative Republicans and "dead" Republicans (Collins, Snowe and Gregg being of a handful of exceptions). As such, being the opposition part is quite easy. The pressure is off. They can afford to sit back and watch the Dems implode.
It seems to me that the best governance we've had in this country is when the WH and Congress are of opposite parties. Reagan/Tip O'neill and Clinton/Gingrich brought up the best times in my lifetime. I wouldn't mind seeing a moderate Republican in the WH and a moderate Republican Congress, but first we'd have to recruit a new generation of moderate Republican candidates.
Originally posted by sh76Clinton lol lol Clinton. Good one sh76. Clinton lol!!!
The more I see of the current Congress the more I believe that the Dems can't govern by themselves because they're an artificial majority born of GOP incompetence.
Essentially, what I'm saying is:
1) The majority of Americans are Conservative, or at least lean Conservative.
2) The 2006 and 2008 elections put the Dems in power because of Republican inco ...[text shortened]... ut first we'd have to recruit a new generation of moderate Republican candidates.
1) The majority of Americans are Conservative, or at least lean Conservative.
I'm surprised you say that because all I hear from conservatives is how the whole world is against them.
3) Ergo, the Democratic majority contains a sizeable moderate wing who simply do not see eye to eye with the larger liberal wing.
Would you please tell that to some of your fellow conservatives here who are apparently convinced that the Democrats are a bunch socialist covert agents.
4) As this is the case, the liberal wing of the Democratic party does not have the votes to govern by themselves. The GOP's greater "discipline" is merely based on the facts that most of the GOP moderates/liberals are out of office (or, in Specter's case, having defected). There are, by and large, conservative Republicans and "dead" Republicans (Collins, Snowe and Gregg being of a handful of exceptions). As such, being the opposition part is quite easy. The pressure is off. They can afford to sit back and watch the Dems implode.
I agree here, but I think it risks being penny-wise and pound foolish. Consolidating into a solid conservative position does give them a clear simple path in the current debate, however when the elections come back around they still have to convince the majority of Americans (who are not so strongly conservative) that they are not totally out of touch. Then do they stick with there simple very conservative position, or do they reach back out to moderate Republicans? In some sense, they are responding to questions about what the Republican party should be by kicking the can down the road.
It seems to me that the best governance we've had in this country is when the WH and Congress are of opposite parties. Reagan/Tip O'neill and Clinton/Gingrich brought up the best times in my lifetime. I wouldn't mind seeing a moderate Republican in the WH and a moderate Republican Congress, but first we'd have to recruit a new generation of moderate Republican candidates.
What's with the obvious contradiction here? Not that I would mind moderate Republicans having more power (though not both the WH and the Congress).
Originally posted by telerionAre you saying that moderate and Republican are mutually exclusive ideas?
What's with the obvious contradiction here? Not that I would mind moderate Republicans having more power (though not both the WH and the Congress).
How long is any one impression of a party valid anyway? Is the conservatism that swept Reagan into office a thing of the past? Are conservatives much more likely to be radicalised FOX spewing Palin champing knuckle dragging gay bashing irrational reactionaries these days?
Originally posted by telerionI do think most of the World is against them, but not most of the United States.
[b]1) The majority of Americans are Conservative, or at least lean Conservative.
I'm surprised you say that because all I hear from conservatives is how the whole world is against them. [/b]
One common thread throughout the political landscape in the US over the last decades is that even when Democrats do well, self-identification among Americans is always weighted towards the conservative side.
http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab3_1.htm
Even though the people put the Dems in power, the, by and large, don't want them to govern as liberals.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2009/51_say_congress_is_too_liberal_22_say_it_s_too_conservative
I'm not sure that you mean by the contradiction. If you mean that I first said I'd like a split government and then a moderate republican one, I meant that they are acceptable alternatives as far as I'm concerned
Americans are more likely to call themselves "conservative" than "liberal" because the word "conservative" hasn't been stigmatized as much over the last 40 yrs as the word "liberal". (although I have a feeling that Americans will soon be finding the word "conservative" to be just as noxious)
Originally posted by MelanerpesCart before the horse.
Americans are more likely to call themselves "conservative" than "liberal" because the word "conservative" hasn't been stigmatized as much over the last 40 yrs as the word "liberal". (although I have a feeling that Americans will soon be finding the word "conservative" to be just as noxious)
The word "liberal" has been stigmatized because, by and large, Americans don't like liberal politics; not the other way around.
Really, the right is not the be all end all propaganda machine. People in the US generally say they're conservative because, in general, they are.
Originally posted by kmax87This is a fantastic development, in fact to help it along pokie machines should be installed, knitting needles and wool should be handed out, thousand page sudoku for every pollie...anything to distract them from getting bright ideas about how to spend everyone elses money, or worse, dreaming up new ways of stealing it in the first place.
...Pass a thing!!
It seems that because Dems lack the discipline of the GOP their numerical majority in both houses means little when it comes to passing legislation.
Only in America right?
Or is this still the best feature about Democrat politics, that all these diverse caucuses actually ensure that only bills that satisfy the most diverse group of ...[text shortened]... ually be passed while the Dems hold a majority. Surely a win for all.
Discuss................
Pay the pollies to do nothing, it'll be cheaper.
Originally posted by sh76and ask those conservative people what they'd think of reducing government programs like Medicare and Social Security, and after they curse you out for daring to pull the plug on grandma, you'll find them to be very supportive of socialism 😀
Cart before the horse.
The word "liberal" has been stigmatized because, by and large, Americans don't like liberal politics; not the other way around.
Really, the right is not the be all end all propaganda machine. People in the US generally say they're conservative because, in general, they are.
also -- today's conservatives are more progressive on issues like race, gender, and the environment than the liberals were from 50 years ago. Consider all those right wingers going gaga over a FEMALE vice-president candidate.
so maybe it's a case where most of the passengers on deck are leaning the right, even as their boat is sailing steadily to the left
Originally posted by MelanerpesHmmm
and ask those conservative people what they'd think of reducing government programs like Medicare and Social Security, and after they curse you out for daring to pull the plug on grandma, you'll find them to be very supportive of socialism 😀
also -- today's conservatives are more progressive on issues like race, gender, and the environment than the li passengers on deck are leaning the right, even as their boat is sailing steadily to the left
Michael Moore will tell you that the country has been veering nothing but rightwards from an economic perspective since the 80s.
I also dispute the implied notion that equal rights for women and minorities is a "liberal" position. In fact, I think that equal rights and equal opportunity (read: including no preferences and limited hand outs) is the ultimate conservative position.
Originally posted by sh76you usually can take the opposite of what Moore says to be the truth, so I guess he proves my point 😀
Hmmm
Michael Moore will tell you that the country has been veering nothing but rightwards from an economic perspective since the 80s.
I also dispute the implied notion that equal rights for women and minorities is a "liberal" position. In fact, I think that equal rights and equal opportunity (read: including no preferences and limited hand outs) is the ultimate conservative position.
and the fact that you can make a legitimate case today that "equal rights for women and minorities" is the conservative position also proves my point.
America has been moving steadily to the left for some time now.