As predicted, spineless democrats capitulate over spending bill.

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Svnla
We need a new party. The one that will fight for the average/middle class working people. Not for the corporations wealthies and not for the welfare dependants. BOTH Demo and Repub are crooks and stinky.

Too bad too many people still stick with their parties no matter what.

You need two things, and amazingly, neither is specifically 'a new party'.

1. You need indpendent oversight of elections - public funding, judiciary oversight, but no legislative oversight. No gerrymandering, no fun n' games trying to lock people out of ballots, no two-party oversight neglecting to bring third-parties to the debates.

2. You need to break the team-sports mentality about party politics. This is easier said than done, and is a pervasive problem in democratic countries. As far as I can tell though, it is stronger in the USA than anywhere else.

 

[ProfJohn]

Once again that idiot President of ours gets exactly what him and the Republicans wanted. For a stupid drunk incoherent fool he is still running circles around the Democrats.

Interestingly, that brilliant former President Clinton also gave the Republicans everything they wanted.

How is it that when the Republicans were in the majority with a Democrat President they managed to get virtually everything they wanted. But now that we have a Democrat majority with a Republican President the only thing we are getting is a bunch of excuses?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Once again that idiot President of ours gets exactly what him and the Republicans wanted. For a stupid drunk incoherent fool he is still running circles around the Democrats.

Interestingly, that brilliant former President Clinton also gave the Republicans everything they wanted.

How is it that when the Republicans were in the majority with a Democrat President they managed to get virtually everything they wanted. But now that we have a Democrat majority with a Republican President the only thing we are getting is a bunch of excuses?

that's kind of a stupid comparison... the republican majority under Clinton had a 10 seat majority over the democrats (55:45); the current senate is 49:49... the only thing keeping the democrats in their chairmanships is a right-wing independent.

I guess the republicans have bigger stones, if by stones, you mean, "hate America"

short of invoking the nuclear option, I don't really see what the democrats can do... the republicans are taking obstruction to new heights, and certainly putting Tom Daschle to shame.

what would you do if you were in the democrats position? you don't have enough of a majority to override filibusters, the republican party clearly doesn't care about opinion polls or winning the next election, and even when compromises are hammered out (like SCHIP, where the democrats made several concessions to republicans after Bush's first veto), it just gets vetoed in the white house.

their only option is passing nothing and shutting down the government; while that might score political points, I don't see how anyone could argue that's what's best for the country.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481
that's kind of a stupid comparison... the republican majority under Clinton had a 10 seat majority over the democrats (55:45); the current senate is 49:49... the only thing keeping the democrats in their chairmanships is a right-wing independent.

I guess the republicans have bigger stones, if by stones, you mean, "hate America"

short of invoking the nuclear option, I don't really see what the democrats can do... the republicans are taking obstruction to new heights, and certainly putting Tom Daschle to shame.

what would you do if you were in the democrats position? you don't have enough of a majority to override filibusters, the republican party clearly doesn't care about opinion polls or winning the next election, and even when compromises are hammered out (like SCHIP, where the democrats made several concessions to republicans after Bush's first veto), it just gets vetoed in the white house.

their only option is passing nothing and shutting down the government; while that might score political points, I don't see how anyone could argue that's what's best for the country.

The 1994 balance of power was 53-47 only a 6 seat majority.
The Republicans made most of their progress in the first few years as the majority.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481
that's kind of a stupid comparison... the republican majority under Clinton had a 10 seat majority over the democrats (55:45); the current senate is 49:49... the only thing keeping the democrats in their chairmanships is a right-wing independent.

I guess the republicans have bigger stones, if by stones, you mean, "hate America"

short of invoking the nuclear option, I don't really see what the democrats can do... the republicans are taking obstruction to new heights, and certainly putting Tom Daschle to shame.

what would you do if you were in the democrats position? you don't have enough of a majority to override filibusters, the republican party clearly doesn't care about opinion polls or winning the next election, and even when compromises are hammered out (like SCHIP, where the democrats made several concessions to republicans after Bush's first veto), it just gets vetoed in the white house.

their only option is passing nothing and shutting down the government; while that might score political points, I don't see how anyone could argue that's what's best for the country.

The 1994 balance of power was 53-47 only a 6 seat majority.
The Republicans made most of their progress in the first few years as the majority.

6 > 0, last I heard

when getting 1 person to cross the aisle is a struggle, there's a huge difference between needing 4 people versus 10.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Wow, this is now the definition of victory? The same would be true if they approved $190B. We're so f'd.

Mission Accomplished!

Hello

Ron Paul is a Republican.

And you are missing his point.

What power do Dems have?

You don't know what power a democrat majority in congress has? I never took a single American History class and even I know!

the democrats can't really force anything in a 49:49 senate and a republican-controlled executive.

What are you talking about? They are the majority and can stonewall anything they want. They can tell Bush NO, you don't get a chocolate bar if you're going to lie down in the isle and throw a tantrum. Congress decides what to give. All Bush can do is decide if he wants it or not. He cannot so much as pay for the White Houses window cleaners without getting the money from Congress.

You need to break the team-sports mentality about party politics. This is easier said than done, and is a pervasive problem in democratic countries. As far as I can tell though, it is stronger in the USA than anywhere else.

It certainly is stronger in the US than Canada and is a real problem.

But now that we have a Democrat majority with a Republican President the only thing we are getting is a bunch of excuses?

Spineless wankers is how.

what would you do if you were in the democrats position?

They could do what they were elected to do and throw out a PR campaign if they need to to sell it. I have heard NOTHING beyond republican whining about laying people off. Not a single thing from the dems trying to sell this plan, so of course it would be horrific PR for them and lose them the general election (potentially).

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Wow, this is now the definition of victory? The same would be true if they approved $190B. We're so f'd.

Mission Accomplished!

Hello

Ron Paul is a Republican.

And you are missing his point.

What power do Dems have?

You don't know what power a democrat majority in congress has? I never took a single American History class and even I know!

the democrats can't really force anything in a 49:49 senate and a republican-controlled executive.

What are you talking about? They are the majority and can stonewall anything they want. They can tell Bush NO, you don't get a chocolate bar if you're going to lie down in the isle and throw a tantrum. Congress decides what to give. All Bush can do is decide if he wants it or not. He cannot so much as pay for the White Houses window cleaners without getting the money from Congress.

You need to break the team-sports mentality about party politics. This is easier said than done, and is a pervasive problem in democratic countries. As far as I can tell though, it is stronger in the USA than anywhere else.

It certainly is stronger in the US than Canada and is a real problem.

But now that we have a Democrat majority with a Republican President the only thing we are getting is a bunch of excuses?

Spineless wankers is how.

what would you do if you were in the democrats position?

They could do what they were elected to do and throw out a PR campaign if they need to to sell it. I have heard NOTHING beyond republican whining about laying people off. Not a single thing from the dems trying to sell this plan, so of course it would be horrific PR for them and lose them the general election (potentially).

For clarity, only the first quote should be attributed to me, I didn't write the others.

 

[Lemon law]

What we have here is a national game of chicken.

And GWB is in the drivers seat. And basically saying if I don't get my way, I will drive the car into a brick wall.

And while the GOP is locked step united behind GWB, the dems lack the unity to cut funding.
And now will let GWB continue to bungle on unhindered for another three months in Iraq.

For the dems, perhaps the safe strategy because at least there may be something left to salvage when GWB skulks off into the sunset on 1/20/2009.

In terms of unknowable future short term events, three basic things could happen regarding Iraq between now and 11/4/2008.

1. Iraq could get dramatically better. The long delayed political progress could rapid fire come and suddenly Iraq will look like a winning issue for the GOP. ( Extremely low probability of this happening before 11/2008 )

2. Iraq could limp along much as it is. Getting neither dramatically better or worse. ( This has a high probability of happening )

3. Iraq could suddenly get dramatically worse. Insert favorite scenario. But bottom line, the surge would end up being acknowledged as a failure and events could spin out of all control.
( Maybe not as probable as #2, but certainly far more probable than #1. )

So tell me again GOP fans, how the dems are losing this issue politically----because if # 2 or 3 is what Iraq looks like on 11/4/2008, the American people are going to blame the GOP for the Iraqi quagmire. And if the dems put string on funding, it could trigger GWB into creating scenario #3 and then blaming the dems.

Putting all the pressure on the GOP who now have 10.5 months and change to bring about scenario #1. And no, spinning the Iraqi issue will not cut it. Only actual POSITIVE RESULTS will suffice.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
One more reason it's not enough to have Democrats in Congress, they also need to be in the White House if you want things done.

Oh look the resident mouthpiece for the democrats has spoken. Surprising response as well.

Says the resident GOP mouthpiece.
It's surprising to you that to decide the way the war is ran, you need to elect a president to do so? I know, shocking.
Keep on doing what you are doing, Republicans. You'll lose the white house and give Democrats a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

 

[ProfJohn]

Loki, in the Senate 1 vote doesn't make the difference. You need 60 votes to make anything happen.

Cloture requires 60 votes and last time I looked neither Republicans of the 90s or the Democrats of today are even close to that number.

I think the difference is that the Republicans of the 90s had a real mandate based on changing America via the Contract with America.
However, the Democrats of today got elected for a variety of different reasons and can?t push an agenda because of that.

Also, Drudge has about 4 or 5 different stories yesterday about how the Democrats are their own worse enemy and how their own problems are making it hard for them to accomplish anything. The Democrats can?t even agree among themselves on many issues. And yet they still blame the Republicans for everything that happens.

 

[nageov3t]

Loki, in the Senate 1 vote doesn't make the difference. You need 60 votes to make anything happen.

ok, simple math...

you need 60 votes to override the Republican filibuster machine.

assuming all Republicans and Democrats vote primarily along party lines, in the 90's, the Republicans needed to sway 4 senators over to their side; today, the Democrats need to sway 11 senators over to their side.

when swaying 1 person is a monumental effort, clearly there's a huge difference between having to persuade 4 people versus 11.

but at least Republicans aren't being hypocritical about the whole filibuster issue :thumbsup:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Democrats can?t even agree among themselves on many issues.

You mean there's a difference of opinion within a political party, and people within the party hold different views representing a diverse constituency? Say it ain't so. I guess life's easier when all you cater to is religious white people. Big tent, yeah.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Also, Drudge has about 4 or 5 different stories yesterday about how the Democrats are their own worse enemy and how their own problems are making it hard for them to accomplish anything. The Democrats can?t even agree among themselves on many issues. And yet they still blame the Republicans for everything that happens.

That's because there is a monumental struggle going on within the Democratic Party. The moderates and conservative Democrats are trying desperately to take the party back from the far, far left nutjobs (aka MoveOn, et al.) and the fissures are quite obvious.

As for blaming the Republicans, what else is new. Politics as usual.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Also, Drudge has about 4 or 5 different stories yesterday about how the Democrats are their own worse enemy and how their own problems are making it hard for them to accomplish anything. The Democrats can?t even agree among themselves on many issues. And yet they still blame the Republicans for everything that happens.

That's because there is a monumental struggle going on within the Democratic Party. The moderates and conservative Democrats are trying desperately to take the party back from the far, far left nutjobs (aka MoveOn, et al.) and the fissures are quite obvious.

As for blaming the Republicans, what else is new. Politics as usual.

except, you know, it really is their fault and there's no real way to shirk blame

how do you spin it when the republicans have been filibustering so much that they nearly killed their own bill just reflexively?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: loki8481
how do you spin it when the republicans have been filibustering so much that they nearly killed their own bill just reflexively?

Sounds like the Daschle-led group of several years back. Perhaps they'll meet the same fate. I'm not spinning anything. It'd be nice to see something get done in DC but between the 2008 Election and the monstrous partisan divide (filled with poisonous rhetoric on both sides) I expect we'll see none.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: bamacre
If I am happy for one thing, it is that the resident Democrats can finally see that the Republican party is not the only party killing America.

We need revolutionary change in this country, and it's not going to come from either of these parties. This is the main reason for my support of Ron Paul.

/thread

Conservatives, like myself, thought they'd finally fulfill their political wet dream when Republicans got a full majority, and what did we get? Jack shit. People hoping for a democratic take over will get the same. These politicians are the same rich lawyers with different letters next to their name, with the same goal of enriching themselves and holding onto power. Anybody that can dislodge these 2 parties from power has my vote, even though the 2 parties collude to make sure that wont happen.

 

[Vic]

The Dems aren't spineless, it's just that some of their most fantatical constituency is confused as to the party leadership's actual position on the war.

 

[tidehigh]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Why don't you just say "As Predicted, spineless *POLITICIANS* capitulate over spending bill, like they have done for the past 7 years".

Repuglican, Democrud, all are the same shills, powerbrokers, and POS'.

THANK YOU.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
/thread

Conservatives, like myself, thought they'd finally fulfill their political wet dream when Republicans got a full majority, and what did we get? Jack shit. People hoping for a democratic take over will get the same. These politicians are the same rich lawyers with different letters next to their name, with the same goal of enriching themselves and holding onto power. Anybody that can dislodge these 2 parties from power has my vote, even though the 2 parties collude to make sure that wont happen.

Agreed, but let's be realistic (and fair) here. Ron Paul is a part of the system you despise, not an "outsider". He's running as a Republican (much to my chagrin) and he's as corrupt as the rest of them if you believe the establishment (ie 2 party system) has to go.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Vic
The Dems aren't spineless, it's just that some of their most fantatical constituency is confused as to the party leadership's actual position on the war.

I wonder how that can be? :laugh:

Their top candidate has had what, 10 different positions alone?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
/thread

Conservatives, like myself, thought they'd finally fulfill their political wet dream when Republicans got a full majority, and what did we get? Jack shit. People hoping for a democratic take over will get the same. These politicians are the same rich lawyers with different letters next to their name, with the same goal of enriching themselves and holding onto power. Anybody that can dislodge these 2 parties from power has my vote, even though the 2 parties collude to make sure that wont happen.

Agreed, but let's be realistic (and fair) here. Ron Paul is a part of the system you despise, not an "outsider". He's running as a Republican (much to my chagrin) and he's as corrupt as the rest of them if you believe the establishment (ie 2 party system) has to go.

Ron Paul is as corrupt as the "rest of them?"

You say this based on what?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Ron Paul is as corrupt as the "rest of them?"

You say this based on what?

He's a part of the very corrupt system that so many despise. How many years has he been in Congress? How many hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks has he voted for?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Vic
The Dems aren't spineless, it's just that some of their most fantatical constituency is confused as to the party leadership's actual position on the war.

I wonder how that can be? :laugh:

Their top candidate has had what, 10 different positions alone?

Yup, and their confusion is all about fear. They know the war was a mistake, they know they are part of that mistake (most of them voted for it), they know we shouldn't be there. BUT, they fear that if they fight to remove the troops, that they will fail in doing so, AND, that Iraq will end up as being some kind of a success, and they'll look like idiots.

Integrity is all about doing the right thing, at the right time, even if it is unpopular. And the Democrats have zero integrity in regards to the war.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
Ron Paul is as corrupt as the "rest of them?"

You say this based on what?

He's a part of the very corrupt system that so many despise.

That doesn't even make sense. And it sure isn't fair. He has one vote in Congress.

How many years has he been in Congress? How many hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks has he voted for?

You said he's corrupt, so you tell me. Name them.

A little help...
http://www.vote-smart.org/voti...ry.php?can_id=BC031929

Check out all the "Y's". It won't take too long, there aren't many of them.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bamacre
That doesn't even make sense. And it sure isn't fair. He has one vote in Congress.

That's a pretty lame excuse. His vote is as important as the others. My point is that simply by virtue of him being in Congress, he is part of the very system that so many claim to despise. How can you say he is an outsider when he sits inside?

You said he's corrupt, so you tell me. Name them.

A little help...
http://www.vote-smart.org/voti...ry.php?can_id=BC031929

Check out all the "Y's". It won't take too long, there aren't many of them.

Let's take a closer look at Paul's Record On Economics And Spending.

Seems it isn't nearly as rosy as his supporters tout.