Enemies, not Opponents

[Charles Kozierok]

IMO, the biggest problem with politics in the US today is exemplified by this story about a GOP lawmaker who has apparently upset extremists in his party simply for being willing to talk or appear with the president.

The "tea party" and other far right organizations, as well as the far right media, doesn't view the left merely as opponents. They view them as enemies.

It's not opposition -- it's hatred.

Compromise is a dirty word.

Talking with the enemy makes you suspect as an enemy as well.

This attitude is not only bad for the country, it is also bad for the Republican party, which is increasingly seen as radicalized and out of touch with the mainstream of the country.

 

[jackstar7]

To them it is a war on their way of life. Of course any opposition is an enemy.

 

[Greenman]

IMO, the biggest problem with politics in the US today is exemplified by this story about a GOP lawmaker who has apparently upset extremists in his party simply for being willing to talk or appear with the president.

The "tea party" and other far right organizations, as well as the far right media, doesn't view the left merely as opponents. They view them as enemies.

It's not opposition -- it's hatred.

Compromise is a dirty word.

Talking with the enemy makes you suspect as an enemy as well.

This attitude is not only bad for the country, it is also bad for the Republican party, which is increasingly seen as radicalized and out of touch with the mainstream of the country.

I find it interesting that you see this as a problem of the right. Generally speaking, it's best to clean your own house before complaining about the dirty neighbors.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The Tea Party is a visible point of attack.

The Dems do not have an organized equivalent; yet they have leaders (within congress and also within the WH) that have the exact attitude.

you are also able to see that attitude within P&N.

More so from the Dems, because their party is in charge at the present time.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I find it interesting that you see this as a problem of the right. Generally speaking, it's best to clean your own house before complaining about the dirty neighbors.

I find it interesting that you assume that because I find the radicalism of the current GOP deplorable, that I must be a Democrat.

EK, if the "tea party" is a visible point of attack, it's because all they have done since their inception is attack everyone and everything who doesn't agree with them -- even members of their own group who don't march in lockstep with their "the other guys are the enemy" mindset.

 

[Craig234]

I find it interesting that you see this as a problem of the right. Generally speaking, it's best to clean your own house before complaining about the dirty neighbors.

Like with so many things, it's far worse on the right.

I don't begrudge any party having some limits where they start to view members as 'disloyal'.

It's pretty irking for a Republican to run as a Democrat to take a seat from a real Democrat in a district that is very democratic.

Joe Liebermann comes to mind - when he's out campaigning for the election of a Republican for President, it's a bit much.

It's more when it's taken to extremes. Repulicans often demand 'loyalty' purely for partisan purposes however unreasonable, giving them that 'herd' image for the elephant as their party symbol. When you see all these absurd unity votes on things like the extreme abuse of filibusters as they drive out any 'moderates'. Recent examples:

Republicans actually filibustered the first presidential nominee in US history, one of their own, Chuck Hagel - for only two apparent reasons - having some criticisms of George W. Bush that seem very well merited, and taking the position that we should only have Israel as a strong ally, not be utterly serving to them. Outrageious.

Another, Chris Christie was not invited to speak at CPAC, despite being a front runner for 2016, apparently because he was a good governor and honest in saying Obama was helpful in the response to the disaster. Outrageous. Nevermind, as pundits have pointed out, that he's a Republican govenor who's generally very conservative, while having over 70% approval in a blue state, being pro-life and carrying women by 20 points. No, he wasn't a completely dishonest partisan who would attack the president when he was helpful for a disaster - despite earlier that money speakingout against Obama with nutty Partisan crap about how Obama was a horrible clueless leader.

That's not the same as Democrats. That's not the 'reasonable' amount of partisan loyalty being expected.

 

[Craig234]

The Tea Party is a visible point of attack.

The Dems do not have an organized equivalent; yet they have leaders (within congress and also within the WH) that have the exact attitude.

you are also able to see that attitude within P&N.

More so from the Dems, because their party is in charge at the present time.

No, we don't have leaders "that have the exact same attitude".

First, there are progressive Democrats. They are not a 'counterpart' to the tea party. Sensible and rational positions are not a counterpart for the crazy.

Second, Democratic leaders are a problem for progressive Democrats - they're absurdly NOT 'partisan'. I've often said Obama is a moderate Republican. Harry Reid won't stand up for almost any Democratic principles - look at him blocking filibuster reform, AGAIN refusing to allow it to happen with a 'gentleman's agreement' with McConnell, and a promise that at least the 'change' will allow presidential nominees to move for votes more reliably - weeks before the Republicans filibustered a cabinet nominee for the first time in history.

Nancy Pelosi is a 'basic Democrat', nothing like the things being discussed here.

What does happen is that Republicans try to demonize - so we have the 'Muslim Kenyan Socialist Fascist Communist terrorist most radical leftist president in history Obama' and Pelosi is the 'San Francisco values' nutjob 'radical leftist lesbian' (yes, I've heard her called a lesbian this month) and so on, so some on the right 'think' that they're those things.

Unfortunately, they're not.

 

[Craig234]

Let's use a good example that illustrates both the baselessness of the Republican abuse of the filibuster and their nutty level of partisanship and obstructionism.

Oklahoma is a really red state. The most red, there's a case for. Every country in the stated voted red last presidential election. And the one before. And the one before.

There was an opening for a federal judge for Oklahoma. Obama chooses who to appoint. George Bush sure didn't go asking Democrats who to appoint - he appointed radicals.

One of the Republican Senators suggested a name to Obama to appoint. The other Republican Senator agreed with the suggestion.

Obama, who could appoint whoever he wanted, appointed the person they suggested.

The Senate Republicans immediately filibustered him.

For over 260 days, his appointment was just held up, filbustered.

Finally, after that long, nearly a year, it came for a vote; he was approved 93-0.

So while the Republicans were willing to filibuster him - not one voted against him.

Now, that's what the filibuster was designed for. Good governing, Republicans.

 

[EagleKeeper]

EK, if the "tea party" is a visible point of attack, it's because all they have done since their inception is attack everyone and everything who doesn't agree with them -- even members of their own group who don't march in lockstep with their "the other guys are the enemy" mindset.

I am not trying to defend the Tea Party.

Pointing out that they are a visible lighting rod; where the Dems hide their lightning rods in trees so they are not readily visible.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Let's use a good example that illustrates both the baselessness of the Republican abuse of the filibuster and their nutty level of partisanship and obstructionism.

Oklahoma is a really red state. The most red, there's a case for. Every country in the stated voted red last presidential election. And the one before. And the one before.

There was an opening for a federal judge for Oklahoma. Obama chooses who to appoint. George Bush sure didn't go asking Democrats who to appoint - he appointed radicals. - (In your opinion - apparently those judges were acceptable to Democrats)

One of the Republican Senators suggested a name to Obama to appoint. The other Republican Senator agreed with the suggestion.

Obama, who could appoint whoever he wanted, appointed the person they suggested.

The Senate Republicans immediately filibustered him.

For over 260 days, his appointment was just held up, filbustered.

Finally, after that long, nearly a year, it came for a vote; he was approved 93-0.

So while the Republicans were willing to filibuster him - not one voted against him.

Now, that's what the filibuster was designed for. Good governing, Republicans.

Using your example

Bacharach was blocked by Senate Republicans in a 56-34 cloture vote on July 30, 2012, with 60 votes needed to break the filibuster
The reason for the Republican filibuster was their contention that the consideration of Bacharach's nomination had come too late in a presidential election year, per the informal

Devil is in the details:twisted:


Wiki references:

On January 23, 2012, President Obama nominated Bacharach to be United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[1]

On July 26, 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed for cloture on Bacharach's nomination.[2] A cloture vote held on July 30, 2012, failed by a vote of 56-34, with 3 senators voting present, including both Oklahoma Senators, Tom Coburn and James Inhofe.[3] On January 2, 2013, his nomination was returned to the President, due to the sine die adjournment of the Senate.

On January 3, 2013, he was renominated to the same office. On February 7, 2013, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported his nomination to the floor by voice vote.[4] The Senate confirmed his nomination on February 25, 2013, by a vote of 93 ayes to 0 nays

Please identify where there were 260 days of fillibuster.

I see 6 months of potential talk;
Reid called for a vote - it was rejected.
No futher action seems to be taken.

Please provide links to what supports your contention of

For over 260 days, his appointment was just held up, filbustered.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What lightning rods are those?

Both sides have always had individuals and subgroups on their respective fringes. But right now the Republicans have mainstreamed their fringe; the Democrats have not.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What lightning rods are those?

Both sides have always had individuals and subgroups on their respective fringes. But right now the Republicans have mainstreamed their fringe; the Democrats have not.

Their fringe is not mainstream; they have an impact; however for most Republicans they are there as a counter force to what is felt as a Democrat leadership override of constitutional values.


Reid and Pelosi along with Emanuel were the three biggies for 4 years.
The attitudes that they displayed as to working wihtin the government as a team soured many people.

Created polarization that is going to take a lot of time to repair. the Tea Party actions are one result.
That faction will have to be worn down and Congress/WH go back to representing the people, not the party.

Elections are to move the government forward as a team; not having two Clydesdales hitched to opposite ends of the wagon; both pulling to try getting the wagon moving down the road.

If each party is the horse; the president should be wise enough to realize that such will not work; go around to the nose of each horse and guide them to get the wagon moving.
Up to this point, the president has been content to sit in the wagon seat and play with the wheel brake.

 

[Jaskalas]

What lightning rods are those?

Both sides have always had individuals and subgroups on their respective fringes. But right now the Republicans have mainstreamed their fringe; the Democrats have not.

I take exception to that notion. Tea Party, to me, means conservative. It means small government, anti-Obamacare. We want less government, not more. Is a hardline stance on that fringe?

Take the sequester for a fine example. Is it fringe to tackle the budget deficit, fringe to suggest that a 2% cut (less than the yearly increase in spending) is insignificant and that MORE needs to be done?

The Republican Party has betrayed the tenants of conservatism, so the party has "enemies" within it as well who need to be forced out or excluded. They're fighting back hard by calling the Tea Party extremist, but the alternative has been big government Neocon such as Bush and Rove. If they win the day then budget cuts shall never happen, as exampled by the Bush Presidency.

I take this fight as the very question over government largess, and if we should simply continue to expand it as is. If we are _ever_ going to do something about it. "Tea Party" is the only one in a long time who would.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I find it interesting that you see this as a problem of the right. Generally speaking, it's best to clean your own house before complaining about the dirty neighbors.

It is a problem of the political right.
http://www.polipsych.com/2010/02/12...the-effects-of-empathy-on-political-interest/

 

[Craig234]

I am not trying to defend the Tea Party.

Pointing out that they are a visible lighting rod; where the Dems hide their lightning rods in trees so they are not readily visible.

That sounds like partisan nonsense - if the Republicans have a bad group, the Dems just MUST have an equivalent one, only invisible.

I hear that kind of thing from some people.

Bring up watergate and Nixon, and they say "Oh, all the Democrats do the same thing they just don't get caught". It's irrational, but justifies their not dealing with an issue.

 

[Craig234]

I take exception to that notion. Tea Party, to me, means conservative. It means small government, anti-Obamacare. We want less government, not more. Is a hardline stance on that fringe?

Well, ya, it kind of is. The main issue is the simpistic and ignorant opposition to all kinds of 'good' spending, but there's hypocrisy among most too when it comes to defense.

What do tea party polls show among Medicare recipients about cutting their benefits in that program?

They're a sort of mob whipped up to hate government but without much clue about it, the pawns of the mega wealthy who simply want more plutocacy and use them.

Take the sequester for a fine example. Is it fringe to tackle the budget deficit

Well, yes, it kind of is, when you consider the sequester will actually make the deficit worse for some time.

Because it's not that simple as basic arithmetic. It's not like you are spending on cigaretted and if you cut that spending, you save the money.

Cuts to a lot of these programs cuts economic growth the spending brings; some of them just transfer the costs to the citizens, further hurting the economy.

That's some of that 'ignorance' I mentioned.

The Republican Party has betrayed the tenants of conservatism, so the party has "enemies" within it as well who need to be forced out or excluded. They're fighting back hard by calling the Tea Party extremist, but the alternative has been big government Neocon such as Bush and Rove. If they win the day then budget cuts shall never happen, as exampled by the Bush Presidency.

Let's name three factions of Republicans for this topic. One is the 'tea party' faction I covered above. A second is the 'corporatist' faction you mention above - we agree.

The third faction, though, are those more 'moderate' Republicans - hard to find now - who have a bit more of a clue about governing than either of those two groups. For example, Buddy Rohmer, former Congressman and Governor who ran in the 2012 presidential race and couldn't get in the debates. Or perhaps the Republican Congressman now touring with President Obama about the sequester.

On many issues, Dwight Eisenhower or Nelseon Rockefeller could be included.

While the tea party and corporatists are at war, the 'good' faction of Republicans are almost extinct. The ony alternative to the tea party is not the corporatists, however.

I take this fight as the very question over government largess, and if we should simply continue to expand it as is. If we are _ever_ going to do something about it. "Tea Party" is the only one in a long time who would.

It's the wrong answer. It's a bit like people who come to oppose the Vietnam war being told 'the only choice are the people who want to blow up the capitol'.

Just because you agree with them on something as a general direction doesn't mean they aren't a terrible option - them and their billionare Koch type backers with another agenda.

There are citizens who have legitimate concersn about the deficit - many are Democrats. I do. There are billionares who use that issue to push an agenda of greed for themselves.

 

[Craig234]

Their fringe is not mainstream; they have an impact; however for most Republicans they are there as a counter force to what is felt as a Democrat leadership override of constitutional values.


Reid and Pelosi along with Emanuel were the three biggies for 4 years.
The attitudes that they displayed as to working wihtin the government as a team soured many people.

Created polarization that is going to take a lot of time to repair. the Tea Party actions are one result.
That faction will have to be worn down and Congress/WH go back to representing the people, not the party.

Elections are to move the government forward as a team; not having two Clydesdales hitched to opposite ends of the wagon; both pulling to try getting the wagon moving down the road.

If each party is the horse; the president should be wise enough to realize that such will not work; go around to the nose of each horse and guide them to get the wagon moving.
Up to this point, the president has been content to sit in the wagon seat and play with the wheel brake.

First, your history of these Democratic leaders as anything but very 'mainstream' is just imaginary in my opinion. I have no idea of any basis for your claims.

Second, you have a greatly exaggerated notion of what the president can do when faced with an intransigent 'just say no' obstructionist opposition.

Obama can't force them not to oppose him on basically everything - including even their own bills if he agrees with them - for political reasons. They're not horses he can aim.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The "tea party" isn't radical because of most of its underlying principles, but because of its approach and tactics.

There's nothing wrong with, for example, wanting to cut spending. There's a LOT wrong with threatening to allow the nation to default on its debt as a crowbar to get spending cut.

There's nothing wrong with fighting for what you believe in. But there's a LOT wrong with labeling those who have a different view as "enemies", either implicitly or explicitly. i put the detestable phrase "real Americans" in this same category.

The "tea party" has also been responsible for nominating some of the most extreme, toxic candidates I have ever seen run for national office.

The budget problems did not start with Obama's inauguration. I'd respect the "tea party" a whole lot more if they had as much of a problem with how their own party ran things when they were in control.

 

[Craig234]

Using your example


Devil is in the details:twisted:

I guess if you want to call a phony, paper thin made up justification the devil, ok.

Please provide links to what supports your contention of

OK. Please watch the segment:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/a-flabbe...ilibustering-congratulations-you-won-nothing/

 

[EagleKeeper]

First, your history of these Democratic leaders as anything but very 'mainstream' is just imaginary in my opinion. I have no idea of any basis for your claims.

Second, you have a greatly exaggerated notion of what the president can do when faced with an intransigent 'just say no' obstructionist opposition.

Obama can't force them not to oppose him on basically everything - including even their own bills if he agrees with them - for political reasons. They're not horses he can aim.

A weak president is what he is showing.

Clinton for his faults at least knew how to get something done; he led the way.
Obama has not; he has handed the reins of government over to his people in Congress and stood back. this way his hands are clean and he can use the WH as a bully pulpit; point fingers.

the Just say know was born out of an attitude by "his" people. Now he has the option of 4 years of headaches or try to mend fences.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Using your example


Devil is in the details:twisted:

I guess if you want to call a phony, paper thin made up justification the devil, ok.

Please provide links to what supports your contention of

OK. Please watch the segment:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/a-flabbe...ilibustering-congratulations-you-won-nothing/

Still waiting for the evidence of the 260 days of fillibustering the judgeship?

 

[Craig234]

A weak president is what he is showing.

Clinton for his faults at least knew how to get something done; he led the way.
Obama has not; he has handed the reins of government over to his people in Congress and stood back. this way his hands are clean and he can use the WH as a bully pulpit; point fingers.

the Just say know was born out of an attitude by "his" people. Now he has the option of 4 years of headaches or try to mend fences.

I think your version is just fiction - I'm not saying you know it is.

First, the opposition for Clinton in ways was a lot less than it is for Obama. For just an example, compare the number of filibusters, and then post them here.

Second, you have some rose-colored glasses. In ways the opposition for Clinton was a lot worse than you describe. Was Clinton 'leading' when the Republicans shut down the federal government over his opposition, just as Republicans failed to pay our bills or are now refusing to repeal sequestration? You forget things like the Republicans impeaching Clinton over a trumped up justification after spending years and $70 million tax dollars digging for anything to attack him for. Ah, the good old days of Clinton leading them to get along.

Third, what the hell do you think Obama is doing this week - he's out leading, building public support for his opposition to sequestration - all he can do to 'lead'.

Meanwhile Republicans are working out their talking points to try to find just the right words to best get him blamed for what they caused while refusing to solve this either by simply repealing it or making a deal that will close some outrageous loopholes for the very wealthy.

I think your version is fiction.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Still waiting for the evidence of the 260 days of fillibustering the judgeship?

According to the White House:

This evening the Senate confirmed Robert Bacharach to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Oklahoma. Judge Bacharach waited 263 days for a Senate floor vote, only to be approved overwhelmingly, by a vote of 93-0. Not only was Judge Bacharach supported by the two Republican Senators from Oklahoma, he was recommended to the White House for this judgeship by Senator Coburn in October 2011. Yet, early last summer, Senate Republicans blocked Judge Bacharach from even getting an up or down vote – the first successful filibuster of a judicial nominee who had bipartisan support in the Senate Judiciary Committee.


In short, Republicans recommended Robert Bacharach for this important position, endorsed him publicly, supported him nearly unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee, then blocked him from getting a vote – and now, after almost a year of pointless delay, joined in unanimously confirming him. Even Senator Coburn, himself a participant in this partisan chicanery, called this “stupid.”

Seems to support Craig's position on this particular issue pretty well.

And another good example of how the GOP has become radicalized and more interested in obstruction than governing.

 

[Craig234]

Still waiting for the evidence of the 260 days of fillibustering the judgeship?

If you have trouble seeing the '263' in the days on the screen in the clip I linked, I suggest a magnifying glass.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

A weak president is what he is showing.

What specifically is Obama doing to suggest he is "weak"?