WP Op-Ed: Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

[fskimospy]

I'm impressed that despite you and Craig both having no problem critiquing Obama and the Dems, disagreeing with a number of their policies, the usual crowd is still bleating how you guys view the Dems as bastions of wisdom and integrity and accept anything and everything they say.

'Impressive' that the same kind of disconnect about the behavior of the GOP can be applied to this forum.

Still have yet to see a cogent, effective rebuttal to the OP's assertions, not that I believe the Dems represent "the solution" though.

Well I think those people are more concerned about the fight, or the sports team/soap opera elements of politics than they are about any actual policies they support. In that case basically the whole thing is just all about how much you can demonize the other 'team', so there's really no advantage to seeing anything other than a caricature.

 

[Craig234]

Didnt David Frum say something like this over a year ago and get ostracized for it?

Frum is making a market for himself as 'loyal dissent' on the right.

This follows his period as whore for the right - serving Bush, writing a book gushing over Bush, and so on.

I speculate he might have a bad taste in his mouth from being a Jew in the Bush White House, where on his first day he was told Christian prayer meetings were mandatory.

He saw a lot of that sort of thing, and feels a little bit the 'outsider'.

He reminds me just a little bit of David Brock before Brock made a break with the right - a writer serving evil, Brock's outsider status was that he was gay.

I once asked Frum something to the effect of asking what he thought of Brock's realizing he was serving the wrong side, implying Frum should do the same.

IIRC, he just sort of said he didn't agree with Brock.

 

[Phokus]

Maybe the real problem is people who constantly write op-eds and post threads about the republicans and refuse to beleive that the democrats are just as much a part of the problem.

It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to say that Democrats are as much of a problem as Republicans are and that the problem they have is the same problem that Republicans have. Democrats ARE a problem, but not for the reason you think.

 

[werepossum]

The country as a whole is quickly moving to the left there. Most recent polls have more than half the nation supporting same sex marriage. It's similar to how 40 years ago (or last year for Mississippi Republicans) the country didn't heavily support interracial marriage, and now it's a fully accepted concept.



Considering the what, 20 months straight of growth thanks to a stimulus package and auto bailout championed by Democrats and blocked as much as possible by Republicans, I'd say Obama has won this round of the fight. The recovery isn't perfect but what he's done in just over 3 years is remarkable.

Our twenty months of "growth" has been adding fewer new jobs than we are adding new workers. We're still spiraling down, and while it might be better than free-falling, in the end we're still headed for the bottom.

Ha - they haven't been first in a loooong time



So...did you seriously just compare the voting system in the US with the voting system in Iraq?

Anyway - this summarizes what I learned from the article:
Republicans have ruined the government. The Democrats aren't blameless but look at all the shit the Republicans have done! Seriously the Republicans are to blame. I mean the Democrats worked hand in hand with the Republicans for NCLB (Really? Is that the POS legistlation that you are now holding up as a show of bipartisanship? 'Hey - look - we worked together to fuck the education system! We took turns railing it while the pofessionals cried. It was great!'). We banded together after 9/11 too! (Who the fuck wouldn't? I would have been political suicide not to)

The other two examples were good but really - those are the best examples out of the last 11ish years? Thats the best you can do?

Now - don't get me wrong - the republicans have a lot of bat shit crazy people running around (Overly religious wackjobs, Some really fucked up notions about abortion and women's rights etc) yet somehow they keep getting elected. Why?

Something clearly resonates with voters and - IMO its this:
'Its the lesser of two evils'

I don't think an entire party can be the lesser of two evils as there are too many fringe figures within the parties but we force people to make that choice. Fiscally conservative but socially liberal? Too bad - you are fucked. Pick a side. All or nothing.

The republican party is not the cause of our problems but a symptom of them. In a two party system both parties can thrive with crazy fringe ideas because, as long as there are a couple of diametrically opposed key ideas, people will be forced to flock to one or the other (and hope that those fringe elements are small enough they wont do any real damage).

Democratic (or Republican) finger pointing/whining won't help. I would love to see more policital parties and think it would help expose and hopefully remove if not minimuze the crazies.

I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen though

Excellent post. Elections in my experience are almost always the lesser of two evils, and which side you typically choose isn't so much about their differences as it is about which issues are most important to you.

 

[werepossum]

Come on now, the future of health care is not a binary only option of ObamaCare or health care for only the wealthy. Do you really believe that?

In my opinion, I think Hayabusa Rider is on the right track. Congress is simply not qualified to completely overhaul health care in so short of a period. Something this important should be studied by bipartisan committees, and including all sorts of disciplines and interests in the health care field.

This is true, but Congress (or for that matter, the White House) doesn't have much of a track record on bipartisan committees. Mostly the bipartisan committees issue a bunch of opinions as to what we should and the two parties then each seize on what they wanted to do anyway for ideological reasons and ignore everything else. So any actual, sensible, practical options bipartisan committees identify tend to die on the vine.

 

[fskimospy]

Our twenty months of "growth" has been adding fewer new jobs than we are adding new workers. We're still spiraling down, and while it might be better than free-falling, in the end we're still headed for the bottom.

This is incorrect. Average job growth per month during that time period has exceeded work force population growth by CBO estimates. It hasn't by that much, but we most certainly are not 'still spiraling down'.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Don't confuse the lesser of two evils with the simpler of two evils. Voters love simplicity, even if it's wrongheaded. Hell, especially if it's wrongheaded. Black and white absolutes, unwavering faith in the face of a contradicting reality, maintaining ignorance of nuances in a complex world. Low effort thinking breeds low effort government.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

From WaPo OpEd piece:

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

Voters determine what is considered "mainstream". It is they who represent the prevalent political attitudes and values in our country. What is "mainstream" is not defined in an OpEd piece written by a couple of highly partisan liberals.

In 2010, Republicans picked up 6 previously Democratic Senate seats and picked up 63 in the House taking majority which was previously held by Democrats since 2006.

So yes...let's just say it...Republicans are the problem...if you happen to be a Democrat.

 

[fskimospy]

From WaPo OpEd piece:


Voters determine what is considered "mainstream". It is they who represent the prevalent political attitudes and values in our country. What is "mainstream" is not defined in an OpEd piece written by a couple of highly partisan liberals.

In 2010, Republicans picked up 6 previously Democratic Senate seats and picked up 63 in the House taking majority which was previously held by Democrats since 2006. So yes...let's just say it...Republicans are the problem if you happen to be a Democrat.

lol. 'highly partisan liberals'. Oh my good friend DSF, you never fail to disappoint. I think I remember you saying that self delusion is what you fight against. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol. 'highly partisan liberals'. Oh my good friend DSF, you never fail to disappoint. I think I remember you saying that self delusion is what you fight against. Physician, heal thyself.

Let's just call them liberals and leave it at that.

So...shall I assume that you agree with the rest of my post since you found it highly significant to focus on such an arbitrary point?

 

[fskimospy]

Let's just call them liberals and leave it at that.

So...shall I assume that you agree with the rest of my post since you found it highly significant to focus on such an arbitrary point?

No I don't agree with the rest of your post, it simply reeks of the same false equivalency that has been plaguing our political reporting for quite a long time now. Regardless of that, your post was predicated on the fact that the authors must be viewing the situation through a lens distorted by partisanship and that this recent activity is not a problem. I strongly disagree.

 

[Thump553]

This is true, but Congress (or for that matter, the White House) doesn't have much of a track record on bipartisan committees. Mostly the bipartisan committees issue a bunch of opinions as to what we should and the two parties then each seize on what they wanted to do anyway for ideological reasons and ignore everything else. So any actual, sensible, practical options bipartisan committees identify tend to die on the vine.

Actually, if you exclude the last twenty years or so (and maybe the Civil War era as well) your premise is dead wrong-our government has had a long history of bipartasanship and compromise among competing agendas. It is indisputable that the modern day GOP has adopted a basic position of no compromise on anything at anytime-in my view, a position that greatly damaged our economy in the first place, then greatly slowed down the recovery.

The old adage about lead or get the f*ck out of the way? The GOP should pay it some mind.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No I don't agree with the rest of your post, it simply reeks of the same false equivalency that has been plaguing our political reporting for quite a long time now. Regardless of that, your post was predicated on the fact that the authors must be viewing the situation through a lens distorted by partisanship and that this recent activity is not a problem. I strongly disagree.

Then let's just call them highly objective and completely nonpartisan if it pleases you. Does that help you get to the crux of what I'm saying?

False equivalency? Please explain.

 

[Phokus]

From WaPo OpEd piece:


Voters determine what is considered "mainstream". It is they who represent the prevalent political attitudes and values in our country. What is "mainstream" is not defined in an OpEd piece written by a couple of highly partisan liberals.

In 2010, Republicans picked up 6 previously Democratic Senate seats and picked up 63 in the House taking majority which was previously held by Democrats since 2006.

So yes...let's just say it...Republicans are the problem...if you happen to be a Democrat.

Read this and tell me with a straight face that Republicans aren't radicalized:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ts-republicans-collide-over-defense-cuts.html

Dems and GOP had a bi-partisan compromise deal to cut spending on things they like (Social Spending + Military Cuts)... GOP does an about face, changes military spending cuts to ALL social spending cuts. And the idiots who vote GOP says, 'see? we can compromise!' (compromising means giving the GOP 100% of everything they want).

Edit:

And just to highlight how radical the GOP is, the overwhelming public (AND THIS INCLUDES REPUBLICANS) want cuts to military spending:

http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/10/poll-finds-americans-ready-to-cut-defense-public-ignores-dcs-s/

The most recent evidence of this is in a new report, released today, from the Program for Public Consultation, in cooperation with the Stimson Center and the Center for Public Integrity's National Security Program. The study, based on a complex poll done with a scientifically selected sample poll of 665 Americans), showed that Americans think US defense spending is higher than they thought and that they are prepared to lower it.

Confronted with data that compared defense spending to other areas of discretionary spending, to past levels of the defense budget, or to spending by other countries in the world, significant majorities of the public – Republican and Democrat - said US defense spending was higher than they had expected. Presented with arguments for and against cutting the defense budget, Republicans and Democrats showed they agreed with propositions that pointed in both directions, but clearly in both directions, not just one.

But then, asked whether they would actually cut the defense budget, whether they bought either set of policy justifications, the consensus was striking. As the study stated: "given the opportunity to set a specific overall level for the base defense budget for 2013 a very large majority set levels below the 2012 level, including two thirds of Republicans and 9 in 10 Democrats." On average, the respondents called for reductions that would lower defense spending 22 percent.

This sentiment is consistent with other polling for the past year, revealing the public's willingness to put defense on the table and under the microscope. The polls show that defense-related issues have been replaced by deficits and the economy as the most significant concerns of the American public.

 

[NeoV]

If those on the GOP side of things can't at least acknowledge that the GOP strategy during this Administration has not been about getting things done, but making sure things don't get done - then why even bother debating it?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Do you think that most voters are aware of the issues they are raising in their article? I find that highly unlikely as most of it is about Republicans rendering Congress almost nonfunctional, something the average person doesn't care much about. Case in point, my gut tells me that overwhelming majorities of Americans believe that the President should have his nominees voted on in a timely manner. That's clearly no longer happening.

If that's the case and the party is primarily carrying out its radicalism in ways that people aren't aware of, they can be quite far out of the mainstream without suffering electorally for it.

When one party controls the house and the other paty controls the senate, it's easy for one party to block anything that comes along and then blame the other party. Your dear dems are not innocent in this.

If rommie-boy should happen to win in November, the reps hold onto the house, and the dems hold the senate, are you telling me that the dems won't try to block things? But when they doi ti, it's 'standing on principle' so it's all good.

It's all a bloody game to all of the inside the beltway crowd. It's all about power.

 

[werepossum]

Actually, if you exclude the last twenty years or so (and maybe the Civil War era as well) your premise is dead wrong-our government has had a long history of bipartasanship and compromise among competing agendas. It is indisputable that the modern day GOP has adopted a basic position of no compromise on anything at anytime-in my view, a position that greatly damaged our economy in the first place, then greatly slowed down the recovery.

The old adage about lead or get the f*ck out of the way? The GOP should pay it some mind.

Compromise on everybody getting their spending, yes. Compromise on the unpopular, hard choices recommended by the bipartisan blue ribbon commissions, no. But if it makes you feel any better, I full expect that if the Pubbies take the White House and the Senate, they will adopt the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrat ideal of bipartisan compromise.

Have the most extreme little fraction of your party get its lobbyists to write a massive bill behind closed doors, allow little debate and almost no amendment votes, use arm-twisting and out-right bribes and procedural gimmicks to pass it on a strictly partisan vote, and tell the American people that "we have to pass the bill so that you can see what's in it." Yup, the new face of bipartisan compromise is to graciously offer the opposition the ability to vote for whatever crap you choose to offer.

 

[fskimospy]

When one party controls the house and the other paty controls the senate, it's easy for one party to block anything that comes along and then blame the other party. Your dear dems are not innocent in this.

If rommie-boy should happen to win in November, the reps hold onto the house, and the dems hold the senate, are you telling me that the dems won't try to block things? But when they doi ti, it's 'standing on principle' so it's all good.

It's all a bloody game to all of the inside the beltway crowd. It's all about power.

Nothing in this article or what I've written is about the natural results of divided government. As for the tired old game of impugning other people's motives, I'm not interested. Trust me, I understand how politics work in America pretty well.

It has nothing to do with people 'trying to block things', as already mentioned many times both in this thread and in other places, the level of obstruction undertaken by Republicans, particularly in the Senate, has reached levels far and away greater than anything America has ever seen, certainly in the modern era and possibly ever. This is not a normal state of governance.

 

[Jhhnn]

One of the more interesting things is that representation in the Senate skews heavily towards low population states, which lean Repub, and something they exploit ruthlessly against a majority of the population-

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/turning-the-senate-into-the-house/

A parting number: under the current rules it is possible for a coalition of the 20 least populated states plus one Senator from the next least populated state to have the 41 votes needed to block Senate action. This coalition would represent all of 10.8% of the population of the states.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/tyranny-of-the-tiny-minority.html

To see how this works, consider what followed a July CBS News/New York Times poll that found 69 percent of Americans support Congress either enacting a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq or defunding the war completely. When the Senate voted on timetable legislation that month, 47 senators voted "no" — enough to filibuster.

Should we be surprised that a policy supported by more than two thirds of America drew opposition from almost half of the Senate? No, not when we consider the math.

Those 47 senators understand they don't answer to mainstream public opinion.
They rely on merely 16 percent of the nation's total voting-age population to get elected and re-elected — a miniscule segment of America comprising the hard-core Republican base.

Obviously, small-state senators would block Constitutional amendments making our government more democratic. So why bother to know these numbers? Because they tell us how and where we can achieve progress.

 

[glenn1]

Nothing in this article or what I've written is about the natural results of divided government. As for the tired old game of impugning other people's motives, I'm not interested. Trust me, I understand how politics work in America pretty well.

It has nothing to do with people 'trying to block things', as already mentioned many times both in this thread and in other places, the level of obstruction undertaken by Republicans, particularly in the Senate, has reached levels far and away greater than anything America has ever seen, certainly in the modern era and possibly ever. This is not a normal state of governance.

That's the entire point. Democrats are the ones who care passionately about the work of government and defending the New Deal/Great Society programs they hold as their crowning achievements; they've essentially assumed the "conservative" position the GOP used to hold. Republicans have taken over the role of the insurgents from the 60s liberals now and are looking to implement major change in the role and scope of government; thus chaos doesn't bother them.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's the entire point. Democrats are the ones who care passionately about the work of government and defending the New Deal/Great Society programs they hold as their crowning achievements; they've essentially assumed the "conservative" position the GOP used to hold. Republicans have taken over the role of the insurgents from the 60s liberals now and are looking to implement major change in the role and scope of government; thus chaos doesn't bother them.

In other words, Repubs want to return us to the Gilded Age, the Age of Jim Crow, of Christian Fundamentalism, when the robber barons & segregationists held sway & the middle class was basically non-existent.

 

[glenn1]

In other words, Repubs want to return us to the Gilded Age, the Age of Jim Crow, of Christian Fundamentalism, when the robber barons & segregationists held sway & the middle class was basically non-existent.

Think about it that way if you simply want to rationalize losing. They're now fighting on their terms; a total war and attacking on all fronts, and your side is being forced to try to defend every single piece of "high ground" represented by a New Deal/Great Society program. Be prepared for the long insurgency, the IED's to come, and start thinking about what core of progressive government you're willing to accept since the huge behemoth that exists now isn't defensible from dedicated partisan fighting.

 

[Jhhnn]

Think about it that way if you simply want to rationalize losing. They're now fighting on their terms; a total war and attacking on all fronts, and your side is being forced to try to defend every single piece of "high ground" represented by a New Deal/Great Society program. Be prepared for the long insurgency, the IED's to come, and start thinking about what core of progressive government you're willing to accept since the huge behemoth that exists now isn't defensible from dedicated partisan fighting.

In other words, you can't define Repub goals in any other terms, and recognize that they actually represent a small minority of Americans, Mostly the uber rich & the backward.

 

[Craig234]

When one party controls the house and the other paty controls the senate, it's easy for one party to block anything that comes along and then blame the other party. Your dear dems are not innocent in this.

If rommie-boy should happen to win in November, the reps hold onto the house, and the dems hold the senate, are you telling me that the dems won't try to block things? But when they doi ti, it's 'standing on principle' so it's all good.

It's all a bloody game to all of the inside the beltway crowd. It's all about power.

Eskimospy already correctly answered, but the phrase 'false equivalency' should be mentioned. Oh, the far less guilty one isn't perfect? No difference then.

It's not "all about power" to all of them. It might pretty much be to the side that makes a spectacle of Terry Shciavo and by their own account wants war because it gives power.

 

[RightIsWrong]

If you honestly believe the vote counts in Iraq. I dont know what to tell you.

You seriously have lost the ability to detect sarcasm and to recognize that the point being made isn't that the US and Iraqi election systems are parallel but that, just because a majority of people will do something, doesn't mean that it is an intelligent or even self serving action!

You're getting beyond reprieve!

What you and a lot of those defenind the indefensible actions of the hard-core 90% of the elected Republican faction are not realizing or willing to admit when you say that near 50% of American support what is going on from them is simply this....

The great majority of the voters will vote for whomever has a (R) or (D) after their name regardless of their political viewpoints, experience, ability to lead or willingness to drive the country off the side of a mountain just because they can't be seen as weak and be willing to actually compromise for the betterment of society.

That is the point of my statement and the reality of why the (R) party is still getting anywhere near 50% of the vote when, if people would actually use their freaking brains instead of listening to canned talking points developed by think-tanks and psychoanalysts studying human behavorial patterns, they'd vote for neither and we'd have a system where there were 4-5 viable parties/candidates to chose from for every electible seat instead of the two corrupt, incompetent and subservient to the uber-rich parties that we now have.