4 ms·

The same strategy was applied. The stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts. How many republicans voted for it again? How many republicans would vote for any healthcare bil

by jbooth 17y ago

The same strategy was applied. The stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts. How many republicans voted for it again? How many republicans would vote for any healthcare bill? Even one that gave kittens to every republican in the country, spit in the eye of liberals and was named "the healthcare bill"? I posted below that republicans filibustered PAYGO rules and a deficit reduction committee... right after filibustering the routine raising of the debt ceiling. The republicans see a clear incentive to gridlock every single thing that goes through congress because they think people will blame it on the democrats. It's working out for them ok, so shame on us, I guess.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Perhaps you are right. Like I said, I don't know. It could be that Republicans are somehow much more recalcitrant than they were 20 years ago. It could also be that the administration has a more belligerent and inept political team than Clinton's administration did. Or a combination. Or something else. Remember that as the party in power, the administration's role (under the divide-and-conquer strategy) is to be accommodating and generous. Intimidating the minority party -- even if they deserve the bashing -- is just going to solidify their position and make the problem worse. Hey. Just my opinion. I have a friend of mine that no matter what the subject can give me a list of all the bad things the Republicans did. I have another friend that can do the same for the Democrats. I'm really glad that neither of these friends are in public office. :)
- jbooth 17y ago
  Well, I'm biased, but my reading on the situation is that Obama's a born conciliator who's tried to loop in the R's on numerous occasions (Baucus-Graham negotiations on the healthcare bill, drastically altering the stimulus in order to get Snowe on board), while the current group of republicans in congress have been far more recalcitrant than recent minorities. Obama hasn't even made a recess appointment yet, and way more of his appointees are being held up than Bush ever had to deal with. Kennedy worked with Bush on NCLB. Gingrich, although not in the minority, worked with Clinton on welfare reform (although Clinton did have to veto it 7 times before they would pass something he could agree to). I just don't see any willingness from current republicans to share a victory with Obama on anything. Either they're personally committed to not working with him on anything, ever, or they're afraid of tea party primary challenges, or both. The fact that the current republican caucus is primarily old white men from the south probably doesn't help, for reasons that are too inflammatory to go into too deeply except to note that I'm commenting on old white men from the south, not on republicans necessarily.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    I was going to email you this link but you didn't have an email address in your profile, so I'll post it here. I believe it's much of the same material told from the conservative side. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/19/debunking_liberal_excuses.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/19/debunki...
    - jbooth 17y ago
      Well, maybe Obama could do a better job of cracking skulls and of outmaneuvering republicans so that they have no choice but to work with him.. But I'll just reiterate that we're dealing with a party here that attempted to filibuster raising the debt ceiling, and then filibustered implementing PAYGO rules that same afternoon. They filibustered appointing that bipartisan deficit reduction commission after the original idea had been pitched by republican senators. So, yeah, there's room for improvement in how Obama's handling these jokers. He could do a better job in exposing what they're doing and forcing them to be productive. More televised meetings with them would be my advice, and he seems to be going that way with the healthcare summit next week (that republicans may decide not to show up to). But they're still the primary jokers in the picture. IMO.

by jbooth 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Perhaps you are right. Like I said, I don't know. It could be that Republicans are somehow much more recalcitrant than they were 20 years ago. It could also be that the administration has a more belligerent and inept political team than Clinton's administration did. Or a combination. Or something else. Remember that as the party in power, the administration's role (under the divide-and-conquer strategy) is to be accommodating and generous. Intimidating the minority party -- even if they deserve the bashing -- is just going to solidify their position and make the problem worse. Hey. Just my opinion. I have a friend of mine that no matter what the subject can give me a list of all the bad things the Republicans did. I have another friend that can do the same for the Democrats. I'm really glad that neither of these friends are in public office. :)

jbooth 17y ago
Well, I'm biased, but my reading on the situation is that Obama's a born conciliator who's tried to loop in the R's on numerous occasions (Baucus-Graham negotiations on the healthcare bill, drastically altering the stimulus in order to get Snowe on board), while the current group of republicans in congress have been far more recalcitrant than recent minorities. Obama hasn't even made a recess appointment yet, and way more of his appointees are being held up than Bush ever had to deal with. Kennedy worked with Bush on NCLB. Gingrich, although not in the minority, worked with Clinton on welfare reform (although Clinton did have to veto it 7 times before they would pass something he could agree to). I just don't see any willingness from current republicans to share a victory with Obama on anything. Either they're personally committed to not working with him on anything, ever, or they're afraid of tea party primary challenges, or both. The fact that the current republican caucus is primarily old white men from the south probably doesn't help, for reasons that are too inflammatory to go into too deeply except to note that I'm commenting on old white men from the south, not on republicans necessarily.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  I was going to email you this link but you didn't have an email address in your profile, so I'll post it here. I believe it's much of the same material told from the conservative side. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/19/debunking_liberal_excuses.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/19/debunki...
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Well, maybe Obama could do a better job of cracking skulls and of outmaneuvering republicans so that they have no choice but to work with him.. But I'll just reiterate that we're dealing with a party here that attempted to filibuster raising the debt ceiling, and then filibustered implementing PAYGO rules that same afternoon. They filibustered appointing that bipartisan deficit reduction commission after the original idea had been pitched by republican senators. So, yeah, there's room for improvement in how Obama's handling these jokers. He could do a better job in exposing what they're doing and forcing them to be productive. More televised meetings with them would be my advice, and he seems to be going that way with the healthcare summit next week (that republicans may decide not to show up to). But they're still the primary jokers in the picture. IMO.