4 ms·

I don't know enough about the legislation to comment on it specifically but I do know politics -- it appears the Republicans are pulling another HCR strategy he

by jsz0 17y ago

I don't know enough about the legislation to comment on it specifically but I do know politics -- it appears the Republicans are pulling another HCR strategy here and simply letting the Democrats go forward on this unchallenged on substance in an attempt to score a political Waterloo 2 (since the first one didn't quite work) Pretty sad state of affairs I think. I'm willing to accept Dodd's bill isn't great (or even good) but the response of trying to make it purely a political issue with dishonest speculation of repealing it later is pure lunacy from the opposition. People are desperate to see some major financial reform so it will be extremely popular no matter what's actually in the bill. The political narrative of saying "the people who caused the meltdown oppose the fix" is political gold. As a committed liberal I'm actually a bit worried that the classic check & balance of right/left is getting out of whack due to the massive failure of the Republican party to put governing over politics. They need to come to the table with honest intentions and substance and try to be part of the solution.

anamax 17y ago
> They need to come to the table with honest intentions and substance and try to be part of the solution. If Democrats left to their own devices do dumb things, why should we want to let them stay in power? What's wrong with holding Democrats responsible for their proposals?
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  When elected members of a political party find themselves in opposition, they are not paid to just sit on their hands and say 'fuck it'. They still have an obligation to their constituents to participate in the legislative process even if they don't expect to succeed. That's why we have a legislative branch instead of just an executive.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > When elected members of a political party find themselves in opposition, they are not paid to just sit on their hands and say 'fuck it'. Remind me - did you complain when Dems did that to Bush? (Pre 2006)? You remember - "Disent is patriotic" and all that. Or is that somehow different? Of cours, the Repubs actually do have proposals. You don't hear about them in the "tingly leg" media, so you'd have you'd have to look elsewhere. Or is that their fault too?
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      As a matter of fact, I have, though I have not been here on HN so long. This is hardly the place for a political argument, but I believe a pragmatic approach is entirely compatible with robust debate. I do not care for the zero-sum outcomes which often result from or are promoted by the adversarial nature of our political system. But I learned very early in life that no matter how bitter a competition becomes, almost all the spectators are united by a disdain for the referee. This cartoon humorously summarizes my worldview; I like that fellow with the pipe. http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u316/sisdecadence/subgenius_big.jpg http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u316/sisdecadence/subgeni...
      - anamax 17y ago
        > This is hardly the place for a political argument, but I believe a pragmatic approach is entirely compatible with robust debate. Interestingly enough, your "pragmatic approach" involves chiding Repubs for not making proposals even though they actually did. Why are you blaming Repubs for your ignorance of their proposals? (I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong to blame them - I'm asking why you are doing so.) btw - You do realize that the fellow with the pipe is a smug parasite, right? Snark, while "cool", isn't actually productive. It's a way to feel superior without actually doing anything that justifies the feeling.
- jsz0 17y ago
  Nothing wrong with holding them responsible or voting them out if that's what the people decide. I just believe if you get elected to govern it's really irresponsible to spend your time running for re-election the whole time. If they don't stop focusing exclusively on making everything "his Waterloo!" the American people won't trust them to govern. I don't want to see a one party system but it seems like we're heading in that direction due to their political miscalculations. Even the hype now around November is pretty unrealistic. There just aren't really enough weak Democrats up for re-election in the Senate to "repeal it!" so they're setting themselves up for a big political failure 8 months before an election they might actually do well in otherwise.

by jsz0 17y ago

anamax 17y ago

> They need to come to the table with honest intentions and substance and try to be part of the solution. If Democrats left to their own devices do dumb things, why should we want to let them stay in power? What's wrong with holding Democrats responsible for their proposals?

anigbrowl 17y ago
When elected members of a political party find themselves in opposition, they are not paid to just sit on their hands and say 'fuck it'. They still have an obligation to their constituents to participate in the legislative process even if they don't expect to succeed. That's why we have a legislative branch instead of just an executive.
- anamax 17y ago
  > When elected members of a political party find themselves in opposition, they are not paid to just sit on their hands and say 'fuck it'. Remind me - did you complain when Dems did that to Bush? (Pre 2006)? You remember - "Disent is patriotic" and all that. Or is that somehow different? Of cours, the Repubs actually do have proposals. You don't hear about them in the "tingly leg" media, so you'd have you'd have to look elsewhere. Or is that their fault too?
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    As a matter of fact, I have, though I have not been here on HN so long. This is hardly the place for a political argument, but I believe a pragmatic approach is entirely compatible with robust debate. I do not care for the zero-sum outcomes which often result from or are promoted by the adversarial nature of our political system. But I learned very early in life that no matter how bitter a competition becomes, almost all the spectators are united by a disdain for the referee. This cartoon humorously summarizes my worldview; I like that fellow with the pipe. http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u316/sisdecadence/subgenius_big.jpg http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u316/sisdecadence/subgeni...
    - anamax 17y ago
      > This is hardly the place for a political argument, but I believe a pragmatic approach is entirely compatible with robust debate. Interestingly enough, your "pragmatic approach" involves chiding Repubs for not making proposals even though they actually did. Why are you blaming Repubs for your ignorance of their proposals? (I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong to blame them - I'm asking why you are doing so.) btw - You do realize that the fellow with the pipe is a smug parasite, right? Snark, while "cool", isn't actually productive. It's a way to feel superior without actually doing anything that justifies the feeling.
jsz0 17y ago
Nothing wrong with holding them responsible or voting them out if that's what the people decide. I just believe if you get elected to govern it's really irresponsible to spend your time running for re-election the whole time. If they don't stop focusing exclusively on making everything "his Waterloo!" the American people won't trust them to govern. I don't want to see a one party system but it seems like we're heading in that direction due to their political miscalculations. Even the hype now around November is pretty unrealistic. There just aren't really enough weak Democrats up for re-election in the Senate to "repeal it!" so they're setting themselves up for a big political failure 8 months before an election they might actually do well in otherwise.