Mrs.PatsFanInVa

I agree....now someone needs to tell Richard Mourdock - the Tea Party/Republican Indiana Senate candidate who beat Richard Lugar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...aQ8CU_blog.htm

Drewski

Hahaha see my edit from that post Mrs.....I brought up the same exact example.

Great minds think alike....or do they

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Too funny....and yes, they do!!

What a contrast between those two men, huh?

As a former Indianan I will miss Richard Lugar. I didn't much approve of the fact that he was using an address which wasn't his for a residence, but that seems to be done all the time without too much fuss (Romney, for instance)
but he was a good senator for a long time and he stood his ground when it was good for his constitutants and didn't play party politics.

Drewski

Haha I had a good chuckle when I saw your post.

Yes it seems to me (aside from views on specific issues) that Lugar is what we should want in a politician - from a "willing to work together to get things done" POV.

This other guy seemingly is everything wrong with it (again from that same POV - not issue specific).

PatsFanInVa

Do you believe we have seen a new level of the minority controlling the majority in the last 3 years? I do. From the record number of filibusters to the House's stunt flying with default last year, to their stark refusal to actually govern or attempt to, I don't think it's wise to pat yourself on the back for ticket splitting this year.

I am hoping voters realize this, but you are right, the strategy of "a pox on both houses" used by the right to deligitimize all government has been highly successful. The left has played right into it more than once. However, "I just hate all of them" isn't a party or a policy position.

I was all about holding out an olive branch and singing kumbayah even when they spent a year trying to get Olympia Snowe to play ball -- one or two senators, that's what about a year of bullsh1t was about. The bill's watered down and guess what -- the Dems are still said to have "rammed it through" blah blah blah.

When the GOP leadership puts "beating Obama" over economic recovery or whatever other issue you want to name, you can't work with this current iteration of the GOP.

What is it... "my idea of bipartisanship is when the Democrats roll over and do whatever the Republicans say"? Ever look at the polls about the impressions of the value of compromise among conservatives vs. liberals or democrats vs. republicans?

Dude I hear you but it's like "negotiating" with a child who wants the red fire truck and is going to hold his breath until he turns blue. You end up with the "middle ground" of him consenting to breathe, and you buying him the firetruck.

I've spotted a few errors on the "left" in the US... I thought expending the political capital of the 08 win on health care was questionable at the time. I thought the payroll tax cut is a bad way to get the working class the tax stimulus, and I felt that extending the rich people's cuts was bullsh1t as a mechanism to get the pubbies to go along. Mainly tactical stuff, but that's only because the right is frankly batsh1t crazy at the moment.

Did you catch that fascinating year-long (give or take) reality show called The Republican Primaries?

I'm not talking about getting tired and making a gaffe, I'm talking about a stage full of people who would not accept a 1:10 ratio of revenue increases to spending cuts.

And don't get me started on VA's governor vid da ultrasound...

I think you're right. If there's one consistent mistake I've made, it's a refusal to believe people are "that stupid." So, I may be wrong.

They were discussing on one of the channels the other day the possibility that we're watching the death of the current 2 parties. Hmm. Mebbe. I don't think our biggest problem is the fact of 2 parties though. I think that's an in-vogue focus of frustration. I think it's more the perpetual campaign cycle and $ in politics.

For a while there we had a string of these guys... Nader, Ross Perot, a couple elections before that John Anderson (of Yes fame... um not really.) Perot was the most successful. All the politics changed for ten minutes, and Clinton had a surplus by the end of his run.

-- which George II promptly spent several times over on gifts to the rich (and, to be fair, a little taste for the middle, and then a big new entitlement program.)

Short memory, my friend. Perot made his point, people felt good again, ta da! Deficits don't matter!

So yeah, with rare exceptions, when I see right/left issues, I usually see some Dems with real approaches, some Dems with less real approaches, some pubbies (usually the ones they've purged, with reasonable sounding approaches, where the devil is in the details.... and the vast majority of the right espousing some batsh1t crazy theory about curing what ails us with moon colonies or abiotic oil or something.

I think of myself as more of a realist than a leftist... the perception I suppose I give off is due to the fact that the left addresses reality, and the right just plain makes sh1t up instead, to make the rhetoric easier.

PFnV

khayos

Uhhh, you know the 2010 elections were sworn-in in 2011... so it's only been a year with a GOP house.

Unless you think the Democrats were eating themselves for the other two years, your grasp of recent history isn't so tight.

PatsFanInVa

Did you note the references to the filibuster era, special K?

You know what the filibuster is, right? I don't need to explain that further?

Let me know.

Thanks

khayos

Oh I'm so sorry, Scott Brown broke the filibuster-proof supermajority of the Democrats. That's still only two years. Again, your grasp of history is tenuous at best.

Not to mention, the filibuster was BS anyway -- Obamacare passed via simple majority.

Drewski

PFnVA - Couldn't include your quotes in my reply....I guess I got too wordy

Hope this is follow-able...
Whether or not it was truly a “minority controlling the majority” is up for discussion because was that actually the case?
What I mean is for a period of time, Ds had the so called Super Majority correct? If you (as a party) have a super majority and are still being controlled by the minority…then what does that say about the majority? Wouldn’t raise questions to a, their policy ideas, or b, their ability to work amongst themselves?

As for the last 17 months or so with the R house, yes I would agree with you. They have generally rooted for failure (and conducted themselves accordingly) of our country rather than work to make it better. As I said in another thread, I have never personally rooted for the failure of one of my countrymen…and to do so is beyond my idea of what being American is.
I think most voters who don’t affiliate themselves to one party or the other (in this case straight party ticket pub voters) realize that the members of the house (specifically Rs) have done a crap job…isn’t the approval rate in the low 20s?
I lump Snowe in with Lugar – examples of Rs who realize they were elected to work for constituents to get things done. As I said to Mrs, I wish we had more like them. I may not agree with their POV on specific issues, but our government is supposed to work together to solve problems. Those two, and probably many others on both sides, see that as “their job”. Unfortunately there are more, on both sides of the aisle, who see their loyalty to party first.

“Beating Obama” is sadly more akin to a HS class president campaign slogan than it should be the highest level of government in the greatest country on Earth. You get no argument from me there.

Vote for Pedro

And negotiating is partyX moving toward partyY and vise versa. Sadly we have two groups who dig in and won’t move – they would rather do nothing then break a party belief….and we have citizens who vote for reps/Senators to do just that.

At least you are willing to admit that neither side is faultless and I give you credit for that, many others here are either unwilling or unable to do so.
Didn’t watch any of the primaries, but did catch the vibe you are speaking to. Outside of Huntsman I had no interest in any of them. Romney is a joke (although my level of distaste for him isn’t at say Darryl’s level) but I won’t vote for him. I am just “happy” that Ricky rode off into the sunset. I may not have love in all the policy and beliefs of the left, but the idea of having a government lead and set law based on Christian beliefs, which you know, who impact everyone, even those who don’t share those beliefs, isn’t what America is about. The irony of it all to me is the biggest proponents of that style of government are also seemingly the biggest of proponents of getting Iran….which is the same style of government, just with a different superhero central figure.

I think we need more than 10% cuts…

And there are heaps of dumb people.

Well Perot was before my time….but for those who lived through (in a voting sense) was the population as unhappy with the 2 establishment parties as they are now?

I mean one could make the argument that outside of the diehard Ds and the diehard Rs, the rest of us would say fu(k all of em. I don’t get the impression that in Perot’s day there was an overwhelming sense of that…but I admit I wasn’t paying attention to politics….G.I. Joe was king for all I cared.
I just don’t remember a period in my life where the general population has been as unhappy and our politics as polarized as they are now (and have been since ’01 – this isn’t an Obama phenomenon)…so while the 3rd party in the past hasn’t done well, I get the impression that comparing the early 90s to now, politically and socially, is apples and bananas.

Ya forgive me…my intent wasn’t to pigeon hole as one or the other….just more of an observation of your “talking points” in your posts.

I agree with the Ds being the party which is dealing with reality, but even they really aren’t; meaning If you compare them to the current GOP, then yes, they are. A group trying to do anything over nothing is playing in the real world.

It is a "lesser of two" for me...neither really are, but the Ds are more than the Rs by contrast.

However, they are also ignoring vast realities with many of their ideas just the same. The bones of our system are good, and honestly they have been for 236, the fact that this experiment in humanity is still going, while others have set out and failed is proof of that. But there are things that are broken. I find it hard to move forward with policies for a “21st century” America if we don’t fix the obvious breakpoints in what said policies would be built from.
Take Healthcare for example. “We” want a more universal system of it…ok. But how can we enact a system of government based insurance where the only thing we really have to compare it to is the existing government offerings, which any nonpartisan would admit are rife with abuse and waste?
How would we sustain a bigger government system when the relatively small systems we currently have aren’t sustainable?


How do we “Raise Taxes” to ensure the rich and powerful in this country pay their way….when it would in some cases simply be an increase to the rates which already exist….in a tax policy that has holes left, right and center for them to continue to take advantage of?

How do we continue to spend what we do on Education, yet still lag many places in testing? There comes a point in any situation, where if what you are doing (in this case continually throwing money at an issue) isn’t working, you must take a step back and review.

How do 3rd world countries, with next to no infrastructure to speak of, have the ability to control people coming and going from their country…..yet one of the most advanced places in the history of mankind cant…or wont?

Fix…then enhance. Don’t enhance something that is broken….otherwise we’ll be back here debating the same situations 30 years from now….cuz it’s still broken.

Hebeill

You may think he has a tenuous grasp of history, but you have none. This is what he's talking about. Please keep embarrassing yourself, it seems to be your raison d'etre

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) - Voting record on the filibuster. @ KillFil!

Senator Mitch McConnell, R from KY, has voted in favor of a filibuster 307 out of a total of 700 opportunities. This amounts to an obstruction record of 43.9%.


Republican Obstruction at Work: Record Number of Filibusters | NEWS JUNKIE POST

When the Democrats regained tenuous control of the 110th Congress in 2007, filibusters by the new Republican minority skyrocketed. Following the landslide victory of Barack Obama and progressive Democrats in 2008, there was a clear mandate for change in reform in America, yet the 111th should set a new record for filibusters as part of a clear pattern of obstruction from those who do not want change or reform.