So it looks like with Washington going for Murray this could be a 53-47 as far as the caucuses are concerned. That is a big deal.
How so? If the House under Boehner refuses to push past any progressive piece of legislation and attempts to roll back all of the work the Obama administration has done in the past tow years, what makes the difference in the number of Senate seats the Democrats hold matter? The Tea Party will push their agenda through the House with absolutely no pause for consideration or willingness to cooperate with the minority party, and when said bills reach the Senate, the Democrat Senators will either be preoccupied with being tarred as uncooperative or, worse, being subpoenaed under what's likely going to be the largest demagogic witch hunt since the McCarthy era.
The Tea Party answers to the Republicans. The Republicans already don't like the Tea Party. There's no such thing as a Tea Party agenda because none of them have even taken an oath of office. As for the witch hunt, Cantor knows (maybe not Boehner but it doesn't matter) that if they try any McCarthy bullshit the House will swing Democrat again in 2012. They will play it down.
"Rolling back" legislation or pushing any sort of conservative legislation would require a Senate approval or Obama not vetoing anything. Aside from tax policies, they won't have the votes to overturn a Presidential veto and they don't have a Republican Senate.
And, for what it's worth, less than a third of all Tea Party candidates won. I'm not sure why you're so afraid.
Furthermore, I don't see the Democrats being able to maintain a strong and consistent vote-by-party ethos, especially not given the way someone like Joe Manchin won his election. I know that West Virginia is not America, but there's something to be said about how handily he won re-election by running away from the Democratic party's platform on numerous issues. Especially given the difficulty that Senators like Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer had in seeking re-election, I expect that instead of redoubling their efforts to adhere to what's viewed as the President's agenda, many Democratic congressmen and women will edge further and further away from it.
This all stems from what I see as the Democratic party's own view on why they were ousted from power in the House: We were too strong and didn't compromise enough with the Republicans. The reality is that, because the Democrats focused more on presenting a "we're REALLY working both sides of the aisle" narrative, they forgot to actually tell voters WHY THEY SHOULD VOTE FOR THEM.
How did you even get your McCarthy-esque talk? The media, I'm sure. I don't know what media you're reading but it seems most political networks are trying to polarize the populace, not bring us together. I was actually going to criticize you for sounding too much like Chris Matthews of MSNBC, perhaps I'll let it go.This is true, but we are in the midst of times where the media has framed the political dialogue as one of "we should all be coming together to work on things" and it's something that politicians have bought into completely.
The Democrats will vote no in the House on every conservative piece of legislation that is brought up. You're basing this entirely on your assumption that they as a caucus will act as soft-arm pussies just because the Republicans won one election cycle?However, while one party (for the most part) earnestly tries to accomplish this, the other uses this notion of cooperation as a backdoor to accuse the other of not going along with their agenda. Democrats will be dissuaded to vote no on House-approved bills on the basis of "oh, we should be cooperating, since we don't want Americans to think we're trying to push an ultra-liberal agenda" and although I see the President being forced to veto certain bills, the number of items that he'll do that too as we approach the end of 2011 will diminish as he enters campaign mode once again. That will open the door to the scenario I'm concerned about.
And, how would you expect a Democrat to pick up Robert Byrd's seat in a state where Obama lost by double digit points? West Virginia, and certainly their "ultra centrist" Democratic Senator will certainly not be a window into the Democrats' future. You do realize that I made the point a few weeks ago that it's because of the Tea Party you hate that Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer kept their jobs? By all accounts they should have been out. I wouldn't have missed them. It was a vote of reason by the states as a whole.Furthermore, I don't see the Democrats being able to maintain a strong and consistent vote-by-party ethos, especially not given the way someone like Joe Manchin won his election. I know that West Virginia is not America, but there's something to be said about how handily he won re-election by running away from the Democratic party's platform on numerous issues. Especially given the difficulty that Senators like Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer had in seeking re-election, I expect that instead of redoubling their efforts to adhere to what's viewed as the President's agenda, many Democratic congressmen and women will edge further and further away from it.
What will happen is if legislation is never going to get passed in this session, the next two years could be a lame duck session for Congress. Because if the Republicans for some odd reason actually do reach across the aisle, the Commander in Chief will be able to take all the credit in 2012. Instead if the Republicans and Democrats stall Congress, Obama and his base will actually be able to tailor the message they half-assed in the 2010 campaign. What has happened here is actually quite a good thing for the Democrats future in 2012.
The underlined directly conflicts with your statement of how they'll be dissuaded to vote no. They're not going to go from the omnipotent Democrats to babies because they lost the House. Their strategists already see this as a HUGE win. After all of the whining about Pelosi, Reid and Obama, they're all still in office. If the Republicans don't accomplish anything, the public won't give them much more of a chance. If they do, it will require the Democrats' cooperation and the Democrats' ability to unite the people will be championed. Simple electoral victory numbers are not how you define a political shift. 2012 will be a very interesting but a very rewarding year.This all stems from what I see as the Democratic Party's own view on why they were ousted from power in the House: We were too strong and didn't compromise enough with the Republicans. The reality is that, because the Democrats focused more on presenting a "we're REALLY working both sides of the aisle" narrative, they forgot to actually tell voters WHY THEY SHOULD VOTE FOR THEM.
Last edited by weeklymix; 11-03-2010 at 08:43 PM.
Passive, what the good fuck are you talking about?
It's long but it's absolutely worth reading to the end. The entire world's on a kamikaze mission.
As far as I can tell Passive gets all his political coverage from the inside of a dead dog's body.This is true, but we are in the midst of times where the media has framed the political dialogue as one of "we should all be coming together to work on things" and it's something that politicians have bought into completely.
That hasn't been a credible source in over two years.
9/12: Shifted @ Mercer
9/24 - 28: Decibel Festival
10/3-5: Hardly Strictly Bluegrass Festival
10/4: Ought @ BoH
10/5: The War on Drugs, Cass McCombs @ The Fillmore
10/18-19: Treasure Island Music Festival
But he signed the Lily Ledbetter Act! Now that we have equal pay for women it's practically the future.
No no. Don't panic. It was the Huddie Ledbetter act.
And occasionally you'll find a thoughtful op-ed piece in the lower GI. But overall, the quality has declined immeasurably since most of the writers jumped ship to work at the Clubbed Baby Seal Herald.
Rusted strings and creaking pines for some, miniature Amerasian dividends for others.
To wit, even the general Republican population will now start to diverge now that the pendulum is in full swing again. Whenever any party gains strength their platform gets muddy. This is real life, not propaganda spewed with a mouth full of french fries in the student union.
I'm going to once again humbly request a "Passive's Theories" thread, as a sort of companion piece to "Faxman's Facts".
I'd like to cancel out his request with a request to the contrary. Back to square one you go.
Did anybody watch Boehner's victory speech or whatever they're calling it? It was hilarious.
^Saw that... got emotional over his path to the American dream to then getting a seat in the House to fuck the people over. FUCKER.
+ me on last.fm!
"The fate of the country does not depend on how you vote at the polls — the worst man is as strong as the best at that game; it does not depend on what kind of paper you drop into the ballot-box once a year, but on what kind of man you drop from your chamber into the street every morning." ~ Henry David Thoreau
Believe what you like. I believe in wealth.
Last edited by BayAreaIsBetter; 11-06-2010 at 12:35 AM.
Further more, one should never adorn a pig with diamonds for all those who know art know that it is material.
Last edited by BayAreaIsBetter; 11-06-2010 at 12:41 AM.
Who the fuck is this guy.
Hint: replace the bold with italics.