Rip wrote:yet they refuse to consider a delay for the rest of us.
They are refusing to allow this tactic to work. Which is what they should be doing. The nightmare of this becoming a successful negotiating ploy is too ridiculous to even consider.
The United States Government doesn't negotiate with Terrorists (Hostage-Takers).
Most terrorists/hostage takers are counting on that. They gain more from an agenda standpoint, most times negotiations are a ruse or not in good faith anyway. Better to have everyone watch as you carry out the threat in the face of an enemy who can be seen as willing sacrifice everything to gain nothing.
Since we have had numerous shutdowns I doubt very much this one will lead to the end of the practice or the removal from office of those willing to use it.
Rip wrote:So the counter to the tactic is working as planned? OK, enjoy.
Spoken like a true believer. Yes, the consequence of not giving in to a group's unreasonable demand is that you might have to endure the thing that the unreasonable group threatened to do.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
I was surprised at how many times this has happened (18 times since 1976 to varying degrees). I repeat, assholes.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Isgrimnur wrote:Historically, it is. Hell, Carter and the wholly Democratic Congress account for five in two years. And then there's the eight under Reagan.
I vaguely remember the MX missle debate... mostly because we were playing Nuclear War a lot at the time...
Have you got change for 100 million people?
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I don't agree with the Tea Party tactics - I've never been a Tea Partier and always considered myself a much more moderate conservative. At the same time, it's ridiculous that a President of the opposing party who controls the Senate outright can't prevent a small group from basically taking the steering wheel of the federal government. I've never seen a President so ineffective when it comes to doing anything. Hell, Clinton did a better job leading with no control over EITHER house of Congress.
It's a failure of leadership on all levels, not just in the House. There's a reason Congressional approval is at 10%, and it's not just because of 80 Tea Party representatives. Folks on both sides of the aisle are disgusted with this nonsense, as they should be.
YellowKing wrote:At the same time, it's ridiculous that a President of the opposing party who controls the Senate outright can't prevent a small group from basically taking the steering wheel of the federal government.[/qupte]
What, exactly, could President Obama do to prevent the Tea Party caucus inside the House Republican caucus from forcing the House Republicans to refuse to pass a clean CR?
I've never seen a President so ineffective when it comes to doing anything.
The government shut down repeatedly under Reagan. Was he a failed leader, too?
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
YellowKing wrote:I don't agree with the Tea Party tactics - I've never been a Tea Partier and always considered myself a much more moderate conservative. At the same time, it's ridiculous that a President of the opposing party who controls the Senate outright can't prevent a small group from basically taking the steering wheel of the federal government. I've never seen a President so ineffective when it comes to doing anything. Hell, Clinton did a better job leading with no control over EITHER house of Congress.
It's a failure of leadership on all levels, not just in the House. There's a reason Congressional approval is at 10%, and it's not just because of 80 Tea Party representatives. Folks on both sides of the aisle are disgusted with this nonsense, as they should be.
I don't want the Senate and president to be able to control the House. And even then, if the group's influence were so small they would be ignored buy both parties like rupblicrats have been doing to independents for years. It's the republican party who are afraid to deal with them and rightly so. Tea Partiers are using guerrilla tactics to try accomplish the things the Republican party have been paying lip service to for decades. The party can't turn their backs on the partiers without turning their back on a considerable amount of their disaffected electorate. The party has collapsed itself with its own lies and greed and are blaming the democrats for republican treachery.
That said, republicans should do the right thing and turn their backs on the partiers because their elected officials are snake oil salesmen who have taken republican tactical appeals to gullible idiots for personal gain to the extreme.
It is a failure of leadership and that's reflection on a history of voters of the US that's trended for at least my entire adult life.
Fireball1244 wrote:The government shut down repeatedly under Reagan. Was he a failed leader, too?
Depends on the definition. He dragged us further into governing by debt driven imperialist doctrine more than any president since FDR while putting all his problems off into Bush the Elders administration. But he got people to follow him and that influence is still being felt thirty years later.
Ezra Klein has a good interview with Robert Costa of the National Review -- with some analysis about what is happening over in the House -- about how Boehner is trapped in a no-win situation. They also get into the total meltdown occurring in the Republican caucus in the house. I think this does a good job talking through the current landscape with even a hint of some perfunctory root cause analysis - they mention gerrymandering but not by name.
I was surprised at how many times this has happened (18 times since 1976 to varying degrees). I repeat, assholes.
As long as assholes in this case goes for both sides and not just Republicans, I'll allow it.
Assholes goes for anyone that is shutting shit down for unrelated bullshit. Some of the shutdowns were over genuine disagreements over spending. Most weren't.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
YellowKing wrote:I don't agree with the Tea Party tactics - I've never been a Tea Partier and always considered myself a much more moderate conservative. At the same time, it's ridiculous that a President of the opposing party who controls the Senate outright can't prevent a small group from basically taking the steering wheel of the federal government.
Why is that ridiculous? The constitution provides that the house needs to approve all legislation - the whole point is that the President can't simply compel the House to vote for what he wants. If you don't agree with the Tea Party tactics, why do you blame Obama for being unable to compel then rather than blame them for being unreasonable? What about blaming Boehner for being unable to pass a clean CR *that he favors* when he ostensibly controls a majority of House votes? Or say, why not blame Boehner for failing to convince 5 democratic senators to go along with the house bill? Is it ridiculous that he's unable to magically compel the Senate to do what he wants?
I do lay some blame Boehner. But I'm not giving Obama a pass - a lot of the vitriol by the Republicans towards this President was earned by Obama early in his Presidency when the Democrats controlled both houses and ran amuck. Back when Obama was telling the Republicans to get in the back seat and Pelosi was strutting around like a prize rooster.
YellowKing wrote:I do lay some blame Boehner. But I'm not giving Obama a pass - a lot of the vitriol by the Republicans towards this President was earned by Obama early in his Presidency when the Democrats controlled both houses and ran amuck. Back when Obama was telling the Republicans to get in the back seat and Pelosi was strutting around like a prize rooster.
Oh, I don't exempt Obama from blame. However, in assessing relative blame, here's one important fact: if the House voted today on a clean CR (funding the government at existing levels, no change on Obamacare), it would almost certainly pass. The Tea Party caucus would vote against it, but they're a minority of their own party.
The reason why this hasn't happened is because Boehner will not schedule a vote on a clean CR.
Given that, would you blame Boehner or Obama more?
I was surprised at how many times this has happened (18 times since 1976 to varying degrees). I repeat, assholes.
As long as assholes in this case goes for both sides and not just Republicans, I'll allow it.
Assholes goes for anyone that is shutting shit down for unrelated bullshit. Some of the shutdowns were over genuine disagreements over spending. Most weren't.
Are you actually implying that some shutdowns are better than others?
YellowKing wrote:I do lay some blame Boehner. But I'm not giving Obama a pass - a lot of the vitriol by the Republicans towards this President was earned by Obama early in his Presidency when the Democrats controlled both houses and ran amuck. Back when Obama was telling the Republicans to get in the back seat and Pelosi was strutting around like a prize rooster.
I have no sympathy for this point of view. If that is what is happening -- then they need to grow the fuck up. This is governing the most prosperous nation in the world - not a bake sale.
I was surprised at how many times this has happened (18 times since 1976 to varying degrees). I repeat, assholes.
As long as assholes in this case goes for both sides and not just Republicans, I'll allow it.
Assholes goes for anyone that is shutting shit down for unrelated bullshit. Some of the shutdowns were over genuine disagreements over spending. Most weren't.
Are you actually implying that some shutdowns are better than others?
A shutdown is at least more defensible logically if the dispute is over at what levels to fund government, rather than over unrelated policy issues.
YellowKing wrote:I do lay some blame Boehner. But I'm not giving Obama a pass - a lot of the vitriol by the Republicans towards this President was earned by Obama early in his Presidency when the Democrats controlled both houses and ran amuck. Back when Obama was telling the Republicans to get in the back seat and Pelosi was strutting around like a prize rooster.
I have no sympathy for this point of view. If that is what is happening -- then they need to grow the fuck up. This is governing the most prosperous nation in the world - not a bake sale.
Could we have a bake sale, though? I would love some pie.
I was surprised at how many times this has happened (18 times since 1976 to varying degrees). I repeat, assholes.
As long as assholes in this case goes for both sides and not just Republicans, I'll allow it.
Assholes goes for anyone that is shutting shit down for unrelated bullshit. Some of the shutdowns were over genuine disagreements over spending. Most weren't.
Are you actually implying that some shutdowns are better than others?
A shutdown is at least more defensible logically if the dispute is over at what levels to fund government, rather than over unrelated policy issues.
More defensible logically is one thing. One being better than the other, that's something else entirely.
El Guapo wrote:Given that, would you blame Boehner or Obama more?
I don't even know if you can blame Boehner much. Let's say he puts the clean CR up for a vote -- he will probably get coup-ed out and the next guy will have the same problems.
malchior wrote:I don't even know if you can blame Boehner much. Let's say he puts the clean CR up for a vote -- he will probably get coup-ed out and the next guy will have the same problems.
He might be dethroned by his conservative base, but only after the CR had passed. So don't blame Boehner, if you think that him holding onto the Speaker's gavel is worth shutting down the government.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
malchior wrote:I don't even know if you can blame Boehner much. Let's say he puts the clean CR up for a vote -- he will probably get coup-ed out and the next guy will have the same problems.
He might be dethroned by his conservative base, but only after the CR had passed. So don't blame Boehner, if you think that him holding onto the Speaker's gavel is worth shutting down the government.
And then we have a debt ceiling fight. Where does it end? I guess my only point is that Boehner is a pretty reasonable guy -- always was -- and thinking this crisis is about any one man is part of the problem.
YellowKing wrote:I do lay some blame Boehner. But I'm not giving Obama a pass - a lot of the vitriol by the Republicans towards this President was earned by Obama early in his Presidency when the Democrats controlled both houses and ran amuck. Back when Obama was telling the Republicans to get in the back seat and Pelosi was strutting around like a prize rooster.
Ran amuck? I don't think so... We can debate the following two, but for the most part his problem wasn't running amuck, it was moving too slowly, IMHO.
Health care took forever because he kept trying to get some Republicans on board despite the phantom control in the senate. The Stimulus was both necessary and a compromise measure in that a large part was tax cuts and credits.
Anything else?
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
malchior wrote:Ezra Klein has a good interview with Robert Costa of the National Review -- with some analysis about what is happening over in the House -- about how Boehner is trapped in a no-win situation. They also get into the total meltdown occurring in the Republican caucus in the house. I think this does a good job talking through the current landscape with even a hint of some perfunctory root cause analysis - they mention gerrymandering but not by name.
Nice article, but at some point public servants have to serve the public and not just their party. Self-Sacrifice is part of public service.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
malchior wrote:I don't even know if you can blame Boehner much. Let's say he puts the clean CR up for a vote -- he will probably get coup-ed out and the next guy will have the same problems.
He might be dethroned by his conservative base, but only after the CR had passed. So don't blame Boehner, if you think that him holding onto the Speaker's gavel is worth shutting down the government.
And then we have a debt ceiling fight. Where does it end? I guess my only point is that Boehner is a pretty reasonable guy -- always was -- and thinking this crisis is about any one man is part of the problem.
No, this crisis falls squarely on the shoulders of the 30 to 60 crazy Tea Party Republicans. But Boehner, as their agent, shares the blame.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
malchior wrote:Ezra Klein has a good interview with Robert Costa of the National Review -- with some analysis about what is happening over in the House -- about how Boehner is trapped in a no-win situation. They also get into the total meltdown occurring in the Republican caucus in the house. I think this does a good job talking through the current landscape with even a hint of some perfunctory root cause analysis - they mention gerrymandering but not by name.
Nice article, but at some point public servants have to serve the public and not just their party. Self-Sacrifice is part of public service.
I agree - but at the same time - what is the value of the self-sacrifice if it is pointless? They hinted at a root cause in the article -- gerrymandering -- but IMO that isn't a root cause. There are other factors driving things but there are signs we are barreling towards some sort of systemic failure yet almost everyone is focused on wondering why one guy or another isn't falling on his sword for no gain.
Fireball1244 wrote:No, this crisis falls squarely on the shoulders of the 30 to 60 crazy Tea Party Republicans. But Boehner, as their agent, shares the blame.
I don't think we disagree on much on what the cause is. I totally agree and Boehner has to share some of that blame -- even if for not stopping the progression of events to a degree -- but I don't get why anyone expects Boehner to go out and commit political suicide pointlessly.
Someone needs to take this guy out (figuratively of course, NSA, heh!), IMO, the shadow puppet master of the Tea Party movement - resigned his Senate seat to run The Heritage Foundation.
malchior wrote:I don't even know if you can blame Boehner much. Let's say he puts the clean CR up for a vote -- he will probably get coup-ed out and the next guy will have the same problems.
He might be dethroned by his conservative base, but only after the CR had passed. So don't blame Boehner, if you think that him holding onto the Speaker's gavel is worth shutting down the government.
And then we have a debt ceiling fight. Where does it end? I guess my only point is that Boehner is a pretty reasonable guy -- always was -- and thinking this crisis is about any one man is part of the problem.
No, this crisis falls squarely on the shoulders of the 30 to 60 crazy Tea Party Republicans. But Boehner, as their agent, shares the blame.
Yes, he's supposed to present a unified front for his party. All the sausage-making is supposed to happen out of sight. He has failed spectacularly at that.
For as long as I can remember the Republicans have been the orderly and disciplined party. How things can change!
malchior wrote:I don't even know if you can blame Boehner much. Let's say he puts the clean CR up for a vote -- he will probably get coup-ed out and the next guy will have the same problems.
He might be dethroned by his conservative base, but only after the CR had passed. So don't blame Boehner, if you think that him holding onto the Speaker's gavel is worth shutting down the government.
The speaker's voted upon by the whole house, isn't it? If Boehner passed a clean CR and the Tea Party tried to replace him with some nutjob like Bachmann, could some democrats vote for Boehner as speaker to avoid that?
Fireball1244 wrote:No, this crisis falls squarely on the shoulders of the 30 to 60 crazy Tea Party Republicans. But Boehner, as their agent, shares the blame.
I don't think we disagree on much on what the cause is. I totally agree and Boehner has to share some of that blame -- even if for not stopping the progression of events to a degree -- but I don't get why anyone expects Boehner to go out and commit political suicide pointlessly.
Avoiding economic hari-kiri for the country seems decidedly not pointless.
Pyperkub wrote:Health care took forever because he kept trying to get some Republicans on board despite the phantom control in the senate.
The ACA was based off of a Republican bill, and during the committee process more than 100 Republican amendments were adopted into the final text. But no Republicans voted for it, and complained that it was "rammed down their throats" without negotiation.
The Democratic plan for the stimulus was 75% spending, 25% tax cuts, but to get Republican support the final version was watered down to a less-effective 55/45 split. It passed with barely any Republican votes, and later GOPers complained that they had "no say" on it at all.
In fact, the President's first two years in office were marked by him deflating his base by bending over backwards to the Republicans. The constant refrain was that his opening gambit was always to meet them halfway up front, only to face no willingness to do the same on the other side. After being burned by that effort time and again, is it any surprise that he's taking a firmer line now?
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
malchior wrote:I don't even know if you can blame Boehner much. Let's say he puts the clean CR up for a vote -- he will probably get coup-ed out and the next guy will have the same problems.
He might be dethroned by his conservative base, but only after the CR had passed. So don't blame Boehner, if you think that him holding onto the Speaker's gavel is worth shutting down the government.
The speaker's voted upon by the whole house, isn't it? If Boehner passed a clean CR and the Tea Party tried to replace him with some nutjob like Bachmann, could some democrats vote for Boehner as speaker to avoid that?
Yes.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
malchior wrote:I don't even know if you can blame Boehner much. Let's say he puts the clean CR up for a vote -- he will probably get coup-ed out and the next guy will have the same problems.
He might be dethroned by his conservative base, but only after the CR had passed. So don't blame Boehner, if you think that him holding onto the Speaker's gavel is worth shutting down the government.
The speaker's voted upon by the whole house, isn't it? If Boehner passed a clean CR and the Tea Party tried to replace him with some nutjob like Bachmann, could some democrats vote for Boehner as speaker to avoid that?
Yes.
But the majority rules and it is likely that whoever emerges will get the Speakership based on Republican votes. The Democrats are largely likely to be irrelevant entirely.
Pyperkub wrote:Health care took forever because he kept trying to get some Republicans on board despite the phantom control in the senate.
The ACA was based off of a Republican bill, and during the committee process more than 100 Republican amendments were adopted into the final text. But no Republicans voted for it, and complained that it was "rammed down their throats" without negotiation.
The Democratic plan for the stimulus was 75% spending, 25% tax cuts, but to get Republican support the final version was watered down to a less-effective 55/45 split. It passed with barely any Republican votes, and later GOPers complained that they had "no say" on it at all.
In fact, the President's first two years in office were marked by him deflating his base by bending over backwards to the Republicans. The constant refrain was that his opening gambit was always to meet them halfway up front, only to face no willingness to do the same on the other side. After being burned by that effort time and again, is it any surprise that he's taking a firmer line now?
I agree, but I think he also wasted it. Dunno what YK thinks.
As to the HC bill being based on a Republican plan - yeah, that's what was written, but it certainly appears to have been a bait and switch delay maneuver (which worked well in the 70's and 90's) rather than any substantive backing. An appearance of centrism for the cameras, if you will.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
