Obama Tailspin

[Kulaf]

And the Republican changes in 1995 were drastically different than what's being proposed now and they were opposed by all the seniors groups.

As for now, even David Frum thinks the Republicans are playing a dangerous game.

Right. They were changes that were fundementally opposed by Democrats. So the Dems actively campaigned against them. Same.....difference.

[Lurker]

Same.....difference.

Wrong.

In 1995 Democrats tried to stop what they and seniors groups saw as draconian cuts to Medicare by the Republicans. That's consistent with their ideology and their defense of Medicare from the beginning of the program.

Now, Republicans are trying to stop cuts to Medicare even though they are relatively minor and they are supported by seniors groups, a stance which is at odds with their core ideology.

Not the same at all.

[Kulaf]

That is what I was telling Partha. Their core ideology changed with respect to Medicare (why? I have no clue). They passed the stupid prescription drug benefit after all.

[Lurker]

True, and without bothering to pay for a single dime of it.

So your view is that the Republicans really are against attempts to reduce the cost of Medicare, and aren't just using the issue as a tactic to prevent Obama from succeeding on health reform?

[Kulaf]

All you have illustrated is that both politcal parties play......politics.

No.

[Lurker]

Did you mean to quote yourself and then say "No"?

The Democrats weren't just playing politics in 1995 since they were holding true to principle in fighting extreme cuts to Medicare. You seemed to say that the Republicans weren't just playing politics now since they truly have abandoned their core cost cutting ideology. So your last post makes no sense.

[Kulaf]

Ok well if you would like your stance to be that the Democrats have never obstructed just to be obstructionists then we can have a debate. Otherwise you know exactly what I mean so stop picking nits.

[Lurker]

We were all talking about this specific issue regarding Medicare. It's odd that you are trying to make this generic now that your point has imploded. Very odd.

[Kulaf]

No actually we were discussing bipartizanship and you are just conflating issues again.

[Lurker]

Here's what you said.

Partha, how is that any different to what the Democrats did in 95 when the Republicans were looking to "reform" Medicare? All you have illustrated is that both politcal parties play......politics.

You started out very specific. It's been rightly pointed out that the situations were drastically different. You then claimed that the Republicans are actually standing on principal because they no longer want to cut Medicare. I asked if you really believed that or if you think it's just an obstructionist tactic. Then you swerved the conversation to some generic theoretical. In other words, you dodged.

[Kulaf]

You are right. Poor example on my part. However the point remains and we all know how the Dems voted pretty much lock in step against most Rep proposals when the shoe was on the other foot and the Reps didn't "need" them for bill passage.

Both parties often play politics to the detriment of the country.

[Lurker]

Without question both parties have engaged in this type of behavior, no argument there.

But never in our history with the frequency the Republicans are now. And I can't think of any example where one Party seemingly abandoned a long held ideological principal just for a tactic of obstruction like the Republicans have with the Medicare issue. That's why David Frum called a Republican win on health reform "a very ashy victory".

[Embar Angylwrath]

You can't really compare the current legislature to previous ones, especially when it come to partisanship. If you move the timeline back 20 years or so, you'll see Dems and Reps more diversified in their own party. There was less party idealogy, and more independent thinking. There was more cross-over in the legislature between parties, because there was less rarification. Now, both parties have polarized.

You want real reform? Vote out every Congressman and Senator that has served more than two terms. Get some new blood in there.

[Lurker]

You don't need to go back 20 years to see a drastic increase in pure obstructionism, just 3 years.



And I'd argue that the Democratic Party has not become more extreme than they were 20 years ago. If anything, they have moved considerably towards the center. The Republican Party has moved to the extreme right. But what we're seeing in the Senate now isn't just an issue with polarization. We're seeing a system that has become dysfunctional due to it's own arbitrary procedures that destroyed majority rule.

The minority party has every incentive to try to obstruct for obstructions sake since they can blame inaction on the party in power. The rules currently allow it and the Republican party is craven enough to abuse it no matter what the consequences to the country.

[Ddrak]

I wouldn't say the GOP has "moved more right" or that the Dems are "more in the center". It seems a different spectrum to the normal left/right to me. The GOP's moved more authoritarian, more single minded and more "us vs them", particularly since Clinton's presidency. Maybe it's the lack of a cold war so there's no clear enemy to rail against, but switching "the enemy" from the external USSR to internal "liberals" was really a stroke of genius in terms of political gamesmanship. There's been no killing response to this and the Dems are really floundering for something to fight back at the partisanship (which often results in more partisanship).

Something needs to happen because with politics the way they are the legislature is simply ineffective at dealing with issues of any significance.

Dd

[Minute]

Both Lurker & Embar are right. Obama has put good things to Congress & they have failed miserably. Republicans didn't help, but the Dems should be absolutely ashamed of themselves given their majority. However, Obama didn't use the real power of his office & that is the sway he has over the American people. If he had started calling out specific people voting against necessary bills. Holding them accountable in the public eye, and thus putting their job in jeopardy like it almost never is, I bet you they would be more careful in what they voted for or against.

To me that is the largest problem with our legislative branch as is. No one pays them any attention. The lack of turnover rate is god damned ridiculous & I'd be afraid to see how many people actually even knew who the names of their Senators or House Members. When you have no fear for your job & no one is even watching what you're doing, how can you expect not to have thick corruption.

So no, I don't think that the lack of progress is Obama's fault. I do think that as the leader of the free world he shouldn't give a shit if it's his fault or not. He should grab the bull by the fucking horns & make it happen. We're in some dire hurt here & we need someone to lead for fucks sake.

[Kulaf]

You don't need to go back 20 years to see a drastic increase in pure obstructionism, just 3 years.



And I'd argue that the Democratic Party has not become more extreme than they were 20 years ago. If anything, they have moved considerably towards the center. The Republican Party has moved to the extreme right. But what we're seeing in the Senate now isn't just an issue with polarization. We're seeing a system that has become dysfunctional due to it's own arbitrary procedures that destroyed majority rule.

The minority party has every incentive to try to obstruct for obstructions sake since they can blame inaction on the party in power. The rules currently allow it and the Republican party is craven enough to abuse it no matter what the consequences to the country.

Correct me if I am wrong here......but the only time you see an increase in Cloture votes is when one party has control of the body. So all you are showing in your graph is that the Dems have invoked cloture on literally every bill to stop unlimited debate. How does that show anything about the Republicans? If anything it shows the Dems wanted to close debate and move bills along because they knew they had the votes to pass.

[Lurker]

Kulaf,
You are wrong. Cloture votes are only required when someone objects to a unanimous consent motion. That's why you see the huge spike in cloture motions and votes in the last three years; the Republicans have been forcing it for nearly every piece of legislation.

The Democrats were able to overcome the filibuster about half the time, but that's no way to govern. I think we have the only legislature in the world that is operating under super-majority rules.

Something needs to happen because with politics the way they are the legislature is simply ineffective at dealing with issues of any significance.

QFE

[Kulaf]

Unanimous consent motions to restrict debate are the tactic of the majority. They want to limit debate because they have the votes for passage and want to move on to the voting process shortcutting the Senates normal rule of unlimited debate. It has nothing to do with filibusters it is a procedural tactic to move legislation along faster.

Perhaps the Dems are also having an unprecedented level of unanimous consent motions regarding their legislation. Would be interesting to see that graph.

[Lurker]

That would be a great point except that the Republicans can, and are, forcing up to three cloture votes per piece of legislation. One of those votes is being forced just to begin debate. So where the filibuster of the past was a tool to ensure that the minority could ensure debate of an item, it's now being used to prevent debate from even starting. The process has been turned on it's head, and as a result the Senate is dysfunctional.

I really don't know what you are attempting to do here with this "maybe the Democrats are responsible for the spike" line of thinking. It's absurd.