Ian wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:Ian wrote:
This is not remotely debateable.
Of course it is debatable - just SAYING compromise doesn't mean you're compromising - please - what "compromise" has been offered by the Democrats?
Have a look at what's being offered up by Reid. It doesn't include a dime in tax increases.
Reid’s proposal included provisions that “deem” budget resolutions for fiscal years 2012 and 2013....but Senate Democrats have not yet produced a 2012 budget proposal, much less one for 2013. Within those "deemed" budget resolutions would be tax increases.
Ian wrote:
Does that sound like a hardline Democratic plan?
Dishonestly bootstrapping tax increases in disguise? Absolutely.
Ian wrote:
It's a plan designed to garner support from conservatives, so it'll be easier to pass and mold into a final compromised package. And that's well to the right of what polling says the public wants to see. Heck, I've heard from Tea Party types who've said they'd sign Reid's bill as it is, so long as a Balanced Budget Amendment is added (which would pretty much kill it for Democrats, and I also think a BBA is a well-intentioned but ultimately terrible idea).
I'm not sure who you're referring to, nor do I generally associate "smart" with "tea party," so saying that some "tea party types" are in favor of something tells me nothing other than some jackalope thinks something he knows nothing about is a good idea.
Ian wrote:
Yes, the GOP is the party less willing to compromise.
They are both playing their political games. Neither is more or less willing to compromise. They compromise when they have to, and if they don't have to, they flip the other side the bird.
Ian wrote:
Hell, the far right is priding themselves on this.
Right - the far right. Just like the far left, who lambaste any moderate Democrat for deigning to compromise.
Ian wrote:
Why else did the House vote come tonight and not yesterday? Because Boehner couldn't get the teabaggers in line. He had to add a BBA to his PR stunt package before sending it to the floor, thus making the package even less attractive to Democrats. Have we been reading stories about how Obama is having such a hard time getting his party to cooperate, about Pelosi telling her people to get their asses in line? Not so much.
So? I'm not championing the Republicans here. They are playing bullshit games, and pretending to be in favor of cutting spending when they aren't really.
Ian wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Ian wrote:
Not all of the GOP of course, but the 60 or so Tea Party lunatics (whom I consider half a step down from domestic terrorists at this point) make it awfully hard for the rest of the party to act rationally. The Democrats are worried about the general election, as they should - but the Republicans are worried more about the primaries. If 2010 proved anything, it's that established politicians can be driven out by totally unqualified nobodies wio happen to have opinions to the right of the guy trying to get re-elected.
Beyond the parties and the primaries process, nobody gets off scot-free from blame for all the partisanship. Much of the media ought to be ashamed of themselves. Many ordinary people as well.
Some other opinions on how miserably dysfunctional this Congress really is:
https://www.peoplesunited.com/portal/site/peoples/
I agree with most of what you wrote in these last 2 paragraphs - but I didn't read the peoplesunited link.
I got it from Foreign Policy magazine. I didn't notice the switched link. Try this instead:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... /super_bad
Worst. Congress. Ever.
Whenever someone uses the phrase "worst ever" I shut down and stop listening. It's stupid.
Ian wrote:
Another note on how the partisanship got to be as bad as it is,
It's been as bad or worse in the past. We often perceive things as "getting worse" and that things were better, cleaner and more harmonious in the past, but generally speaking, people have always thought that, and things have always been about the same, within a standard deviation either way, as the tide ebbs and flows.
Ian wrote:
and you might like to hear this one: We're still living in a Republican Era. Even when the Dems had the House between the 2006 and 2010 midterms, it was largely because a wave of Blue Dog Democrats arrived in '06 and '08.
Whatever. I hear such nonsense constantly from Democrats and for as long as I can remember. Nothing is ever the fault of Democrats, they've played no part in the economic woes of the country, and are always second fiddle to Republicans, despite having owned the Congress for the better part of the last 80-90 years, by far. You'd think they never had a President in the White House despite having had a Democrat in the White House for 10 1/2 out the last 20 years, and 22 1/2 out of the last 51 years.
Now, the big thing is to blame that the teabaggers. That's the problem. It's as if the Democrats view themselves as powerless.
Ian wrote:
And there weren't too many primary challenges from the far left, with ultra-liberals replacing establishment Dems prior to victory in the general elections.
Establishment democrat does not equal Republican, at least not anymore than establishment Republican equals Democrat.
Ian wrote:
The same cannot be said of the GOP in the 2010 primaries; how many long-serving Republicans were primaried (that's become a verb in common useage in DC) by far-right ideologues, many of them with no experience or understanding of the federal government at all. Shit, look at Senator Bob Bennet from Utah - one of the most right-wing guys around, who was successfully primaried from his right. And in November, the Blue Dogs were the Dems who took the heaviest losses. So now we've got a Congress that looks like a valley in terms of ideological opinions, representing a country that still looks more like a hill. But the Congressional valley is steeper on the Republican side.
That should be a help to the Democrats, because it's like splitting the Republican Party, a la 1992.