Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Alright, I had two thoughts about bipartisanship this morning.
1) The Democrats really need to start shedding this "obstructionist" label, but they keep finding themselves in a position where that would mean supporting insanely, far-right nominees for very influential postions (Gonzales, Bolton, Owen, Pryor, Brown, etc.). Is it possible that Bush (meaning Rove) nominates people that they know are unqualified and crazy, just so that Democrats have no choice but to be "obstructionist" in order to try and keep the government sane? That way Republicans can keep beating that drum.
2) The Republicans are constantly on the radio bemoaning the loss of bipartisanship, but then when a great example of it occurs (the filibuster agreement) which I think was a greater loss for the Democrats than the Republicans (who get 8 of their 10 crazy judges approved), the Right slams those 7 Republicans hard for making a compromise with Democrats. I mean, you should have heard the people calling in to slam Graham in Greenville, SC. You would have thought he'd sucked every Democrat's dick! Republicans don't want bipartisanship. They want to call the shots and slam the Democrats for not liking it.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Someone else had some not totally dissimilar thoughts.
Quote:
It's No Victory
By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted May 27, 2005.
When I received an email from MoveOn.org this week telling me that we should celebrate "our victory" in the filibuster compromise, I realized we had a problem.
The Democrats chose to make the fight on Bush's judicial nominees about saving the filibuster rather than stopping right-wing extremists from being given lifetime appointments to the federal bench. Indeed, in the last two weeks we heard nary a word about the deficiencies and the dangers of the nomination of the Gang of Three: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen.
At stake, the Democratic Party encouraged us to believe, was not the future of the federal judiciary but the future of the Senate.
And so, when the Republicans agreed not to eliminate the filibuster (at least this week), and the Democrats agreed to allow Bush's three most extreme judicial nominations to be voted on, many of us cheered the People's Victory. Senator Byrd announced, "We had saved the Republic."
The Democrats focused on means. The Republicans focused on ends. Both won. Why do I think theirs was the more important victory?
The cloture vote on Monday meant that federal judgeship of Priscilla Owen, the first nominee to come before the Senate, would be approved. But under the rules of cloture, the Senate could still spend 30 hours debating her record. But although the Democrats used many hours to educate us about the value of the filibuster, they apparently had little to say about the judicial nominee. In the confirmation process, the Democrats spent an hour or two on Owen's record.
Given this reticence by the Democratic Party to educate people about the dangers to our Republic if individuals like Priscilla Owen get to interpret the law of the land, one can't blame the Americans for thinking that the Democrats' threat to filibuster is simply much ado about nothing.
In 1999, because of serious backlogs due to vacancies on the bench, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts declared the court to be in a state of emergency. But the Republicans, even though a minority, refused to allow an up or down vote on President Clinton's middle-of-the-road nominees. Had the Senate confirmed Clinton's nominees, the 5th Circuit Court would now have seven Democrats and nine Republic appointees, rather than the 4-12 split it has now that Owen has been confirmed, according to the Alliance for Justice.
Of course, the Republicans were allowed to exercise this power in 1999, because the majority party were liberals who believed that the means were more important than the ends. Today the Democrats are the minority party, and the majority is anything but liberal.
Minority Leader Harry Reid said he had 49 votes against changing the rules to eliminate the filibuster. If the Democratic Party hadn't blinked, could they have picked up two more moderate Republicans who were unwilling to see the very structure of the Senate shredded in order to pack the judiciary with extremists? We'll never know.
What if the Democrats had lost that vote? Were they then weaponless? Of course not. With unity comes power. They had threatened, vaguely, to "shut down the Senate" if the filibuster were eliminated. That was clearly within their capacity. Each Democratic Senator has at least an hour to speak on any amendment, any bill, any procedural call. That means 44 hours of every week could be spent on just a single motion.
But to shut down the Senate and gain the nation's support, the Democrats first must educate Americans that what they are fighting against are evil ends, not unfair means. The filibuster fight did not serve that educational purpose.
Only when the Democratic Party exhibits real backbone, only when it demonstrates that it is willing to take large independent and collective political risks, only when it is willing to do everything within its power to stop evil, only then will it rally the country to the task of stopping the nationwide lurch toward fanaticism.
David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its New Rules project.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
B wrote:
Alright, I had two thoughts about bipartisanship this morning.
1) The Democrats really need to start shedding this "obstructionist" label, but they keep finding themselves in a position where that would mean supporting insanely, far-right nominees for very influential postions (Gonzales, Bolton, Owen, Pryor, Brown, etc.). Is it possible that Bush (meaning Rove) nominates people that they know are unqualified and crazy, just so that Democrats have no choice but to be "obstructionist" in order to try and keep the government sane? That way Republicans can keep beating that drum.
2) The Republicans are constantly on the radio bemoaning the loss of bipartisanship, but then when a great example of it occurs (the filibuster agreement) which I think was a greater loss for the Democrats than the Republicans (who get 8 of their 10 crazy judges approved), the Right slams those 7 Republicans hard for making a compromise with Democrats. I mean, you should have heard the people calling in to slam Graham in Greenville, SC. You would have thought he'd sucked every Democrat's dick! Republicans don't want bipartisanship. They want to call the shots and slam the Democrats for not liking it.
I couldn't agree more with both of those assessments.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:58 am Posts: 2105 Location: Austin
B wrote:
Alright, I had two thoughts about bipartisanship this morning.
1) The Democrats really need to start shedding this "obstructionist" label, but they keep finding themselves in a position where that would mean supporting insanely, far-right nominees for very influential postions (Gonzales, Bolton, Owen, Pryor, Brown, etc.). Is it possible that Bush (meaning Rove) nominates people that they know are unqualified and crazy, just so that Democrats have no choice but to be "obstructionist" in order to try and keep the government sane? That way Republicans can keep beating that drum.
2) The Republicans are constantly on the radio bemoaning the loss of bipartisanship, but then when a great example of it occurs (the filibuster agreement) which I think was a greater loss for the Democrats than the Republicans (who get 8 of their 10 crazy judges approved), the Right slams those 7 Republicans hard for making a compromise with Democrats. I mean, you should have heard the people calling in to slam Graham in Greenville, SC. You would have thought he'd sucked every Democrat's dick! Republicans don't want bipartisanship. They want to call the shots and slam the Democrats for not liking it.
I agree, but this isn't something unique to the Republicans. Politicians typically get to their position of prominance by hopping on the shoulders of their respective parties. So when it comes to gametime, they are expected to go with the flow. Especially if they want any chance of moving up further in the pecking order. That is why I love Independent candidates, they don't have to answer to these ass holes.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:02 pm Posts: 10690 Location: Lost in Twilight's Blue
B wrote:
Someone else had some not totally dissimilar thoughts.
Quote:
It's No Victory
By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted May 27, 2005.
When I received an email from MoveOn.org this week telling me that we should celebrate "our victory" in the filibuster compromise, I realized we had a problem.
The Democrats chose to make the fight on Bush's judicial nominees about saving the filibuster rather than stopping right-wing extremists from being given lifetime appointments to the federal bench. Indeed, in the last two weeks we heard nary a word about the deficiencies and the dangers of the nomination of the Gang of Three: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen.
At stake, the Democratic Party encouraged us to believe, was not the future of the federal judiciary but the future of the Senate.
And so, when the Republicans agreed not to eliminate the filibuster (at least this week), and the Democrats agreed to allow Bush's three most extreme judicial nominations to be voted on, many of us cheered the People's Victory. Senator Byrd announced, "We had saved the Republic."
The Democrats focused on means. The Republicans focused on ends. Both won. Why do I think theirs was the more important victory?
The cloture vote on Monday meant that federal judgeship of Priscilla Owen, the first nominee to come before the Senate, would be approved. But under the rules of cloture, the Senate could still spend 30 hours debating her record. But although the Democrats used many hours to educate us about the value of the filibuster, they apparently had little to say about the judicial nominee. In the confirmation process, the Democrats spent an hour or two on Owen's record.
Given this reticence by the Democratic Party to educate people about the dangers to our Republic if individuals like Priscilla Owen get to interpret the law of the land, one can't blame the Americans for thinking that the Democrats' threat to filibuster is simply much ado about nothing.
In 1999, because of serious backlogs due to vacancies on the bench, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts declared the court to be in a state of emergency. But the Republicans, even though a minority, refused to allow an up or down vote on President Clinton's middle-of-the-road nominees. Had the Senate confirmed Clinton's nominees, the 5th Circuit Court would now have seven Democrats and nine Republic appointees, rather than the 4-12 split it has now that Owen has been confirmed, according to the Alliance for Justice.
Of course, the Republicans were allowed to exercise this power in 1999, because the majority party were liberals who believed that the means were more important than the ends. Today the Democrats are the minority party, and the majority is anything but liberal.
Minority Leader Harry Reid said he had 49 votes against changing the rules to eliminate the filibuster. If the Democratic Party hadn't blinked, could they have picked up two more moderate Republicans who were unwilling to see the very structure of the Senate shredded in order to pack the judiciary with extremists? We'll never know.
What if the Democrats had lost that vote? Were they then weaponless? Of course not. With unity comes power. They had threatened, vaguely, to "shut down the Senate" if the filibuster were eliminated. That was clearly within their capacity. Each Democratic Senator has at least an hour to speak on any amendment, any bill, any procedural call. That means 44 hours of every week could be spent on just a single motion.
But to shut down the Senate and gain the nation's support, the Democrats first must educate Americans that what they are fighting against are evil ends, not unfair means. The filibuster fight did not serve that educational purpose.
Only when the Democratic Party exhibits real backbone, only when it demonstrates that it is willing to take large independent and collective political risks, only when it is willing to do everything within its power to stop evil, only then will it rally the country to the task of stopping the nationwide lurch toward fanaticism.
David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its New Rules project.
Nice article. And I think you're right, the Dems are in a pretty terrible situation right now. Basically they can only shut down the Republican's bills and nominees and if they do so they're obstructionists. On the other hand, if they came up with counterpoints that were actually passed, the Republicans would just be able to say "look at the bill we passed, it couldn't have passed without us". I think Mr. Morris is right, they're going to need to get some spine if they're ever going to win my or the rest of the country's respect.
And I basically agree with them already and they still don't have my respect!
_________________ Scared to say what is your passion, So slag it all, Bitter's in fashion, Fear of failure's all you've started, The jury is in, verdict: Retarded
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
OK, North Carolina's Senate just approved a lottery. Here's what bugs me. All of the Republicans and 5 Democrats were against it. It was 26/24 against it and the Senate was done working for the year.
Today they popped up with this extra session and SURPRIZE! two senators couldn't make it so it's a 24/24 vote settled by the Democratic senator.
These skeevy tactics are what's wrong with politics. If lawmakers didn't spend their time fucking each other over, maybe they couldn't have properly funded the school system years ago and they wouldn't need the lottery money.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
I don't understand this lust for bi-partisanship in America. B, let's say that you, David, Peeps, and I were members of congress. Why should you bend your personal opinions for me? Why should David? Why should I bend for you? What benefit is there? The system is set up as such for a reason.
I think the problems within the Democratic party go pretty far beyond "obstructionism" in the eyes of mainstream America. Although that doesn't help. I'd be pretty sure that the Democrat's would win elections if they had people like JFK, instead of Kerry and Hillary. I'm pretty sure that we'd see a lot more progress if we had people like Martin Luther King out there instead of idiots like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who do nothing but stimy progress. The Democrats find them in a precarious spot, because they always focus on the negative. They've positioned themselves politically to only benefit when something bad happens. They look to benefit from failure in Iraq and the war on terror. They'll look to benefit if there's another terrorist attack. They look to benefit politically from higher oil prices, and anytime the economy hickups. Anytime anything good happens, they're out there TALKING EVERYTHING DOWN! That's not good for them, and it's not good for the rest of America either. Hell, they're even trying to politicize this fucking hurricane. They need to put politicization just for the sake of taking an opposite stance than Bush aside. That'd be a huge step for them.
Anyhow, I don't think bi-partisanship is necessary. If it's gonna be bipartisanship, then we might as well just have one party and call them the Republicrats...oh wait, we might already have that...
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
I agree with much more of that post than I disagree with.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
I don't understand this lust for bi-partisanship in America. B, let's say that you, David, Peeps, and I were members of congress. Why should you bend your personal opinions for me? Why should David? Why should I bend for you? What benefit is there? The system is set up as such for a reason.
The simple answer is that if everyone merely stuck intransigently to their personal political beliefs, nothing would ever get done WITHIN political parties, much less between them. Things get accomplished in life, not just in politics, when people compromise and take action based on what they have in common, and tehy temporarily put what separates them aside.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
I'd say that our constitution allows for this. Republicans have been chosen by the people, to represent them far more than Democrats at this point in history. Why should they bend for Democrats, when they have quite a majority going on right now? Why should the left be out there demanding Bush pick judges that they like when they are a clear minority right now? A court nominee should need X number of votes, when the Dems fillibuster, because they know it can't be overturned, to get THEIR WAY, that is what slows progress. Particularly when they are the clear minority in both branches of congress.
Now let's say that Bush's nominees are insane as some on the forum suggest. Let's say that Bush's policies really wreck America. America will respond. America will look to an alternative, which in a two party system is invariably the Democrats. The Republican's cannot get too comfy as it is. They're riding a slippery slope. If they get out of hand when they were chosen to represent America, then America will respond to that with their ballot choices in following November's.
It's all a big circle if you ask me. If there's one thing that I really want from my politicians, regardless of their party, is someone that STICKS TO THEIR GUNS! It's one reason I voted against Pataki in favor of McCall. It's why I'll most likely vote for Elliot Spitzer. The man means what he says, and he will not bend for anybody. I'm pretty sure Elliot Spitzer will stick to his campaign message. That's admirable. I don't want to vote for someone who promises something to me in a campaign message, and then makes concessions to the other guy, just for the sake of being bi-partisan. That's playing politics too so far as I'm concerned.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:52 pm Posts: 1727 Location: Earth Gender: Male
Remember a two party system is just one party away from a one party system. And we all know what that's called...
The Democrats and Republicans are the same entity. They're goal is to prolong the game. That game is to continue fleecing American taxpayers outta money while creating great wealth, status, and a career for themselves.
Both party's politicize everything. One may do it more when out of the Executive Office then the other but it's always done. I think the main problem is the system itself. It's set up in a way to not allow other party's to enter. That is the problem. If we could get more Bernie Sanders on the floor we'd have a much stronger institutions of representitive Government.
I saw an interesting bumper sticker the other day it read "49% of America agrees with 99% of the world." I began to speculate what exactly they were trying to say with such a statement.
_________________ "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." -Noam Chomsky
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Republicans, Democrats Unite In Good Laugh Over Reform Party
August 31, 2005 | Issue 41•35
WASHINGTON, DC—In a rare moment of bipartisan unity, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle fondly recalled the Reform Party Tuesday. "Remember 'Ross For Boss'?" Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) said, laughing uncontrollably at the memory of the closest thing America has seen to a viable third party in recent history. "Plus Trump, Warren Beatty... And what was the deal with that crazy admiral guy who died?" Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) joined in the fun, saying, "And that platform they had full of, aw, who knows what. 'Reform,' I guess!" The senators then spent an hour slapping each other on the backs, gleefully recalling the Reform Party's credo of "radical centrism" and pro wrestler Jesse Ventura's election as governor of Minnesota. Said Robert Byrd (D-WV): "They really thought they had something going there for a while!"
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
B wrote:
OK, North Carolina's Senate just approved a lottery. Here's what bugs me. All of the Republicans and 5 Democrats were against it. It was 26/24 against it and the Senate was done working for the year.
Today they popped up with this extra session and SURPRIZE! two senators couldn't make it so it's a 24/24 vote settled by the Democratic senator.
These skeevy tactics are what's wrong with politics. If lawmakers didn't spend their time fucking each other over, maybe they couldn't have properly funded the school system years ago and they wouldn't need the lottery money.
Addition to this ... The senate leader announced last week that he wanted to give everyone a chance to have their votes heard. This session that he called yesterday was missing two Republicans ... on in the hospital and one on his honeymoon. Skeevy bastard. Hell, I'd even like to have a lottery, but I hate to see politics go down like this.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Apologies for bumping my own thread, but I just heard this for the first time today and got a kick out of it.
"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape." - Grover Norquist
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
WTF??
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
what the fuck
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Skeevy bastard. Hell, I'd even like to have a lottery, but I hate to see politics go down like this.
WTF??
