Political warfare

[Mr. Blackwell]

"Filibuster" is written nowhere in the US Constitution.

-Nam

Well yeah. Not sure why you felt the need to point that out. This complaint is about parliamentary procedures, hypocrisy and divisive politics.

 

[MadBunny]

(sorry about the large image, I didn't want to include the whole page, which is clearly a biased interpretation of this image)


I think it's reasonably apparent that the system in place now is not working.  What was meant as a check to the power of the President, and a vital tool in democracy as been abused.  It has become a tool of petty obstruction. 

The real problem with it is that the cloture/filibuster rules were changed allowing the minority party to simply 'phone in' their cloture and send the rest of their caucus on vacation unless the majority party could force a supermajority to break it.  It's farily apparent that the use of cloture/filibuster has been rising over time, for both majority parties, though visibly, obviously more with the Republicans and their stated position of opposition to everything Obama.

[Mr. Blackwell]

So. Cloture was the old method of dealing with filibusters and it was changed once to reduce the number of votes necessary to kill a filibuster...to make it easier. Currently the Democrat majority does not have 60 (D)'s listed among them so they just decide to change the rules to their favor by voting to eliminate the filibuster all together.

Kinda like the abusive husband saying "SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO?!?" after he hits his wife for arguing with him.

Well, this turn of events is great for the next year or so because it helps streamline the process of filling cabinet appointments in the executive branch and filling bench seats in the judiciary. It is also great for the Democrat party as long as they maintain the majority in the senate.

It's a temporary fix for a temporary problem. However, it's a potential long term problem which may eventually need to be fixed.

The Democrats may reverse this fix if they find themselves voted out of the majority in 2014 before the next session begins in 2015. I very highly doubt that they will let this provision stand in the event that they lose the majority. They will want to keep the filibuster for themselves if they are elected out of power.

Either way, however things turn out ... if it's "bad" then it's all the Republican's fault for bringing it on themselves. That is the most important thing to remember. The Republicans are the bitching wife who needs to be smacked around from time to time to remind her of her place. She is to be seen but not heard in important decision making matters. Her role is to stand behind her man and present the appearance of solidarity and unity. She may voice her concerns privately, behind closed doors but if she opens her mouth in public....there will be hell to pay.

If you think that that is a good system of government then I must admit that I don't understand the practical benefit. It doesn't make any sense to allow whoever happens to be in the majority to make up the rules as they go along.

If you prefer a more lighthearted analogy...Our politicians are playing Calvinball.

[Nick]

I'd much prefer we just divorce her/them/whatever.

[Azdgari]

If you prefer a more lighthearted analogy...Our politicians are playing Calvinball.

No, no, keep searching for ways to paint all opposed to the current Republican partiy as a bunch of wife-beaters.  That's both the most honest and most productive thing to do.

[MadBunny]

Mr. Blackwell,

Do you not see the problem inherent in that chart?  It's pretty obvious to me, but based on your reply it doesn't seem as obvious to  you.

[Willie]

Either way, however things turn out ... if it's "bad" then it's all the Republican's fault for bringing it on themselves. That is the most important thing to remember. The Republicans are the bitching wife who needs to be smacked around from time to time to remind her of her place. She is to be seen but not heard in important decision making matters. Her role is to stand behind her man and present the appearance of solidarity and unity. She may voice her concerns privately, behind closed doors but if she opens her mouth in public....there will be hell to pay.

If demonizing your opponents is what it takes to feel justified in your position, then it may be time to reconsider your position.

Consider that nearly half of all the presidential nominations that have ever been blocked have been Obama's. 82 for Obama, 86 for all other presidents combined. With that in mind, do you REALLY think that it's such a stretch to say that the Republicans brought this on themselves? If the Dem's were just out to make a power grab, why the hell has it taken such an extraordinary amount of abuse to push them to it? Claiming that they didn't want to do it isn't just excuse making. It's freaking obvious that they didn't want to do it.

If you still really, truly, believe that your abusive husband analogy is valid, then your ideological leanings have overwhelmed your ability to reason.

[edit: replaced large image with simple text]

[Mr. Blackwell]

Mr. Blackwell,

Do you not see the problem inherent in that chart?  It's pretty obvious to me, but based on your reply it doesn't seem as obvious to  you.

Unfortunately, I must admit that I don't think I fully understand the inherent problem or why what the Democrats did is the proper solution.

I also don't understand why some people on the right accuse those on the left of trying to destroy America or why some people on the left accuse those on the right of trying to destroy individual people in America.

I have no love or loyalty for the republican party (or any party for that matter) but when people can calmly and rationally say that they have never seen similar levels of dishonesty from the left (or right depending on who I am talking to) I have to shake my head.

I stumbled across this thread a couple of days ago and was re reading it and thought to myself...well gee, there are a couple of perfect examples in the media right now which highlight just how dishonest political parties can be.

I don't give many passes to politicians.

[Nam]

"Filibuster" is written nowhere in the US Constitution.

-Nam

Well yeah. Not sure why you felt the need to point that out. This complaint is about parliamentary procedures, hypocrisy and divisive politics.

 

It's relevant in that you were talking about Republicans threatening to use it but not using it (making it seem as if Democrats haven't done the same before actually using it), and my point is: it's no where in the Constitution which Republicans always state they believe in the Constitution, and use it as a tool to win arguments (which they rarely do) in concern to it, and therefore as some Republicans have done recently in argument toward any opposition using the filibuster as a "Constitutional right" (knowing or not knowing it's not in the Constitution) to "win" in such idiotic debate and position.

Don't know if you're a Republican, or not, but it's a tool I'm sure many Republicans have used; doesn't matter if it's true, to them.

-Nam

[MadBunny]

Ok, leaving aside that there really is a pretty apparent disparity between the parties. [1]


What we have here is a check on the balance of power to the executive branch.  Namely the ability to nominate only judges that agree with your political ideology.  For what it's worth, that's an important check.  Judges by the nature of their role in government should be as neutral as feasibly possible.  We shouldn't need to counterbalance conservative judges with liberal judges is what I'm saying.  With that in mind, the previous administration went out of it's way to appoint ideologically biased judges.  The very extreme were blocked by the then minority Democratic party.  In other words not great but still a reasonable facsimile of function.

The current situation is EVERY SINGLE nominee is being blocked.  No reason is given, other than it's someone President Obama wants.  Most recently I read that Paul wanted to block Yellen pending an Audit of the fed.  Those are two independent things, why hold one up in order to achieve the other if the other has merit? 

Five years of obstruction, in other words.  This situation is unprecedented in history.  Blame the Democratic party for what they did during the Bush administration but people still got appointed.  Most of them actually.

Still, if you look at the chart you can see that they used cloture and filibuster as well, as has every congress going back to essentially 1960 in rising numbers.

People, politicians have taken this important tool and turned it into a petty tool to obstruct their way into getting what they want rather than advancing their own agenda to the American people.

This tool has been losing it's value every time it's used for this purpose petty.  It's time to replace it with something that works, and can't be abused as it has been for the last five years.  This has been a long time coming, and in all honesty was only a matter of time anyway.  Given that the current Republicans are vowing to 'make them regret' doing this, it only highlights the need to fix this tool.



You know what it reminds me of?  It's a bit of a tangent but bear with me.  It reminds me of a Republican senator talking about getting enough votes to impeach the President.  Left out of his statement was a reason for impeachment.  Who cares, just make something up later, and if it doesn't work do it again, and again , and again until it works.  Kind of like voting to end Obamacare 41 times.  Why do it 41 times?  Who cares, all that is important is to show that they don't like Obamacare. 


You might like to talk about how both parties are the same, but I don't see it. 
I don't see anything constructive coming out of the Republican party; only obstructive.  If you think it's balanced then I suspect you're getting your news 'unskewed', to reach back to the recent election for a term.

1.	"they both do it" may be accurate but the rate at which both parties lie and distort is very different.  I happen to think that matters.

[Chronos]

Unfortunately, I must admit that I don't think I fully understand the inherent problem or why what the Democrats did is the proper solution.

When Obama was elected Mitch McConnell declared war on Obama by saying he and his fellow Republicans would do everything possible to make Obama fail. The filibuster is the tool that they have used in the Senate. The graph shows what the Republicans are doing. McConnell wasn't the only one who declared war, but he was the loudest voice.

Making a president fail is the political equivalent of a 4yo having a temper tantrum every day because he couldn't have ice cream for dinner. It isn't mature and it accomplishes nothing. And, you would think that a declaration of war on Obama by preventing votes from making it to the floor of the Senate would be sufficient to satisfy Republicans Who Hate Obama, but the Tea Party/Know Nothings think McConnell is too liberal. The Tea Party is supporting a Republican challenger to McConnell in Kentucky at the next election. Does this sound sane? The Republicans as a group not only vow a war on Obama, they are warring among themselves.

A counterpoint to the filibuster issue is that for a filibuster to occur somebody had to stand on the floor of the Senate and talk until they passed out. So far only 2 senators have done that. Harry Reid should have forced more of them to engage an actual filibuster rather than simply taking the threats of a filibuster as a de facto filibuster.

~~

On the other side of the Capitol, the House of Representatives stalls legislation in committees instead of letting the legislation onto the floor for a vote, thereby making a functioning government very difficult. While this particular tactic has been used by both parties over the past century to stall a particular piece of legislation, the Republican members of the House have managed to use it every day, regardless of the importance or value of the legislation. The current Congress has passed the least amount of legislation compared to any Congress in the past 100 years. Of course, during the times that they aren't working on real legislation, they manage to send to the floor legislation for repealing "Obamacare" 41 times. They can send that to the floor 41 times but not a budget bill?

These legislative bodies are no longer functional. For Republicans, this is Mission Accomplished. The Democrats have never sought such dysfunction or achieved it.

[Chronos]

The current situation is EVERY SINGLE nominee is being blocked.  No reason is given, other than it's someone President Obama wants. 

I think the problem is so bad that Obama could nominate every high-level conservative neo-con who would normally cause Republicans to have orgasms but the Republicans are the part of NO. I really think they would say NO to every last person he could nominate.

That is not a functional legislative system.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Thank you Madbunny,

I don't have time tonight for letting what you say sink in to give a thoughtful reply. I will say that I personally can't bring myself to view the Democrat party as the "good guys" and the Republican party as the "bad guys". The closet I can get at the moment is "good cop, bad cop" and we are all potential subjects suspects.

Divide and conquer.

Edit to add:

Ditto Chronos. My allotted internet time for research has come to a close this evening. I don't think I can dispute what you guys have said. However, my mind is full of fuck so after I have time to get a better understanding I will likely have many more questions.

[MadBunny]

The current situation is EVERY SINGLE nominee is being blocked.  No reason is given, other than it's someone President Obama wants. 

I think the problem is so bad that Obama could nominate every high-level conservative neo-con who would normally cause Republicans to have orgasms but the Republicans are the part of NO. I really think they would say NO to every last person he could nominate.

That is not a functional legislative system.

Obama could cure cancer and they'd complain that he hates doctors.  The truth is he's pushed so much conservative, classically 'Republican' legislation that they honestly should have been voting for Obama during the last election.  17 tax cuts, extensions on the Bush 'temporary' tax cuts, so much expanded oil drilling that we're a net export nation now, RECORD numbers of illegals deported, he's one of the most lethal presidents in history as well with his targeted killings.  The push to regulate wall street has been essentially non-existent.  Bypassed Elizabeth Warren for head of the organization she created, and lets not forget that his signature health care law was a Republican sponsored idea designed to maximize the private market for health insurance.

That's why it's so common to fall back on the racism argument with Obama.  All this stuff that he's done that they should be creaming their pants to get, and the whole time they're wandering around with posters of him with a Hitler mustache and calling him a Socialist.[1]

There are plenty of legitimate arguments to make against the President[2], but rather than that we have this circus full of clowns honking their noses and dedicating them to the decidedly useless task of living up to the name 'party of no'.

1.	I know. I know. H. wasn't a Socialist.
2.	in particular taking single payer and public option off the table, and passing a law that changes the financial underpinnings of insurance by messing with the ability to weed out adverse selection

[MadBunny]

Thank you Madbunny,

I don't have time tonight for letting what you say sink in to give a thoughtful reply. I will say that I personally can't bring myself to view the Democrat party as the "good guys" and the Republican party as the "bad guys". The closet I can get at the moment is "good cop, bad cop" and we are all potential subjects suspects.

You don't have to think of them as the 'good guys' only to realize they're not the 'bad guys' this time around. 

Let me give you a simple example.  I have a coworker he hates Obamacare with a weird passion  .He has a daughter that's early 20's, lives in bakersfield for some reason.  I know right?  Bakersfield.  She's on his health insurance.  I pointed out that because of Obamacare his daughter can remain on his insurance (which he liked) or that because of the way the new exchanges were set up she could shop for cheap coverage and see right up front if she qualifies for price cuts/subsidies (which he liked).  Then he complained about the high deductible, until I pointed out that if he's smart and simply invests the difference in his own pocket (bank/HSA/investments/whatever) he'll save much more in the long run since he doesn't use insurance that often.  Also it'll be in his pocket instead of somebody else's.  Or just get a low deductible plan, like what he has now.

He still hates Obamacare, just doesn't know why.

Who's the bad guy in this scenario?  The person who told him that he has to hate Obamacare no matter what. 
That's the bad guy.  My friend who hates Obamacare, is doing so to his own detriment.

[screwtape]

They had the chance and threatened to use it. That is where the quotes from then Senator Obama and Harry Reid come from....they were arguing (very eloquently and patriotically) against the nuclear option...which the Republicans did not use when they had the chance.

It was different then.  Bush was nominating extremist whackaziods.  Obama is not.

And just a few short years ago the Democrats disagreed with that statement.

It was different then.  Bush was nominating extremist whackazoids.  Obama is not.

And the nuclear option in effect gives the current president the authority to appoint, carte blanche, whomever he wants to any position open (except the supreme court) with total disregard for what the minority party thinks about it.

But if the majority is the opposing party, then what?

In other words...If you don't like the Democrat platform or the policies put forth by the Democratic party then...fuck you.

yes.  elections have consequences.  That is the point.  Tough fucking shit.

We will destroy democracy in order to achieve our goals.

oh please.  the filibuster is not democratic.  it is anti-democratic.

If you oppose our policies then you are the enemy.

oh please. opposing policy is fine.  obstructing appointments and agenda to the degree repubs have is tantamount to sabotaging government. 

Kinda like the abusive husband saying "SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO?!?" after he hits his wife for arguing with him.

so, do you, or do you not think the repubs were abusing the filibuster and just blocking absolutely everything Obama wanted to achieve?

It's a temporary fix for a temporary problem. However, it's a potential long term problem which may eventually need to be fixed.

I agree.  I think our system of government is outmoded and no longer works.  I think we should change to a parliamentary system.  However, I think a constitutional convention would begin a civil war.

Either way, however things turn out ... if it's "bad" then it's all the Republican's fault for bringing it on themselves.

You think they didn't?  please, elaborate.

The Republicans are the bitching wife who needs to be smacked around from time to time to remind her of her place.

so not the case.

[screwtape]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/11/the_nuclear_option_and_the_filibuster_harry_reid_tries_to_stop_republican.html

I’m glad to hear that Sen. John McCain thinks the partial end of the filibuster passed today is a “devastating” breach of Senate procedure. The Senate rules need to be devastated.

The filibuster is anti-democratic. It gives a minority of representatives from a minority of states a stranglehold over the country and in particular over the president’s power of appointment. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, barely existed before 1917, and didn’t take on anything like its current form until the middle of the 20th century. Only very recently has it become the monster it is now. It is past time for the filibuster to go, and damn the conventional wisdom about the consequences.

Until now, both parties have held off from killing the filibuster when they’ve controlled the presidency but not the Senate, because they’ve been mindful of what they stand to lose when they’re on the other side of the power divide. But the Democrats have been so much the losers in this that even Majority Leader Harry Reid, a defender of Senate tradition and gridlock if ever there was one, has admitted the truth born of the brute force of Republican obstructionism: He has no choice, which is why he pushed to end the filibuster for presidential appointees and non-Supreme Court judicial nominees. (The filibuster remains intact for Supreme Court nominations and regular laws.)

Take the D.C. Circuit—the federal court of appeals that is second to the Supreme Court in importance—as just one example of the Republicans’ advantage, since it’s the cause of the collision that finally sent the Democrats over the edge. Around 2005, after he won re-election, President George W. Bush succeeded in pushing through a slate of D.C. Circuit judges who included hard-core conservatives such as Thomas Griffith, Brett Kavanaugh, and Janice Rogers Brown. They have done all kinds of work for the right since then. Most recently, Brown came through with a ruling against Obamacare’s requirement that employers provide health insurance that covers contraception. As Bush lined up his nominees to the courts (not to mention federal agencies), the Democrats kept their promise only to filibuster selectively, based on “extraordinary circumstances.”

As a result, Bush was able to build a federal judiciary with an overwhelming majority of Republican-appointed judges. As Charlie Savage wrote in 2008 before Obama became president: “Republican-appointed judges, most of them conservatives, are projected to make up 62 percent of the bench next Inauguration Day, up from 50 percent when Mr. Bush took office. They control 10 of the 13 circuits, while judges appointed by Democrats have a dwindling majority on just one circuit.”

That’s pretty much how the presidential power of appointment is supposed to work. You win the White House, you control the courts, until the next time around, when it’s the other party’s turn to pick judges. But the Republicans in the Senate have indefatigably changed the game. They have appointed just one of Obama’s five nominees to the D.C. Circuit—Sri Srinivasan, the single golden compromise. Caitlin Halligan withdrew after more than a year of waiting and filibustering. Last summer, Obama announced three nominees at once—Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins, and Cornelia Pillard. All hyper-qualified. None radical. One even worked in the Bush as well as the Clinton Solicitor General’s Office and has represented the pro-business behemoth that is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. When Obama made his triple-nomination announcement, I figured that the president would go two for three. Or at least one for three. Right?

Wrong. The Republicans filibustered all three of Obama’s picks. Not because they were extraordinary nominees, but because they were nominees, period. The normal business of filling vacant seats on the D.C. Circuit became, in the heated rhetoric of Republican senators such as Chuck Grassley, nefarious “court packing.” Grassley said there was no need for more judges on that court because the workload was down. Never mind that he'd confirmed the Bush judges who at that point brought the total number of non-senior judges on the court to 11—exactly three more than there are now. The real reason for the Republican united front was simple math: The D.C. Circuit now has four judges appointed by Republicans and four judges appointed by Democrats, plus six senior judges, five of whom are Republican appointees. Fifteen of the 19 last picks have been made by GOP presidents. The senior judges hear plenty of cases. The appeals courts issue rulings in panels of three. And so, as Moshe Marvit pointed out in Dissent in May, the number that matters most is this: At that point in 2013, almost 80 percent of the D.C. Circuit panels were majority or exclusively Republican appointees.

That’s the Republican advantage. It’s been working well for them. They saw no reason to give it up. Why not keep pushing the filibuster envelope if no one makes you back off?

That’s why Reid finally pushed back. The fight for bipartisan normalcy has already been lost. The majority leader merely sounded the death knell. There will be lots of loud lamenting at the wake that follows. Don’t be fooled. If the Republicans were in the Democrats’ position, they’d have done the same thing months ago. Now Millett, Wilkins, and Pillard can take their seats on the bench. And soon the funeral speeches will end, and the next phase of life in the Senate will begin.

[jaimehlers]

It wasn't even "the" Republican minority.  It was a minority within the Republican party who did it.  So a minority of a minority was trying to hold judge appointments hostage.

[MadBunny]

If you say so.   I'm hard pressed to find any areas where the TP and the Republican party are divided.  To me it's the difference between Sharia/Sunni.

[jaimehlers]

That's cause the Republicans think they're screwed without the tea party, when it's actually their association with the tea party that's screwing them.

[Chronos]

If you say so.   I'm hard pressed to find any areas where the TP and the Republican party are divided.  To me it's the difference between Sharia/Sunni.

Republicans threaten to shoot the hostages; Tea Partiers threaten to shoot themselves.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Thank you Madbunny,

I don't have time tonight for letting what you say sink in to give a thoughtful reply. I will say that I personally can't bring myself to view the Democrat party as the "good guys" and the Republican party as the "bad guys". The closet I can get at the moment is "good cop, bad cop" and we are all potential subjects suspects.

You don't have to think of them as the 'good guys' only to realize they're not the 'bad guys' this time around. 

Let me give you a simple example.  I have a coworker he hates Obamacare with a weird passion  .He has a daughter that's early 20's, lives in bakersfield for some reason.  I know right?  Bakersfield.  She's on his health insurance.  I pointed out that because of Obamacare his daughter can remain on his insurance (which he liked) or that because of the way the new exchanges were set up she could shop for cheap coverage and see right up front if she qualifies for price cuts/subsidies (which he liked).  Then he complained about the high deductible, until I pointed out that if he's smart and simply invests the difference in his own pocket (bank/HSA/investments/whatever) he'll save much more in the long run since he doesn't use insurance that often.  Also it'll be in his pocket instead of somebody else's.  Or just get a low deductible plan, like what he has now.

He still hates Obamacare, just doesn't know why.

Who's the bad guy in this scenario?  The person who told him that he has to hate Obamacare no matter what. 
That's the bad guy.  My friend who hates Obamacare, is doing so to his own detriment.

I shouldn't have done this, but I decided to check if there were any responses before I go to bed. I still haven't done any research or thought deeply about the other replies but this one...this reply struck me because it digs at the root of my misunderstanding.

Is Obama a DINO[1], a corporate shill? Merely a scapegoat for the shadowy powers behind the veil which have been moving our country further and further right?

If so then why argue that the Republicans are obstructionist? They are just playing their part in this grand illusion. They aren't obstructing anything...they are merely facilitating the fundamental change which Obama promised. Aren't they? They are the "bad cop".  And should be commended for playing their role perfectly.

Is not the Republican party the ultimate political troll? That would make the Democrat party Pinocchio, always wishing they were real boys.

Where is the Green Fairy when you need her?

Apologies...I have had drinks. 

1.	Democrat In Name Only

[MadBunny]

You seem to be dancing in a lot of circles to avoid looking at the actions of the Republicans. 
It appears at every turn that you try to for so reason defend their actions by pointing at the Democratic party. [1] 
My suggestion is this; come back tomorrow or whenever and look at the example I gave you of the guy who hates Obamacare despite liking every part of it that I told him about.

Also, where the Republican filibuster/cloture/obstruction stuff is concerned.  Look at that action independent of what you think of the Democratic party.  The tired excuse offered by many Republicans of 'but THEY DID IT TOOO' doesn't fly.  I've seen  you deconstruct religious bias and do it well.  Apply your skills to the topic at hand.  I'm well aware of various failings of the Democratic party, and the President Obama.  This isn't about that. 

Don't try to flip the script, just look at the stuff in front of you and draw a conclusion.  Heck, use the handy chart I linked in.  Watching you dance around this is unfortunately a bit like watching a theist dance around the idea that parts of their bible might be wrong.

I'm not asking for a lot.  No books, no dissertations, essays or whatnot, just that you use your critical thinking facilities as I've seen you do elsewhere.  Failing that, you might want to just admit you have a blind spot where the RNC is concerned.

1.	Seriously, it's that hard to say, just use DNC.  Your language is one step away from referring to them as 'libs'.

[Chronos]

Is Obama a DINO[1], a corporate shill? Merely a scapegoat for the shadowy powers behind the veil which have been moving our country further and further right?

1.	Democrat In Name Only

/shrugs/   I'm sure many Democrats do not care for the lack of liberalism shown by Obama, because in fact he has barely acted like a liberal at all. He's cut the federal budget even before or in addition to the sequester limits, he's deported people who were here illegally (and without much review of special cases), he's engaged in drone strikes, failed to get universal health care and lets the NSA monitor just about any form of communication we have. So, yeah, I am sure there are Democrats who don't like these things and would prefer they change, but the Republicans are too much of a distraction. They are like a circus freak show that never leaves town, and every time you return to the circus you see something more outlandish than the last time you visited.

This is why many Republicans (non-Tea Party) know that Obama is really rather conservative. While they play the media game of calling him this or that liberal name, they realize that, yes, it's just a game. The Republicans realize their side is full of crazy people with no ideas beyond name-calling, filibusters, and making mountains out of molehills, or as one recent example claims god, guns and football:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/showbiz/wayne-mills-death/index.html

^ I never heard of him before this news article appeared. I'm sure he was a Tea Party supporter.

Few on the right wish to acknowledge how conservative Obama is. One person who does is Andrew Sullivan, a conservative gay Catholic from Great Britain. He compares Obama to being a Tory (British conservative party), which he also states is like being a responsible Republican. Others argue that Republicans drug the country further right than it really is causing Democrats to morph into what Republicans used to be.

If so then why argue that the Republicans are obstructionist? They are just playing their part in this grand illusion. They aren't obstructing anything...they are merely facilitating the fundamental change which Obama promised. Aren't they? They are the "bad cop".  And should be commended for playing their role perfectly.

Is not the Republican party the ultimate political troll? That would make the Democrat party Pinocchio, always wishing they were real boys.

Where is the Green Fairy when you need her?

Apologies...I have had drinks.

Yes, you have had a few drinks because that ^ doesn't make any sense at all.

[Hatter23]

  I'm sure many Democrats do not care for the lack of liberalism shown by Obama, because in fact he has barely acted like a liberal at all. He's cut the federal budget even before or in addition to the sequester limits, he's deported people who were here illegally (and without much review of special cases), he's engaged in drone strikes, failed to get universal health care and lets the NSA monitor just about any form of communication we have. So, yeah, I am sure there are Democrats who don't like these things and would prefer they change, but the Republicans are too much of a distraction.

Yeah, I would like the Obama progressive I heard during his Election and Inaugural speeches, not the Bush-light I've seen in office.

[Nick]

Thank you Madbunny,

I don't have time tonight for letting what you say sink in to give a thoughtful reply. I will say that I personally can't bring myself to view the Democrat party as the "good guys" and the Republican party as the "bad guys". The closet I can get at the moment is "good cop, bad cop" and we are all potential subjects suspects.

You don't have to think of them as the 'good guys' only to realize they're not the 'bad guys' this time around. 

Let me give you a simple example.  I have a coworker he hates Obamacare with a weird passion  .He has a daughter that's early 20's, lives in bakersfield for some reason.  I know right?  Bakersfield.  She's on his health insurance.  I pointed out that because of Obamacare his daughter can remain on his insurance (which he liked) or that because of the way the new exchanges were set up she could shop for cheap coverage and see right up front if she qualifies for price cuts/subsidies (which he liked).  Then he complained about the high deductible, until I pointed out that if he's smart and simply invests the difference in his own pocket (bank/HSA/investments/whatever) he'll save much more in the long run since he doesn't use insurance that often.  Also it'll be in his pocket instead of somebody else's.  Or just get a low deductible plan, like what he has now.

He still hates Obamacare, just doesn't know why.

Who's the bad guy in this scenario?  The person who told him that he has to hate Obamacare no matter what. 
That's the bad guy.  My friend who hates Obamacare, is doing so to his own detriment.

That is because the GOP and the 1%ters have mastered the art of turning things around so people vote against their own interests.

[jaimehlers]

Twenty years ago, Obama may well have identified as a Republican.  My dad was a lifelong Republican until around the time of Clinton's second term in office.

Due to the rightward shift of the party, it's been shedding anyone not seen as conservative enough.  That's now been compounded by the tea party, which is busy trying to remove anyone they don't see as conservative enough.

[Nam]

If you say so.   I'm hard pressed to find any areas where the TP and the Republican party are divided.  To me it's the difference between Sharia/Sunni.

Republicans threaten to shoot the hostages; Tea Partiers threaten to shoot themselves and the hostages.

Fixed that for you.

-Nam

[Mr. Blackwell]

Time out for a brief intermission

I am conflicted...have been for some time. The nature of my conflict is this...

1. We should never force anyone to do anything against their will.

2. We should all share the responsibility of taking care of each other

3. We should be able to keep the fruits of our labor

4. We should help others produce more fruit.


If there was some way to balance these four fundamental beliefs, I think we could give even the spiders a reason to frolic...and spiders don't frolic.