Not quite. Almost all Democrats voted for the Afghanistan authorization, many did the Iraq authorization, many voted for the Medicare prescription benefit. Heck No Child Left Behind was co-authored by Ted Kennedy. The Democratic opposition was tough but not nearly as bad as what we are seeing now. That said those are the rules and per my discussion with Glynch I would rather have a system that forces the majority to negotiate with the minorty than run roughshod over them.
I have to agree. The Senate was designed to protect us from the swinging pendulum of populism. While it has also slowed reform in many instances, I'll take the tradeoff. Stability in government is one of the greatest gifts the Founding Fathers gave us. Can you imagine living in someplace like Italy where a government can change six times in a year (extreme but it's happened)? Try getting real lasting reform passed in that environment. As for the degree of success from these pieces of legislation, I don't fault anyone for hoping it would be more, but I do think we take what we can get passed. Almost all policy, as Major indicated, evolves incrementally. For the record I'm really only hawkish on a small strain of foreign policy issues. Most everything else I'm pretty liberal.
Where I think you really do see the "throw the bums out" mentality is in the primaries - you have an army of fairly solid incumbents/favorites being booted, especially on the GOP side. What we don't really know at this point is whether that would translate in a general election or not where you have more partisanship. As you said, the special elections haven't shown great results for the GOP - but a lot of those had weird circumstances too (the NY Special had the GOPer drop out and endorse the Dem, Coakley was a disaster of a candidate, etc).
I would agree, but only if the minority was actually willing to negotiate. In this case, the minority has become the party of "NO!" (© Ted Stevens and John Boehner). That's not negotiation. In their eyes, compromise means doing everything their way. That's not a good system at all.
Have a good time! I envy you. This is our "busy" summer. Next year, we'll take a lot of time off. It's one of those goofy Texas state government cycle thingys.
Its not but as someone once said about democracy its better than the alternative. While it may be frustrating from a liberal POV that Republicans are saying no just remember the Republicans not that long ago were saying the same things about the Democrats. For everyone who doesn't like the US Constitution and Senate Rules holding things up you have to remember that it was just 5 years ago that Republicans were the ones who controlled all three branches of elected government and it is within the realm of possibility they could do so in as soon as 3 years.
Major is probably the most level-headed, even-handed poster in the D&D. Calling him a moderate or an Obama supporter completely misses the point. He seems somehow impervious to the hot-blooded posts that run through these threads and employs history and common sense to make his points, as he's done here. He (like rimrocker) is tops in my book and always has been. I've never read a post from either of those guys that isn't factually unimpeachable.
Me too. Exactly. The Democrats' greatest danger in the mid-terms isn't the Republicans or other opposition to Obama, the party or the "direction the country's moving" -- it's apathy on the part of the Democratic Party base. I have no doubt that's what Gibbs was doing and that it wasn't a blunder at all but a carefully calculated move, and a pretty sound one at that.
Virtually any credible pollster would tell you that the most important numbers to look at in advance of a mid-term election are those to do with "voter enthusiasm." That stat directly impacts voter turnout and is much more instructive than head-to-head match-ups, particularly in off-year elections. How else do you expect the White House to turn out the vote than by reminding them of the consequences of staying home? And what is the big deal about what he said anyway? Do you see any possible way that his statement translates into less votes for Democrats rather than more? I don't. I honestly don't see what Pelosi or anyone else is pissed about. And, if the statement was intended to fire up the base (as I strongly believe it was since there would have been no other conceivable reason for it), what's "Machiavellian" about that? That's Politics 101.
You certainly are sure of yourself, Batman. I don't have nearly that confidence in the Fall elections. I'll repost part of what I just put in Rimster's thread: The consultants argue that public anger, if properly stoked, alone can carry the party over the finish line. In their view, getting bogged down in the issues is a distraction and even a potential liability. Don't assume that it won't work. Everything possible must be done to insure it doesn't, and at the moment, I don't have a great deal of confidence that Democrats are doing everything they can.
I wasn't expressing confidence about the fall elections. Or pessimism for that matter. I have no idea how they'll go. Nobody does. I wasn't even saying that what he said would work or make any difference at all, only that there wasn't anything wrong with it and that it was silly to think so. Even if it were to make the tiniest difference (and I doubt it would), it would be a drop in the ocean. But it certainly wouldn't have any negative implications. To suggest it would is ridiculous. That's why my only real point here is that it was silly to freak out about it (as Pelosi did) or to call it a "blunder" or suggest it was somehow "Machiavellian." There's just no there there. As for the elections, there's a lot of time between now and then and a lot can happen - with BP, with Afghanistan, with the economy, with unemployment, you name it. And there's a lot of campaigning and making of arguments to come. The election season hasn't even started yet. As Karl Rove famously said, "You don't roll out a new product in September" and you certainly don't do it in July. The people who have decided in July how they're going to vote decided long before that - they always vote for the same party. The people who aren't hardcore partisans are completely up for grabs. But I will say that voter enthusiasm will play a huge role and whichever party wins the expectations game on enthusiasm will win turnout and that will determine the result, because it always does; which is why I said that what Gibbs said made perfect sense and was Politics 101.
As I said, I think it was a blunder, and if it was a deliberate ploy, the administration is getting too cute. Even Machiavellian, but not in a good way. At least I have the comfort of knowing that you find my opinion rediculous.
What do you believe are the negative consequences of Gibbs' comment? How do they hurt things for Democrats?
I don't find it ridiculous; I just don't understand it. What Gibbs did wasn't remarkable in any way. It was a par for the course, normal, political quote. One quote that was in no way remarkable. I still don't understand why you'd call it a blunder. I mean, you've called it one and you've called it too cute and you called it Machiavellian but you really haven't said why you think those things. Why do you? As I asked before, and as Major just asked, what is the possible negative consequence? How can there be a blunder without any possible consequence?
It promotes the idea that the Democratic Party is going to lose in November, which is certainly a negative. Coming from a very prominent member of the administration, the man who gives the daily briefings, the guy who is one of the "faces" of the administration, that comment carries a lot of weight. Why do you think Pelosi and company were so pissed off?
