The Biggest Irony?

[Beet]

IMO, Yes. When Obama talked about getting past "red states and blue states" and focusing on common values at the 2004 DNC, it was a good sounding, but quixotic talking point. It did have some substantive genesis, but it's value lay more in the fact that the speechifying frames he used tickle the bones of a certain kind of liberal than that it was the greatest crisis facing the country at that time.

The irony is that now Obama is President, and he has gradually grown out of that speech. But now, the idea of putting aside partisan differences is more relevant than ever. It is arguably the greatest crisis facing the nation. It is even more serious, I would argue, than the economic crisis that started in 2008. And I certainly have placed the economic crisis high on the list of problems. We need both parties to return to the spirit of Obama's speech from 2004. If only the Senator from Indiana could be so eloquent.

The truth about economic crises is that having a less money will never be the end of the world. This isn't the Middle Ages, where "economic crisis" meant you could be eating the bark off trees and mothers leaving babies by the side of the road. That's an economic crisis. Even if the US government were to default on every bond it has ever sold, we still would not be at that stage. In fact, we would be fine. We would have enough food, enough shelter, enough clothing; our factories, which when they run at full capacity can produce more than this country has ever produced, would still be physically there. If people helped each other, worked together, accepted the need for less consumption and more hard work and investment, we would get through it. Just as we got through the 1930s.

The greater danger has always been the breakdown of the political system. In the past 10 years we have arced from having no problems at all, to a dramatic but in reality not very serious problem (terrorism- which hardly kills any Americans), to a serious problem that affects many Americans' material well being, to, I believe, a serious emerging problem that threatens to the destroy the very foundations of our political system, which has ceased working. This threat is all the greater in that it has been building up now for many years, if not decades.

No enemy from across the oceans can destroy America; militarily, or monetarily. We can only destroy ourselves; and the most likely way for this to happen is if partisan or ideological differences to become greater than the concern for the whole that these differences are supposed to be founded on in the first place. In the most dramatic sense, 1861. But well before we reach that point, the legislative process; the political discourse; the genuine patriotism of concern from your countrymen rather than concern for your control of the political system they live in-- might collapse.

We can fight amongst ourselves with such abandon that, like bulls in a china shop, the political system that makes our government work becomes a bystander casualty. Where ideology replaces thinking; where emotion replaces the understanding; where winning replaces effectiveness. We can be the richest, most powerful nation in the world with the soundest economy in history, and still destroy ourselves in this way. How many wealthy families of antiquity fell through infighting? And in the process, we discredit not only ourselves but the whole democratic experiment that the Founding Fathers launched in 1776. In the grand scheme of history, 234 years is no eternity, and that experiment goes on.

[Vepres]

I agree, unfortunately, both sides are at fault, but neither side will acknowledge their own faults.

Republicans are being obstructionist for petty political reasons. They act like they actually won in 2008, and that somehow the Democrats stole they election. Of course, some do feel like the White House has ignored them, but that may be the fault of their radical colleagues.

On the other side, many Democrats (including many on this forum) think that the party is being too spineless, bending backward too much. This is not true. Most people outside of the liberal wing of the Democratic party would say they're being too liberal. Indeed, it is very troubling that many Democrats were actually happy that Evan Bayh retired. That kind of attitude only feeds the problem.

I was watching Chris Matthews about an hour ago, and he was talking to two former moderate Senators. Cohen (R) and Breaux (D). At the end, to summerize, he said both sides should accept a half loaf of bread. Yet, Democrats want a whole loaf, and Republicans want no loaf.

People on both sides will disagree with this, but both parties are part of the problem. To both sides: I don't care if you think you're being reasonable and trying to cooperate (to Republicans) or too moderate (to Democrats) if you're not getting things through and solving problems, you're parties are clearly not being reasonable enough, cooperative enough, nor moderate enough.

We can only hope some reasonable third party puts one of those two dinosaurs to rest.[/rant]

[Хahar 🤔]

At the end, to summerize, he said both sides should accept a half loaf of bread. Yet, Democrats want a whole loaf, and Republicans want no loaf.

The voters gave the Democrats the whole loaf.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Other - never heard his 2004 speech

[Vepres]

At the end, to summarize, he said both sides should accept a half loaf of bread. Yet, Democrats want a whole loaf, and Republicans want no loaf.

The voters gave the Democrats the whole loaf.

Democrats won campaigning as post-partisan, getting past the silly divides of the Bush years, ending the reckless spending, and to punish Republicans for ruining the economy. Frankly, healthcare and cap-and-trade were secondary issues. Also keep in mind the Democrats' majority was built on people like Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson and Mark Warner.

However, it doesn't really matter which of us is right. It is that attitude that has paralyzed our legislature. Besides us political geeks, nobody cares about "mandates" or "ideologies" or whatever silly terms we used. They care about the government functioning, and until people on both sides, including you and your side, are will to look at themselves objectively and change their attitudes, nothing will get done. People are pissed that the governing party has passed only three significant pieces of legislation, when we need more. People are mad that the man promising change is the most polarizing modern President.

Sorry Xahar, but if getting things done means triangulating with the minority, so be it. To continue that metaphor, when your starving, a half loaf is better than none.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I was watching Chris Matthews about an hour ago, and he was talking to two former moderate Senators. Cohen (R) and Breaux (D). At the end, to summerize, he said both sides should accept a half loaf of bread. Yet, Democrats want a whole loaf, and Republicans want no loaf.

People on both sides will disagree with this, but both parties are part of the problem. To both sides: I don't care if you think you're being reasonable and trying to cooperate (to Republicans) or too moderate (to Democrats) if you're not getting things through and solving problems, you're parties are clearly not being reasonable enough, cooperative enough, nor moderate enough.

We can only hope some reasonable third party puts one of those two dinosaurs to rest.[/rant]

This is such utter nonsense. And no, I don't want to hear any of your "Oh but Marokai your disagreement just proves my point!!" bullshit.

The real scenario is one party is willing to get a half-loaf and the other party wants no loaf at all. Democrats have not been trying to go "all or nothing" on any of this stuff and it just blows my mind how you could even suggest that's the case. I'm being deadly serious when I say you must be totally f-ing blind to suggest Democrats are failing at getting things passed because they're not willing to compromise enough.

Let's just take healthcare as an example, given that it's the most present political issue at this time.

No political issue has been compromise more than this by the Democrats. To start with, Baucus and the Senate never even considered Single Payer in the first place, advocated by many of the Progressives in the Democratic Party. It was taken off the table immediately. It didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing the broader legislative up-or-downs, but it wasn't even considered to begin with.

And so we moved onto the public option, of varying strength. It was such a pitiful public health insurance program that it was estimated by the CBO to only carry about 6 million people, and not everyone would be able to purchase into it in the first place. But still, it was some small start. Nope, that wouldn't fly either, so the public option, tiny as it was, was removed from consideration of the bill in an effort by the Democrats to get it passed.

And so we moved to the compromise to the compromise; the Medicare Buy-in. We all know how this went. Because of one Senator holding the process hostage, a premium-funded expansion of Medicare died shortly after it was considered, and before it was even scored.

Other things in the bill we lost to be more "moderate"? A tax hike on the wealthy, a sensible and efficient way of raising the revenue, was lost in the Senate bill. We lost a repeal of anti-trust exemptions for health-insurance companies. Efforts to force companies to spend more of their income on actually providing money for care were watered down. Subsidies were cut, and subsequently so was the maximum number of estimated newly insured.

All of this produced no Republican votes. None. Democrats gave up on their whole loaf from the start, and lost their half-loaf ages ago. We're struggling to keep some crumbs after all is said and done.

What's more baffling is an entry I read from Ezra Klein around a week ago or so. Republican ideas and imput have been incorporated into this bill from the get-go! Although a couple of the proposals from the Democrats don't go as far as a couple of the demands, they are significant efforts made by people who shouldn't even have to make these offerings in the first place, and many of the ideas are included flat-out.

Purchasing healthcare from across state lines; In. Allowing states to circumvent federal standards and regulations if they make better efforts than Congress; In. Making efforts to reduce supposed junk lawsuits; In. Allowing people to pool together in the way federal employees an unions do; In, in fact, the very point of the national exchanges to begin with! All of these and more were Republican demands Ezra notes that we have all caved to!

And still, zero votes.

We've made our effort. I'm so tired of your "oh if only the two sides could come together" erotic fantasies. Democrats have made countless, countless, countless efforts to give into Republican ideas and proposals and curtail our own, and it has produced nothing in terms of votes or even an attitude adjustment. Fanatical opposition has remained a constant, without regard for what we've adjusted in the bills, since last Summer.

It's happened everywhere else, too. Republicans supported a bipartisan deficit commission. Obama backed this idea, the Senate had a majority vote in favor of the idea, but Republicans opposed their own idea, blocked it, so it failed.

John McCain campaigned in support of cap and trade and climate change legislation in general. He has since bashed the (moderated) House cap and trade bill going against his own former position.

Republicans bawked about PAYGO being necessary to rein in the deficit. I happen to agree, and so did Obama and the Democrats. They promptly brought up the pay as you go rules for a vote, and ALL FORTY REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE VOTED AGAINST IT.

Don't let any of this get in your way though. You just keep dreaming your facts-optional moderate hero dream.

[Vepres]

This is such utter nonsense. And no, I don't want to hear any of your "Oh but Marokai your disagreement just proves my point!!" bullshit.

Except, it does prove my point

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that if Democrats controlled 3/4 of both chambers single-payer would likely still fail, it's not compromise but political reality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A number of Democrats opposed it, so your so-called "compromising" is still just to get the whole party on board. Ergo, it is still to the left of the country's center.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe Lieberman is an "independent Democrat" who caucuses with you party, see above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still within the Democratic party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You obviously think the center of your party is far more to the left than you think. Maybe Dodd or Reid gave up his whole loaf, but because too many in the caucus opposed whatever he would have wanted. Even without the filibuster, a single-payer, maybe even a strong public option, probably would not have passed. Hell, it only passed by 5 votes in the house.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gee, a few ideas in a 2000+ page bill. The CBO said none of the bills congress has considered would reduce the cost curve in price growth in any significant way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is STILL to get a few Dems on board.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No bill bended the cost curve, the main thing the GOP cares about in this issue, so really they're all useless bills in their eyes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Stop deluding yourself, the vast majority of the opposition were Democrats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Great, one guy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You link to a liberal blog. None of the sources showed what reasons those Republicans opposed it. Therefore, it seems to be spin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, Democrats ought to be able to push through a liberal agenda. However, this is a center-right nation, you Dems must face political reality. The reality is, you won't be able to pass any programs if you spend months unifying your own party. This nation's political center is to the right of where you think it is. Passing something is better than passing nothing. If Mike Castle and Olympia Snowe are voting against this stuff, than it seems to me that they're simply too far to the left. Remember, Snowe voted for the stimulus, thus you cannot say she's being obstructionist.

You can whine and complain all you want, but congress should do something. If that means acting like Republicans have 50 seats, then so be it. You Democrats keep talking about how things aren't the way they ought to be, but never are honest about the reality. Sorry, but what the center is in your western European fantasy land is left-wing here. That's something you cannot change quickly, and so you can compromise and get things done during this recession, or you can whine about how Republicans are obstructionist.

Like I said, if the majority party cannot pass something without any support of the opposition, then the bill is too left-wing. If you proposed a right-wing bill, and I mean this literally, and they still oppose it, then you can call them out. But the Dems haven't

Again, get things done, albeit moderate (by American standards) or get voted out of power. Dems seem to have chosen the latter out of pride.

And don't say I don't criticize Republicans, I have in previous posts.

[fezzyfestoon]

I was watching Chris Matthews about an hour ago, and he was talking to two former moderate Senators. Cohen (R) and Breaux (D). At the end, to summerize, he said both sides should accept a half loaf of bread. Yet, Democrats want a whole loaf, and Republicans want no loaf.

People on both sides will disagree with this, but both parties are part of the problem. To both sides: I don't care if you think you're being reasonable and trying to cooperate (to Republicans) or too moderate (to Democrats) if you're not getting things through and solving problems, you're parties are clearly not being reasonable enough, cooperative enough, nor moderate enough.

We can only hope some reasonable third party puts one of those two dinosaurs to rest.[/rant]

This is such utter nonsense. And no, I don't want to hear any of your "Oh but Marokai your disagreement just proves my point!!" bullshit.

The real scenario is one party is willing to get a half-loaf and the other party wants no loaf at all. Democrats have not been trying to go "all or nothing" on any of this stuff and it just blows my mind how you could even suggest that's the case. I'm being deadly serious when I say you must be totally f-ing blind to suggest Democrats are failing at getting things passed because they're not willing to compromise enough.

Let's just take healthcare as an example, given that it's the most present political issue at this time.

No political issue has been compromise more than this by the Democrats. To start with, Baucus and the Senate never even considered Single Payer in the first place, advocated by many of the Progressives in the Democratic Party. It was taken off the table immediately. It didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing the broader legislative up-or-downs, but it wasn't even considered to begin with.

And so we moved onto the public option, of varying strength. It was such a pitiful public health insurance program that it was estimated by the CBO to only carry about 6 million people, and not everyone would be able to purchase into it in the first place. But still, it was some small start. Nope, that wouldn't fly either, so the public option, tiny as it was, was removed from consideration of the bill in an effort by the Democrats to get it passed.

And so we moved to the compromise to the compromise; the Medicare Buy-in. We all know how this went. Because of one Senator holding the process hostage, a premium-funded expansion of Medicare died shortly after it was considered, and before it was even scored.

Other things in the bill we lost to be more "moderate"? A tax hike on the wealthy, a sensible and efficient way of raising the revenue, was lost in the Senate bill. We lost a repeal of anti-trust exemptions for health-insurance companies. Efforts to force companies to spend more of their income on actually providing money for care were watered down. Subsidies were cut, and subsequently so was the maximum number of estimated newly insured.

All of this produced no Republican votes. None. Democrats gave up on their whole loaf from the start, and lost their half-loaf ages ago. We're struggling to keep some crumbs after all is said and done.

What's more baffling is an entry I read from Ezra Klein around a week ago or so. Republican ideas and imput have been incorporated into this bill from the get-go! Although a couple of the proposals from the Democrats don't go as far as a couple of the demands, they are significant efforts made by people who shouldn't even have to make these offerings in the first place, and many of the ideas are included flat-out.

Purchasing healthcare from across state lines; In. Allowing states to circumvent federal standards and regulations if they make better efforts than Congress; In. Making efforts to reduce supposed junk lawsuits; In. Allowing people to pool together in the way federal employees an unions do; In, in fact, the very point of the national exchanges to begin with! All of these and more were Republican demands Ezra notes that we have all caved to!

And still, zero votes.

We've made our effort. I'm so tired of your "oh if only the two sides could come together" erotic fantasies. Democrats have made countless, countless, countless efforts to give into Republican ideas and proposals and curtail our own, and it has produced nothing in terms of votes or even an attitude adjustment. Fanatical opposition has remained a constant, without regard for what we've adjusted in the bills, since last Summer.

It's happened everywhere else, too. Republicans supported a bipartisan deficit commission. Obama backed this idea, the Senate had a majority vote in favor of the idea, but Republicans opposed their own idea, blocked it, so it failed.

John McCain campaigned in support of cap and trade and climate change legislation in general. He has since bashed the (moderated) House cap and trade bill going against his own former position.

Republicans bawked about PAYGO being necessary to rein in the deficit. I happen to agree, and so did Obama and the Democrats. They promptly brought up the pay as you go rules for a vote, and ALL FORTY REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE VOTED AGAINST IT.

Don't let any of this get in your way though. You just keep dreaming your facts-optional moderate hero dream.

The only thing I can possibly add to this amazing post is that I think the "half-loaf" crowd (Democrats) being split between "let's aim for half" and "wtf why shouldn't we go for the whole damn thing?" is one of the main obstacles for them.

[opebo]

Right wing governance has continued unchanged through the recent brouhaha about an election.  It is absurd to blame anyone for not being further right for the perceived poor functioning of government.  The government is in fact functioning exactly how it is supposed to function, and for whom.

[Bo]

No, Obama is just a career politician that capitalized on change and hope to get elected. No large change there.