jeffd
1721
The hope was that they’d be able to get Olympia Snowe on board. At one point it seemed like she wasn’t as much of a ratfucker as the rest of them.
jeffd
1722
This kind of magic thinking is infuriating. “If only they could lead better!” There’s no substance to it.
Inevitably people like you are totally unable to explain how, exactly, different leadership can get sixty votes out of the Senate. Take it for granted that 41 Senators will oppose everything you want to do, regardless of what that is.
Got any ideas? I’m guessing not. But hey, let’s dogpile on Harry Reid because scapegoating someone for a fundamental design flaw in our government is going to accomplish lots!
As for Pelosi - honestly, people who bitch about her are clueless, straight up. She doesn’t lose votes. Healthcare reform sailed through the House with comparative ease. Just what the fuck more do you want her to do? Blast Joe Lieberman into cinders with her magic eyebeams?
JeffL
1723
They got 60 votes. It just took too long.
So what the hell IS his job? When you are in a leadership role, you are accountable for getting things done, pulling people together, getting them in a backroom, etc. That’s the leadership job. That’s the accountability. If you can’t get it done, then give it to someone else and see what they can do.
Let’s turn it around - just what has Reid accomplished and pulled off with the majority he’s had and and the SuperMajority he’s had? What leadership HAS he shown? He’s had not only the majority, but freaking 60 seats, and he still can’t pull them together. Leadership is getting things done especially when it’s hard. Hell, a number of us on this forum are in leadership roles in our jobs - we’re accountable for results, that’s why we have the jobs, and telling our bosses “But it’s HARD! But, but, I’ve got hurdles and opposition!” doesn’t cut it. You have to understand the situation up front, before the shit hits the fan, know what can be done, know the different approaches, work your ass off to pull people together, especially the ones who don’t buy in up front, anticipate the problems and work on them up front, etc.
A leader is judged on the results under his leadership. That’s the role. Sometimes it sucks, but that’s the job.
By the way - are you really all for eliminating the cloture rules? Are you willing to allow the Republicans to pass their agendas when they have 51?
I think I would like for her to do that, actually.
Give Up
> Persuade by Force
AlanT
1726
Yes, this is a potentially scary prospect. However, as things stand now it is impossible to govern, in the basic sense of adjusting how things are done in the country in response to changing conditions. I would be willing to deal with the possibility that a party I don’t like would get more of a free hand for a couple of years, because we do after all get to vote them out if they don’t succeed.
Take healthcare; I’m no great fan of the current proposals, but I do think they’re substantially better than nothing. Suppose it could have passed with 51 votes, and as a result could have been passed much earlier. Then people actually get a couple of years to live with it, and see that it’s not in fact that bad and is generally helpful (or, conversely, is utterly fucked up and horrible if that’s your opinion), and take that into account the next time they vote.
But is this not academic now anyway? Wouldn’t changing the cloture rules take 60 votes, and I doubt the current opposition would necessarily see it as being in their best interest, since the situation now is working fine for them, at least electorally.
Nope, only takes 51 to change the cloture rules.
This is not the fault of the filibuster. It’s more the fault of modern marketing, media coverage, and how politics work. If these people could get out of the spotlight for half a minute and speak rationally to one another, we’d be getting just as much done as we were before. The problem is that the way that we watch, cover, and participate in national politics has changed over the past twenty or thirty years to make finding rational and responsible solutions to actual problems is now much less important than tossing around slogans and scoring rhetorical points.
Oddly enough, these facts make the filibuster even more important because you’re likely to see more extreme movements and attempted actions in this kind of environment. You do not want a situation where we’re waffling back and forth trading 2 and 3 person majorities between sides and alternately illegalizing all abortion and stem cell research and then ushering it back into practice every couple of years. That kind of roiling, unstable environment is much worse than a stable environment that has a hard time moving quickly to respond to stimuli.
The real answer is for CNBC and Fox News and MSNBC and talk radio and the rest of the 24-hour news cycle to die in a fire, but I haven’t come up with a way to do that yet that doesn’t involve suspending the Constitution and taking military action.
AlanT
1729
The counterpoint here is the rest of the world, in which laws can be passed without the chaos you describe, and governments don’t spend their time just repealing the laws made by their predecessors.
If you get something on the statute book, there’s generally a bit of inertia involved in removing it. And again, a bill that’s unpopular by reason of scaremongering may be less so if it’s actually implemented and people get to see it work, which will make it harder to just repeal when there’s a change in majority party.
The Senate is already resistant, by design, even, to being a very changeable body because it only changes a third of its membership every two years.
wahoo
1730
Doesn’t at some point the will of the people count? Sure, you can say that people don’t understand the real bill. But the fact is that is the HATE THE BILL.
The latest poll puts support at basically a one third with almost a majority against. Ben Nelson has lost 30+ pts from his approval rating and most likely his seat with his vote and deal for health care.
Dem leadership has been whipping the heck out of their members b/c the American populace simply doesn’t like the bill. However, you spin it at the end of the day most polls show folks don’t like the health care bill and that counts when it comes to asking members to take a hard vote.
The rest of the world, it seems to me, isn’t quite as divided on quite as many issues as the United States today. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like there are a lot more fundamental philosophical differences in this nation than anywhere else I hear about.
There’s nothing to be gained by making the poll question “Do you like the bill?” There’s lots of reasons to dislike the bill, the two major ones being “it doesn’t do enough” and “I like giving one health insurance company more money per year than I pay in taxes”.
I want to see a poll that asks if the bill will make health care better than it is now.
Ask and ye shall recieve.
3* If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?
Date Jan 16-17, 2010
Better 20%
Worse 52%
Stay the same 21%
Not sure 8%
Now how many of them actually know what in the chuffing hell they’re talking about and aren’t just spitting back up the putrid, semi-digested remnants of marketing material to which they have been exposed?
Lots of countries have vastly different political views within their populace. Most have more parties though. The US really needs more than just two political points of view represented. With only two it’s inevitable that they end up being direct opposites with the vast majority of the population’s actual politics being somewhere in between.
WarrenM
1736
Now how many of them actually know what in the chuffing hell they’re talking about and aren’t just spitting back up the putrid, semi-digested remnants of marketing material to which they have been exposed?
Yes, how many could actually explain HOW health care will get worse. I’m going to guess a very small percentage of them have any idea what’s actually being proposed.
wahoo
1737
Not picking on you particularly since this is a common refrain. But this is a really dangerous line of reasoning.
B/c what you’re telling voters is that you’re ignorant on this bill. You simply don’t understand it and if you did, you wouldn’t oppose it.
That’s not good if you’re trying to get people to vote for you.
The polls have been moving the wrong way on health care for a long time. Dems are losing big time in big places with health care playing a role. Approval ratings for Members who voted for the bill have been crushed. Look at the retirement in Ark, Dorgan etc.
This has been a very bad issue for Dems and I’m guessing the blue dogs/centrists are gonna put a halt to it now.
WarrenM
1738
This has been a very bad issue for Dems and I’m guessing the blue dogs/centrists are gonna put a halt to it now.
I hate how everything boils down to either how it makes the party look or how it affects the voting outlook for someone. Why does “what’s best for the country” never enter into the picture? Fucking political RAGE!
But what about when that’s, you know, the truth? The reason we have elected representatives is because I don’t trust the jackass down the road from me to know what the appropriate foreign policy with the nation of Kenya is viz a viz our current anti-terrorism strategy. People are stupid. Really, really stupid. People think that you should include Creation Science in textbooks. People think that there is such a thing as ghosts. People think that some idiot on television is going to reveal to you the secret of the universe that makes you rich. People believe that if you want a thing hard enough it will just happen. PEOPLE (IN ASIA, MOSTLY) BELIEVE THAT A RUNNING FAN CAN KILL A SLEEPING PERSON.
People are stupid. Somebody needs to tell them that.
magnet
1740
Precisely. In sharp contrast, the GOP manages to keep their party in line. When necessary, they use tactics like reconciliation or make credible threats like the nuclear option. They fine-tune their bills to get overwhelming popular support, and then dare their opponents to vote against them. They keep their infighting private and present a united front in public. As a result, under the previous administration they managed to do a lot more (terrible things) with a smaller margin.
That’s why the Democrats, particularly those in the Senate, are pathetic. They squabble in public, tie their own hands by declaring legislative options “off the table”, and poison their popular bills until they are unpopular. They don’t even know how to get their TSA chief confirmed!
Democrats shouldn’t make any excuses for failure, and I hope for their sake they don’t try. It would just make them even more pathetic.
