Boehner was onboard with Obamas initial deal but cited his caucus as the reason he backed out of it.
Joel Send a noteboard - 26/07/2011 01:39:06 AM
The stampede of Congressmen from both parties leaving DC because they can't stand the downright vicious bickering and hatred argues that the environment you speak of no longer exists. As does a leading candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination demanding Congressional investigation into Obama for un-American activities just a few years ago. Beating "them" is now officially more important than the countrys well being; that's why Boehner couldn't get a spending cut/tax hike deal that balanced the budget and reduced our debt: Cantor and Co. wouldn't let him. It's also why the only way Obama can get Republicans to agree to any "deal" is to grant all their concessions while getting none in return.
The 'stampede' wasn't particularly big, people do decide from time to time for normal reasons to leave office and you make it sounds like a couple percent of them retiring represents a mass exodus. Of those that did retire, some did for age or health as the primary reason, and mumble on about their golden years and how things used to be with the exact same accuracy as anyone else. A lot of them got out because they knew they had little chance of being re-elected and campaigning is exhausting, particularly if you've an uphill battle, but they'll also be happy to mumble on about 'the way it was' particularly since it gives them an excuse not to admit to themselves and others that they got out before they got kicked out. Times do change though, and I think most of it is simply what I said, spotlight and observer effect.
Now, to the rest, spare me, you just get done talking about how vicious politics has become then launch into a vicious and utterly partisan rant, which is like 90% of your posts. You didn't criticize any Dem up there and when you do criticize one you hammer at them for not being partisan enough, so pot meet kettle.
Likewise, how many bills has Obama passed without giving into all Republican demands in exchange for nothing? The TARP that they helped him pass then lambasted him for signing? The carbon copy of the Bush stimulus bill they passed unanimously but pilloried when Obama duplicated it? Do you contend I'm misrepresenting the facts? That Bachman wanted to investigate Obama for anti-American associations when he was a Senator, or that she's only running 2 or 3 points behind Romney in most GOP presidential polls? Yeah, I think Republicans are mostly (though not exclusively) in the wrong here, but you tell me:
1) Am I accusing anyone of anything they didn't do?
2) Am I misrepresenting their actions as anything save what they were?
If the shoe fits, wear it, and if you don't like how it chafes that's your fault and not the cobblers for picking the wrong one.
To be fair, a lot of the change is in the Senate specifically; the House has often been little better than a kindergarten since at least as far back as the Civil War, but in a way that's the problem: These days the once calm, deliberative and (dare I say it) statesmanlike Senate seems anything but. On the rare occasions a Senator does buck the party line it can earn him the fate of staunchly conservative Bob Bennett, who lost his job essentially because he didn't mark in lockstep with a GOP he supported 90% of the time. A lot of recent retirees (and this is what makes it most striking) were or are in no danger of defeat, but left anyway, specifically citing DC partisanship. I waited for a Republican Congressman to condemn Bachmanns thinly veiled accusations of treason against Obama the way Margaret Chase Smith condemned fellow Republican Joe McCarthy in the '50s. That moment never came; instead, Republicans may nominate her to run against him for the presidency. I'll leave it with the linked article in which Evan Bayh, in many ways the poster child for such Senators, remarks on doing just that two years ago; pay particular attention to his comments about a bipartisan debt reduction commission that was stillborn because people who'd supported it refused to vote for it because of (according to Bayh) purely partisan reasons.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 26/07/2011 at 01:39:27 AM
Reid/Democrats cave, Republicans win debt ceiling debate -
25/07/2011 07:29:17 PM
- 1025 Views
Why must it always be us against them
25/07/2011 08:12:48 PM
- 536 Views
Two-party system = us vs. them
25/07/2011 09:00:31 PM
- 525 Views
fuck you
26/07/2011 03:17:04 AM
- 597 Views
HA! HA! - I think I broke moondog's mind.....
26/07/2011 04:09:59 AM
- 516 Views
it's not about support, it's about getting *some* of what you want
26/07/2011 06:31:26 AM
- 527 Views
I am only getting "some" of what I want.....
26/07/2011 03:01:28 PM
- 647 Views
when your position is intractable, don't be surprised when people refuse to work with you
26/07/2011 03:55:28 PM
- 515 Views
It generally isn't
25/07/2011 09:30:36 PM
- 559 Views
It formerly wasn't.
25/07/2011 10:22:47 PM
- 593 Views
That's mostly BS
26/07/2011 12:57:26 AM
- 643 Views
Boehner was onboard with Obamas initial deal but cited his caucus as the reason he backed out of it.
26/07/2011 01:39:06 AM
- 722 Views
I'm sorry, did I mention Boehner in my message somewhere? Or the deal?
26/07/2011 03:11:40 AM
- 542 Views
Re: I'm sorry, did I mention Boehner in my message somewhere? Or the deal?
29/07/2011 08:26:12 AM
- 678 Views
Is there some lack of understanding about 'tangent' maybe?
30/07/2011 04:57:15 AM
- 584 Views
Not at all; you stated exactly why I wasn't being tangential.
30/07/2011 12:47:08 PM
- 485 Views
You're making overtly contradictory statements now, so I think we're done
31/07/2011 01:57:37 AM
- 517 Views
It's not just about his reelection. Can you imagine having this circus again next year?
25/07/2011 09:16:17 PM
- 559 Views
or he is worried that with and election coming more dems will break ranks
25/07/2011 10:00:56 PM
- 529 Views
Yeah, pretty much.
25/07/2011 10:12:03 PM
- 732 Views
Reid didn't cave as much as you might think
25/07/2011 11:58:08 PM
- 516 Views
I agree with that.
25/07/2011 11:59:41 PM
- 542 Views
to bad we have a media more interested in hyping the drama than they are in cutting through BS
26/07/2011 01:42:39 AM
- 528 Views
we need a law like they have in canada that you can't lie during a newscast
26/07/2011 03:58:38 PM
- 529 Views
Yeah, but any tax hikes, and any Dem leverage, is gone now.
26/07/2011 01:51:04 AM
- 686 Views
the tax cuts are set to expire on their own, they don't need to vote to cancel them.
26/07/2011 02:04:58 PM
- 465 Views
Yes, but they voted to extend them last winter, which you insist was the Dems fault.
27/07/2011 03:30:33 AM
- 548 Views