Democrats & Liberals Archives

Dished Out, But Not Taken.

The Republicans are all too happy nowadays to exercise procedural powers in order to get in the way of the Democrat’s legislation. Their latest stunt demonstrates how far this has gone. Votes on votes on votes, gumming up the works even on items where there is unanimous consent. Or in the senate, where a majority exists to pass a bill, not sixty votes, but it has become practice. The Republicans state they are merely giving tit for tat, but are they really?

The Republicans were brutal in their approach to the filibuster of just a few candidates, threatening to destroy it for all time- this was called the nuclear option. They complained and complained and complained about judges not having the opportunity to come up for an up and down vote.

And now they have prevented more up and down votes than any senate minority in history. The Democrats would be well within their rights to destroy the filibuster option at this point.

The article linked concerning the house details the consequences of the Democrats balking at the prospect of the Republicans adding over a hundred Amendments for consideration on each spending bills. They limited the number of Amendments, and the time spent on debating. The Republicans responded by prompting, through parliamentary methods, over fifty two votes on a single bill, roll call votes on even measures known to be unanimously accepted.

The argument could be made that the Republicans are well within their rights. Maybe. But are they doing themselves, the body in question, or the American people much good with their ceaseless, reckless use of parliamentary methods to stop the Democrats?

Or are they providing more ammunition to campaign workers to describe just how much of a Roadblock Republicans made of a process where the majority of Americans wanted change? Despite their efforts to come out like heroes of political resistance, the reputation of the Republican party has suffered, and they remain supported with any strength by their political base.

The Republicans wonder why they always get cast as the bad guys in movies. Perhaps its because they make it so easy. Charleton Heston picks the occasion of the Columbine Shootings to come out, shake a gun over his head, and scream "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands!". This, he does, the guns not long out of the cold, dead hands of a pair of teenagers who just butchered classmates and teachers. Charming.

Maybe its what they felt was necessary to lend solidity back to a pro-gun movement rocked back on its heels by public outrage. In that sense, it makes sense. But did that episode make it easier for people to accept a lack of Gun Control or harder? What happens the next time some loophole lets firearms become the center of another appalling tragedy?

Republicans successfully defeated Universal Healthcare the last time, but after a decade and a half during which private healthcare managed to fulfill every threatened outcome of Government run healthcare, did Republicans really defeat government healthcare, or did they just make it inevitable in the long run as the crisis built from the unanswered need?

Republicans successfully shut the government down. Did that charm people? Quite the opposite. For many it was a signal that the Republicans were out of control, and Clinton sailed to easy re-election, with Newt Gingrich rendered a cartoon figure of political immaturity.

In the Aftermath of Katrina, Republicans suggested that government's inherent faultiness was responsible for the trouble with the response. Americans made a different judgment, more specific. One could say that the response to Katrina was one of the straw meets camel's broken back moments for the Americans concerning the Republicans.

And Iraq? Is it coincidence that the surge started right after Republicans lost the election? That they rolled out the same rhetoric about quitting and everything?

The Republicans in Washington, the leaders of the party have shown greate diligence when it comes to getting their way, and little patience with being told no. And now, deprived of their prominence by the voters, they're turning around and telling the majority of Americans no, gumming up the works, making sure that the government they want to work for them doesn't, that the measures with majority support, even in the legislature, either never come up for a vote, or come up through as much difficulty as possible. Even now, to maintain their hold, they are stymying the seating of Minnesota's second Senator, though every method to count the vote and recount it has come to one, unchanging conclusion: a Democrat, Al Franken, will be seated.

Let me make a shocking admission here: I wish the Democrats had operated with one half the spine the Republicans have shown so far. At the very least, the Republicans are showing their ability to unite for a purpose, something I wish my party would do more often, especially when faced with the Republican's obstruction.

But I also wish the Republicans had one half the brains, collectively speaking, that the Democrats showed in the past two elections. The Democrats learned to not only choose their battles, accepting members whose politics were not entirely aligned with the party platform, but they also chose to side with Americans on the issues that mattered to them. Rather than try and tell the majority they were wrong, rather than put the American people through a traumatic ordeal, trying to force their views on everybody, force their policies down everybody's throats, the Democrats appealed to people, appealed to what they wanted.

The Republicans have decided to pretend like it's still 1994, or 1981. They've decided to do everything in their power to force down the opposition's poll numbers, to tear apart their agenda and stifle the emergence of a more liberal order in America, to replace the conservative that people had rejected in two straight elections.

The Republicans should take note: they did not just lose by a couple seats, they lost dozens in Congress, and were almost completely neutered in the Senate, where once they broke almost even. They could gain something in 2010, but would the gains have any staying power? Would it change the balance of power, or only give the Republicans more to lose?

How will this strategy work, where all the others have failed? The Republicans have succeeded in convincing Americans that their behavior is dangerous to their interests. Under Bush, the country just seems to have fallen apart on every front. We saw bridges collapse, our country suffer strategic defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, our nation's reputation dragged through Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay's mud, the economy cratered, jobs lost and destroyed, and our nation's debt catastrophically increased, all for a tax cut few Americans saw the bulk of in their own pockets. People saw businesses merged with pledged reductions in costs that turned out to be mirror images of the costs that increased. And of course the second wave of big, inefficient vehicle manufacturing ended much like the previous wave ended: with the car companies in crap shape and foreign competitors taking the initiative.

People were asking "How much more Republican leadership can this country stand?", owing to all that happened. Now, I think, they are bound to ask "How much more Republican obstruction can we endure?"

The Republicans are underestimating the seriousness with which people are treating the sins of the past few years, just how easy it will be to remind voters whose to blame for their current lot in life. The Republicans are demonstrating their splendid party discipline in the suicidal effort to pull victory from the jaws of defeat. I can get the pride and the stubborn unwillingness to lose that fuels this, but I don't get the failure to recognize that their contrarianism is rubbing most Americans the wrong way. Winning one or two policy arguments, a handful of seats back is no substitute for the long term health of a party that many are beginning to see as dangerous in its esoteric brand of partisanship.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 19, 2009 11:02 AM
Comment #283266

See, the Democrats’ problem is they are like a herd of cats, impossible to control, impossible to unite, impossible to reach agreement.

The Republicans on the other hand are like military robots marching in lockstep toward whatever objective or goal their leadership has programmed them to focus on. This works well for them and their core constituents (big business) most of the time, except when their leadership gets their panties in a knot such as you have written about here. The typical Republican congressperson is incapable of thinking for him/herself, but rather only believing ideology or taking orders from the leadership.

This all has been true at least back to the time of Joe McCarthy and possibly as far back as Herbert Hoover. Imagine where we would be right now had Obama chosen to govern like Hoover given our current state of economic turmoil.

To their credit, a majority of voters are seeing this self-destructive behavior on the Republicans’ part for what it is, i.e. something that is not good for the nation.

Anyway, great post. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Daniel Defoe at June 19, 2009 12:42 PM
Comment #283269

Republican’s approval ratings in the polls are the lowest in the history of their party. The safest way to insure Republicans never get power again is to encourage them to keep doing what they are doing. Obstruct, Never say yes, condemn, and criticize everything, especially successes. It’s a perfect prescription for a minority to ever remain a minority.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 19, 2009 1:16 PM
Comment #283274

I think its fantastic to watch the Republicans continue to do what they’ve been accused of for years. The country has slowly been opening its eyes over the passed two years, and what they see is an intensely biggoted party who are proudly vocal about their desire to keep America in the Dark Ages for as long as possible regarding any number of critical issues. The bunch of cats reference in regards to the Democratic party is quite good, as is the military robot parallel ironically tragic for the Republicans.

In the wake of the most blatant rejection of right-wing ideals ever in history, the Republican leadership has—openly, mind you—moved even farther to the right? Talk about a chicken with its head cut off… sorry PETA!

Posted by: Michael Falino at June 19, 2009 2:40 PM
Comment #283279

“…left that try to convince the republicans how to be successful…”

I would never, ever presume to tell a Republican how they ought to be successful for two reasons:

1. They never listen to anyone but their core constituents (big business) and leadership.

2. Without any help from me, they’re doing a fine job of kicking out all the people who aren’t rigid ideologues and disgusting everyone else who ever thought they might vote Republican.

Posted by: Daniel Defoe at June 19, 2009 3:40 PM
Comment #283287

Perhaps the title should be “All the things people hate about Republican policy, so they no longer vote for them.”

It’s ironic that you make the point that you do, because Republicans have a long history of “concern trolling”, that is giving Democrats advice specifically intended to undermine the Democrat’s agenda.

Okay, fair enough, relenting on this campaign might not seem like what you’d want to do, but unlike the cases cited by the Republicans, where following the concern trolling didn’t do wonders for the Democrats, the Republicans are clearly suffering for their positions, having lost two elections in a row for their unwillingness to bow to public opinion on this matter.

It doesn’t matter if the Republicans bow to public opinion there own way or our way. But for their own sake at least, they got to stop testing people’s patience. Americans already kicked them out, and then practically handed every ounce of their direct power to the Democrats. They are trying to compensate by abusing their parliamentary privileges. If they were facing folks just like them, the Republicans would have been in even worse condition than they are now. They are lucky that the Democrats are trying to look fair and bipartisan, and that some idiots in the Democratic party still feel it necessary to capitulate to them.

But that can change. Do the Republicans wish to push their luck, with both voters and their Democratic colleagues?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 19, 2009 5:53 PM
Comment #283295

Therein lies the reason why individual congresspeople are popular in their own districts but congress as a whole is unpopular. With less Rep obstruction I suspect the opinions would change.

I am all for getting rid of the filibuster. Its basically undemocratic. It was never intended by the framers. It was an oversight, a mistake.There are plenty of other protections for the minority.
I understand I might not like that so much when the Reps are back in charge but that appears to be a long,long way off and we have work to do. Its worth the risk to finally be able to reform health care delivery in a way that will work instead of some cobbled together compromise that is doomed to failure. Its worth the risk to be able to once again protect workers right to unionize if they choose and start shifting wealth back to the middle class. There’s plenty of other ‘issues vital to bringing America back that need to be dealt with and dealt with soon.

“Ever since I found this site, I have noticed there are more on the left that try to convince the republicans how to be successful than there are those on the right telling democrats how to be successful.”

And with good reason. We need a responsible,realistic, conservative party. By we, I mean the country. Personally I am a left wing yellow dog Dem but even I know that the left needs to consider conservative viewpoints and concerns. It helps us get policy right. Its a check on what can be just plain going too far.

Posted by: bills at June 20, 2009 8:36 AM
Comment #283303

stephen - next post should be how crazy repubs are. watching cspan on friday at 5pm e.s.t. repub steve king r - iowa 5th district. this man is nuts. every “leader” in their party is nuts. steele, rush, mitt romney…nuts. palin, not sure if she is nuts, or of really low intelligence. either way does not bode well for her or them.

then there are the “promise breakers”. either they are nuts, or must hire a prostitute, have gay sex in a airport bathroom, or have an extra marital affair w/a family friend. funny how they try to act like hard working “ordinary” americans, take oathes to stay pure in their marriages, point fingers at the other side as “baby killers”, while they break every promise made at the conventions. they have no problem promoting the promise keepers and getting their votes, but they have a great deal of problems KEEPING the promises. wake up “ordinary” republicans, your leaders are using you for your vote. they have no intention of keeping the promise, but it is a good photo op.

tsk, tsk and you thought they understood you.

Posted by: bluebuss at June 20, 2009 12:51 PM
Comment #283361

Unfortunately, there are still too many of BOTH Republican and Democrat incumbent politicians.
It’s good to see Republican incumbent politicians getting ousted from office.
However, it’s disturbing that so many voters are so easily fooled into thinking the OTHER party is much (if any) better.

Re-election rates for incumbents in BOTH parties is still very high:

  • Start _ End _ Congress _ Re-Election _Party Seat-Retention

  • Year __ Year __ # ______ Rate _______ Rate

  • 1927 __ 1929 __ 070st __ 83.6% ______ 96.4% (87 incumbents ousted: 22(D), 64(R), 1(FL) )

  • 1929 __ 1931 __ 071st __ 79.7% ______ 92.5% (108 incumbents ousted)

  • 1931 __ 1933 __ 072nd __ 76.8% ______ 88.5% (123 incumbents ousted)

  • 1933 __ 1935 __ 073rd __ 61.2% ______ 78.7% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted; 59 Dems, 147 Repubs)

  • … … … … … … . .

  • 1989 __ 1991 __ 101st __ 90.1% ______ 99.6%

  • 1991 __ 1993 __ 102nd __ 87.7% ______ 98.3%

  • 1993 __ 1995 __ 103rd __ 73.5% ______ 98.1% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)

  • 1995 __ 1997 __ 104th __ 79.8% ______ 88.2%

  • 1997 __ 1999 __ 105th __ 77.4% ______ 98.7%

  • 1999 __ 2001 __ 106th __ 89.2% ______ 99.3%

  • 2001 __ 2003 __ 107th __ 89.2% ______ 98.7%

  • 2003 __ 2005 __ 108th __ 87.9% ______ 98.1% (65 of 535 voted out)

  • 2005 __ 2007 __ 109th __ 88.6% ______ 98.7% (61 of 535 voted out)

  • 2007 __ 2009 __ 110th __ 84.9% ______ 93.1% (81 of 535 incumbents voted out (68=16(D)+51(R)+1(I) in the House) + (13=3(D)+9(R)+1(I) in the Senate)

  • 2009 __ 2011 __ 111th __ 86.9% ______ 94.0% (70 of 535 voted out (57=13(D)+44(R) in the House) + (13=3(D)+10(R) in the Senate); a few seats left To Be Determined (TBD))
Also, BOTH parties do the same petty, obstructionist, circular, divisive, crap.

And voters would be wise to ignore the endless, fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the petty, divisive, partisan-warfare and start holding BOTH parties accountable, by voting out irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, corrupt incumbent politicians in BOTH parties.

Heck, Congress recently gave themselves an automatic raise (10th in 12 years), plus $93,000 per Congress person for petty cash and expenses, while U.S. Troops risk life and limb, go without adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4+ tours in Iraq and Afghganistan. Cha-Ching!
Congress automatically gets a pay raise each year, and has to actually introduce a BILL to prevent the increase! ? !
The BILL H.R. 5087 was introduced, but only 34 of 535 in Congress co-sponsored it.
Therefore, Congress (Mostly Democrats and Republicans alike) essentially gave itself a raise (the 10th in 12 years).
Those automatic annual pay-raises for Congress epitomizes their arrogance, greed, and gall.

  • 1998: $136,673 per annum; $151,813 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders;

  • 2000: $141,300 per annum; $156,900 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $181,400 per annum for Speaker;

  • 2002: $150,000 per annum; $161,200 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $186,300 per annum for Speaker;

  • 2003: $154,700 per annum; $166,700 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $192,600 per annum for Speaker;

  • 2004: $158,100 per annum; $175,700 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $203,000 per annum for Speaker;

  • 2005: $162,100 per annum; $180,100 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $208,100 per annum for Speaker;

  • 2006: $165,200 per annum; $183,500 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $212,100 per annum for Speaker;

  • 2007: $168,000 per annum; $186,600 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $215,700 per annum for Speaker;

  • 2009: $174,000 per annum; $190,700 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $220,400 per annum for Speaker;
Those salaries are in the top 6% of the highest household incomes in the U.S.

But, that is all so conveniently ignored, because winning seats for THE PARTY, and fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the petty, circular partisan warfare is all that is important, eh?
It’s funny [alarming] how so much obvious, blatant, corruption and arrogance is not only ignored, but rewarded with 86.9% re-election rates.
Well, that’s the voters’ choice, and the voters will reap what they sow.

Beyond the two main party’s extremes (which are BOTH bad)

  • Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism, little (if any) government regulations, and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed.

  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.
there’s actually not much difference between the two.

Perhaps enough voters will notice that when enough of the voters are deep into debt , bankrupt , jobless , homeless , and hungry?
The incumbent politicians have time on their side (among numerous other incumbent advantages).

  • (a) Perk$ of Office: Incumbents have more party support and resources to draw upon. Each member of Congress has an office budget allowance (provided by tax-payers). That allowance is large enough to employ a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and in their home states or districts. This staff provides a huge advantage, and tax-payers fund it. In addition, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies, and also for trips inside their states or districts. Also, House and Senate members can use the United Stated Postal Service for free for informational letters or announcements to their constituents.

  • (b) Time: Members of Congress and their staffers not only get paid (by the tax-payers) while campaigning and raising money for their campaign war-chest, but they have the time (as part of what they are supposed to do within their job description). But challenging candidates are not provided the time or money by the tax-payers. In contrast, a candidate challenging an incumbent is not paid to do those things, but must determine how to fund it. Many candidates go into debt.

  • (c) Visibility and Access to News Media: Members of Congress have visibility by virtue of being elected, have easy access to the news media, make appearances on television, radio, and are frequently mentioned in newspaper articles and editorials.

  • (d) Campaign Organization: Members of Congress have the advantage of the experience of having managed a campaign organization (and winning), and already have a volunteer campaign organization in place. Also, have you ever noticed that there is rarely (if ever) more than one candidate from any party. This is one of the clever mechanisms used to perpetuate the two-party duopoly, and the incumbent politicians’ high re-election rates; by capitalizing on voters’ blind-party-loyalties and reluctance to vote for anyone not in THEIR party. This is why many politicians love to fuel the partisan warfare. It is extremely effective.

  • (e) Money: The biggest advantage that incumbents have is the ability to raise large contributions. Big-money-donors prefer predictability. Incumbents that refuse to cater to their big-money-donors are not likely to receive more big-money contributions. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money. Unfortunately, government is FOR-SALE.
    Hence, incumbents have many unfair advantages (some funded by the tax-payers). A tiny 0.3% of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters contributed 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in 2002). What chance does the remaining 99.7% of all eligible U.S. voters have against that. In 2004, total federal campaign donations (of $200 more more) totaled about $2.4 billion. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (usually, the incumbent). Government is FOR-SALE. Too many incumbent politicians spend too much of their time campaigning, peddling influence, filling their campaign war-chest$, voting themselves cu$hy perk$ and raises (10 times between 1997 and 2009), and other irresponsible behavior, instead of solving the nation’s most pressing problems that are growing in number and severity, threatening the future and security of the nation.
Yes, Republicans were more corrupt, but the IN-PARTY always is, which is why the IN-PARTY always becomes the OUT-PARTY.

The two main parties simply take turns, and voters need to hold BOTH accountable, instead of being fooled into thinking the problem is only one party.
The two main parties will continue to simply take turns, while enjoying high re-election rates, as long as voters are so easily fooled into believing the majority of the nation’s problems are not the fault of THEIR party too.
Things will simply continue to deteriorate as long as too many voters reward corruption, bloat, waste, and greed with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
Especially when re-election rates are so high (86.9% on 04-NOV-2008, 84.9% on 07-NOV-2006, 85% on average since year 1989).
Voters would also be wise to remember that if they wait too long, it could take a very long time to undo the damage.
While most unhappy voters ousted 108, 123, and 206 members of Congress (in years 1929, 1931, and 1933 respectively), the Great Depression still lingered for about a decade, because the voters waited too long to mitigate and avoid the damages.

So, while the Republican’s may be more-to-blame for about 7 years, it’s foolish to blame it all on ONE-PARTY.
After all, even Stephen Daugherty agrees that the deterioration has been going on for a long time (e.g. “thiry years”)

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You talk about the deterioration of the infrastructure. Just why do you think that happened? … And within the last thirty years, more than ever? Has it occured to you that it’s not just such a bizarre coinicidence that we’ve seen our national debt skyrocket, our deficits rise, corruption rise, …

Democrats had the vast majority of Congress for the 40 consecutive years between 1955 and 1995, and the vast majority of Congress for all but 14 of the last 78 years.

So, it’s sort of ridiculous (to say the least) to constantly fuel and wallow in the blind partisan warfare and constantly try to shift all blame to the OTHER party.
They’re BOTH to blame, and so are the majority of voters who repeatedly reward them for it with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
These inconvenient facts keep gettin’ in your way of the twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook, blame game, and fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the blind partisan warfare?

It’s good to hate greed, corruption, abusers, cheaters, and crooks.
But it’s stupid and dishonest to believe that only the OTHER party is responsible for the “deterioration” of the last “thirty years”.
BOTH are, and so the majority of are voters.
And until enough voters learn that, they are doomed to learn it the hard and painful way (again).

Voters would be wise to ignore the incessant fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the blind, circular, partisan warfare, and start noticing that things have been getting bad (as even Stephen Daugherty and others admit) for many years (e.g. “thirty years”, according to Stephen Daugherty too), and BOTH main political parties are BOTH culpable, and so are the majority of voters who repeatedly reward these same irresponsible, incompetent, FOR-SALE, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite dismally low approval ratings for Congress (e.g. 11%-to-18% last year, and now only 28%).

By foolishly focusing all that hatred of greed, corruption, abusers, cheaters, and crooks only on ONE party, is largely why the newly elected IN-PARTY always becomes the OUT-PARTY.
Too many voters refuse to admit that THEIR party is just as bad, and the IN-PARTY always abuses their power, and always becomes the OUT-PARTY.

Of course, all of this will mostly fall on deaf ears, … , at least, until being so deaf, and wallowin’ in the petty partisan warfare finally becomes too painful.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 21, 2009 10:42 AM
Comment #283363

Seeing Jefferson go from 4 to 7 and Kennedy from 15 to 8 in two years IMHO is scary.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 21, 2009 1:21 PM
Comment #283366 Imagine that what they would normally eat in Nature but then again we have to have Crazy not thought out “Ethanol Bills” and a HUGE Corn and SOY Industry run by a few CHA CHING $$$$$

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 21, 2009 2:25 PM
Comment #283370

What sam said.

Posted by: eric at June 21, 2009 6:50 PM
Comment #283372

I’ll argue till i’m blue , red, pink, in the face against corn Ethanol and i don’t care with who left enders or right enders read my blogs for the last three and a half years on the subject there consistent.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 21, 2009 8:26 PM
Comment #283408

The takeover of 1994 did not just happen, but represented the tipping point of something that started with Reagan’s election in 1980. The Democrats were shifted further and further right in efforts not to be overwhelmed by Reagan’s political movement. That’s where Clinton, Gore, and others in the coalition that ruled the Democratic Party for the better half of that time got their start.

I’m not saying that Democrats did not do their share of selling out, of pushing the corporate and special interests. Why do you think they were ultimately voted out? That is the failure I reference when I speak of the failures of the Democrats. They became Republicans Lite.

Is it no mystery, then, that Democrats did not truly recover until they recovered their sense of purpose?

You list percentages of those years at the beginning of the depression. Tell me something: why do you keep referring to that? You don’t like their politics. You don’t like what resulted. The only thing you like is that they kicked out incumbents. But even you cannot help but admit that they were rather lopsided in the change they sought. They did not choose a third party, even then. They were not looking to simply make a political statement. They were looking for people willing to do what they wanted the government to do.

I would warn my people in Washington, that if they do not do the same, they might see themselves on the way out, even helped out of the way by some of the same people who helped them get into their positions. Just look at Daily Kos on any day, and you will see them active, not merely in supporting Democrats, but certain KINDS of Democrats, and they certainly don’t take kindly to seeing anybody, even Barack Obama, not doing what they promised they’d do.

But lets keep another thing in mind here: It’s not the ones who go that are important, as much as the ones who stay and are chastened by the fate of others.

The main reason why I focus such scorn on the Republicans, is that they don’t seem to be chastened by what’s happened to their fellow Republicans. If anybody’s wallowing in partisan warfare, it’s them. We didn’t filibuster their legislation at near the rate they filibuster ours. That’s a documented fact, in case you want to accuse me of being BLINDLY partisan. We didn’t paralyze the legislature in the wake of our defeat. Hell, it’s the Republicans who paralyzed the Government after THEIR victory, because they didn’t like big government.

It’s Republicans who seem to have the biggest problem with letting the rest of Congress do what the people sent them there to do.

We promised certain things to the voters to get our majority, and the great irony here, the twisted nature of your argument, is that voters shouldn’t be able to see the relief of their pain by the government, even as you lament the pain that will be necessary, you say, to get government to act as it should, when many incumbents are removed at a time.

Has it occured to you that the phase transition has already occured, and that this Congress, and this President are what people want? That the sooner the Democrats are left to succeed and fail on their own terms, the sooner we can get back to the kind of substantive, rather than merely partisan debates on issues that are necessary for good policy?

The voters are adults. They need not be nannied by people like you to eventually come to their best judgment. Democrats succeeded in convincing Americans to lend them their support, because we engaged the serious issues on a more substantive and truthful level, instead of trying to treat them like children who need to be taught lessons or lead by wiser leaders.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2009 1:16 PM
Comment #283609

“”lazy in the name of keeping up membership”” Those were the bench warmers dbs or sitting on the bench, I seen guys do that for 20 -30 some years and collect a full Pension! :) My dad use to pull guys off the street and say you want a good Union Job Back in the 1950s and 1960s he was loyal and they were loyal back he had his past the muster test of course and about 10-15 percent didn’t = bench warmers. He worked my can off! Thank you for the link.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 25, 2009 9:37 PM
Post a comment