Democrats & Liberals Archives

One Hundred and Seventy Six

H1N1 strikes, but a Surgeon General nominee languishes. A Terrorist tries to strike on an airplane, but there is no top person at TSA.

Which of the other 176 nominees held up by Republicans will we need when the next crisis hits? What’s going to be the next casualty of this pernicious strategy of mindless obstructionism?

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2010 3:02 PM
Comment #294071

This is a pathetic use of congressional power by both parties. So now you are complaining and crying when Republicans hold up nominees but cheer when Democrats do it, PATHETIC.

Posted by: KAP at January 19, 2010 5:12 PM
Comment #294072

I simply ask the Republicans to put the interests of our country ahead of their own, and you say I’m simply complaining and crying?

What about the minority that can’t seem to get over the fact that they were rejected, and who has therefore decided to just say no to everything? Nothing pathetic about a bunch of has-been majoritarians who couldn’t accept their demotion taking it out on the American people?

You’re right it’s pathetic. How about advocating for it to stop, instead of rationalizing it?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2010 5:20 PM
Comment #294074

You blame Republicans for everything that is happening to the Democrats. The have a super majority that can pass anything they want but yet can’t. Could it be just infighting between Democrats themselves.

Posted by: KAP at January 19, 2010 5:30 PM
Comment #294088

You and I will have to differ, then, on our opinion.

You see, I have this strange view that the party that keeps on invoking the filibuster on every bit of legislation, which maintains a party line vote against cloture, is responsible for that movement, that the vast majority of the effort is theirs, and that this wouldn’t work without it being the Party’s organized goal.

So, why are you ignoring these facts, and buying into the Republican line? Having airtight party discipline would not matter if the other side wasn’t using it’s airtight party discipline to gum up the works! This is not a situation where, four or five Democrats have to defect to the other side for things to go wrong for us, this is a situation where only one has to break ranks, and its all over.

Since the Republicans only have to say no, over and over again, since they don’t have to propose alternatives, or agree on an actual policy that they have to take responsibility for, it’s easy for them to take up a united front. In fact, it’s to their benefit to do nothing constructive, as they can blame the Democrats for their inaction, and mock them for their weakness, and keep things going their way, and their contributor’s way.

Doesn’t it feel great to apologize for enforced inaction? Doesn’t it feel great to advocate for Washington Politics at its worst? Doesn’t just thrill you to shower praise on those who make doing nothing for the American people a top priority in their time of need?

I’m sure the founding fathers would be proud of a minority hijacking the Senate, forcing sixty percent votes that show up nowhere in the constitution regarding ordinary legislation.

Once again, the word “conservative” represents radical, unprecedented levels of political misbehavior, and the supporters are once again fed their line of justifications for that which no other political movement in America has had the temerity to do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 19, 2010 7:39 PM
Comment #294098


If Democrats had 100% of the Senate they would still screw it up and you would still blame Republicans.

A fact is that Democrats have more complete power than any Republican has had for around eighty years. If they are not responsible now, nobody has been responsible for longer than most people have been alive. Bush NEVER enjoyed the majorities that Obama has. Neither did Reagan, Ford, Nixon or Eisenhower.

Posted by: Christine at January 19, 2010 8:31 PM
Comment #294099

With a fillibuster proof majority, Come on Stephen you can do better then that. Both houses have their own set of rules to go by, minority hijacking is kind of lame Stephen. Conservative does NOT mean radical except to a radical liberal.

Posted by: KAP at January 19, 2010 8:37 PM
Comment #294173

Let’s see what happens. Will Republicans let anything pass? Or will they use their forty first vote to lock up filibusters? If I’m right, then you’re just spouting talking points designed to blame the obstruction on the victims. Nothing in the last four years has proved me wrong yet. I can count on Republicans to be dependable on that count.

Are you seriously trying to argue this with me? There was no filibuster-proof majority, not with Democrats willing to cross over, and the margin at exactly sixty. If it takes every vote to knock down a filibuster, and you can’t get every vote, every time, it’s not filibuster proof, isn’t it. I mean, it’s not a bullet proof vest if it doesn’t stop bullets, each time, every time.

The radicalism is self evident. If we define radicalism in terms of strong shifts of practice or policy, then a practice and a policy of deliberate legislative obstruction that is literally record-breaking in it’s scope, preventing literally hundreds of appointees from being confirmed, and stalling seventy percent of a legislative agenda, up from less than twenty percent blockage in the Civil Rights Era, can be seen as nothing else BUT radical.

It is an unprecedented interference in the majority rule of the senate. That is not mere rhetoric, that is proven fact.

Go ahead, I’m sure you have rhetoric to rationalize this. You always do. Radical politics is nothing more than the justification of greater and greater departure from the norm. If that doesn’t define a Republican Party like that of today, it defines nothing else.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2010 11:13 AM
Comment #294175

I’m glad to see that your finally admitting that the problem is in your own party willing to cross over. Moderate and conservative Democrats don’t want the BS liberals are trying to push. I want HC reform but NOT the way you want it and so do a majority of Americans so why can’t you get that through your head. This liberal thing that you know what is best is just BS. Like I said eleswhere I don’t trust either party but I dis trust Democrats more now.

Posted by: KAP at January 20, 2010 11:45 AM
Comment #294180

The ones we had the most problems with are the ones who have the biggest contributions from the insurance companies. Do you think that’s a coincidence?

The irony is, you folks are balking ideologically at a trillion dollar bill for Healthcare Reform, but not at the trillions of dollars a year that healthcare reform’s lack will impose on us.

Many of our budget problems in the next decade or so will stem from that.

You can suggest that we cut Medicare and Social Security benefits, which you all are fine with when you’re not trying to attack a particular bill on false grounds, but in the end, Americans would still have to pay the costs, in both lives and dollars, of the healthcare economy you folks failed to rein in on your watch.

I think modern conservatism, on these grounds, is mostly BS. It’s about people playing at being responsible, not actually being so. That’s how they can endlessly pound the pulpit for tax breaks and tax cuts, refuse to make changes to government programs that spend billions of dollars a year in waste, yet call themselves fiscal conservatives. They’re not conservatives, not true conservatives, they just play them on TV so that people like you go to the polls and vote for them.

Tell me, what master plan have you seen that truly tells you that Republicans have any kind of realistic plan for cutting the deficit? Given that they’ve made the claim that they’re somehow uniquely suited to the challenge, what’s their proof? After their budget busting in the last decade, I’d think you folks would want better evidence than that.

Or, are we dealing with the fiscal economic equivalent of battered-wife syndrome, where love of a party leads those folks to take back folks who never treated them right? Given the results that George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan had with the debt, and the failures of the Republican Congress to rein in spending themselves, I would think that Republican voters would let experience, rather than wishful thinking, guide their decision about giving support.

I would say that until you have Republicans willing to give out a tax hike to keep the budget out of deficit, you will not have true fiscal conservatives in the GOP. Until you have Republicans who actually do reduce spending, you will not have fiscal conservatives in Washington.

And until you have folks wise enough to negotiate the right reductions and the right cuts, and the right taxes, none of this will be sustainable.

Republicans have bolted and welded themselves dogmatically to one set of solutions for every problem. This dogmatism lead to the troubles as the last few years as they repeatedly tried to insist in the face of contrary results and realities that their ideas would succeed.

If that is not BS, then I want to stick with the BS, because it seems to have at least something in the way of substance to it. The Republican policies simply did not work, and it’s time to move on, and for them to let us move on. If you are truly independent, not just a Republican in denial about your loyalties, then you will advocatefor that, however grudgingly, so that Americans will have the chance to see a different set of solutions employeed from the legislature.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2010 12:40 PM
Comment #294184

It’s time we agreed to disagree on HC. I also do not agree with most of your policies so we can agree to disagree with each others policies. As I stated I do not trust either party but I distrust Democrats more. When I was your age I was for the Democratic party. I stared out life under Truman,IKE all I can remember him doing is playing golf and having Heart attacks, Kennedy loved him, Johnson sucked, Nixon sucked, Ford no comment, Carter BOOB, Reagan fair, Bush 41 no comment, Clinton Liked him, Bush 43 some good some bad, BHO no comment not enough time in office yet but I still think he is unqualified.

Posted by: KAP at January 20, 2010 1:12 PM
Post a comment