Support NeoGAF

[besada]

Even the quickest of wiki searches indicates the filibuster was possible as early as 1806, and was used as early as the 1830s. C'mon.

You made a clear and definitive statement that the Senate was working as designed. It's not. You can quibble and throw out great arguments like "C'mon" and it's not going to change that you were wrong. If you need me to enumerate the ways in which the Senate isn't working as it was designed, I can do that, but we're likely to be here awhile.

As for a willingness to admit when you're wrong, now would be a good time. The "brush up on your history" comment came because you've repeatedly made this wrong assertion. I didn't mean to offend you so much as I'd hoped you would actually go back and learn about how and why the filibuster came about, rather than continue to promulgate the entirely incorrect notion that the modern Senate works anything like it was intended to by the designers.

 

[PantherLotus]

No dude.

They're not voting because a minority of Senators can prevent a vote from taking place. That's not the way it was intended.

They're not using their privilege of unlimited debate; oftentimes they're not even debating at all because a minority of Senators can prevent a debate from even taking place. That's not the way it was intended.

A legislative body meant to debate and vote that does not debate and vote is non-functioning.

But it is debating and voting. It's just not doing it as much as you would like, which is my only contention.

For over 150 years, it did work the way it was intended. The Senate debated bills and voted on them. If the minority party was REALLY dead-set against a bill, they could stall it by extending the debate indefinitely, but they had to, you know, actually be saying something that entire time.

Today's Senate is a mockery of what the Founders intended.

This has been well-established time and time again. Not sure why you're one of the few voices of dissent on this matter.

In 1806 the filibuster was simply unlimited "debate".

Today's filibuster is a complete lack of debate.

The difference is night and day.

I really, really dislike arguments that use the concept of "founder's intent" as their foundation, when they're just as likely to be ignored in another debate (say, second amendment rights or intepretation of the 10th amendment). It not only presumes to understand what the founders were thinking, pyschically or otherwise, it also assumes that the greatest form of government in the world cannot and should not change over time.

You're saying that the Senate isn't functioning (you also said the President and Supreme court weren't functioning, btw), and I say they are absolutely functioning. Your reasoning is that they're not meeting your presumed standards of legislative action, I'm saying you don't understand current standards.

Lastly, if you want to have a debate about the filibuster, I'm down with that--but we probably agree. But to suggest that the Senate isn't "functioning" is a ridiculous extrapolation of expectation. As is, the Senate has a filibuster and it's being used more effectively by the minority party than previously seen. That does not mean the Senate isn't functioning.

 

[PantherLotus]

how could anyone say this?

How did the Health Care Bill pass? How did Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan get confirmed? How did it pass the Lilly Ledbetter act, or FinReg, or any of the numerous funding bills? How do those pass if the Senate isn't functioning?

You guys arguing that it's not functioning are wrong. It is functioning, just not the way you would like. I'm fine with that argument, and agree. But it's still functioning.

 

[Puddles]

But it is debating and voting. It's just not doing it as much as you would like, which is my only contention.

Would you call a car that starts one day out of every four a functioning vehicle?

 

[RustyNails]

I don't even post on the gaming side anymore! I need an OT tag. I've been just as big of a douche over here as I ever was over there. You can testify to that.

Everyone in Poligaf has tag 'cept me, so quit yer whinin

 

[besada]

Everyone in Poligaf has tag 'cept me, so quit yer whinin

You can have mine

 

[Byakuya769]

Pantherlotus, an argument centered on the idea of what one of our legislatives bodies is intended to do has to discuss the founder's intent or the history of it's action.

Let's see what Hamilton had to say on this in the Federalist #22

What at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser... If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays: continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptbilbe compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the ipractiability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

Interestingly enough, his death practically led to the filibuster.

How did the Health Care Bill pass? How did Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan get confirmed?

"If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays: continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptbilbe compromises of the public good."

Particularly fitting for your examples.

 

[Incognito]

How did the Health Care Bill pass? How did Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan get confirmed? How did it pass the Lilly Ledbetter act, or FinReg, or any of the numerous funding bills? How do those pass if the Senate isn't functioning?

You guys arguing that it's not functioning are wrong. It is functioning, just not the way you would like. I'm fine with that argument, and agree. But it's still functioning.

because thankfully the democrats had nearly 60 senators and lock-step unison. pantherlotus, when did 60 become the new 50?

 

[PantherLotus]

Would you call a car that starts one day out of every four a functioning vehicle?

Bad analogies are bad, but yes.

In this analogy the Senate is the car, legislation is the destination. There is no "daily job" that the Senate has to drive us to, but rather, think of legislation as a cross-country vacation, starting in NY all the way through LA.

Continuing with this very poor analogy, you're suggesting that because it takes longer to get to the destination, that the destination was never reached. You're wrong.

 

[Evlar]

because thankfully the democrats had nearly 60 senators and lock-step unison. pantherlotus, when did 60 become the new 50?

It's the Senate new math. Y'know,

40/100 = 50%
41 > 59
60 - 1 is approx. equal to 0

and so forth.

 

[PantherLotus]

"If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays: continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptbilbe compromises of the public good."

Particularly fitting for your examples.

I like this post, but none of this answers how those bills pass without a functioning Senate. All of you are still arguing that "functioning" equals "doing a lot of what I would like."

 

[Incognito]

Bad analogies are bad, but yes.

In this analogy the Senate is the car, legislation is the destination. There is no "daily job" that the Senate has to drive us to, but rather, think of legislation as a cross-country vacation, starting in NY all the way through LA.

Continuing with this very poor analogy, you're suggesting that because it takes longer to get to the destination, that the destination was never reached. You're wrong.

the car isn't even getting out of the damn garage, dude. i'd love to hear your example on what a non-functioning senate would appear like.

yes, pl, the senate functions -- just not as it was intended. that's all everyone is saying. you believe the senate is functioning properly, but that's demonstrably false to everyone from the person reading to the newspaper to the senator lamenting the demise of the institution. if you're having problems grasping this concept, i suggest heading to the new yorker and nybooks and reading their latest pieces on the mess the senate has become.

 

[PantherLotus]

the car isn't even getting out of the damn garage, dude. i'd love to hear your example on what a non-functioning senate would appear like.

yes, pl, the senate functions -- just not as it was intended. that's all everyone is saying. you believe the senate is functioning properly, but that's not demonstrably false to everyone from the person reading to the newspaper to the senator lamenting the demise of the institution.

So we agree then. The Senate functions, just not the way you would like.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Honestly, I may be wrong but I think Panther is saying that the Senate is functioning under the rules that its allowed to function under. You guys are saying its not functioning in the way it was intended and should function thanks to the individuals in the Senate and the rules that currently exist.

 

[besada]

So we agree then. The Senate functions, just not the way you would like.

We all agree that your initial statement, that it functions as intended, is wrong.

It's hilarious watching you do the same walkback you accuse other posters of all the time.

 

[Incognito]

So we agree then. The Senate functions, just not the way you would like.

no, we don't agree. again, you said the senate is functioning as intended. this is demonstrably untrue.

 

[Byakuya769]

Functioning is always defined as "doing what I want" or "doing as it was intended", if we are really going to delve deep into the semantics of it. PL, you have thrown both arguments out of hand.

As Puddle's analogy (which was an apt analogy) pointed out, something functioning some of the time, does not allow that object/body to be defined as functioning out right.

 

[speculawyer]

I listened to a speech by Eliot Spitzer at the Commonwealth Club yesterday. (It is an old speech but I just listened to it yesterday.) God damn the fact that he is no longer in politics. He was right on the money with the problems and what government should do.

 

[Incognito]

I listened to a speech by Eliot Spitzer at the Commonwealth Club yesterday. God damn the fact that he is no longer in politics. He was right on the money with the problems and what government should do.

indeed, i was pining for him in '16. maybe he can still pull it off -- although he should probably jettison his terrible ass tv show first...

 

[PantherLotus]

We all agree that your initial statement, that it functions as intended, is wrong.

It's hilarious watching you do the same walkback you accuse other posters of all the time.

But how is it that I'm the one walking an argument back when the original argument was whether or not the Senate was functioning? I'm the one that appended "as intended," which actually is debatable.

 

[PantherLotus]

It really makes me sad that the only functioning part of our entire government right now is the one that's likely to flip Red.

*ahem*

THIS was the original assertion, and I stand by my rejection.

 

[besada]

But how is it that I'm the one walking an argument back when the original argument was whether or not the Senate was functioning? I'm the one that appended "as intended," which actually is debatable.

It's only debatable if you a)don't know history or b)don't know what words mean. That you've been able to carve out a meaningless semantic ground on which to stand over the word "functioning" in your argument with Puddles doesn't change that you went too far (and not for the first time) and ascribed the current state of the Senate to the intent of the designers, which is factually wrong to anyone with even a passing understanding of the history of the Senate.

And for a guy who's so proud to admit when he's wrong, you aren't exactly covering yourself in glory here.

Edit: Here's a hint - you and Puddles can both be wrong at the same time. Depending on the definition one wants to use for the word functioning, Puddles clearly made a big and inaccurate generalization. You attempted to rebut it by saying something that is completely wrong.

 

[Incognito]

did this post slip from memory or what, pl?

You're talking about political gridlock and using that to suggest that is not how the legislative body was designed or intended, and I disagree. I believe that it's working exactly as intended.

Political gridlock =/= Non-Functioning

 

[Byakuya769]

*ahem*

THIS was the original assertion, and I stand by my rejection.

Sure, but why didn't you argue about the executive and the judicial instead of the Senate then? Right for the wrong reasons.

 

[Diablos]

Why do people even want to put Republicans back in power again?

Do they not remember the Bush years? No one in this country wants to give anything time to work...

Panther, technically speaking the Senate is working. A relationship where two people have been cheating on each other for 10 years straight but still vow to stay together is technically working, too. That doesn't mean it's functioning in the way it was intended.

If you have 59 Senators, you shouldn't have to worry about much of your agenda getting blocked. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way that the Senate operates and it needs to be completely reformed, if not abolished at this point.

Democrats could only end up with 53 Senators next year but they'd still be just as helpless as they are now because of the filibuster.

The sad irony is that after Ted Kennedy died his seat was filled by someone who basically thumbed his nose to the next potential big wave of progressive legislation that Kennedy championed, that this country so desperately needed. People will never be able to see the benefits of such legislation because of Scott Brown despite having a 59 seat majority. The GOP and right-wing talking heads were able to successfully frame the argument due to Congressional inaction, some self-inflected by Democratic incompetence but much of it due to the way in which the Senate was intended to operate getting raped by a bunch of grown crybabies.

More sad irony: Nancy Pelosi has been an amazing Speaker and is the last person who deserves to get punished. Meanwhile, Harry Reid, the most ineffective Senate Majority Leader I can possibly think of, may very well hold on to his seat and likely retain his majority. Gross.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Why do people even want to put Republicans back in power again?

Do they not remember the Bush years? No one in this country wants to give anything time to work...

Because it's an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment mood. That's what 2006 was .. that's what 2008 was. The Democrats are on the wrong end of the stick this time.

In some cases, in the House races, they are just paying for their success in 2006. A guy like Grayson is in danger because he won in a predominantly Republican area and now it is reverting back to form.

 

[PantherLotus]

It's only debatable if you a)don't know history or b)don't know what words mean. That you've been able to carve out a meaningless semantic ground on which to stand over the word "functioning" in your argument with Puddles doesn't change that you went too far (and not for the first time) and ascribed the current state of the Senate to the intent of the designers, which is factually wrong to anyone with even a passing understanding of the history of the Senate.

And for a guy who's so proud to admit when he's wrong, you aren't exactly covering yourself in glory here.

Edit: Here's a hint - you and Puddles can both be wrong at the same time. Depending on the definition one wants to use for the word functioning, Puddles clearly made a big and inaccurate generalization. You attempted to rebut it by saying something that is completely wrong.

I see your point. I was wrong to say "as intended." I should have said "that's the fucking reality, yo."

 

[PantherLotus]

did this post slip from memory or what, pl?

Actually, yeah, it did.

I was wrong to say "as intended" and really should have said "it seems to be working under the realities of the current rules and accepted practices that have been in place for some time."

 

[RustyNails]

Why do people even want to put Republicans back in power again?

Do they not remember the Bush years? No one in this country wants to give anything time to work...

I don't have a job. Democrats are in power. Therefore democrats don't care about me.

Simple as that. Don't think what happened before the statement, or what will happen after the statement. Just the statement.

 

[PantherLotus]

1. Why do people even want to put Republicans back in power again?

2. Do they not remember the Bush years? No one in this country wants to give anything time to work...

3. Panther, technically speaking the Senate is working. A relationship where two people have been cheating on each other for 10 years straight but still vow to stay together is technically working, too. That doesn't mean it's functioning in the way it was intended.

4. If you have 59 Senators, you shouldn't have to worry about much of your agenda getting blocked. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way that the Senate operates and it needs to be completely reformed, if not abolished at this point.

5. Democrats could only end up with 53 Senators next year but they'd still be just as helpless as they are now because of the filibuster.

6. The sad irony is that after Ted Kennedy died his seat was filled by someone who basically thumbed his nose to the next potential big wave of progressive legislation that Kennedy championed, that this country so desperately needed. People will never be able to see the benefits of such legislation because of Scott Brown despite having a 59 seat majority. The GOP and right-wing talking heads were able to successfully frame the argument due to Congressional inaction, some self-inflected by Democratic incompetence but much of it due to the way in which the Senate was intended to operate getting raped by a bunch of grown crybabies.

1. I don't think they DO want Republicans in power, which is at the heart of a lot of my hesitation to believe that we're looking at as big of a bloodbath as suggested by the pundits. I think what we're seeing is the same people that didn't want him in office in the first place, combined with an apathetic populace that doesn't believe their local legislators are fighting for them (vs. an incredibly charismatic President).

2. Political memory is incredibly short. See: sex scandals.

3. Technically speaking? That was exactly my point. Technically, it's functioning. I'd like to opine on "as intended" later.

4. You're asserting that the Senate should be abolished? That's a big god damn assertion, dude.

5. But no less effective!

6. Ted Kennedy is incredibly missed. I'll agree with that. As I pointed out in the previous thread, so is the previous version of John McCain (I would say "the real john mccain," but at this point we have to assume that the backyard weasel that flips positions to suit his reelection IS the real john mccain).

 

[Diablos]

Technically speaking? That was exactly my point. Technically, it's functioning.

Technically, I could be alive but a total cripple unable to speak, walk, eat, urinate, deficate, breathe on my own, on the verge of death every day, but hey, I'm alive! Great!

 

[Puddles]

Edit: Here's a hint - you and Puddles can both be wrong at the same time. Depending on the definition one wants to use for the word functioning, Puddles clearly made a big and inaccurate generalization. You attempted to rebut it by saying something that is completely wrong.

Yes, in fact, let me clarify what I meant:

Over the last two years, the House was the only body that was actually functioning for the people.

The Senate wasn't functioning at all; the White House was too busy bargaining away key pieces of its agenda to prevent a few attack ads, and the SCROTUS was curb-stomping American democracy for the foreseeable future.

 

[thekad]

I don't think the founding fathers meant to allow the minority to shut down the government. And for purely political reasons at that.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Yes, in fact, let me clarify what I meant:

Over the last two years, the House was the only body that was actually functioning for the people.

The Senate wasn't functioning at all; the White House was too busy bargaining away key pieces of its agenda to prevent a few attack ads, and the SCROTUS was curb-stomping American democracy for the foreseeable future.

Sorry but this is wrong. You cannot make such a statement with numerous bills being passed in the Senate. I think that is where you and Panther are disagreeing. You're acting as though its just DEAD, no life, no activity at all in the Senate. If this were true no bill would have made it through that chamber. Under the present rules of the Senate, its functioning. The Republicans are able to threat a filibuster and get away with it under the rules of the Senate. A few landmark bills have made it through and many other smaller ones.

 

[Puddles]

I don't think the founding fathers meant to allow the minority to shut down the government. And for purely political reasons at that.

.

Sorry but this is wrong. You cannot make such a statement with numerous bills being passed in the Senate. I think that is where you and Panther are disagreeing. You're acting as though its just DEAD, no life, no activity at all in the Senate. If this were true no bill would have made it through that chamber. Under the present rules of the Senate, its functioning. The Republicans are able to threat a filibuster and get away with it under the rules of the Senate. A few landmark bills have made it through and many other smaller ones.

A fully functioning Senate would debate and vote on every bill that was introduced. A fully functioning Senate would either confirm or deny every single Presidential nomination instead of leaving dozens of them in limbo for the better part of a year.

 

[ToxicAdam]

See, that's where you guys are wrong/hyperbolic and PL has rightly corrected you. The government is not "shut down". These past two years have been one of the most active legislatively we have seen in a decade.

A fully functioning Senate would debate and vote on every bill that was introduced.

This does not happen and has not happened for decades (maybe ever?).

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

.



A fully functioning Senate would debate and vote on every bill that was introduced. A fully functioning Senate would either confirm or deny every single Presidential nomination instead of leaving dozens of them in limbo for the better part of a year.

You said it wasn't functioning at all. I didn't say it was FULLY functioning, I said it was functioning under the rules of the Senate.

 

[PantherLotus]

Technically, I could be alive but a total cripple unable to speak, walk, eat, urinate, deficate, breathe on my own, on the verge of death every day, but hey, I'm alive! Great!

No, you can do all those things, it just takes you longer. And when you do, they're really, really, REALLY big.

So many of you are underestimating the size and importance of the legislation passed in the past two years. We're talking about one of the most successful progressive legislative bodies in history.

Getting pissed because the Republicans are correctly using established practices (not as intended!) and then suggesting that the body is not functioning is fucking absurd.

See, that's where you guys are wrong/hyperbolic and PL has rightly corrected you. The government is not "shut down". These past two years have been one of the most active legislatively we have seen in a decade.

Or, this.

 

[thekad]

See, that's where you guys are wrong/hyperbolic and PL has rightly corrected you. The government is not "shut down". These past two years have been one of the most active legislatively we have seen in a decade.

http://www.laprogressive.com/election-reform-campaigns/republicans-threaten/

Newt Gingrich is saying if Republicans win back control of Congress and reach a budget impasse with the President, they should shut down the government again. GOP pollster Dick Morris is echoing those sentiments, as is Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R. Ga), and Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller.

Of course, they're assuming that they take back control of both houses, but even that isn't necessary.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/06/nation/la-na-obama-staff-strategy-20101007

As President Obama remakes his senior staff, he is also shaping a new approach for the second half of his term: to advance his agenda through executive actions he can take on his own, rather than pushing plans through an increasingly hostile Congress.

There will be no legislative action over the next two years.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Christ man, have you guys already forgotten about the 06 Congress that worked like 79 days out of the year? Was that "the good ole days" when Congress was working effectively? :lol

Of course, they're assuming that they take back control of both houses, but even that isn't necessary.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/06/nation/la-na-obama-staff-strategy-20101007

That's hyperbole taken from someone that has no power in the Republican party. If that were Michael Steele or Boehner, than you may have a valid point.

There will be no legislative action over the next two years.

Then Obama will cement himself an early exit in 2012. You don't bill yourself as someone that is seeking out bipartisan compromise and then do that. GOP will have a field day with his flip flopping if he goes that route.

 

[Byakuya769]

I think the belief that the senate is functioning is ceding ideological ground to conservative governance. If that's what you like, then you should be happy with the senate as is.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I think the belief that the senate is functioning is ceding ideological ground to conservative governance. If that's what you like, then you should be happy with the senate as is.

The author of the argument doesn't negate the argument itself.

 

[Puddles]

The only decent piece of major legislation to pass was the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, and even that was lacking one of its most important features: an interest-rate cap.

Healthcare reform was gutted, FinReg was gutted, and the stimulus was like half the size it needed to be. Obama has dozens of appointees who have been sitting in confirmation limbo for months.

The Republicans are taking advantage of a Senate loophole in an unprecedented manner to make sure that almost everything is blocked and that the few hard little turd pellets that get through are neutered.

This is not a functioning body any more than kittonwy is a functioning poster.

 

[Byakuya769]

The author of the argument doesn't negate the argument itself.

That argument has already been negated. I am just making another observation related to it.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

The only decent piece of major legislation to pass was the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, and even that was lacking one of its most important features: an interest-rate cap.

Healthcare reform was gutted, FinReg was gutted, and the stimulus was like half the size it needed to be. Obama has dozens of appointees who have been sitting in confirmation limbo for months.

The Republicans are taking advantage of a Senate loophole in an unprecedented manner to make sure that almost everything is blocked and that the few hard little turd pellets that get through are neutered.

This is not a functioning body any more than kittonwy is a functioning poster.

Are you kidding me? Health Care doesn't count as decent major legislation? It wasn't perfect by any stretch but to say it wasn't decent? What planet am I on here?

 

[Diablos]

Because it's an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment mood. That's what 2006 was .. that's what 2008 was. The Democrats are on the wrong end of the stick this time.

In some cases, in the House races, they are just paying for their success in 2006. A guy like Grayson is in danger because he won in a predominantly Republican area and now it is reverting back to form.

You don't think GOP candidates outspending Democrats by 6 to 1 has anything to do with this? The money invested in these races goes beyond the Presidential Election, by what, some 4-5 billion dollars? That's fucked up.

Honestly, Republicans have raped this country so hard during Bush's term and over the past couple years even. It's unbelievable. The GOP has essentially incrementally penetrated all aspects of Washington to the point where not even a big wave election in 2008 with a supermajority/near supermajority could do a whole lot. They've got it set up, from leaving the country a mess when they left Congress and the WH, serving as a totally undesired distraction for the next President, to enacting controversial laws that invade on our privacy that everyone else is too afraid to touch because of the potentially deep political ramifications, from filling two seats in the Supreme Court with a couple nutcases (Alito, Roberts), to mastering the art of manipulation the Senate rules in ways that no one would have ever imagined. Scott Brown replaces the most prominent liberal seat in the Senate, the Bush-era Supreme Court says that corporations are people. Besides losing their majority in the House I can't imagine how things can get any worse for Democrats at the moment.

I truly am fearful. I think this goes beyond 1994. Republicans observed how Clinton was able to still work with the opposition. These days the party is such a well-oiled machine that it basically acts as one solid entity that will disregard just about anything the President tries to push forward. As we've already learned he can adopt Republican ideas/initiatives into legislation (stimulus, HCR) and the GOP will simply move even further to the right and be all the more obstructionist. It's an entirely new way of not doing business. Combine that with elections becoming all the more loaded with special interest money and I also grow fearful about 2012 and how the Democrats would stack up against a Citizens United inspired GOP election campaign in all 50 states, financially and operationally speaking.

 

[Puddles]

No, it was shit. A bill that requires you to purchase health insurance and doesn't include a public option is shit.

I guess it's better than the status quo, but the fact that cow shit smells better than dog shit doesn't mean it's less shit.

 

[thekad]

Christ man, have you guys already forgotten about the 06 Congress that worked like 79 days out of the year? Was that "the good ole days" when Congress was working effectively? :lol

Are you forgetting that we have 10% unemployment?

That's hyperbole taken from someone that has no power in the Republican party. if that were Michael Steele or Boehner, than you may have a valid point.

Michael Steele & Boehner know that it isn't good politics to preordain arbitrary obstructionism. Once they have the requisite seats, it'll be good politics to stop any progress the Obama and the Dems can hang their hats on in 2012. Do you really think anything will get done over the next two years?

Then Obama will cement himself an early exit in 2012. You don't bill yourself as someone that is seeking out bipartisan compromise and then do that. GOP will have a field day with his flip flopping if he goes that route.

Okay, there is no way you are serious here. The GOP aren't interested in bipartisan compromise. And yes, they will have a field day, because that was the plan all along.

 

[FLEABttn]

http://www.laprogressive.com/election-reform-campaigns/republicans-threaten/

Of course, they're assuming that they take back control of both houses, but even that isn't necessary.

The 1995 shutdown was one of Gingrich's biggest mistakes. He's just saying that to rally the base but has no intention to act on it because it will backfire.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

No, it was shit. A bill that requires you to purchase health insurance and doesn't include a public option is shit.

I guess it's better than the status quo, but the fact that cow shit smells better than dog shit doesn't mean it's less shit.

Dude, I'm not going to run down all of the benefits but to call it shit is missing the forest for the trees. Seriously. We've been down this road countless times and to call it shit is just wrong. Tell it was shit to those who now will not have to worry about lifetime and annual limits. Tell that to the children who can stay on their parents insurance until 26. Tell that to those who will now not be refused based on preexisting conditions. Just because it wasn't what many wanted doesn't make it shit. Just stop.