Support NeoGAF

[Rocket Scientist]

Fifty votes and the presidency suffice to eliminate the filibuster by rewriting the rules of the Senate.

MY MIND HAS BEEN BLOWN. EXPLAIN YOURSELF!

 

[ISOM]

Because this:

exacerbates the hostility in politics and makes it harder to work in a bipartisan manner.

I don't necessarily see it that way. Republicans have been telling lies, spreading fear and general hate towards obama and democrats this whole election cycle. I want to see the depths of despair in their faces as they realize that everything they tried to do to win this election failed. I want to see their faces as they realize none of their propaganda worked and that they have another 4 years of obama. And just because I feel this way doesn't mean I'm not willing to compromise with republicans going forward to continue to actually fix this country.

I think people like you are using false equivalency for those on the left by thinking that just because we want to see their soul crushed on election day doesn't mean that we are them.

 

[Clevinger]

What exactly do we need to get rid of the filibuster? 60? How high... Er, low is that probability? 60 votes I mean. And if it's 60 and dems don't get 60, is there anyone on the Republican side who could say enough is enough and help get enough votes? (loooool)

52, I think. And a Majority Leader with the balls to change it. We'll have one of those, most likely.

 

[Ecotic]

In 2008 I was young and naive enough to believe that maybe, just maybe, conservatives would feel the shame of the Bush years and be quiet for a while, and let the Democrats lead the next few years into a brief era of tolerance, and competence.

It never happened. Republicans just kept on squawking as if they had been right the whole time. I learned the valuable lesson that Republicans as they exist today can't be extended a hand with the expectation of being worked with, your only real option is to put them down electorally each and every time.

 

[el retorno]

What exactly do we need to get rid of the filibuster? 60? How high... Er, low is that probability? 60 votes I mean. And if it's 60 and dems don't get 60, is there anyone on the Republican side who could say enough is enough and help get enough votes? (loooool)

A senate majority to change the rules at the beginning of the term.

Hasn't Reid said he's open to changing it?

 

[Angry Grimace]

So I'm reading 538, and I stumbled upon this comment:



I don't even...what?

He's being real. It's not a criticism of Silver lol

 

[Vestal]

What exactly do we need to get rid of the filibuster? 60? How high... Er, low is that probability? 60 votes I mean. And if it's 60 and dems don't get 60, is there anyone on the Republican side who could say enough is enough and help get enough votes? (loooool)

I thought the rule change for the Filibuster was said to be brought up through reconciliation. That way you just need a majority

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Wow I thought you need a super majority but if that's it... Aren't we going to see a rule change?!

 

[Clevinger]

By the way, for those of you who know more about the legislative process. What kind of bills could a non-filibustered senate pass while a Republican Congress is trying to block everything? I've been curious about this for a while.

Hasn't Reid said he's open to changing it?

Talk is cheap.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-b...ee-fla-lead-election-day-so-far-dems-lead-76k

..Brett Doster, a Romney campaign consultant in Florida, said Democrats voting by mail likely are the ones who otherwise would have voted early in person. Republican voters still will cast more ballots in Florida before election day polls open, he said. “I’m confident we’re going to have that advantage,” Doster said...

Whether Democrats are building enough of a lead in early votes to win Florida is entirely uncertain. But it's ighly unlikely Republicans will be ahead when the polls open Nov. 6. The latest numbers crunched from Marc Caputo:

About 3.5 million Floridians have already cast absentee and in-person early voting and Democrats have an edge of about 76,000 ballots cast so far.

 

[Angry Grimace]

In 2008 I was young and naive enough to believe that maybe, just maybe, conservatives would feel the shame of the Bush years and be quiet for a while, and let the Democrats lead the next few years into a brief era of tolerance, and competence.

It never happened. Republicans just kept on squawking as if they had been right the whole time. I learned the valuable lesson that Republicans as they exist today can't be extended a hand with the expectation of being worked with, your only real option is to put them down electorally each and every time.

They don't attempt to justify Iraq anymore, they just try to pretend it never happened and if they get pressed, blamed it on Colin Powell since he's a "traitor."

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I don't know why I got excited. Republicans will still own the house.

 

[Trurl]

Ugh, I cannot bear Clinton's conservatism:

http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?docid=1273
http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2012/04/19/does-chairman-bernanke-know-squat-about-money/

Elsewhere, Wray said Rogoff and Reinhart's book "should win an award as the worst empirical study ever undertaken. Clueless about Crisis should have been the title."

In fact, if people understood macroeconomics in a modern monetary system, recovery could have occurred very quick, or entirely avoided in the first place. (Also, Clinton would have known better than to run surpluses.)

I've noticed many Democrats sounding a bit like Chauncey Gardner. That is very, very bad.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Another problem with bi-partisanship is that it's almost always full of compromises that don't make sense.

Both sides are disagreeing, so *obviously* the solution is to go towards the middle.

No.

Fuck that idiotic nonsense. Compromise is NOT always the best solution (although admittedly, it may be the most "practical" to get *something* done to be fixed in the near future. See Obamacare).

Most people don't seem to realize that it's FULLY possible for one side of the political spectrum to be flat out wrong. On the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of facts and most of all on the wrong side of genuine human decency.

So, yes, I'll say it right now that most people don't like to admit: The Democrats is the United States ONLY chance at entering the 21st century and progressing as a nation that leads not lags behind. You can claim it's partisan politics all you want, but its the goddamn truth.

Medicare and Medicaid? Democrats
Social Security? Democrats
Civil Rights? Democrats
Gay Rights? Democrats
Regulations? Democrats
Adding Jobs? More jobs under Dems by a country fucking mile.
Diversity and Equality? Democrats.
Women's rights? Dems...again

Do you see the trend here? As much as many of you WANT to be "above being labeled because both sides suck" and what not, the fact of the matter is Dems (for the most part) are the primary reason the country is as progressive as it is now.

Claim yourself as an independent all you want, but the fact of the matter is the vast majority of you will vote Democratically without hesitation because in the back of the mind no matter how much you try to use false equivalencies between the parties to appear intellectually sound and "independent" you know damn well that a vote for Republicans at the national and state level is pretty much a recipe for disaster and regressive policies that fucked us over from 2000-2008.

 

[DasRaven]

A senate majority to change the rules at the beginning of the term.

Hasn't Reid said he's open to changing it?

Yes, and at this point he has no excuses to not do it. He's going to be too old to run again and the demographics and political winds will reward a great 2-year Congressional run more than another middling run.
Want immigration reform? Want serious tax reform? Want an infrastructure program? 50 Senators + VP or an outright Senate majority is the way.

And regarding the House, there will be more than enough GOP Reps in "blue" states willing to compromise IF the President couches the legislation in economic terms and has an improving economy to point at and say, "Don't hold us back (like last time)!"

 

[Angry Grimace]

Another problem with bi-partisanship is that it's almost always full of compromises that don't make sense.

Both sides are disagreeing, so *obviously* the solution is to go towards the middle.

No.

Fuck that idiotic nonsense. Compromise is NOT always the best solution (although admittedly, it may be the most "practical" to get *something* done to be fixed in the near future. See Obamacare).

Most people don't seem to realize that it's FULLY possible for one side of the political spectrum to be flat out wrong. On the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of facts and most of all on the wrong side of genuine human decency.

So, yes, I'll say it right now that most people don't like to admit: The Democrats is the United States ONLY chance at entering the 21st century and progressing as a nation that leads not lags behind. You can claim it's partisan politics all you want, but its the goddamn truth.

Medicare and Medicaid? Democrats
Social Security? Democrats
Civil Rights? Democrats
Gay Rights? Democrats
Regulations? Democrats
Adding Jobs? More jobs under Dems by a country fucking mile.
Diversity and Equality? Democrats.
Women's rights? Dems...again

Do you see the trend here? As much as many of you WANT to be "above being labeled because both sides suck" and what not, the fact of the matter is Dems (for the most part) are the primary reason the country is as progressive as it is now.

Claim yourself as an independent all you want, but the fact of the matter is the vast majority of you will vote Democratically without hesitation because in the back of the mind no matter how much you try to use false equivalencies between the parties to appear intellectually sound and "independent" you know damn well that a vote for Republicans at the national and state level is pretty much a recipe for disaster and regressive policies that fucked us over from 2000-2008.

Refusing to compromise makes you end up getting nothing done and looks mostly bad for whoever is the President since Congress rarely takes blame for anything due to the way congressional elections are run.

 

[teruterubozu]

In 2008 I was young and naive enough to believe that maybe, just maybe, conservatives would feel the shame of the Bush years and be quiet for a while, and let the Democrats lead the next few years into a brief era of tolerance, and competence.

It never happened. Republicans just kept on squawking as if they had been right the whole time. I learned the valuable lesson that Republicans as they exist today can't be extended a hand with the expectation of being worked with, your only real option is to put them down electorally each and every time.

Yeah I remember all the "end of the Republican Party" talk. Shit, I heard that when Bob Dole lost. Everything is temporary in politics.

 

[pigeon]

MY MIND HAS BEEN BLOWN. EXPLAIN YOURSELF!

That's why it's called the nuclear option! When they gavel in a new Senate, anybody can raise a point of order and suggest changing the rules. Such changes require only a majority.

 

[Black Mamba]

Yeah so I pretty much said the ue would go up in a good report with people entering th work force. Also mentioned months ago I thought September and October reports would be good.

I'm sure the Romney camp acknowledged why the ue going up is a good thing.

 

[el retorno]

By the way, for those of you who know more about the legislative process. What kind of bills could a non-filibustered senate pass while a Republican Congress is trying to block everything? I've been curious about this for a while.




Talk is cheap.

What ever bills fit the rules of reconciliation. Usually its "budget bills" but health care got through on that. I think they can make reconciliation anything they want though, but they have to set the rules at the beginning of the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

 

[TacticalFox88]

Refusing to compromise makes you end up getting nothing done and looks mostly bad for whoever is the President since Congress rarely takes blame for anything due to the way congressional elections are run.

I never said they should refuse to compromise, I'm just saying that compromise for the sake of compromise is not always the most sound solution. And it's not.

 

[Brannon]

So yeah I cast my +1 O-Card... in the brilliant state of Georiga. And in other news I attempt to beat the ocean into submission!

At any rate, at least I should have some influence on the local Amendments like 'should we allow Charter Schools and fuck over our education system even more' and 'should we let some state agencies go into mulit-year leases so's that we can get those short-term savings because that's such a great idea!'.

God damn this state sometimes.

 

[RustyNails]

Another problem with bi-partisanship is that it's almost always full of compromises that don't make sense.

Both sides are disagreeing, so *obviously* the solution is to go towards the middle.

No.

Fuck that idiotic nonsense. Compromise is NOT always the best solution (although admittedly, it may be the most "practical" to get *something* done to be fixed in the near future. See Obamacare).

Most people don't seem to realize that it's FULLY possible for one side of the political spectrum to be flat out wrong. On the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of facts and most of all on the wrong side of genuine human decency.

So, yes, I'll say it right now that most people don't like to admit: The Democrats is the United States ONLY chance at entering the 21st century and progressing as a nation that leads not lags behind. You can claim it's partisan politics all you want, but its the goddamn truth.

Medicare and Medicaid? Democrats
Social Security? Democrats
Civil Rights? Democrats
Gay Rights? Democrats
Regulations? Democrats
Adding Jobs? More jobs under Dems by a country fucking mile.
Diversity and Equality? Democrats.
Women's rights? Dems...again

Do you see the trend here? As much as many of you WANT to be "above being labeled because both sides suck" and what not, the fact of the matter is Dems (for the most part) are the primary reason the country is as progressive as it is now.

Claim yourself as an independent all you want, but the fact of the matter is the vast majority of you will vote Democratically without hesitation because in the back of the mind no matter how much you try to use false equivalencies between the parties to appear intellectually sound and "independent" you know damn well that a vote for Republicans at the national and state level is pretty much a recipe for disaster and regressive policies that fucked us over from 2000-2008.

But Republicans freed the slaves so YOUR WRONG

 

[TiVo]

Right, this.

If I was writing a book on Obama's first term, I'd start with the thesis that he actually believed in all this post-partisanship stuff. Because he sure did work extra hard to put it into practice, even after the people he was trying to work with said flat-out they had no interest in doing anything that gave Obama even the smallest political win.

And he got killed every. single. time. By both the country at large and his base. Hell now Republicans have the gall to claim that it's Obama's fault that they couldn't work with him.

Sorry but these people can't be reasoned with and they can't be negotiated with, they can only be defeated.

That is why I am currently following Lindsey Grahams twitter so on election night I can tell him:

Step 1. Eat crow.
Step 2. Hold press conference announcing efforts to deny Obama a 3rd term.
Step 3. GFY!

Will I get a visit from Secret service on the last step?

 

[el retorno]

I never said they should refuse to compromise, I'm just saying that compromise for the sake of compromise is not always the most sound solution. And it's not.

I think the problem is that the GOP of today doesn't understand compromise. Compromise isn't always take half of each. Its a give and take. And it does usually produce good results. Its that ever since the 90s the Republican's have refused to give up anything and that's giving compromise a bad name. Compromise was great in the 70s and even 80s.

 

[Tim-E]

I'm still pretty left-leaning, but my ideology has moved to being more representative of the democratic party, which most consider to be pretty centrist in a global sense. Far left ideas will likely never get anywhere in the United States and eventually the Republican party is going to have to concede that far right ideology is just an alienating. I hope to see the Republican party level itself out eventually. I don't see myself ever supporting conservatism in any meaningful sense, but I think it's just better for the country if we aren't playing to the fringes.

 

[besada]

Bipartisanship isn't always the status quo. The civil rights bill was bipartisan and not the status quo for example.

In 1965, before the modern non-filibuster filibuster. I'll grant, though, that if an issue becomes big enough, it can sometimes result in bipartisan movement from the status quo. And the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was big enough that it shattered party coherency and changed the face of modern politics.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

What ever bills fit the rules of reconciliation. Usually its "budget bills" but health care got through on that. I think they can make reconciliation anything they want though, but they have to set the rules at the beginning of the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

Yup.

House passes Ryan Budget

Senate can try to pass it using reconciliation and the 2014 senators standing for re-election in very conservative states

 

[Deleted member 47027]

I'm still pretty left-leaning, but my ideology has moved to being more representative of the democratic party, which most consider to be pretty centrist in a global sense. Far left ideas will likely never get anywhere in the United States and eventually the Republican party is going to have to concede that far right ideology is just an alienating. I hope to see the Republican party level itself out eventually. I don't see myself ever supporting conservatism in any meaningful sense, but I think it's just better for the country if we aren't playing to the fringes.

I agree with you most of the way but pretty much on the other side. I'm generally libertarian but I vote for a lot of Republican policies, but the fringes are just the fucking worst, especially as the rest of each party gets painted with such a broad brush.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

In general though, would getting rid of the filibuster be a good thing regardless of Republican house control? I mean it's a risk for the future because you might lose Senate control, but it seems like it would free up so much time and get rid of something that seems to have complicated every step of this recovery.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Yeah I remember all the "end of the Republican Party" talk. Shit, I heard that when Bob Dole lost. Everything is temporary in politics.

Well, their base is literally getting older and dying at this point. Faster than they can grow new members. Conservatives under 30 are more reasoned and are drawn to Libertarians more than that demographic once was. The Republican party is going to have to reinvent itself or it's in big fucking trouble. IMO. I'm old and I've followed politics closely for 30 years, and I'm seeing something new happen.

I'm sure the Whigs thought they'd be around forever. Everything has a season. Some seasons are just a LOT longer than others.

 

[diffusionx]

The thing that GOP big shots should be (are) worried about is the rise of Hispanic voters. They currently do jack shit to court these voters expect push out a Cuban guy every few once in a while to give a speech about small businesses and whatever. And they want to do something about immigration but the crazies just won't let them.

What ever bills fit the rules of reconciliation. Usually its "budget bills" but health care got through on that.

No it didn't, the ACA passed a regular ol' vote through Congress. Congressional Dems threatened to use reconciliation if they had to, but they didn't.

In general though, would getting rid of the filibuster be a good thing regardless of Republican house control? I mean it's a risk for the future because you might lose Senate control, but it seems like it would free up so much time and get rid of something that seems to have complicated every step of this recovery.

My personal feeling is that getting rid of the filibuster, or dramatically weakening it, would be an Good Thing. Would people be cool with voting for Republicans if they knew that large parts of their insane agenda could go through the Senate? Would Republicans actually be so insane if they knew they could implement their agenda and voters could punish them for it? Right now its almost like the filibuster encourages more extremism in the political rhetoric and the House.

Bottom line: winners should be able to enact their agenda and voters should be able to reward/punish them for it. The filibuster muddles this process so people end up just blaming the President for everything.

 

[gcubed]

I said that in the first paragraph. Of course I would enjoy the Fox meltdowns, and I'm most interested in Erick Erickson's reaction. Also, I would watch melt downs on twitter while awaiting the inevitable insider stories that throw Romney under th bus. Make no mistake, I genuinely dislike Romney; not long ago I was indifferent at the prospect of him winning, but his campaign has made me sick.

Now that I got the partisan shit of the way: I want to see the GOP get better, become modern, and stop being so extremist. Hopefully that starts next year, although I doubt it. But I don't want to see more Ed Schultz types on our side: people who don't care about governing and instead treat this like a blood sport. Lets get some shit done together

i think almost everyone here wants to see the GOP get better. Status quo won't do that. I still hold out hope that losing the presidency, losing seats in the senate and barely still controlling the house will wake up the party enough to realize "hey, we are letting insanity run our party into the ground, we never should have lost x,y,z seats if it weren't for absolute shitheel's winning overtaking the party"

Somewhere some republican in charge has to be wondering how legitimate rape and rape babies is both defining and ruining their attempt to make gains in the senate/house.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I've long since come to the conclusion that "independent pox on both of their houses who care about the debt & the economy" citizens are merely disappointed Republicans.

Therefore, I've come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is ensure they keep their viewpoints and not vote or convince them to go Gary Johnson. That's actually been an effective strategy for me, since I've come to the conclusion these voters would never go for Obama or any democrat no matter how much information you give them. Therefore, you just need to make sure they don't go back to Romney.

 

[The Librarian]

No it didn't, the ACA passed a regular ol' vote through Congress. Congressional Dems threatened to use reconciliation if they had to, but they didn't.

Reconciliation was used. That's how student-loan reform got passed.

 

[pigeon]

In general though, would getting rid of the filibuster be a good thing regardless of Republican house control? I mean it's a risk for the future because you might lose Senate control, but it seems like it would free up so much time and get rid of something that seems to have complicated every step of this recovery.

First off, it's worth noting that they don't have to completely get rid of the filibuster. They could make it impossible to filibuster confirmations only, for example, or weaken it (people are really enthusiastic about making the filibuster physically taxing, for some reason) while letting it remain possible to indefinitely hold up business.

But secondly I'd note that even if I don't love the possibility of the GOP taking the Senate (and I really don't) people elect Congress on the assumption that it will do things. Now, the system is deliberately designed to make it hard for them to actually do things, but it wasn't originally as hard as it has become since they accidentally took out moving the previous question. So, although I would prefer some more electoral reforms first, I think that it's a general good to make it easier for the people America elects to actually be able to govern, even if I don't always agree with them.

 

[Atlagev]

In 2008 I was young and naive enough to believe that maybe, just maybe, conservatives would feel the shame of the Bush years and be quiet for a while, and let the Democrats lead the next few years into a brief era of tolerance, and competence.

It never happened. Republicans just kept on squawking as if they had been right the whole time. I learned the valuable lesson that Republicans as they exist today can't be extended a hand with the expectation of being worked with, your only real option is to put them down electorally each and every time.

Bill Maher called it right after the 2008 election (sorry for the bad sync):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayt_SoGPZ6o

 

[teruterubozu]

Well, their base is literally getting older and dying at this point. Faster than they can grow new members. Conservatives under 30 are more reasoned and are drawn to Libertarians more than that demographic once was. The Republican party is going to have to reinvent itself or it's in big fucking trouble. IMO. I'm old and I've followed politics closely for 30 years, and I'm seeing something new happen.

I'm sure the Whigs thought they'd be around forever. Everything has a season. Some seasons are just a LOT longer than others.

I don't know man. I'm an old 42 and I don't see conservatism fading away anytime soon. 20 years ago I thought shit was changing but it really isn't.

 

[Diablos]

Non sequitur, but I was very wrong when I thought Sandy would not affect voter turnout. I didn't expect the storm's impact to be so big.

It'll impact turnout, but I don't see it resulting in any states being flipped.

Agreed, but I downplayed the whole thing. I figured things would be relatively normal by now.

I did, as well. The damage was far greater than I expected.

Thankfully diablos was around to give us the straight dirt in a reasonable, level headed manner.

LOL

I love how people talk to me/call me out even when I haven't posted for hours <3

But yeah, I knew people were downplaying Sandy. How are things looking around Philly? Anyone know?

I think there are two areas, electorally speaking, that could really be potentially fucked by Sandy: Eastern PA (due to power issues mainly) and Northern VA which is a Dem stronghold and vital for delivering it to Obama.

 

[StopMakingSense]

No it didn't, the ACA passed a regular ol' vote through Congress. Congressional Dems threatened to use reconciliation if they had to, but they didn't.

Reconciliation was used to pass the house amendments to the senate bill.

 

[gcubed]

LOL

I love how people talk to me/call me out even when I haven't posted for hours <3

But yeah, I knew people were downplaying Sandy. How are things looking around Philly? Anyone know?

I think there are two areas that could really be potentially fucked by Sandy: Eastern PA (due to power issues mainly) and Northern VA which is a Dem stronghold and vital for delivering it to Obama.

people called you out because you though it would impact the election due to Philly being killed. Philly is fine. The only big area left with power issues is in Bucks County (there are still scattered outages throughout the area, but Bucks is still a bit more concentrated)

 

[Sirpopopop]

New conservatism is interested in taking us back to the 19th century. It won't die out anytime soon.

It will need to be marginalized. I would say a solid 30-40% of the country adhere to these principles (no polling data to back this up, though I'm sure it probably exists somewhere). Good thing most of them live in the South or rural areas in the midwest.

Still, there are enough of them that it's going to be hard to get "shit" done in Congress.

 

[Tim-E]

LOL

I love how people talk to me/call me out even when I haven't posted for hours <3

But yeah, I knew people were downplaying Sandy. How are things looking around Philly? Anyone know?

I think there are two areas, electorally speaking, that could really be potentially fucked by Sandy: Eastern PA (due to power issues mainly) and Northern VA which is a Dem stronghold and vital for delivering it to Obama.

Obama is not going to lose PA. It's all good, my friend.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I want to see secret holds eliminated. I'd keep the filibuster, but reform it. Bring back the cots and let people hold the floor if they truly want to stall something

 

[Sirpopopop]

The House elections in New Jersey should be... interesting.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

While you do have a point, can't we just have ONE FUCKING NIGHT where we gloat to these assholes who've since Jan 20, 2009 have tried everything in their power to make Obama a one termer?

Oh sure, you can have one night of gloating, hell you can have 1,000 nights of gloating, but don't be shocked when they respond to your gloating with gloating of their own when you stumble.

I do tend to wonder.. How does one effectively compromise with someone on scientific policy when that side thinks that the Earth is 6000 years old?

Obviously on such a binary issue, you can't really find a middle ground. But what you can do is refrain from insulting them so much that they'll never listen to you or work with you again.

 

[gcubed]

I want to see secret holds eliminated. I'd keep the filibuster, but reform it. Bring back the cots and let people hold the floor if they truly want to stall something

i agree, i'd rather change the rules rather then eliminate them. Pro forma sessions are also garbage.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Oh sure, you can have one night of gloating, hell you can have 1,000 nights of gloating, but don't be shocked when they respond to your gloating with gloating of their own when you stumble.

I wish there was no gloating at all, because it's just petty.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I don't know man. I'm an old 42 and I don't see conservatism fading away anytime soon. 20 years ago I thought shit was changing but it really isn't.

I'm not talking about conservatism dying out. I'm talking about how the younger generation isn't as easily duped by theocracy and plutocracy. The Republican party will either have to transform and become a more rational conservative party, or face such hard times over the next 16 years that it could, possibly, end up being replaced.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I love this whole idea of bipartisanship. That if Dems in Congress and those who vote for them just become a bit more bipartisan and friendly to Republicans that Republicans will throw off the TeaParty support, the racism, that state rights durp durp, the bigotry, and become willing to work together and reach across the isle. Stop living in the fantasy world. Ed Schultz is as big of a bozo as Hannity, yes, but people here who are licking their chops to take pleasure in watching the other side cry on Tuesday night and after aren't Ed Schultz.
It's on the Republicans to modernize, it's not on the Dems to wait for them or to hold their hands.