General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf I wanted to *appear* to give a fuck about you but didn't want to *actually* give a fuck about you
I'd devise a way to ensure I could vote for EVERYTHING you cherish and still not have it pass.
That way is the 60 vote bullshit in the US Senate.
Yeah, I know . . . . the counter is what's going on in the Texas Senate. A simple majority of simply hateful people are assaulting women with impunity. I would rather take my honest chances with an honest vote, tempered by an honest chance at an honest filibuster, then get fucked time after time after time after time by a gamed system.
Take from this what you wish interms of who to blame and who you might think I'm blaming, but you can't deny that it *is* a gamed system.
think
(11,641 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)This kind of outrageous disrespect for authority could cause problems.
think
(11,641 posts)just saying..
Stinky The Clown
(67,808 posts)Just sayin'
think
(11,641 posts)you are correct on that....
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Partys deceitful game:
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald
Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how its played:
.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option Rockefeller is suddenly inclined to oppose it because he doesnt think the timing of it is very good and its too partisan. What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldnt pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he would not relent in ensuring its enactment.
The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just dont have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that theres a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.
This is what the Democratic Party does...Theyre willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as theres no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bushs eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bushs habeas and interrogation abuses (Gosh, what can we do? We just dont have 60 votes).
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, its Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, its Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and breaking with their party to ensure Michael Mukaseys confirmation as Attorney General; then its Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then its Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they cant blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they dont need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)legislation. Simple fact--he has never been part of any attempt to garner votes for a bill.
He is simply talking out of his ass on this subject.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)"He has never been part of any attempt to garner votes for a bill..."
I love these rules for authority to comment. Is that the principle in place for observing what the President does, too?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He didn't even pay attention to politics until the second GW Bush term.
What's his insight?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)progressoid
(49,991 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Why don't we just get congressional aides to write news articles from now on?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and, disturbingly, that doesn't seem very tongue-in-cheek anymore.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)"Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion"
Obama had taken Medicare for all off the table during his campaign. The meme was that Lieberman had blocked the public option. In reality that was never on the table, either.
And Lieberman certainly never got disciplined or even rebuked for it, either. (After he campaigned for McCain, he got one of his chairmanships taken away from him, but got to keep the one he prized, namely Homeland Security. After he supposedly wrecked Obamacare, nothing happened.)
Every time something went wrong, some Democrats I know would knee jerk "Lieberman." I'd look up the vote and, quite often, he would have voted with the Democrats. I'd tell them, but it never mattered. Next time something went wrong, same reflexive action. Some people are fact averse.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)No, Obama distributed campaign materials touting a public option, and he continued to lie to the American people that it was still on the table, well into the health care negotiations.
merrily
(45,251 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)And yes, I'm in Texas, so It effects me doubly. Texas is the blueprint for the modern day gaming of the political system.
Edited to add: Wendy Davis is the real deal. Wish I had her kind of representation.
Cerridwen
(13,258 posts)I tried to point this out to people who read the xyz rates congress-critter as an A+ websites.
Those websites rarely, if ever, point out all the "back room" voting that happens; an amendment here, a parliamentarian issue there, vote for the bill to pass when the whip count shows it will lose, and on and on.
"Horse trading" for votes is part of the "sausage making" we're supposed to tolerate...because, uhm.........pragmatism! Or whatever.
Wow, I just typed to you like 2 times within a week.
Stinky The Clown
(67,808 posts)I made that word up, just for you!
Cerridwen
(13,258 posts)Thank you. That's one of the nicer words applied to me and my posts...by far.
merrily
(45,251 posts)a horse of a different color.
(Second post of mine on this thread with a Wizard of Oz allusion. How odd.)
The OP seems to be about deliberate deception. And I agree with the OP.
Bush got his way substantially whether he had a Republican majority Congress or a Democratic marjority Congress. Obama, on the other hand, supposedly could not get his way with the most strongly Democratic we've had in years or are likely to see again any time soon.
Regardless of who is President, Republicans in Congress in general seem to get their way whether they are in the minority or the majority. Democrats in Congress can't seem to catch a break when they hold the oval office, the House and the Senate.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)regardless of which party is in power. This Op (see * below) does a good job of looking at why that is the case, and the shenanigans they go through to appear to support the policies people actually want while really supporting what the donors want.
Republicans' public positions are closer to the policies the donors want. Because of this, they have to be more "clever" to convince voters to vote for them. Democrats' public positions are closer to the policies the people want, so they have to be more "clever" to appear to be frustrated doing the people's business while actually delivering for the donors. All around an ugly game and the people always lose.
* edited to add: actually what did the good job I was referring to was the Greenwald article posted upthread by WWWS, which I confused with the OP.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Democrats' fault!
Mitch McConnell's useful idiots will lap this crap right up.
Stinky The Clown
(67,808 posts). . . . prominent vein in one's forehead.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)have had nothing to do with Republican obstructionism.
The record shows aggressive and proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3152360
The two parties agree on most things. It is mainly on social issues that the differences are hyped, in order to distract from the remarkable collusion on economic, war, and police state/surveillance issues.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I reposted a lengthy list of Democratic betrayals that had absolutely nothing to do with Republican obstructionism, and the poster blurted out, "PAUL! NADER!"
It seems to be a corporatist variety of seizure, since it happens by trigger of any criticism of Democrats, and out of all context.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Cerridwen
(13,258 posts)Seriously? Worrying about how they'll use our take on anything as though they give two shits.
They make it up...I know you've been reading here. You must be aware of that by now.
They can make a scandal out of whole cloth and get Acorn defunded...aided and abetted by Democrats.
Hell, they've managed to get presidential appointees removed for being in charge of an agency that committed a "scandal" before they were even in their position...aided and abetted by Democrats, who then...apologized.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 10, 2013, 11:00 PM - Edit history (1)
House, and the majority in the Senate and also held the White House.
Democrats got ACORN defunded. Implying they were helpless on ACORN in the hands of the Republicans is simply not the reality.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)seem to pass. Maybe not as bad as the republicans wanted to screw people but bad all the same and maybe that's the strategy.
The fact is that the Republicans are complete assholes with absolutely zero regard for the country's future but all to often I get the sick feeling that I am being played. Good Cop/Bad Cop.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)average person & puts money & power in the pockets of the 1%.
it's amazing is what it is.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)maddening and infuriating?
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)It's time I start thinking outside of it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I will attempt no puns your subject line.
None.
It will take a physical effort, but I won't.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)2/3rds or 60% requirements in majority voting allows tyranny by the minority. We need to go back to a simple majority and that is 51 votes out of a hundred or 51% of the vote gets the win.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Talk about a gamed system.
I mean, first they tell you to hurry up.
And then they make you wait.
"Hurry up and wait" was the norm in the military.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Anyone with ANY real life experience will tell you that the first instinct people in a closed organization do is to collude with each other to secure their position.
They cooperate as long as it involves mutual benefit and in this case they can all agree that they want to keep their cushy jobs.
It is collusion. It is revolving back-washing at its most basic level.
THAT is 90% of what we on the ground call "politics".
merrily
(45,251 posts)mckara
(1,708 posts)Jerry442
(1,265 posts)If you're running in a liberal district, you get the votes by promising to do progressive things -- and you get the money by not doing them.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It is encouraging!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)They get to do what they want and claim they were forced. Blue Baggers and Tea Dogs.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Republicans pick a leader and it's a guy from a rural place.
Democrats pick a leader and its a guy who's so far out in the desert it looks like the place they filmed "The Hills Have Eyes".
We could'a had a Kennedy.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Congress was filled by sortition than the oligarchic system we currently use where Congress is filled by elections.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)a) we had the 60 vote rule from 2000-2006 when we were often in the minority in the Senate
b) even if bills pass the Senate, they still do not become law
As in, you might have an argument for 2009-11, but not since Republicans took over the House.
Stinky The Clown
(67,808 posts)The fact remains that it is a gamed system. No matter who is in charge, no one actually has to vote. This gamed system does nothing but perpetuate the office holders in their offices. It does NOTHING for the citizens, good or bad . . . . Except that the whole system is bad.
Thanks for the civics lesson, though.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but your post makes no sense.
One of the reasons that nothing gets done is because of the way that we, the people, vote. Some of us vote for Democrats to do D-things and to Stop R-things and some people vote for Republicans to do R=things and to stop D-things. Unless one side can gain the majority, or unless they find things that BOTH types of voters want to do (like creating a Baseball Hall of Fame Coin (one of their recent accomplishments along with the Freedom to Fish Act and the Stolen Valor Act) then nothing gets done.
Further, since there now appears to be a "partisan distrust hair-on-fire" industry that whips up one side whenever the other side tries to do ANYthing, it seems like we are stuck in a huge rut. But at least Rush and Rachel are making good coin.
Stinky The Clown
(67,808 posts). . . . . . you see nothing wrong with the artificial 60 vote "majority" that allows these brigands and scoundrels to avoid doing with they were sent there to do?
I guess if that's your view, then, indeed, my post makes no sense to you.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)the filibuster rule is NOT stopping anything from getting done right now - that's what I have been trying to tell you.
And yes, when Republican control the White House, the House and have a majority in the Senate, like they did for much of 2001-2007, then I am very, very, very glad that our minority in the Senate can still stop them from running complete roughshod over the country. In fact, I would have liked to see them do more. I remember at some point that Krugman, I think it was him, wrote sarcastically "do the Democrats even know how to SPELL filibuster?"
In fact, it would not have bothered me at all if a tiny minority of two - say Bernie Sanders and Tom Harkin had done a filibuster to stop a bi-partisan piece of shit like ATRA (although Bernie, to his everlasting discredit, actually voted for that piece of shit).
Stinky The Clown
(67,808 posts)I guess democracy means different things to different people.
Have a swell day.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)just take what somebody says and make a big old strawman out of it.
Yeah, nice trying to reason with you.