or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Obama Puts Guns in Hands of Mexican Drug Cartels
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama Puts Guns in Hands of Mexican Drug Cartels - Page 6

post #76 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

It's hard to get more than 100% true, just FYI, so of course it never gets any truer.
Oh, you got me. All the way from "Nanci Pelosi was speaker of the house in '08," to this. You are winner of the internets masturbation game. I'm outta here (again).
post #77 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

And as always you have mastered denying reality. He had an unstoppable majority in the House his first two years. End of story no matter how much you whine.
We can move on now.

He did not have an unstoppable majority. Senate procedure vests the minority with a lot of ability to stop things.
post #78 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

And as always you have mastered denying reality. He had an unstoppable majority in the House his first two years. End of story no matter how much you whine.
We can move on now.

He did not have an unstoppable majority. Senate procedure vests the minority with a lot of ability to stop things.

In the House? He certainly did. And Spats specifically referenced the House. I would have said nothing about that but for his "John Birch" crack so I felt the desire to post of a picture of the former speaker, equally as insane as any Repub recently elected.
post #79 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

He did not have an unstoppable majority. Senate procedure vests the minority with a lot of ability to stop things.

There is "realistically" and "technically".

By the above, are you saying that LBJ in 1965 and GWB in 2003 did not realistically have unstoppable majorities? Is that true.
post #80 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

In the House? He certainly did. And Spats specifically referenced the House. I would have said nothing about that but for his "John Birch" crack so I felt the desire to post of a picture of the former speaker, equally as insane as any Repub recently elected.

I'm not going to bother to look this up, but IIRC, the House passed a ton of bills that proceeded to die in the Senate because of fillibuster obstruction.
post #81 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

In the House? He certainly did. And Spats specifically referenced the House. I would have said nothing about that but for his "John Birch" crack so I felt the desire to post of a picture of the former speaker, equally as insane as any Repub recently elected.

I'm not going to bother to look this up, but IIRC, the House passed a ton of bills that proceeded to die in the Senate because of fillibuster obstruction.

That may well be true..but does not change any discussion about the House, correct?
post #82 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

There is "realistically" and "technically".
By the above, are you saying that LBJ in 1965 and GWB in 2003 did not realistically have unstoppable majorities? Is that true.

1965 is not a good year to use for an argument. 1965 was a Post FDR high point for democrats (and especially a high point for the liberal national democrats) - there was a massive supermajority of 68 Dermocratic senators in 1965-67 (plus a few confederate state democrats were allied with the national democrats, making them an actual majority), and the 1965-67 house had 295 Democrats to 140 Republicans. Not to mention, a good number of those republicans that survived the 1965 election were extremely liberal republicans from New England and the Northeast.

Senate procedure and Filibuster rules/tradition were also different in 1965, and Senate tradition only used them for states right issues (typically; civil rights for African Americans, usually led by such "luminaries" as Strom Thurmond). Social Security and Medicare, two bills that couldn't pass now without 60 votes, weren't subject to the filibuster votes. Keep in mind that in 1965 we really had a 3 party legislative system embedded inside of a nominal two party structure. Any issue agreed to by 2 of the three parties (loosely, national democrats, southern democrats, and republicans) could usually be moved through the legislative system.

The 2003 moderate Democrats were in my opinion* too invested in the idea of comity and bipartisanship and thus did allow votes on bills that the party as a whole did not support. (And this is one of the reasons why the Bush tax cuts are/were set to expire - that was what those moderate democrats got in exchange for not filibustering).

*My opinion was that they were politically naive.
post #83 of 129
Very good take. I think Dopeys right and you must be a pro!

I actually remember the mid 60s ( though I couldn't vote ), and it was a lot like you said plus LBJ ( 1965-1967 ) was a consumate legislator.

In early 2003 GWB might not have had the numbers and old system that LBJ had enjoyed, but he had tremendous approval ( after 9-11 ), and pretty much could have done about anything he wanted. Or as he put it, he had enormous political capital in 2003 which he proceeded to diminish for 5 years.

You are the pro, what do you think of this. GWB was so disliked by 2008 that the newcoming Obama admin.had enormous political capital and approval ratings ( though I would agree that they were not as high as GWB had after the 9-11 attacks ). IMO, he had has proceeded to diminish those approval ratings and political capital just like GWB did. Again IMO GWB invading Iraq, and BO making his first year priority the ACA legislation were bad blunders ( though of completely different kinds and magnitudes ).

Finally, GWB was more honest at least in that you got what you saw ( and what he awkwardly said ). With BO there is the same hyper partisanship, bullying, and growing unpopularity and disapproval of the base. But in BO's case many of us thought there would be some improvement, even incremental, due to what he said early on.
post #84 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Very good take. I think Dopeys right and you must be a pro!
I actually remember the mid 60s ( though I couldn't vote ), and it was a lot like you said plus LBJ ( 1965-1967 ) was a consumate legislator.
In early 2003 GWB might not have had the numbers and old system that LBJ had enjoyed, but he had tremendous approval ( after 9-11 ), and pretty much could have done about anything he wanted. Or as he put it, he had enormous political capital in 2003 which he proceeded to diminish for 5 years.
You are the pro, what do you think of this. GWB was so disliked by 2008 that the newcoming Obama admin.had enormous political capital and approval ratings ( though I would agree that they were not as high as GWB had after the 9-11 attacks ). IMO, he had has proceeded to diminish those approval ratings and political capital just like GWB did. Again IMO GWB invading Iraq, and BO making his first year priority the ACA legislation were bad blunders ( though of completely different kinds and magnitudes ).
Finally, GWB was more honest at least in that you got what you saw ( and what he awkwardly said ). With BO there is the same hyper partisanship, bullying, and growing unpopularity and disapproval of the base. But in BO's case many of us thought there would be some improvement, even incremental, due to what he said early on.

I deal with utility patents for a living, not politics. I just know how to find political data in google. It's not that hard. In this case, it's just Wikipedia for congressional breakdowns, Cnn for recent exit polls, dave leip's presidential atlas for historical presidential elections. It's all out there for free.

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. I think BO, like the 2003 moderate democrats in the senate, was naive and thought he could work with the moderate republicans. Keep in mind that with respect to the ACA, BO's desired outcome was probably somewhat closer to universal healthcare, and from his POV, the ACA was a compromise of basically agreeing to the republican position of Romneycare (itself based on the 1994 GOP alternative to clintoncare, and substantially based on proposals from the Heritage foundations). The ACA is not really a traditional democratic plan - that would be something like lowering the medicare eligibility age to birth. Same thing with the stimulus - about 1/3 is tax cuts (hardly something the GOP complains about), and another good portion was one time transfers to the states (something that even Reagan and GWB did in their respective early term tenures).

The real winner of 2008-2010 was Mitch McConnell. He very succesfully executed a plan of obstruction in the Senate, and got all 41/40 republicans to join with him (it also helps that the Senate GOP causus has better control over individual GOP senators than the corresponding democratic caucus does - but this has its plus and minuses). He ran out the clock sucessfully, preventing a second stimulus bill, had no GOP fingerprints on what was a GOP healthcare bill, and basically had a good deal of control with no responsibility. Easily the best political job performance by a minority leader in Senate history.
post #85 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Very good take. I think Dopeys right and you must be a pro!
I actually remember the mid 60s ( though I couldn't vote ), and it was a lot like you said plus LBJ ( 1965-1967 ) was a consumate legislator.
In early 2003 GWB might not have had the numbers and old system that LBJ had enjoyed, but he had tremendous approval ( after 9-11 ), and pretty much could have done about anything he wanted. Or as he put it, he had enormous political capital in 2003 which he proceeded to diminish for 5 years.
You are the pro, what do you think of this. GWB was so disliked by 2008 that the newcoming Obama admin.had enormous political capital and approval ratings ( though I would agree that they were not as high as GWB had after the 9-11 attacks ). IMO, he had has proceeded to diminish those approval ratings and political capital just like GWB did. Again IMO GWB invading Iraq, and BO making his first year priority the ACA legislation were bad blunders ( though of completely different kinds and magnitudes ).
Finally, GWB was more honest at least in that you got what you saw ( and what he awkwardly said ). With BO there is the same hyper partisanship, bullying, and growing unpopularity and disapproval of the base. But in BO's case many of us thought there would be some improvement, even incremental, due to what he said early on.

I deal with utility patents for a living, not politics. I just know how to find political data in google. It's not that hard. In this case, it's just Wikipedia for congressional breakdowns, Cnn for recent exit polls, dave leip's presidential atlas for historical presidential elections. It's all out there for free.

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. I think BO, like the 2003 moderate democrats in the senate, was naive and thought he could work with the moderate republicans. Keep in mind that with respect to the ACA, BO's desired outcome was probably somewhat closer to universal healthcare, and from his POV, the ACA was a compromise of basically agreeing to the republican position of Romneycare (itself based on the 1994 GOP alternative to clintoncare, and substantially based on proposals from the Heritage foundations). The ACA is not really a traditional democratic plan - that would be something like lowering the medicare eligibility age to birth. Same thing with the stimulus - about 1/3 is tax cuts (hardly something the GOP complains about), and another good portion was one time transfers to the states (something that even Reagan and GWB did in their respective early term tenures).

The real winner of 2008-2010 was Mitch McConnell. He very succesfully executed a plan of obstruction in the Senate, and got all 41/40 republicans to join with him (it also helps that the Senate GOP causus has better control over individual GOP senators than the corresponding democratic caucus does - but this has its plus and minuses). He ran out the clock sucessfully, preventing a second stimulus bill, had no GOP fingerprints on what was a GOP healthcare bill, and basically had a good deal of control with no responsibility. Easily the best political job performance by a minority leader in Senate history.

Obama had control for two years so this is not such a great excuse.
post #86 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

He did not have an unstoppable majority. Senate procedure vests the minority with a lot of ability to stop things.

Pedant!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Finally, GWB was more honest at least in that you got what you saw ( and what he awkwardly said ). With BO there is the same hyper partisanship, bullying, and growing unpopularity and disapproval of the base. But in BO's case many of us thought there would be some improvement, even incremental, due to what he said early on.

Sadly you lot were all sucked in. Now is the chance to suck him out.
post #87 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post

Obama had control for two years so this is not such a great excuse.

It is and it isn't. The filibuster is a huge conservative advantage, but it isn't constitutionally mandated, nor is it constitutionally barred, nor an issue for the SCOTUS to review. I've been screaming at the computer that Democrats should just blow it up and live with the consequences - my take is that they'll win (purer liberal legislative achievements, better ease at getting rid of tax loopholes) a bit more than they'll lose (pro-life judges, easier tax rate cuts). If the GOP blows it up, I'll be doubly happy, but I think McConnell is too smart for that.
post #88 of 129
I think a Dem holds the record for the longest filibuster.
post #89 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I think a Dem holds the record for the longest filibuster.

A Southern Democrat. Who was welcomed into the Republican Party. Who ran as a dixiecrat after the Northern Democrats put civil rights in the party plank during the Truman era and had the filibuster after majority leader LBJ pushed through the first civil rights bill since the reconstruction. Pretty important distinction, I would say.
post #90 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I think a Dem holds the record for the longest filibuster.

A Southern Democrat. Who was welcomed into the Republican Party after the Northern Democrats put civil rights in the party plank during the Truman era. Pretty important distinction, I would say.

laugh.gif Sometimes I put things out there just for you to do this.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Obama Puts Guns in Hands of Mexican Drug Cartels