Yeah, it is kinda odd, come to think of it. I remember in 1993 when Hillary's Big Plan was being debated Time magazine ran a major feature about the alternative GOP plans. If the Clinton WH had been willing to adopt at least a few Republican ideas they could have walked away with a really decent health care package Needless to say, with their majorities in both houses it went to their heads and they got nothing at all because of their demands. Reagan, who I generally dislike, nonetheless had the smarts to know when he needed to make deals and he got all sorts of things otherwise out of reach if he had insisted on some sort of purist agenda.. Its pretty hard to make 1 : 1 comparisons between the parties, though. The official leadership of the GOP ever since Reagan has had the view that compromises with the Dems are no problem as long as they get half a loaf. Trouble is that you end up with wishy washy leaders, especially George II, at least if you look at his admin after about 2004 / 2005. In other words, maybe the actions of the Dems can be explained to good effect because of the simple fact that experience has taught them that they can bully the Reps and get away with it. About this, it is a weakness of conservatism that, by its nature, it is the brake pedal to the accelerator of the Left. So far, no modern era conservative leader who not only understands conservatism but who also is smart enough and courageous enough to stick to his guns . The one exception of smartness and a possible presidential run is Newt, but he comes replete with so many skeletons in his closet that we can forget about him, I'm pretty sure. Palin is a phenomenon, but she has a really steep learning curve ahead of her and I'm not exactly optimistic that she is up to the challenge. Who does this leave ? There are smart people like Lugar and Jindal, and maybe Jindal will run, but , much as I like him, so far he seems like a light-weight. As for Lugar, he has zero interest in the WH. Any ideas ? Billy --------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 9/27/2009 2:58:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
The Republicans have 4 health care reform packages themselves. When has anyone heard of them? When have they garnered one breath of air on a TV news show or more than a sentence in a local newspaper? The Republicans are the "party of no" to Obama and the fawning media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself). The Democrats and the media (again, I repeat myself) want to hang any failure of Obama care on the Republicans by maintaining that they have no alternatives, so they bury the alternatives in committee and say they don't exist. The state run media willingly (enthusiastically?) carries their water. The Democrats are the party of "my way or he highway" or "my way or we'll have union thugs beat you up." David _ "There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head."--P. J. O'Rourke [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: True enough as of 2009, but it doesn't take too much memory to think back a few years to a time when, while not "just like now," nonetheless was hardly a period of GOP saintliness and we should all be a happy family and co-operate like good citizens. I do recall, for example, Lee Atwater and some other "noble" characters. I think you are usually right, that Dems more often ( sometimes way too often ) expect the Reps to cave, but it hasn't exactly been 100 % one way over the years. But this is almost to beg the question. The Reps did cave on a fairly regular basis. The Dems rather less.. Therefore let us ask, why in hell did the Reps play footsie ? This was especially the case with "social issues." Although when it came to corruption, well, they proved to be every bit as "good" as the Dems. At least in principle I am willing to say that has been vaguely equivalent partisanship on both sides. Yes,there has been a tilt, never better than 55 - 45 and some years significantly worse than that. Still, I can't get overly rhapsodic about the virtues of the Republican Party. If they aren't as bad as the Dems they're usually bad enough to make me wanna puke How I see it, anyway Billy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - In a message dated 9/26/2009 9:34:18 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: The Republican definition of bipartisanship would be when a Republican gives in to a Democrat. It's a one way street. Many are refusing to travel it any more. Bush and Kennedy collaborated on the No Child Left Behind act and the Medicare Prescription plan. At the time, the Democrats complained about the high cost. They later complained that they weren't adequately funded. Since it is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, why play the game? David _ "There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head."--P. J. O'Rourke [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: National Journal The Lost Middle Ground Bipartisanship is now studied as a relic of a bygone era, much the way paleontologists pore over dinosaur bones. by _Charlie Cook_ (mailto:[email protected]) Saturday, Sept. 26, 2009 Recently, I had the honor of delivering the inaugural lecture at the Joe D. Waggonner Center for Bipartisan Politics and Public Policy at Louisiana Tech University. The center is named after a conservative Democrat from northern Louisiana who served in the House for 18 years, from 1961 to 1979, and sat on the Ways and Means Committee. The bipartisanship common in Waggonner's day is now studied as a relic of a bygone era, almost the way archaeologists and paleontologists pore over ancient remains or dinosaur bones. That's a sad sign of how much things have changed or, to put it more accurately, deteriorated. Neither party is solely to blame for the loss of this lubricating agent, which helped the legislative machinery function. Every time Democrats picked off a liberal or moderate Republican lawmaker in the Northeast or Midwest, every time Republicans picked off a conservative or moderate Democrat in the South or some rural district in the Midwest, and every time members of Congress unwilling to march in lockstep with their party finally opted just to retire, the change chipped away at bipartisanship. Americans seem to sense this: A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 22 percent of respondents blame Republicans for the partisanship in Washington these days and 15 percent blame Democrats, but a whopping 61 percent say that the parties are equally unwilling to compromise and try to find a middle ground. When I first came to Washington in September 1972, Congress abounded with conservative and moderate Democrats, as well as liberal and moderate Republicans. These lawmakers provided the ballast that prevented their parties from going to extremes. They kept the Democrats from driving into the ditch on the left and steered Republicans away from the one on the right. Certainly, some Democrats did not appreciate Waggonner's close friendship with President Nixon. Indeed, the Bayou State lawmaker was dubbed "President Nixon's favorite Democrat." But he was a force to be reckoned with. These are tough times to play key roles, as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., can surely attest. I wonder whether even some of the Finance panel's greatest chairmen -- Democrats Russell Long and Lloyd Bentsen, for example, or Republican Bob Dole -- would find it impossible to excel in this poisonous environment. Talking with a conservative House Democrat from the South recently, I commented that it must be horrible to go home and get beaten about the head and shoulders by angry constituents. He added, "And then come back here and get beaten up in my own caucus." His remark reminded me of hearing a moderate Republican senator talk last year of being somewhat ostracized at a Tuesday Conference lunch after breaking ranks on a vote. Some analysts have long embraced campaign finance reform as the cure-all for so many of our nation's political ills. But an equal or better case could be made for redistricting reform, for removing partisan politics from the drawing of congressional district lines -- as Iowa has done. That transformation wouldn't solve every problem, but a process that resulted in more lawmakers being attuned to swing voters would temper both parties in the House. Redistricting reform might well have an indirect impact on the Senate, where much of the enmity is the result of extremely partisan House members becoming senators and bringing their hard-edged, take-no-prisoners behavior with them. The statistics are clear: There is more straight-ticket voting now than in the past. Few voters seem to value electing a candidate with the willingness and temperament to reach across the aisle. When President George W. Bush's policies and politics became unpopular, moderate-to-liberal Republicans were the ones who paid the highest price at the ballot box in 2006 and 2008. Likewise, if President Obama or congressional Democrats are out of favor in November 2010, conservative-to-moderate Democrats will lose in far greater numbers than their liberal colleagues. And the cycle of hyperpartisanship will continue. ____________________________________ _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) _http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com_ (http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com) Archives at _http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/) _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) _http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com_ (http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com) Archives at _http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/) ____________________________________ _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) _http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com_ (http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com) Archives at _http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/) _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
