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]
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]
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] 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
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]
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
