Book burning

[IBCoupe]

I'm talking in generalities, too. Regardless of what agenda the party heads tried to push, a 60-seat majority didn't help them because that's not the kind of party the Democrats are.

[audtatious]

The Dem party would have been much more successful with less battles had the leaders not been ultra-left

[heliochrome85]

The Dem party would have been much more successful with less battles had the leaders not been ultra-left

anything left of Reagan is considered ultra-left in this political climate. who are you kidding.

[audtatious]

The Dem party would have been much more successful with less battles had the leaders not been ultra-left

anything left of Reagan is considered ultra-left in this political climate. who are you kidding.

If it were only so easy

[IBCoupe]

This administration is really not "ultra-left." Their most "leftist" action was taken out of the Republican playbook. Had the Republicans not set out to be obstructionist prior to President Obama's taking of the oath, it would have been the pinnacle of bipartisanship.

[audtatious]

This Administration who has brought in some of the most socialist of Democrats as Czar's and has focused on forcing their agenda instead of working to improve the US economy is not "ultra-left"? What/who would you consider ultra-left? Just curious.

[AZhitman]

Had the Republicans not set out to be obstructionist prior to President Obama's taking of the oath, it would have been the pinnacle of bipartisanship.

That's a little bit "He started it" for me to accept.

When we have "pass it to see what's in it" and "we'll keep blaming Bush until things improve", and "I don't care what the Generals say... oops, what I meant was..." and "we don't need their support to pass this", and other gems, it's real hard to swallow that he ever had designs on bipartisanship.

Let's be realistic.

[IBCoupe]

This Administration who has brought in some of the most socialist of Democrats as Czar's and has focused on forcing their agenda instead of working to improve the US economy is not "ultra-left"? What/who would you consider ultra-left? Just curious.

1. "Some of the most socialist" is a weird term these days that really doesn't actually mean "leftist" in its common usage.
2. Forcing an agenda and working to improve the US economy are not mutually exclusive - the Democrats would argue that they forced their agenda in order to improve the US economy.

That's a little bit "He started it" for me to accept.

When we have "pass it to see what's in it" and "we'll keep blaming Bush until things improve", and "I don't care what the Generals say... oops, what I meant was..." and "we don't need their support to pass this", and other gems, it's real hard to swallow that he ever had designs on bipartisanship.

Let's be realistic.

It's not about "he started it," Greg. It's about bipartisanship requiring cooperation... which is two sides working together. Before January 2009, Republicans were promising not to cooperate. The Democrats did extend invitations at every step for Republicans to give their input, and Republicans declined because they thought their input would be ignored. They were asked to help design it before they were asked to pass it, and they said "no."

The Democrats should probably have kept making efforts to get Republican involvement, but when you have comments about "Obama's Waterloo," it's clear that Republican disagreement wasn't on the substance of what President Obama was doing, but on the fact that President Obama was doing it. It was politics. If you're trying to haggle on a thing, but the guy's only disagreeing with you because he doesn't like your face, no amount of cooperation on your part will get that intended thing done.

The fact is, everything they did pass accounted for the objections of conservative principles because, as I've said before: the Democratic party is not a unified force. There's nothing inherently good about bipartisanship; we like it because it's got a strong correlation with ideological compromise. But if ideology has nothing to do with the disagreement, then there's no room for compromise, and bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake accomplishes nothing.

[stebo0728]

Bipartisanship is a freaking joke. Wouldnt it be nice if there were, say, an issue. And someone presented a resolution to the issue. Then everyone decided whether they like the resolution, and if enough like it, the resolution passes. No hangups on whether the other guys that go to the same convention as me like the thing, just whether each individual likes it, and of course whether it would benefit his constituents.

[audtatious]

This Administration who has brought in some of the most socialist of Democrats as Czar's and has focused on forcing their agenda instead of working to improve the US economy is not "ultra-left"? What/who would you consider ultra-left? Just curious.

1. "Some of the most socialist" is a weird term these days that really doesn't actually mean "leftist" in its common usage.
2. Forcing an agenda and working to improve the US economy are not mutually exclusive - the Democrats would argue that they forced their agenda in order to improve the US economy.

1. So, I take it you feel "socialists" are to the left of liberals?
2. I could call the exhaust I emit while driving an improvement to the environment but it does not make it the case

[IBCoupe]

1. No, I feel that "socialists" are a very specific group of people, as distinguishable from "lefties."
2. Right, and so you disagree with the substance of what they were arguing for, but don't act as if they weren't at least intending to improve the economy, and thus were working at doing it. You can still say they're doing a crappy job at it without taking the silly stance that Democrats weren't trying to make things better.

[audtatious]

1. Gotcha. Kinda like Republicans is a mixed group which includes moderate-progressives, fiscal conservatives and far right-wing religious nut jobs?
2. That's debatable as to their stance and their intentions. I don't see how mandating portions of the population that currently don't have something to purchase it is a good thing in a down economy to improve it. Regardless, that would be for a different thread and does not really fall under this topic.

[IBCoupe]

1. Exactly that way.
2. One of the arguments was that it would ease long-term costs. In 1994, Republicans argued that their plan should be used, because the only way to make sure that prices actually go down as a result of less uninsured use of hospitals was to mandate that everyone have health insurance. So Democrats agreed. That and the mandate quite possibly won't come into effect in a down economy.

[audtatious]

So, the Dems are just following a Republican lead for mandating health insurance?

[IBCoupe]

Yes. From the 1994 plan to RomneyCare, mandating health insurance is a Republican idea (that the Republicans abandoned when the Democrats picked it up).

Clinton included part of this in his package ( ), but wanted to provide free health insurance services for the poor. The other proposal from the left is a single-payer plan, where the government buys coverage from health insurers for you.

[audtatious]

Not saying it's not true. I would have thought that mandating HI would be more GOP than Dem as a means of self protection. Dems usually don't mandate things but simply force others to pay instead

[IBCoupe]

Nah, it's a bipartisan thing. It's the only way to get the insurance companies on board with universal health care.

[Cold_Zero]

So, the Dems are just following a Republican lead for mandating health insurance?

Or effectively nationalizing student loans by leveraging congress to eliminate competition.

[audtatious]

I thought they would be targeting non-US auto makers by this time. Honestly, I wish they would target building some damn manufacturing plants in the US.

[HashiriyaS14]

The whole idea of bipartisanship as a governing paradigm for a legislative body is flawed.

Practical bipartisanship occurs on the individual legislator level. It's Lieberman, or Snowe, or Graham, etc. It isn't every single Senator or Congressman forgetting the wishes of their constituents to magically agree on something just for the sake of it getting passed. Bipartisanship occurs naturally because certain states and districts are naturally predisposed to vote near the center and thus elect people who will fall on different sides of the fence depending on the issue. This is as it should be, and anyone expecting more out of bipartisanship is wishing for something that is contrary to the wishes of the voters of MOST legislators (who are not "swing" states/districts).

[stebo0728]

I dont want anything out of bi-partisanship, in fact I dont want bi-partisanship period, further I dont want PARTISANSHIP at all in any fashion. It goes against the grain of our founding. Now is this ever going to be a reality? Doubtful.