REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Party of No, Redux

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 07:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1781
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Nothing new here, except to show CLEARLY what the Republican's agenda was from the day Obama took office. Screw the country, screw the American people, we're gonna be the Party of No from the outset so we can regain power in 2012!
Quote:

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article wahich reveals some of the reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP Whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) where they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular president-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”

On January 27, 2009, House Republican leader John Boehner opened his weekly conference meeting with an announcement: Obama would make his first visit to the Capitol around noon, to meet exclusively with Republicans about his economic recovery plan. “We’re looking forward to the President’s visit,” Boehner said.

The niceties ended there, as Boehner turned to the $815 billion stimulus bill that House Democrats had just unveiled. Boehner complained that it would spend too much, too late, on too many Democratic goodies. He urged his members to trash it on cable, on YouTube, on the House floor: “It’s another run-of-the-mill, undisciplined, cumbersome, wasteful Washington spending bill…I hope everyone here will join me in voting NO!”

Cantor’s whip staff had been planning a “walk-back” strategy where they would start leaking that 50 Republicans might vote yes, then that they were down to 30 problem children, then that they might lose 20 or so. The idea was to convey momentum. “You want the members to feel like: Oh, the herd is moving, I’ve got to move with the herd,” explains Rob Collins, Cantor’s chief of staff at the time. That way, even if a dozen Republicans ultimately defected, it would look like Obama failed to meet expectations.

But when he addressed the conference, Cantor adopted a different strategy. “We’re not going to lose any Republicans,” he declared. His staff was stunned.

“We’re like, uhhhhh, we have to recalibrate,” Collins recalls.

Afterward, Cantor’s aides asked if he was sure he wanted to go that far out on a limb. Zero was a low number. Centrists and big-spending appropriators from Obama-friendly districts would be sorely tempted to break ranks. If Cantor promised unanimity and failed to deliver, the press would have the story it craved: Republicans divided, dysfunction junction, still clueless after two straight spankings.

But Cantor said yes, he meant zero. He was afraid that if the Democrats managed to pick off two or three Republicans, they’d be able to slap a “bipartisan” label on the bill. “We can get there,” he said. “If we don’t get there, we can try like hell to get there.”

Shortly before 11 a.m., the AP reported that Boehner had urged Republicans to oppose the stimulus. Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs handed Obama a copy of the story in the Oval Office, just before he left for the Hill to make his case for the stimulus, an unprecedented visit to the opposition after just a week in office. “You know, we still thought this was on the level,” Gibbs says. Obama political aide David Axelrod says that after the president left, White House aides were buzzing about the insult. And they didn’t even know that Cantor had vowed to whip a unanimous vote—which, ultimately, he did.

“It was stunning that we’d set this up and before hearing from the President, they’d say they were going to oppose this,” Axelrod says. “Our feeling was, we were dealing with a potential disaster of epic proportions that demanded cooperation. If anything was a signal of what the next two years would be like, it was that.”

But that wasn’t the only signal. A few other examples:

*Vice President Biden said he was warned not to expect any bipartisan cooperation on major votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican senators who said: ‘Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’” he recalled. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: ‘For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’” Biden said. The vice president said he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along those lines.

* One Obama aide said he received a similar warning from a Republican Senate staffer he was seeing at the time. He remembered asking her one morning in bed: How do we get a stimulus deal. She replied: Baby, there’s no deal! “This is how we get whole,” she said with a laugh.

* David Obey, then-chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, met with his GOP counterpart, Jerry Lewis, to explain what Democrats had in mind for the stimulus and ask what Republicans wanted to include. “Jerry’s response was: ‘I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play,’” Obey told me. “Exact quote: ‘We can’t play.’ What they said right from the get-go was: It doesn’t matter what the hell you do, we ain’t going to help you. We’re going to stand on the sidelines and bitch.”

Lewis doesn’t deny that GOP leaders made a decision not to play. “The leadership decided there was no play to be had,” he said. Republicans recognized that after Obama’s big promises about bipartisanship, they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate. In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’” http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-th
e-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/

I'd say they were pretty successful...and now I hear Ryan claiming Obama didn't get this or that done, lying by omission of course to avoid the fact that it was the Republicans who KEPT him from getting things done!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 3:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


So, Niki. Let me ask you a hypothetical question.

Suppose Mitt Romney won the 2012 presidential race, and you - for whatever reason - became the U.S. Representative for your Congressional district.

If you knew that President Romney and the Republican legislators were going to try to end abortion, ban gay marriage and civil unions, de-fund Planned Parenthood, gut the Affordable Care Act, reduce benefits to the poor, and give tax breaks to the rich, wouldn't you expect your constituents to want you to oppose them on all fronts?

If you would, why are you so surprised that the Republicans, when faced with a President who was proposing things just as wrong to their base, would also oppose them?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 4:48 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Despite the fact that I reject the notion that my constituents would be against the auto bailout, Violence Against Women stimulus, Lilly Ledbetter act, and so many more things the Prez has done or tried to do, my answer is a resounding "NO!" I would NOT plan, on the day of his inauguration, to oppose ANY President on every single thing he or his party do or try to do before they've even tried to DO them! That's sheer insanity and you know it. It has nothing to do with what he MIGHT do or try to do, the decision was FLATLY to oppose him and the Dems on EVERYTHING, period. Even when members of the Congress WANTED to work with the Dems, THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO!

If my part were so stupid as to propose such a thing, I would go right on voting the way I believed best represented my constituents, working with the other party when I thought it was worthwhile and especially if I could modify their position or in other ways have an impact. Of course, with the rest of my part determined to obstruct every single thing because their "base" (which has already been shown to be far less than half the Republicans out there) wanted them to--thereby ignoring all the other people in the country who want their government to work together for the good of the country.

In other words, NO, I would not choose party bid for power over my constituents and my conscience, under no circumstances! ESPECIALLY on the day the new President comes to office, when I don't even KNOW what he's going to do. That is not only sheer insanity, it is STEALING from the American people--taking a paycheck and the comforts that come with it (like free healthcare) and then spending four year doing nothing but proposing and voting on bills I know have no chance of passing, just for show!

Your hypothetical is preposterous, in my opinion (and that of millions of Americans). In my opinion, the Republican "representatives" have stolen a lot of tax dollars to play a game to gain power, nothing more.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 5:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
...my answer is a resounding "NO!" I would NOT plan, on the day of his inauguration, to oppose ANY President on every single thing he or his party do or try to do before they've even tried to DO them! That's sheer insanity and you know it.



Could be. The 556 bills signed (so far) by President Obama during the 111th and 112th Congresses (including everything from important legislation re-naming a Post Office, to little bills like the Affordable Care Act) would seem to indicate that legislation IS getting passed. Go out and browse thomas.loc.gov and you'll see plenty of bills submitted by Democrats that have been signed into law. This couldn't happen if the Republicans were actually opposing EVERY SINGLE THING the Democrats proposed.

Quote:

Even when members of the Congress WANTED to work with the Dems, THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO!


Apparently they were, in 556 instances.

So all your "THEY'LL OPPOSE EVERY SINGLE THING" rhetoric is based on, well, political rhetoric by the Republicans. In case you haven't noticed, politicians say lots of stuff to encourage their base, and look like they're doing their bidding.

Candidate Obama promised to close Gitmo, and lots of other things. He's done some, and others not so much. Some he needed Congress to vote on, and got the votes (like the ACA); some he could do by executive order, but didn't do because of political expediency (like close Gitmo). It's political rhetoric. It's saying what people want to hear. It's theater. It's lying. It's how the game is played - on both sides.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 6:19 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Re-naming a post office when the postal service is in dire straits due to Congress itself? That one's not even laughable. you HAVE to be joking regarding the battle Obama had to go through to get the ACA passed, the compromises the Dems made all over the place, and the fact that it resulted in NO Republican votes. Some things have gotten through, but damned few and you know it.

The fact remains that they planned the opposition from the first day, forced some of their members to not engage in bipartisanship, and have fought tooth and nail virtually everything. Student loans, jobs bill, pay equity, reauthorization of VAW, and on and on. Your argument falls flat.

Consistently, this Congress has taken weeks or months to pass even simple, common-sense proposals – proposals that would previously have passed in minutes.

The Senate has wasted literally months considering bipartisan bills, only to have those bills smothered to death under piles of non-relevant, Republican amendments.

And Congressional Republicans have held even the most important jobs measures hostage to extract votes on unrelated, ideological amendments – despite the Minority Leader’s own call “to stop all the show votes.” Those were his words.

And now Cantor has said quite clearly that they fully intend to do nothing for the rest of the year, just collect their paychecks and wait to see who has power after the election. You can't seriously argue that this hasn't been one of the most do-nothing congresses in history, the facts are right there, and the statements of intent have been made very clearly by the Republicans.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 6:23 AM

STORYMARK


Obama’s plan to renew expiring tax cuts for all but the highest-income Americans, a tax break for small businesses that make new hires, the jobs bill, a bill to aid small business, the Homelss Women Veterans’ Bill, the immigration bill, the campaign disclosure bill, the cybersecurity bill, the resolution honoring the intelligence community and the SEALS for a job well done in the bin Laden situation, the Bill to Avert Rise in Student Loan Rate....

All blocked by the GOP.

Ok, some of these, I suppose you could call part of a leftist agenda - if you really stretch, or are prone to dishonesty. The rest - yeah, helping veterans, increasing cyber security, honoring the SEALS - all *totally* pinko pursuits.

And thats not even getting into the stuff they fucking proposed themselves, and then attacked as soon as Obama Aadopted them.

Meanwhile, the GOP put their focus into fighting birth control, ending voter fraud that wasn't happening to begin with, and re-naming as many building across the country as they can for George Bush.

Yeah, Geez, those are totally reasonable actions. To a sociopath. You're supporting people willing to destroy the country, just so they can be the winners of a game that stomps on the nation.


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 7:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Re-naming a post office when the postal service is in dire straits due to Congress itself? That one's not even laughable.



Yet they do it dozens of time a session, usually to honor some local soldier or policeman killed in the line of duty.

Quote:

Some things have gotten through, but damned few and you know it.


The fact remains that they planned the opposition from the first day, forced some of their members to not engage in bipartisanship, and have fought tooth and nail virtually everything. Student loans, jobs bill, pay equity, reauthorization of VAW, and on and on. Your argument falls flat.

Consistently, this Congress has taken weeks or months to pass even simple, common-sense proposals – proposals that would previously have passed in minutes.



Okay. Let's see how Rep. Niki would be bi-partisan.

The Republican platform is still in draft, but you know what's gonna be in it - the stuff I listed earlier.

- No abortion. Life begins at conception.

- De-fund Planned Parenthood and sex education that's not absenance only.

- No same-sex marriage. No rights for same-sex couples in civil unions.

- Reduced taxes for the wealthy and corporations.

- Stiffer immigration rules.

- Reduced regulation on corporations and banks.

- Reduction in social and entitlement programs.

- Repeal or gut the ACA.

- More money for the military.

So which of these platform planks can you, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, support?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 7:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Obama’s plan to renew expiring tax cuts for all but the highest-income Americans, a tax break for small businesses that make new hires, the jobs bill, a bill to aid small business, the Homelss Women Veterans’ Bill, the immigration bill, the campaign disclosure bill, the cybersecurity bill, the resolution honoring the intelligence community and the SEALS for a job well done in the bin Laden situation, the Bill to Avert Rise in Student Loan Rate....

All blocked by the GOP.



That's why they're the opposition, Story. Blocking legislation that doesn't match their party platform is (as Niki would say) WHAT THEY DO.

Quote:

Yeah, Geez, those are totally reasonable actions. To a sociopath. You're supporting people willing to destroy the country, just so they can be the winners of a game that stomps on the nation.


Wrong again. I don't support either side in this election. I consider much of the Republican's platform to be bullshit. Then again I consider much of the Democrat's platform to be bullshit as well. They both, in one way or another, want to tell you what you MUST do, because they KNOW what's best for you.

The only reason I responded to this thread at all is because it's the fourth or fifth time Niki has posted almost exactly the same thing, and I'm getting tired of her holier-than-thou attitude.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 9:04 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Could be. The 556 bills signed (so far) by President Obama during the 111th and 112th Congresses (including everything from important legislation re-naming a Post Office, to little bills like the Affordable Care Act) would seem to indicate that legislation IS getting passed. Go out and browse thomas.loc.gov and you'll see plenty of bills submitted by Democrats that have been signed into law. This couldn't happen if the Republicans were actually opposing EVERY SINGLE THING the Democrats proposed.



Wow, 556 bills in just under 4 years. How many of those submitted by Dems were regarding things that you could call partisan? How many of those bills passed with few, if any GOP votes? How many of those bills were watered down version of what the President wanted?

The number of bills passed without looking at those bills means...nothing.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 9:30 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
[
That's why they're the opposition, Story. Blocking legislation that doesn't match their party platform is (as Niki would say) WHAT THEY DO.



Its adorable how you leave out the stuff that IS consistent with their platform, often initiatives THEY started - but blocked becuase they couldn't let ANYTHING go right under Obama.

But you are correct - putting party over country is what the GOP does.


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 12:44 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Wow, 556 bills in just under 4 years. How many of those submitted by Dems were regarding things that you could call partisan? How many of those bills passed with few, if any GOP votes? How many of those bills were watered down version of what the President wanted?

The number of bills passed without looking at those bills means...nothing.




But Niki says that the Republicans would allow ABSOLUTELY NO DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATION TO PASS AT ALL!!!!

You can go to Thomas.loc.gov and use the advanced search to find plenty of bills sponsored by Democrats that passed during the 112th Congress.

For example, there are 5 bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Charles Schumer, 8 by Diane Feinstein, 19 by Charles Rangel, and 5 by Nancy Pelosi that were passed and signed by the President during the 112th Congress when the Republicans had a majority in the House. This could not have happened if the Republicans were blocking ALL Democratic legislation.

I'm not saying that the Republicans were as bi-partisan as Representative Niki claims she would be (although I haven't yet heard what parts of the suggested Republican platform she'd support). They have their platform and agenda, just like the Democrats do, and they will tend to disagree over a lot of stuff. But the claim that they let nothing at all pass is bogus.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 12:57 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Its adorable how you leave out the stuff that IS consistent with their platform, often initiatives THEY started - but blocked becuase they couldn't let ANYTHING go right under Obama.



Well, a little research, as I noted above, will show that if the Republicans are actually trying to not let ANYTHING Democratic pass, they're doing a bad job of it.

A lot of legislation apparently did get held up because the Republicans DID promise in their platfrom to review ANY legislation that increased spending without corresponding increases in income or matching cuts elsewhere.

Also interesting how the Republican leadership, which Niki seems to think has ABSOLUTE CONTROL over their legislators, can't even get Tod Akin to quit running for a Senate seat.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2012 3:01 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
But Niki says that the Republicans would allow ABSOLUTELY NO DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATION TO PASS AT ALL!!!!

You can go to Thomas.loc.gov and use the advanced search to find plenty of bills sponsored by Democrats that passed during the 112th Congress.

For example, there are 5 bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Charles Schumer, 8 by Diane Feinstein, 19 by Charles Rangel, and 5 by Nancy Pelosi that were passed and signed by the President during the 112th Congress when the Republicans had a majority in the House. This could not have happened if the Republicans were blocking ALL Democratic legislation.

I'm not saying that the Republicans were as bi-partisan as Representative Niki claims she would be (although I haven't yet heard what parts of the suggested Republican platform she'd support). They have their platform and agenda, just like the Democrats do, and they will tend to disagree over a lot of stuff. But the claim that they let nothing at all pass is bogus.




Just because it was sponsored by Democratic members of congress does not make it a Democratic piece of legislation.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 25, 2012 2:37 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Just because it was sponsored by Democratic members of congress does not make it a Democratic piece of legislation.



If it was sponsored by a member, that is the member who introduced it. If a bill is introduced by a Democrat, how is it not a Democratic piece of legislation?

If, as Niki claims, "the decision was FLATLY to oppose him and the Dems on EVERYTHING, period." then no bill introduced by a Democrat would have passed in the 112th Congress. This is obviously not the case.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:06 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
If it was sponsored by a member, that is the member who introduced it. If a bill is introduced by a Democrat, how is it not a Democratic piece of legislation?

If, as Niki claims, "the decision was FLATLY to oppose him and the Dems on EVERYTHING, period." then no bill introduced by a Democrat would have passed in the 112th Congress. This is obviously not the case.




It is not a Democratic piece of legislation unless it is something which the majority of the party has been pushing for. So if a Democrat introduces legislation to make something the official whatever of the US, it is not a Democratic piece. Unless the party has been pushing for that.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I love how you twist things. I stated, quite clearly I believe, that I wouldn't decide on the day someone was elected President to TRY and block everything he did, even if it was in the interest of the country and my constituents. That was the clearly-stated intent, and was their "top priority":



I'm not going to go back and cite each individual piece of legislation--it's more than obvious, you said it yourself, what your intent is here. We've watched it happen for three years and everyone knows it. You are once again trying to defend the GOP, Mr. Nonpartisan, and it's a useless effort.

If you don't like what I post, don't read it, simple as that. Trying to argue that the Republicans DIDN'T plan from the beginning to block everything Obama/Dems proposed is just plain silly. THEY PLANNED TO; they said the would...if they were unsuccessful in some of their attempts, fine. But that was their stated intent. Some of them got passed because they demanded stuff be included; some didn't pass because they deliberately made them "poison pills" they knew would never pass, and a lot of what they didn't allow to pass was important legislation for the good of the country. There is NO reason on earth for me to (as I usually do) look up facts and figures; everyone already knows the truth just as they know the truth of why you're chewing on this particular bone.

One small example:
Quote:

"On Wednesday, all 42 Republican senators signed a letter declaring that they would block Congress from any action at all until tax cuts for the wealthy have been safely extended".
Quote:

And, from the beginning of Obama's presidency, the Republicans in Congress have blocked everything that Obama has tried to do. When the Congress had a Democratic majority, the Republicans used the filibuster and the requirement for a "super majority" vote to block every Democratic and Obama-inspired action. http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubsectionID=73&
ArticleID=106903

Quote:

WASHINGTON — High school civics teachers may tell students that Congress’ job is to pass laws, the president’s job is to execute them and the Supreme Court’s job is to interpret them.

But in this Congress, it’s become increasingly clear: Many lawmakers measure progress in repealing or rolling back existing laws.

Last July, the House voted to roll back key provisions of the Clean Water Act.

In February, it voted to roll back two Department of Education regulations, including guidelines state officials are required to follow when operating a school.

And in May, the House voted to undo the same sweeping mandatory Defense cuts that it agreed to accept during last year’s Budget Control Act.

Congress is already on track to pass fewer laws than any previous Congress in at least 40 years. To date, this Congress has passed 123 public laws with just six months left in the legislative calendar.

During the last Congress, which lasted from 2009 to 2010, 383 laws were passed. In the one before that, it was 460. No Congress in recent memory has come close to the slow pace of lawmaking exhibited by the current group of lawmakers.

Small things have passed, certainly, such as "one required flags distributed by the federal government to be American-made", renaming post offices and other things. But "There wasn’t a lack of bills to vote on. An astounding 11,059 bills were introduced during those two years, meaning just 4 percent became law."

That's as much effort as I'm willing to put into making my argument. My original point still stands: The GOP blocked or tried to block "virtually" everything (if you like that better)except minor matters they didn't care about (and most likely passed so that it looked like they were doing "something"); they planned to do so from the start, not even knowing what legislation might come up; and I would never be party to such an agreement, period. If I thought something was wrong I'd vote against it individually, but I would never put achieving party power over representing my constituents. Period.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:28 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
they planned to do so from the start, not even knowing what legislation might come up; and I would never be party to such an agreement, period.


That's the key. Geezer's trying real hard to shift things away from this point, and for good reason. There's no way to defend the tactics of the GOP in congress, not if one is interested in the good of the USA above the good of one political party.

As you've done a great job showing, Niki, the goals of the GOP over the last four years have been quite clear. And despite the efforts of right wingers like Geezer, a negative view of the "Party of No" is mroe and more prevalent. They aren't getting away with it as easily as they assumed they would.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 25, 2012 7:36 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
If it was sponsored by a member, that is the member who introduced it. If a bill is introduced by a Democrat, how is it not a Democratic piece of legislation?

If, as Niki claims, then no bill introduced by a Democrat would have passed in the 112th Congress. This is obviously not the case.




It is not a Democratic piece of legislation unless it is something which the majority of the party has been pushing for.



This would probably surprise Democratic legislators who considered their bills to be Democratic legislation since a Democrat introduced it.


Quote:

So if a Democrat introduces legislation to make something the official whatever of the US, it is not a Democratic piece. Unless the party has been pushing for that.


Then how about, for example, S.2165,: United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (now Public Law No: 112-150), with Barbara Boxer(D) as Sponsor, and 32 additional Democratic Senators as co-sponsors? Since there are 51 Democrats in the Senate, apparently 33 out of 51 would be a majority, so one would assume that the party was pushing for it. So we have a bill, introduced by a Democrat, and sponsored by the Majority of Democratic Senators, that passed both the Senate and House and was signed into law. Where does this fit into "the decision was FLATLY to oppose him and the Dems on EVERYTHING, period."?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 25, 2012 7:43 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I love how you twist things.



And I love how you avoid things.

So which of these probable Republican Platform planks would you be willing to compromise on?

- No abortion. Life begins at conception.

- De-fund Planned Parenthood and sex education that's not absenance only.

- No same-sex marriage. No rights for same-sex couples in civil unions.

- Reduced taxes for the wealthy and corporations.

- Stiffer immigration rules.

- Reduced regulation on corporations and banks.

- Reduction in social and entitlement programs.

- Repeal or gut the ACA.

- More money for the military.

Any of them?

Would you suggest that any of your fellow Liberals in Congress support any of them? Or would you suggest that they oppose them?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 26, 2012 6:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Geezer's trying real hard to shift things away from this point, and for good reason. There's no way to defend the tactics of the GOP in congress, not if one is interested in the good of the USA above the good of one political party.
...aaaand, obviously, he's still trying. Amusing how some, when they have no defense, tie themselves in knots trying to avoid or distract the issue. You nailed it perfectly; his repeating his attempt at distraction is almost amusing. Almost. Mr. "Nonpartisan" really pretzel's himself with his efforts to defend the Repubs, despite their actually "encouraging" being called the Party of No; which is proven and for which, as you said, there IS no defense.

As of June:
Quote:

A new poll released today found that nearly half of voters believe that Republicans are intentionally stalling efforts to jump start the economy to ensure that President Barack Obama is not re-elected. 49 percent of respondents to the poll say that Republicans are intentionally stalling the economy.

Among independents, 50 percent said that Republicans are stalling the recovery, and 61 percent of self-described moderates said they are. Recently, news analysts from major networks (not Fox) have began to question whether Republicans really are deliberately tanking the economy to defeat Obama. The behavior of Republicans in Congress is beginning to give credibility to that charge. The poll shows that a very large number of Americans including half of Independent voters agree.

Being the party of “no” is hurting Republicans

There is more bad news for Republicans in the poll. Although 41 percent of voters believe that last week’s jobs report was bad news for the president, 40% said that it will have no effect on him, and 14 percent who said it was good news. Voters seem to be primarily blaming the Republican party for the mess, and rightfully so.

Voters have consistently attributed blame for the recession on Bush not Obama, and now they are blaming the slow recovery on Congressional Republicans. The poll flies in the face of Romney’s campaign rhetoric blaming Obama for every evil known to mankind. It appears voters are not buying it.

In addition to blaming Republicans for sabotaging the economy, only 34 percent have a favorable opinion of the GOP, compared to 55 percent who view the party unfavorably. In comparison, 44 percent view the Democratic Party favorably while 45 percent have an unfavorable opinion. Democrats may not have an overwhelming endorsement, but their favorability beats the GOP. That could spell trouble for the GOP keeping the House.

Former Republican Governor Jeb Bush criticizes the Republican Party

Former Florida Governor, son of George H.W. Bush, and brother of President George W. Bush is calling for a more moderate Republican Party. Bush said President Ronald Reagan "would be criticised today for the things he did. He added "My Dad and Reagan sacrificed political poinbts for good public policy." He said today's party has an "orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.”

“Back to my Dad’s time or Ronald Reagan’s time,” he went on, “they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support that right now would be difficult to imagine happening.” Bush also was critical of Republicans for the tone used in discussing immigration.

If Republicans continue to block every jobs bill put forth by the President, voters will begin to see that they are more interested in power than helping the economy. When the House of Representatives refuses to pass a highway bill even after it passed the Senate by a 74% majority, it will give voters pause.

Romney will double down on his attacks on Obama, and Obama will call on Congress to pass the American Jobs Act. Voters will decide which one has their backs.

Back in January:
Quote:

Forty-four percent said Republicans were mostly to blame while 38 percent pointed the finger at the Democrats with 18 percent undecided. The margin of error is 1.9 points.

The failure will not have come as a surprise to most Americans since 69 percent of those surveyed predicted there would be no agreement.But the outcome is not likely to sit well with the public. A Pew Research Center poll published last week said 65 percent of those surveyed wanted lawmakers to reach a compromise even if it included parts with which they didn’t agree.

“American voters are way ahead of the politicians,” said Quinnipiac’s Peter Brown. “They knew the supercommittee had little chance of success. Watch for those job approval ratings to sink even lower, although the data indicate that at least for now [u\voters hold the Republicans a bit more responsible.”


Damn, maybe the American people aren't as dumb as I sometimes think they are!

I love this one:
Quote:

Even before the book’s publication, Ornstein and Mann triggered a mini-firestorm on the Internet and in the conservative blogosphere, thanks to a preview they published in The Washington Post on April 27. The lengthy Outlook section piece was titled “Let’s Just Say It: The Republicans Are the Problem.”

For decades, Mann and Ornstein have been the scholars most often quoted by the media on the subject of Congress. Their stature derives in part from their hewing to a scrupulously nonpartisan line[.

Ornstein and Mann stuck out their necks in their book and Outlook article with salvos such as this about the Republican Party: “It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

“This will be our last public appearance before entering a witness protection program,” Mann quipped at the May 9 Brookings forum. The standing-room-only event was moderated by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, whose forthcoming book, “Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent,” touches on similar themes.

“What an achievement it is to write a policy book about Washington that gets sold out on Amazon,” said USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page, who spoke at the forum with former Rep. Mickey Edwards, an Oklahoma Republican.

The book had already hit No. 13 on Amazon.com’s bestseller list the night before its official May 1 release, not far behind “The Hunger Games” by Suzanne Collins. The scholars’ book sold out within a week at Barnes & Noble, is selling briskly on electronic readers, and has 241,000 Facebook fans.

Ornstein and Mann are no strangers to the spotlight. Between them, they have written dozens of books and scholarly articles on such topics as Congress, campaigns, political money, redistricting, health policy and voting. They’ve lectured in the United States and abroad and collaborated on several books, including their recent indictment of Washington politics, “The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track.”

The book blames congressional GOP leaders for putting “party fealty ahead of problem-solving” during last summer’s debt limit debate, which it recounts in detail.

Ornstein and Mann heap special blame on two Washington figures: Newt Gingrich, former Republican House Speaker, and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. Gingrich coarsened the political culture and perfected the strategy of year-round, partisan attacks, they say. Norquist, whose anti-tax pledge has been signed by all but a handful of Republican members of Congress, is held responsible for ongoing budget and deficit stalemates.

Ornstein and Mann also argue that the news media have sugarcoated Republicans’ culpability and should spotlight it more plainly.

For Ornstein, in particular, given his affiliation with the conservative-leaning AEI, the decision to take on the Republican Party was not easy.

We have tried very scrupulously to be fair-minded and not take sides,” said Ornstein, a columnist for CQ’s sister publication, Roll Call. He noted that he used to pride himself following public appearances when audience members would tell him that they couldn’t tell which side he was on. “Writing this book was not an easy thing to do.”

Mann said that 90 percent of the emails that he and Ornstein have received, many of them from Republicans, have been positive, thanking the two for voicing concerns that also exist within the GOP. The recent Indiana primary that ousted Sen. Richard G. Lugar, known for his willingness to work with Democrats, by conservative Richard Mourdock, who has voiced disdain for compromise, only reinforced the book’s message, Mann said.

Here was what a lot of people called an ‘emperor has no clothes’ moment,” said Ornstein, joining Mann for an interview following the Brookings forum. “People who were largely seen as figures of the Washington center, or the Washington establishment — however you want to frame it — were saying: ‘Wait a minute, here. This is not equivalent.’ And because we backed it up with some evidence, and it wasn’t just a polemic, it struck a nerve. And that, more than anything, I think has propelled the book.”

Their willingness to stake out a strong position, the two scholars said, reflects their growing alarm and even anger. Gridlock has gotten so bad that it could trigger economic instability, damage the Republican Party and block Congress from solving urgent national problems, they argue.

Mann said he and Ornstein “went from being discouraged to being angry.”

Both men credited Arthur Brooks, the president of AEI, and Strobe Talbott, Brookings’ president, for standing by them amid critiques from the right. In addition to thousands of comments that run the gamut on The Washington Post website — the paper stopped counting at 5,000 — the two have drawn hostile blog postings.

Official GOP reaction has been relatively muted — a testament to the good will that Ornstein and Mann have built over the years. The RNC did not return calls seeking comment. “It’s fascinating how quiet, if you will, the Republican Party people on the Hill, and so on, have been,” Mann said. “I haven’t heard anyone attack us among elected Republicans.”

Seems despite authoritative figures with long-standing goodwill with the GOP and who are famous for being nonpartisan, as well as the majority of the American public, are well aware of what's going on, Geezer and his buddies are determined to deny the obvious.

I'm not surprised GOP is keeping quiet; they're not stupid, they know what's going on, but they have no power over the extremists and Tea Partiers who have pretty much taken over the party! Must drive them nuts to watch their party getting closer and closer to unreality by the public statements coming out of dingbats' mouths, poor babies!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 27, 2012 2:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
As of June:
Quote:

A new poll released today found that nearly half of voters believe that Republicans are intentionally stalling efforts to jump start the economy to ensure that President Barack Obama is not re-elected. 49 percent of respondents to the poll say that Republicans are intentionally stalling the economy.

Among independents, 50 percent said that Republicans are stalling the recovery, and 61 percent of self-described moderates said they are. Recently, news analysts from major networks (not Fox) have began to question whether Republicans really are deliberately tanking the economy to defeat Obama. The behavior of Republicans in Congress is beginning to give credibility to that charge. The poll shows that a very large number of Americans including half of Independent voters agree.




Which shows that your propaganda is working.

And still no response from you on which parts of the probable Republican platform you'd support - in a spirit of bi-partisanship.

Maybe you'd be the "Party of No" if the Repubs won in 2012, but just can't stand to admit it.


ETA: And just to see if you've been paying attention, I'll ask you which of the probable Republican platform planks you think I'd support.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 27, 2012 5:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Keep trying, little man. You know perfectly well what you asked has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand, but go for it. I assume you're enjoying yourself. My statement was crystal clear, and you have in no way addressed it by asking your irrelevant question.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 27, 2012 5:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Keep trying, little man. You know perfectly well what you asked has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand...



Keep telling youtrself that. I believe you've found that, if situations were reversed, you'd have no problem at all being part of "The Party of No".

Prove me wrong.

List any of the possible Republican platform planks above that you could ever support.

I don't think you can, and are afraid to admit it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I'm not "afraid to admit" a damned thing; you're attempting to debate something which has nothing to do with the issue of this thread. Whatever a party's platform, that doesn't indicate how they'd vote on any individual issue or whether they'd block things which are important to the American public and the country just to gain power. The issues you cited are in their platform, and ignore those they have blocked which have nothing to do with their platform.

Bills Republicans Have Blocked Since President Obama Took Office:

Tax on Companies that ship jobs overseas. A bill that would have eliminated a tax break that companies get when they ship jobs overseas. Republicans blocked this, allowing companies to keep the tax break they receive when they ship jobs to other countries.

Political Ad disclosure bill- Would have required all donors to political campaigns to reveal themselves. Republicans blocked this, not once but twice.

Subpoena Power for the Committee investigating the BP Oil Spill – Give subpoena power to the independent committee responsible for investigating BP’s roll in the oil spill. Republicans attempted to block this.

The Small Business Jobs Act -would give LOCAL, community banks access to billions of dollars to loan to small businesses. Republicans blocked this, then attempted to block it a second time and failed.

When John McCain led the filibuster of the Defense Appropriations Act, he blocked far more than the DREAM Act and repeal of DADT. Here are just a few of the other blocked provisions:

•No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
•Report identifying hybrid or electric propulsion systems and other fuel-saving technologies for incorporation into tactical motor vehicles.
•Protection of child custody arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of a contingency operation.
•Improvements to Department of Defense domestic violence programs.
•Department of Defense recognition of spouses of members of the Armed Forces.
•Department of Defense recognition of children of members of the Armed Forces.
•Enhancements to the Troops-to-Teachers Program.
•Fiscal year 2011 increase in military basic pay.
•Improving aural protection for members of the Armed Forces.
•Comprehensive policy on neurocognitive assessment by the military health care system.
•Authority to make excess nonlethal supplies available for domestic emergency assistance.

And those were just some of the provisions. On the conservative side, there are these, and more:

•Prohibition on the use of funds for the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
•Prohibition on the use of funds to modify or construct facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
•Prohibition on use of funds to give Miranda warnings to Al Qaeda terrorists.

And there are more:

Senator Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill – Makes it so that women raped overseas while working for foreign contractors have the right to have their case heard in an American court instead of having their case mediated by the company they work for. Only Republican men voted against this, but it passed.

Benefits for Homeless Veterans- Would have expanded benefits to homeless veterans and homeless veterans with children. Republicans blocked this.

Health Care for the 9/11 First Responders who got sick from being at Ground Zero- Would provide billions of dollars in health care to help the 9/11 First Responders who were at Ground Zero on 9/11 and are now sick because of it. Republicans blocked this.

The Jobs Bill- Offsets the payroll tax for 1 year for companies that hire new employees, or people receiving unemployment insurance. Also gives other tax incentives to companies hiring new employees. Republicans attempted to block this.

Wall Street Reform- Puts stricter regulations on the banks, preventing them from becoming “too big to fail”. Curbs reckless spending practices that caused the banking crisis. Republicans attempted to block this.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act- Pumped billions of dollars into state and local Governments to prevent us from sinking into a second Great Depression. Republicans opposed this but now want to take credit for the parts of it that we know are successful.

Oil Spill Liability- Raises the liability on what companies can be made to pay to clean up after an oil spill. Republicans blocked this.

Immigration Reform- Republican suggested comprehensive immigration reform until Obama supported it. Now they’re rabidly opposed to it and even voted against their own legislation. Republicans blocked this.

Unemployment extension bill HR-4213- Would provide additional aid to the millions of Americans still on unemployment who are just trying to support themselves and their families. Republicans blocked this bill for 8 weeks before it finally passed. Republicans blocked this for 8 weeks before it finally passed.

Fair Pay Act of 2009- Also called the Lily Ledbetter bill. Requires that women receive equal compensation to men for doing the same work. Republicans attempted to block this. http://www.woodcountydemocrats.com/index.php?option=com_content&vi
ew=article&id=550:the-truth-bills-republicans-have-blocked-since-president-obama-took-office&catid=53:press-releases&Itemid=96


For the last time, your question is totally immaterial, as it doesn't relate to the issue at hand, which is that Republicans have blocked or tried to block virtually everything the dems or Obama put up for a vote, including things Republicans originally INITIATED and previously SUPPORTED. This was their stated intent from the start, and they have followed through on that intent.

This is the last time I will repeat this: If I thought something was wrong I'd vote against it individually, but I would never put achieving party power over representing my constituents. Period. I would never agree to vote against and try to block EVERYTHING, whether it's for the good of the country or not, merely to go along with an effort to gain power in the next election. I can't be clearer than that, but you're welcome to ignore it and go on being irrelevant.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Another Unarmed Black Teen Killed
Wed, October 22, 2014 22:51 - 512 posts
Michael Sam gets drafted.
Wed, October 22, 2014 22:18 - 43 posts
More great moments from that religion of PEACE !
Wed, October 22, 2014 22:15 - 105 posts
Is anyone else still slightly creeped out by the Japanese?
Wed, October 22, 2014 17:41 - 109 posts
ICYMI - Alabama House Speaker arrested on 23 felony counts.
Wed, October 22, 2014 15:25 - 12 posts
The Science of Global Warming
Wed, October 22, 2014 11:53 - 18 posts
Annie, get yer overcoat
Wed, October 22, 2014 10:13 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine
Wed, October 22, 2014 08:44 - 554 posts
Russia Says National Governments Should Control Internet
Wed, October 22, 2014 08:25 - 10 posts
How Nations Fail (USA, Take a Hint}
Wed, October 22, 2014 03:54 - 18 posts
Obamacare Anniversary - Goes By Virtually Unoticed
Wed, October 22, 2014 03:17 - 8 posts
Obama trying to kill republicanz
Tue, October 21, 2014 23:52 - 28 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS