So, Arlen, one of my absolutely favorite Senators, is now a Dem. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/ ... index.html

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about that. On the one hand, the coverage everywhere is consistently talking about how Obama will now be filibuster-proof. That worries me alot EXCEPT that Arlen has never been one to toe the party line and I can't imagine him starting at this late date. On the other hand, it pretty much diminishes Obama's chances to bring bipartisanship to DC. That was one of the few items on Obama's to do list I actually hoped he succeeded doing.

On a less important side note, it will now be less obvious when Arlen switches to populist during his re-election bids... that has always amused me.

Good for him. The more people switch as their values demand and work less through blind allegiance to their party the better off we'll all be. Too bad Lieberman can't grow a sack and do the same thing.

The bipartisanship was a pipe dream. Obama is no more bipartisan than Bush was. How could you let yourself get fooled into thinking that?

I was never fooled, just hopeful that he would move to the center once elected and force Pelosi/Reid to at least consider the point of view of conservatives.

What would make you think he could or would force Pelosi/Reid to do anything at all? His history of never challenging party leaders?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

He is more open to Third World Dictators than he is to Conservatives

How do you work with a group of people who tell you flat out that whatever you propose, their answer will be "No?" Specter got censured by his own state party for voting for the stimulus package, and Steele's first response to Specter, Snowe, and Collins voting for the stimulus was to threaten primaries.

You can't hold talks with people who won't sit down at the table.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

That sounds about right. The only difference between the two are that Third World Dictators are more open about it.

Please just shut up, Bearne. Did no one tell him that bipartisanship was HARD? He gave up on it offly early, and his hands aren't exactly clean, either. Getting a bunch of top GOP in a meeting and telling them they should capitulate because, you know, he won... isn't exactly bi-partisanship. I also wonder how his statement today that "We're glad to have you" points to one America. It seems to point to a blue America.

You can't point to anything significant that he's accomplished that is really bi-partisan. Can you?

awfully*

I would love an answer to this one from krby.

Obama would have them compromise a true conservatives principles. I wouldn't expect you to compromise yours Frib anymore than I would expect them too either.
But Arlen Specter was never a true conservative by any measure. He's better off in the Democratic party than sullying the GOP. I really think it's time he left the party tent and joined the sideshow. Besides he's taking the easy path knowing he's going to lose the primary.

Specter changing sides won't make Obama filibuster-proof. That will make it 59 seats, when you need 60 to reach that status. If/when Al Franken gets the seat in Minnesota, then you can talk about being filibuster-proof.

Also, you're assuming all democrats vote in unison, which they don't.

Bearne shoots, he SCORES!!! and the crowd goes wild

_________________

Jox did. When Obama had is first summit with the GOP leaders and they asked if there could be some compromises on the Porkulus, err Stimulus bill and Obama said No, I won the election, you have to do what I want. Why the hell should they? Obama burned that bridge within weeks of being sworn in.

Hmm. Someone's testy today.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I get this, and I could even agree with it. However, you can't then whine about the other side not working with you. You don't get it both ways, but people are are trying to do just that.



You would only think this if you listen to Rush. Obama reached out more than Bush ever did. He met with Congressional Republicans several times as he drafted the bill, and included many things they wanted. He gave them that, and they took it and still threw it back in his face. I remember it being news because after they rebuffed him, he said essentially, "wow I guess I would have been better off just ignoring them completely. I'll keep working anyway-- maybe some of them will try actually listening and being reasonable at some point."

Again, if you try to pretend that he's "shoving things through without Republicans" in the same way that Bush did for eight years, then you are simply ignoring reality in favor of conservative talk radio "reality."

I love the role reversal. When the republicans were in power, despite having the presidency, the house and the senate, they still found ways to blame and demonize the democrats - even when they had zero power to do anything.

Now, the Dems are in power and blame the GOP even though the GOP has no power to do anything.

He's an opportunist. He was a Democrat decades ago, then became a Republican i larg measure so that he could win a statewide election. Now that he thinks the Democrats are ascendant, he's "gone home." He's never been a favorite of mine for a variety of reasons, and this certainly won't improve my opinion of him. Then again, given the other dirtbags and miscreants in Washington, he'll continue to be right at home.

How much Kool-Aid do you down in a day, Fribur? Obama's not interested in advancing conservative ideas. He's interested in advancing the socialist ideals of assholes like George Soros, who are doing their damnedest to stop the pendulum from ever swinging back from their grasp by making the people increasingly dependent upon government. What you and your fellow-travelers (comrades?) either forgot or never learned is that a government powerful enough to give you whatever you want is also a government more than powerful enough to take everything away from you.

_________________
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Oops, forgot one:
The reality is, the Democrats held both houses of Congress for the last two years of Bush's second term. In basic math, 4+2=6. Also, did you really mean to say Bush "shoved things through without Republicans" for eight years?

_________________
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

_________________
Hope is the new black.

When it comes to the GOP working or not working with Obama it really isn't Obama's fault. Obama did try, at first, to work with the GOP and the GOP actually believed him and started to at least try.

It's the leaders of the Dem house and Senate that have basically ruined the chance of bipartisanship. Statements made by both several times over the first few months made any compromises improbable. When you have a President calling the GOP to the table, and the heads of the majority parties in the house and senate coming out on a daily basis insulting them and commenting about how everything is the their fault, you can't expect them to stay at the table and negotiate while being bitch slapped from behind.

No matter who's fault anything is it was incorrect (politically) to bitch slap the people your President is trying to negotiate with.

Some really right shows like to blame Obama for everything. Just like the media and the Dems blamed Bush for everything. The fact is Obama has tried to do what he said he was going to, but was to naive, about how the system works, to deal with the pressure from the extreme left in his own party.

I don't blame Obama for the lack of bipartisanship. I Blame Pelosi and Reid and a bunch of congressmen acting like 3 year olds throwing a tantrum (both parties).

About the only blame Obama should have thrown is way is not being firm enough to reign in his own party leaders who were (at the time) acting like children who just got a hold of daddy's beer.

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

You didn't read my post very carefully. I didn't blame the GOP for stopping legislation as you are speaking of in your "role reversal." I pointed out that it's ridiculous to claim that Obama didn't reach out to Republicans with the stimulous bill.

And when Bale shows up and spews his normal bullshit, it means I must have been on the right track .

Paraphrase of Bale:
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE AT THE HANDS OF A SOCIALIST MONSTER!!!!!! WOE BE US!

Want to talk about role reversal? Here, I'll make an assumption that I'm betting is correct. Remember 2005? Back then, Republicans were pushing for a "straight up and down vote" as the only "fair" way to pass legislation. They threatened to change the law permanently, called in the news the "nuclear option," and changing 200+ years of process. I would bet any amount of money that if the Democrats suggested that today, the same people on these boards that supported that then would be against it now. Why? Because it had nothing to do with principle and everything to do with political maneuvering.

For the record, if the Dems did suggest that, I would not be for it, because I saw no compelling reason to change it. I liked that these Senate rules made in many cases 60 votes the required number to get legislation passed. It's unfortunate for you few Republicans left over that the Democrats are looking to hit that 60 vote mark. For people like me, it's a great thing-- we will finally get to do some real work on health care and climate change, for example.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Carry on! DAMN YOU OBAMA FOR BEING POPULAR!

Did you even read my next sentence or find the first thing you could jump on?

Did you even notice that I was replying to Joxur, or did you just assume that everything is about you?

Even so, everything I said still seems true to me. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I should have worded that as "People who are worried about this assume all democrats vote in unison, which they don't."

Still, this won't even be a possibility until the dems get 60 seats, so it's a moot point.

Bipartisanship really isn't nearly as hard as you are all making it out to be. I can think of at least a few instances where Obama could have taken tiny, itsy-bitsy baby steps towards the center and received support from the Republicans. Instead, he has chosen to walk away from the concept at the first signs of difficulty.

For example, embryonic stem cell research; an issue I choose because I am in agreement with the Republicans on it. Even Bill Clinton 9whose postion I disagree with) cautioned that Obama had almost certainly opened that door much too widely and placed too much trust in the scientific community policing itself. Why? A little bit of language could have been inserted placing logical, verifiable restraints on the research (and no, I don't mean Bush's restrictions to only already compromised embryonic stem cell lines). Instead he chose to be more liberal than any previous President.

Another example: The swine flu response. It's all well & good to blame Bush & Co. as often as you can for everything you possibly can (they certainly deserve that and more) but when their actions have also made your job easier why not give them credit? He could easily have given credit to the previous administration/congress for the current availability of Tamiflu but instead he chose to blame the Republicans for having removed monies from the stimulus package; and worse, blamed one of the few moderates specifically.

While I was and still am hopeful that someone, sometime can achieve bipartisanship in DC so far I cannot think of a single attempt at 'bipartisanship' from Obama's administration that wasn't all about photo-op & PR.

Also, blaming Reid/Pelosi is easy and predictable but consider two things when you do so: Demonizing congress has a way of backfiring in the next midterm election so don't cut off your nose to spite your face; and we have yet to see Obama publicly bitch-slap either leader and that is becoming more and more apparent.

Seriously, my next sentence was: "That worries me alot EXCEPT that Arlen has never been one to toe the party line and I can't imagine him starting at this late date." Where are you seeing an assumption that all Democrats vote in unison?

haha... I just noticed that in my last post I owned myself. Foot in mouth!

Sorry, Kula :p

Is this directed at me, Fribur? My post specifically replied to Cuchulainn SC2K. Did you just assume every post is about you...

Did you read my last post? Weeee this is fun

Oops, sorry for the snarky response, Fribur. I missed your last post.

Yet, the nuclear option was never used. And you're wrong. The Dems DID threaten something exactly the same in spirit. It's called reconciliation, and Obama made it clear as recently as two weeks ago that if the health plan was not passed by (October?) a certain date, they would use reconciliation to bypass the GOP and get it passed.

Our government has never functioned well without a healthy and powerful opposition.

In the original post-


First- Obama will not become filibuster-proof.

Second-I intentionally left off the second part of that last sentence to illustrate a point. Why would it worry you alot if you know that Specter's voting history (and that of the dems in general) won't create a filibuster? Shouldn't you not be worried if you knew this?

The main point of my response was to show that the media outlets aren't suggesting this will create a filibuster, because it won't. You need 60 seats for that, not 59. And that's assuming that everyone is voting the same in those 60 seats.

Any news outlet that suggests that we should be worried that Specter will create a filibuster scenario needs to do more research, or is right-leaning (Rush Limbaugh, Fox News) and trying to scare their listeners.

At this point, Franken is almost certain to win. Coleman is just delaying the inevitable. So yes, there will soon be 60 Democrats in the Senate.

_________________

Aah, I see it's about style points. Change "worries me alot" to "would worry me alot" if it makes you feel better.



So, does CNN need to do more research or are they right-leaning and trying to scare their audience? Tyral is correct about Coleman just delaying the inevitable. There will be 60 dems shortly.

quote:



Obama did actually give credit to Bushco on tamiflu during his 100 day speech this past week.

Reconcilliation has been used previously to pass several programs: COBRA, expanded Medicaid eligibility, increases in the earned income tax credit, welfare reform, SCHIP, major tax cuts and student aid reform. It's hardly an unknown process. It's even been used by republicans.

Of course with Souter retiring, another blast from the past question is if the republicans are going to hold up to the "Straight up or down" vote mantra of before when Roberts appointment was being fillibustered? ;>

Hindsight is 20-20. I posted that prior to his speech.

Apples and oranges. The nomination of Roberts deserved a straight up or down vote because he's a strict constitutionalist with obvious credentials.

*cough*

Either side will obviously have an agenda behind candidate nominations. We expect this from the legislature. If Congress were to actually act responsibly, the shock would kill more people than the swine flu.

I don't believe he's given up on bipartisanship. I sincerely hope he won't allow his pursuit of it to derail positive goals, as I believe it already has. The truth of it is that in order to make contact while reaching across the aisle, someone has to reach back. Even that is no guarantee, and there's not much point in wasting time if the reach falls short. Arms don't grow quickly and much is time sensitive.

I'm just glad that the media mentioned several times over again that 60 Democrats does not automatically mean that many things voted on are going to be filibuster-proof. It's amazing how many people seem to make the assumption that they're all going to vote one way, even when there are a number of Democrats from red states that are practically conservatives with their voting records.