Fillibuster-proof majority
 

Wow, talk about unexpected.

Today, Senator Arlen Specter announced that he is now a Democrat. Which shocks the hell out of me, because yesterday I heard him pretty much blow off speculation that he would be changing parties for next year's election (Link).

With a 58-seat majority, the addition of Arlen Specter makes 59. And when all this bull**** with Norm Coleman finally blows over, Al Franken will make 60. So much for Karl Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority". Here's to hoping that the Dems don't make the same mistake.

All other issues aside, I really really hate Al Franken, perhaps he could die and they could put someone less obnoxious in his place.

:lol:

Now that Jesse "The Body" Ventura isn't Governor any longer, maybe he'd be interested in upping his game to the Federal level.

*shakes head at the great state of Minnesota*

http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/photos...nforsenate.gif


I'm shocked, but I guess I shouldn't be. Voting your conscience and not the party line seems to be hazardous to your standing in the Senate no matter your party affiliation. :rolleyes:

Upside for the opposition: if/when the economy implodes, dems can't put blame on reps w/o looking really stupid (not that they won't try).

downside for opposition: if they succeed, they'll have a shot at at least 4 more years and then some in order to achieve their goals. If spectre of PA gets elected as a dem (as if he weren't that all along anyway :rolleyes: ), that will only solidify dem majority.

@mimartin--nice cartoon and good point.

Yay, Just what this country needs. Pure partisans voting along party lines.

edit: Actually even he says he is not an automatic party vote.

:eyeraise:

Where were you in 1996-2006? Your attempts at sarcastic banter might have more credibility had you been toeing that same line when the GOP was running this country into the ground. As is it, your rhetoric makes you sound like a party hack. Enjoy.

If I'm reading his post correctly, Tommy's just saying the same thing that I've been saying, namely that he believes that neither party has the nation's best interests at heart. IMO, they're both determined to run the country into ground; they just have different methods of doing so.

Wanting to find a solution that's somewhere in the middle instead of going to these opposite extremes every few years is hardly what I'd call sounding like a party hack.

Oh, yeah: and I'm betting that Al Franken sucks as much as a senator as he did as a comedian.

Both you and Tommy are welcome to your opinions. However, to complain about "Democratic party line voting" seems to completely ignore what "Republican party line" voting has given us.

How'd the economy look when Clinton left office? Explain to me again how "both" parties want to run the country into the ground?

Is that what his post was trying to accomplish? :rolleyes:

Republican majority at the end of the Clinton era.

No, I'm not saying that it's bad because it's Dems. Quite frankly I could easily say the same for the Republicans through the Clinton and Bush years. I think I said quite a great deal even during teh election I would rather have congress and the president unable to push through party agendas regardless of affiliation. I agree with some Republican and some Democrat policies, but I don't like either one to get full control. That's what led to the bad legislation that got through during Bush. When partisans are allowed full control regardless of party affiliation it is bad for the country.

edit: Funny how I'm a partisan hack when I make a negative remark about partisanship.

So?

The argument was that both parties equally want to ruin ****. When we had Dem in office (a Dem that could veto Rep initiatives), we had a good economy. No one jockying to take everyone's rights away ala Patriot Act, MCA, etc (remember FMLA?).

So no, I don't buy the argument that both parties are just looking to shotgun a sixer and park the country in a ditch somewhere. Sorry.

But did you? No, you opted to speak up here and now. And now you want me to accept that it's just an unfortunate coincidence.

Nevermind. Lemme go look for my button again.

Oh, you prefer your politics partisan and ineffective? Well that makes sense.

And normally I would be right there with you, however I actually pay attention to what Republicans say and the less they are able to keep Dems from getting things done, the better. Now is not the time for the little ****-**** games that particular party likes to play.

Because partisanship is evil or because the neo-con republicans are? Let's not confuse cause and effect, shall we?

I'm going to give you an opportunity to revise your statement before I proceed to point out all the flaws with it.

Well seeing as how I only joined this site in 07... Kinda hard for me to go back in time to 1996 and point out the bad policies I was criticizing then. Or how much I disliked the Republicans up until late 01 in which I simply shut my mouth for the most part. In 2000 I didn't want Bush because congress was Republican controlled. I voted for Gore. But I'm just a partisan hack. In 04 I wanted the dems to give us a good candidate to vote for. They instead opted for someone that I couldn't get behind.

First off the economy was starting to decline as early as March of 2000. Clinton's economic team did not adjust for the change in growth. So the economy looked better than it was.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...de/Nasdaq2.png
actually the NASDAQ looked better coming out of 08 than it did coming out of 2000.

I think it's obvious who the partisan hack is in this thread. It isn't me.

Don't change the subject.

which subject? You accused me of being a party hack. You went on a tangent. I pointed out the failure in your logic of assuming that I somehow just now started disliking partisan politics just because it's democratic control.

That was not my intention. We both know how Republican control over Congress and the Executive Branch led to disaster. I can't speak for Tommy, but it is my belief that similar Democratic control will lead to similar disaster in the form of a bigger, even more corrupt government and reduced freedoms.

I hope that this is not the case, and it appears that your party now its chance to prove itself. I wish it luck, but I can't help but think that it will trip over it's own self-defeating corruption and fall flat on its face just like the Republican Party did, which will, of course, lead to a massive shift to the right at the voting booth and start the whole wasteful cycle of gridlock over again.
It was certainly in better shape than it is now, yes. I've never suggested that it wasn't, especially when compared to when Bush II left, but his solutions were short-term, and with nasty consequences that we are now having to deal with. He sold us out to the Chinese and began the crippling of our manufacturing base and the attendant job loss through outsourcing as well as our almost total reliance on cheap foreign consumer goods produced by near-slave labor, but I'd be fooling myself if I were to believe that a Republican administration wouldn't have done exactly the same thing.

Like I said: neither party has the nation's best interests at heart.

No tangent. Unlike what you're doing, I actually addressed the points that were raised. I tend to quote the points that I'm addressing in my response to help alleviate any potential sources of confusion, yet here you are.

On the contrary, you posted some claims. Unfortunately for me they are claims that I have no way to disprove. However because I don't trust you any further than I could throw you, I don't accept them either.

Claims don't = "pointing out failure of logic", nor do they = refutation of my points. Yes, it's possible that what you said regarding your voting history is true, but dispite what you might think, that doesn't change anything about what happens today. Nor would it make any impact on the argument that Democratic controlled government is just as bad as Republican controlled government, if that is in fact what you offering, per Q's interpretation.

So that leaves us right where we were: My unaddressed points in post #11 and your attempts to change the subject in post #12.

Okay. Like what?

Technically, I'm an Independent :)

Of course that's possible, however there's a huge difference between "possible" and "likely". You seem to feel that the latter is more appropriate. I'm just trying to understand why.

By "his" I'm assuming that you're referring to Clinton?

How do factor out the last 8 years in that analysis?

He did that huh?

Here I thought businesses were private in our free market economy and CEOs reported to boards rather than the Executive branch ;)

Perhaps I'll go through some of my old business books and find case studies about companies were chomping at the bit to get a piece of the new China market.

Again, I'll have to hear your arguments before I'll be able to see where you're coming from.

Really, you don’t want to go with who left the economy in better shape between George W Bush and Bill Clinton. Do you? Seriously one is normal business cycle and the other is looking more and more like an implosion. Even Carter left the economy in better shape than George W Bush. I’d consider finding another line of reasoning, because of just going by debt and consumer credit anyone can prove the economy Bush inherited was extremely better than the economy he left behind.

The money never trickled down; maybe if we gave Bush another 8 years he would have succeeded. :rolleyes:

Please specify which points I did not address.. Bullet points preferably. Your Proof by Innundation™ make it very difficult to address all points.

Actually a better indicator would be the DOW since it encompasses a greater range of companies. That definitely shows a worse situation now than at the end of the Clinton years. And honestly we can't just point at one party and say "It's all your fault" because the reality is it's both their fault. And again, as I have said before, the economy does better when congress and the president are at odds with eachother. IE Clinton years as opposed to Bush years.

And if you are, don't hinge your argument on one index :rolleyes:

Nope,sorry. This isn't kindergarten. I'm not going to hold your hand.

I responded to your points. If you find that overwhelming, then perhaps you should try to fashion a more efficient argument. Gotta tell ya though, cramming a page with words then accusing me of being verbose for responding to them is a very classy move :thumbsup:

Just asking for clarification on the points I did not address. From my perspective I did answer them.

Post #11. Go nuts.

Answered.

Where, Tommy? Please don't direct me to post #12 again. I already pointed out how it's mostly non-sequitur in post #16.

If you don't have anything, then let's just move along.

Unless you tell me the points I missed, I can only see post 12 as the answer.

As per Post #16, post #12 makes some claims that cannot be verified and address none of the points raised in post #11.

I think the first paragraph is an attempt to address post #7, but as I have already pointed out, your lack of credibility makes even that a stretch.

The second paragraph tries to address the third sentence of post #11. The rest of the post isn't addressed at all.

So post 12 tried to address one sentence in post 11 and didn't even succeed. One sentence. Please try again.

Off-topic: Either you really want me to buy the act or there is no act. Which is it?

QFE.

_EW_

Good economy at end of Clinton years: That was because neither the Democrats NOR Republicans had full control of the government. When Bush took office, he had a majority Republican congress that he did not feel the need to veto(even though there were many things he failed to veto that he should have). Whereas Clinton vetoed far more of Republican BS than Bush did. For the current admin, this is still up in the air. We haven't even completed one year(not even a fiscal quarter), and our national budget is way larger than the largest Bush budget. So it seems to be panning out that way again. But I reserve the right to be wrong, and hope that I am.

Did I back in 96-06: Yes, however as I was not a member of this board at this time it is impossible for me to prove that. I can certainly point to a number of negative things I have said about the Republicans on the board. And if you notice quite a number of occasions I had chastised GarfieldJL on many of his accusations.

Partisan and ineffective: No, I prefer that they not be able to ram partisan policies down our throat. I would rather they be forced to work with the other party to get anything done. If neither party is willing to give, I would rather nothing be done than a whole lot done in one party's favor. Clear enough?

you paying attention to what the Republicans say: I believe you listen to what the Dems say the Reps say.

Partisanship is evil: Yes, That is what I would say. It makes people willing to ignore the faults in their party's logic.

Opportunity to revise: I still stand by it.

Help me understand what this means. You seem to be conflating two topics:

1) my discussion with Q as to whether or not both parties are trying to ruin the country
2) partisan control is inherently bad

Furthermore your argument contains a couple of premises which I think you're going to have a very difficult time supporting:

1) that Clinton couldn't have balanced the budget with a partisan legislature
2) that the balance budget was only possible because there was a Republican majority.

So at the risk of repeating myself:

So?

and

I don't buy the argument that both parties are just looking to shotgun a sixer and park the country in a ditch somewhere. Sorry.

Yes, I am aware that Bush only issued one veto and that this is largely due to his use of signing statements and the fact that he had a legislature that lobbed him softballs for his first 6 years in office.

Right, hence my point: it's much easier to get things done when the branches work together. Your argument is that this automatically = bad. My argument is that it depends entirely on the agenda, therefore bad agenda = bad and good agenda = good. Sorry to shatter your false dichotomy, but it had to be done.

Supposing that this was relevant or indicative of anything in any way: which part of the budget are you referring to? Expenditures? Are there any mitigating circumstances that might be applicable? How does this compare to budget revenues?

Talking points can be dangerous.

Congratulations.

So if you can't have bi-partisan and effective, you'll take bi-partisan and ineffective instead? Got it.

Just let me draw your attention once more to a couple of things:

The war in Iraq
The war in Afghanistan
pig flu
North Korea
Housing bubble burst
Economic depression
Record unemployment

Forgive me if I don't share your "if the other team doesn't want to play nice then we should throw the ball in the river and sulk at each other until 2010-12" perspective on things. As I stated earlier, I don't necessarily care for one party having all the power either. But interestingly, when the Republicans had all the power, they used it to abuse their power ("nuclear option" anyone?). Now that the Democrats have all the power they're talking about things like making sure everyone can go to the doctor when they need health care. Forgive me if I don't see these as equitable evils.

Republican conduct has been deplorable. They've consistently demonstrated that they will go to almost any length to make sure that bi-partisanship fails (and if the house majority/minority leaders, the chairman of the RNC, and Rush Limbaugh don't speak for the entire RNC, then please forgive me for generalizing about all the people who helped put them there).

So right now, I'm far more interested is seeing business get handled than I am making sure that we tack on months of political posturing so that the GOP can position themselves better for mid-term elections next year :rolleyes:

It's called CSPAN/YouTube/etc.

Partisanship is partisanship. It's the agenda that has the capacity for harm or good. Checks and balances are always preferable, however if one party is more committed to the party than the job, then there is a problem.

msnbc, dailykos, huffingtonpost, NYT editorials,.........:rolleyes:

Rather than just sit here and go back and forth, tell me one time when having one party in control of the government did the country good.

Clinton doesn't count. Dems didn't control Congress and Presidency.

As for the balanced budget, CLINTON DIDN'T BALANCE IT. There I said it. The president does not write the budget. CONGRESS DOES.

That said, he did a lot to force congress to balance the budget. But he himself did not do that. It was a bipartisan effort to trim the budget. Which is great. I prefer that. In fact, with a Dem in the White House, the Republicans knew that their spending would be watched more closely than if it were a Republican. Like what happened with Bush.

Bush inherited an economy that was bursting from the dot-com meltdown. So if you are going to excuse BO for the current economy, you have to excuse GW for the economy he inherited.

re: CSPAN/Youtube/etc Not buying it since you keep misrepresenting Republicans the way you do, while putting the Dems on these high pedestals.

Partisanship is essentially a religion. So are you now in favor of religions?

Have you been living in a cave? Since his last contentious run for the seat, it comes as no surprise he'd switch back to his original party affiliation. Especially as the reps are starting to examine who the weak links in their party are. The only thing really surprising, perahps, is that the 2 senators from Maine don't actually make the public switch along with him.

His books are preposterously partisan, but absolutely hilarious.

Also, I'm not so sure a filibuster-proof majority would be good for the Obama administration. Even if Obama does finally stabilize the economy is he going to be able to:

1) Tackle healthcare reform
2) Improve public schools
3) help students afford college
4) solve our energy shortage
5) produce a legacy

without some infighting amongst democrats? It's already clear that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the far left democrats are all eyeing different goals.

Yeah, should be interesting to see which of them is "most liberal-than-thou".

As long as they prove over the next couple of years that they're as inept at governing and every bit as corrupt as the Republicans, then all of this switching back and forth from one extreme to another might serve a positive purpose.

As in voters beginning to consider alternatives to either party.

That's pretty much as fallacious as it gets. Well done :rolleyes:

_EW_

Moving to France? With out "First Past the Post" system of government, there is no way we'll break out of a mainly two-party system. :(

You're probably right, Roxy, but I really hope that you're wrong. As long as those two parties have the country by the balls there isn't much hope for the future here, IMO. We're basically forced to choose between one party whose goal appears to be fascist totalitarianism and another whose goal appears to be socialist totalitarianism. Both are corrupt and rotten to the core, and everything that they touch turns to ****.

Not an attractive choice for me, at least.
The hell? Which one of these does not fit in with the others?

Did I miss something? How is the swine flu the Bush II administration's fault? :confused:

Your argument is that it's inherently wrong. Either stick with that or move on. Don't change the argument to something else and then shift the burden of proof to me.

And who is responsible for approving it? Clinton's writing it/not writing it would seem to be beside the point.

Oh, ok :)

Great.

Oh, I see where you got your graph now.

:eyeraise:

You can buy or not buy whatever you'd like, TD. You might not be aware of this, but I don't really care what you think.

Strawman much? Nice to see that some things don't change.

Good question.

Mid-term elections are only about 18 months away. If they aren't careful, they could lose this before they even have a chance to use it. Of course, as discombobulated as the GOP is right now, who knows.

Is it cool if I call you "Marvin" from now on?

hehe, that's kinda funny. :D

It was a list of things Obama has on his plate (things I posit won't settle for being ignored while Tommycat waits for his bi-partisan utopia). Interesting that you interpretted as a list of things Bush was responsible for :)

I read it wrong. My bad, but it is interesting that I read it that way, isn't it?

Spectre? He's such a turncoat Dem>Rep>Dem again, I really don't see why you'd welcome him.

Taking the money of the Republicans and changing to Democrat mid campaign. Of course considering how he welcomed the bailout and stimulus packages with open arms, and is whining now that "the right chased him away", I'd say the old fossil did it to further his career. He's 79. It was loooking doubtful he'd get in as a Republican.

If he bites you like a snake, don't say I (an independent) didn't warn ya. In fact the dems warned the republicans the first time he crossed the aisle.



Can't say I blame you.

YES! I'd love ever so much for someone to bash his skull in--if I may make a suggestion: impale him with a cactus first. Jackals like him DO tend to run away.

We already have enough jokers in office, we don't need another.

Well, we have several other candidates who are less obnoxious:
Jim Carey
Jeff Daniels
Terry Bollea (aka Hulk Hogan)
Jenna Jameson
Eddie Murphy
Chris Rock
Dave Chappelle
Hillary Duff
Natalie Portman

Bull****? This is like the 2nd or 3rd recount. It was Franken losing by 500 votes at election night, now he's winning by 200? 700 votes clean out of nowhere. Now THAT is bull****.