Government Shutdown

[TGHusker]

Hi Carl, it becomes a manadate IF - the public finds implementation and policy to be burdensome, costly and worse than their current coverage. In 2012 - everything was still 'in theory' - just words for or against. In theory this is a good plan, in theory this is a bad plan. 2014 we will experience the benefits or the burdens of ACA. That is what will set 2014 apart from 2012.

Do you or don't you think that the electoral victory in 2012 gave the Democratic Party a mandate (for the time being) on Obamacare?

 

I think that if Romney had won in 2012 and the Republicans had won the Senate that a lot of ACA opponents would be arguing that there was a mandate to get rid of Obamacare.

 

I'm not sure that there is a logically coherent argument to be made trying to reconcile those two (if, in fact, you think that the 2012 elections were not a mandate for Democrats.)

2012 was a status quo election- no mandate for anyone - many political commentators thought this as well at the time. A incumbent President doesn't have a mandate unless he wins on a much larger scale - Reagan was the last to do so. It is up to the challenger to convince voters to change the status quo - we typically don't unless a good argument is presented against the incumbent (house, senate, even Presidential elections reflect this over the years) Repubs ran a weak campaign - too weak to convince people to vote differently. When Romney argued against ObamaCare, it didn't ring true because of his Mass. experience. 2010 - change of the House was a mandate. Since then the repub have had a not true believer leading them as House Speaker - JB is a weak leader - in spite of his howls at this point - I predict he will cave. He does not articulate or communicate in a way that conveys confidence (IMO) Yes, if the repub took the Senate and the WH in 2012, it would have been a mandate as the voters would have sent a clear message for change. I think 2012 was a lull between the voter's initial reaction to OCare (2010) and what their reaction will be when it is implemented (2014) 2006 was a mandate against Bush's Iraq war, 2008 was a mandate against Bush period (and another weak repub candidate - but I don't think anyone would have beat back the media hype for Obama and the distaste for everything Bush), 2010 - ObamaCare fresh in the minds of voters was a mandate against Obamacare and the way it was pass - and other high spending policies, 2012 status quo, 2014 will be a mandate either way. If ObamaCare is implemented and the people like it - then it will be a mandate for it, If the voters rise up and elect repubs to overturn it - then the opposite is true.

So Republican win in 2012 = mandate. Democratic win in 2012 = no mandate.

 

Gotcha.

 

 

 

 

Also, I agree with you that John Boehner is a weak leader but I also think that there simply isn't anyone in politics who could corral the right wing extremists. Their immunity to reality is breathtaking.

In the basic meaning of the word 'mandate' - every election produces such. Typically, however, when we think of mandate (when that word is thrown around by political pundants) , we think of a convincing victory to change course or to plow through the opposition with the current course. Did GWB have a mandate in 2004- maybe to continue course but not the kind of mandate that forced the opposition party to go along wt his policies. 1994 was a mandate election - it forced Clinton to move to the right as repubs took control of house and senate. 1996 was a status quo - the voters liked having one party in the WH and one in Congress - in this case Clinton had the basic mandate to continue what he was doing, and Congress was to continue in the same way. I think 2012 was similar - Repubs held the house, they lost a couple of seats in the senate - primary due to 'foot in mouth' disease. Obama held the WH - I think there was a 'mandate' for check and balances - both parties having power. Reagan had a real mandate in 1980 & 84 - the voters sent a very clear message of their expectations.

[TGHusker]

Every single party claims "We have a mandate" after they win an election. What a bunch of friggen BS.

Elections are supposed to matter. Now we see at least one party trying to enact their entire agenda by holding the full faith and credit of the United State hostage . . . because they couldn't win elections.

 

I can't recall ever seeing that before in the history of our country.

Agree - esp not to this extent. I was trying to think back in history and I can't think of it either. In my lifetime, I think post 1986 election wt Iran Contra, Reagan faced much greater opposition to his policies but because he was still very popular, 1986-8 didn't rise to this level. In the past, the 'loyal opposition' may have one issue they refuse to back down on but this is more across the board. They should pick their fights - fighting everything will cost them more in the end - perhaps in 2014.

[carlfense]

Hi Carl, it becomes a manadate IF - the public finds implementation and policy to be burdensome, costly and worse than their current coverage. In 2012 - everything was still 'in theory' - just words for or against. In theory this is a good plan, in theory this is a bad plan. 2014 we will experience the benefits or the burdens of ACA. That is what will set 2014 apart from 2012.

Do you or don't you think that the electoral victory in 2012 gave the Democratic Party a mandate (for the time being) on Obamacare?

 

I think that if Romney had won in 2012 and the Republicans had won the Senate that a lot of ACA opponents would be arguing that there was a mandate to get rid of Obamacare.

 

I'm not sure that there is a logically coherent argument to be made trying to reconcile those two (if, in fact, you think that the 2012 elections were not a mandate for Democrats.)

2012 was a status quo election- no mandate for anyone - many political commentators thought this as well at the time. A incumbent President doesn't have a mandate unless he wins on a much larger scale - Reagan was the last to do so. It is up to the challenger to convince voters to change the status quo - we typically don't unless a good argument is presented against the incumbent (house, senate, even Presidential elections reflect this over the years) Repubs ran a weak campaign - too weak to convince people to vote differently. When Romney argued against ObamaCare, it didn't ring true because of his Mass. experience. 2010 - change of the House was a mandate. Since then the repub have had a not true believer leading them as House Speaker - JB is a weak leader - in spite of his howls at this point - I predict he will cave. He does not articulate or communicate in a way that conveys confidence (IMO) Yes, if the repub took the Senate and the WH in 2012, it would have been a mandate as the voters would have sent a clear message for change. I think 2012 was a lull between the voter's initial reaction to OCare (2010) and what their reaction will be when it is implemented (2014) 2006 was a mandate against Bush's Iraq war, 2008 was a mandate against Bush period (and another weak repub candidate - but I don't think anyone would have beat back the media hype for Obama and the distaste for everything Bush), 2010 - ObamaCare fresh in the minds of voters was a mandate against Obamacare and the way it was pass - and other high spending policies, 2012 status quo, 2014 will be a mandate either way. If ObamaCare is implemented and the people like it - then it will be a mandate for it, If the voters rise up and elect repubs to overturn it - then the opposite is true.

So Republican win in 2012 = mandate. Democratic win in 2012 = no mandate.

 

Gotcha.

 

 

 

 

Also, I agree with you that John Boehner is a weak leader but I also think that there simply isn't anyone in politics who could corral the right wing extremists. Their immunity to reality is breathtaking.

In the basic meaning of the word 'mandate' - every election produces such. Typically, however, when we think of mandate (when that word is thrown around by political pundants) , we think of a convincing victory to change course or to plow through the opposition with the current course. Did GWB have a mandate in 2004- maybe to continue course but not the kind of mandate that forced the opposition party to go along wt his policies. 1994 was a mandate election - it forced Clinton to move to the right as repubs took control of house and senate. 1996 was a status quo - the voters liked having one party in the WH and one in Congress - in this case Clinton had the basic mandate to continue what he was doing, and Congress was to continue in the same way. I think 2012 was similar - Repubs held the house, they lost a couple of seats in the senate - primary due to 'foot in mouth' disease. Obama held the WH - I think there was a 'mandate' for check and balances - both parties having power. Reagan had a real mandate in 1980 & 84 - the voters sent a very clear message of their expectations.

So . . . yes? If the Republicans had won in 2012 they would have had a mandate? They didn't win . . . but the Democrats don't have a mandate?

 

Obama in 2012 won by a larger margin of victory than W in 2004 . . . but you say that W had a mandate to continue course (Perhaps, something like continuing the enactment of already passed legislation?) and Obama only has a mandate for "checks and balances." How do you reconcile those two?

 

In 2012, Republicans managed to retain a majority in the House despite receiving fewer votes than Democrats.

 

Democrats won the Senate. Democrats won the White House. Democrats received more votes in the House than Republicans . . . but the closest you can come to admitting that Democrats have a mandate is saying that the people chose "checks and balances."

 

Fair and balanced.

[carlfense]

They should pick their fights - fighting everything will cost them more in the end - perhaps in 2014.

I think that they'll still pick up seats in 2014. Where it will cost them (again) is 2016.

[TGHusker]

(Carl,I was trying to quote your above quote on repubs having a mandate if they had won in 2012 but the dems didn't - some how the quote function was hanging up.)

 

Carl, you missed what I said - Obama had a mandate no diff than GWB to continue the course. You are getting too tied up in words and are missing the big picture of what I am saying - Every winner, including Obama has a mandate to continue what they are doing (policies enacted and proposed - covers ACA) - a closer election means both he and Bush should consult more wt the all parties. A mandate like Reagan's means the voters didn't care what the opposition had to say. It is a matter of degree not a mater of yes vs no. If Obama had a mandate like Reagan's, then the repubs best get out of the way and let him rule. Neither GWB and BC or Clinton or GHB had that kind of mandate. Bottom line, until the Repubs can unseat the dems, the dems will have the mandate. I'd say there was more of mandate (in degree) after 2008 when the dems had super majorities.

At the risk of changing topics:

This brings up another question altogether:

What is the role of the 'loyal opposition' (dem or repub)? To be quiet, to oppose, to support?

What should the opposition do if the majority passed legislation that was morally wrong/unethical (this is a general question not aimed at a party or a current policy)?

Current:

Are the current actions of the repub house, acceptable actions of the loyal opposition party?

[TGHusker]

They should pick their fights - fighting everything will cost them more in the end - perhaps in 2014.

I think that they'll still pick up seats in 2014. Where it will cost them (again) is 2016.

2016 is setting up to be a blood bath in the repub primaries. There is a civil war wtin the party. The dems will unite under Hillary and the repubs end up bruised.

[carlfense]

2016 is setting up to be a blood bath in the repub primaries. There is a civil war wtin the party. The dems will unite under Hillary and the repubs end up bruised.

There is probably some truth to that. I'm not sure about the dems uniting under Hillary but the DNC appears more united than the GOP at the moment.

 

I think the real problem is that the GOP will have to at least appear to moderate to compete nationally. The demographics in nationwide elections aren't on their side but I can't see the Tea Partiers accepting any moderation.

 

Fortunately for Republicans, the redrawn electoral map for Congress is much more favorable.

[carlfense]

This brings up another question altogether:

What is the role of the 'loyal opposition' (dem or repub)? To be quiet, to oppose, to support?

To negotiate in good faith. To accept shared government. To not demand unilateral concessions. And finally, to act for the good of the country and not for the good of the party.

 

What should the opposition do if the majority passed legislation that was morally wrong/unethical (this is a general question not aimed at a party or a current policy)?

Adopt an ethically correct policy. Campaign on it. Convince the people and win enough elections to enact your new ethical legislation.

 

If the legislation is somehow illegal/unconstitutional it should be contested and defeated in the courts.

 

Current:

Are the current actions of the repub house, acceptable actions of the loyal opposition party?

If we're talking about the threats of shutting down the government to get rid of legislation that they couldn't defeat at the ballot box or in the courts . . . no. It is not acceptable for a party to attempt to rule solely from the House of Representatives.

 

If we're talking about the same goal as above but with the threat of failing to lift the debt ceiling . . . it's not even close. That is so far out of line (and not to mention profoundly dangerous to our economy) that it shouldn't even be a question.

[JJ Husker]

This brings up another question altogether:

What is the role of the 'loyal opposition' (dem or repub)? To be quiet, to oppose, to support?

To negotiate in good faith. To accept shared government. To not demand unilateral concessions. And finally, to act for the good of the country and not for the good of the party.

 

You give this answer as if either party is doing this. Do you actually see any difference between the R's and D's when it comes to good faith, shared government, and the good of the country?

 

Sorry, this will be one of those unavoidable gotcha questions. If you do see a difference between the two, you aren't paying attention or are not being honest, and if you don't see a difference, why do you singularly dwell on the problems of only one of the parties?

 

IMO, there is no difference between being for something or against something. The dems have their constituents and the repubs have theirs. Just because they don't agree on something does not make either one universally right or wrong. But, it may make our form of government dysfunctional and apparently unsustainable.

[carlfense]

This brings up another question altogether:

What is the role of the 'loyal opposition' (dem or repub)? To be quiet, to oppose, to support?

To negotiate in good faith. To accept shared government. To not demand unilateral concessions. And finally, to act for the good of the country and not for the good of the party.

 

You give this answer as if either party is doing this. Do you actually see any difference between the R's and D's when it comes to good faith, shared government, and the good of the country?

Yes. Right now, absolutely.

 

Sorry, this will be one of those unavoidable gotcha questions. If you do see a difference between the two, you aren't paying attention or are not being honest, and if you don't see a difference, why do you singularly dwell on the problems of only one of the parties?

Has the Democratic Party threatened the full faith and credit of the United States to achieve partisan goals? If so, when? How?

 

If that has happened, I must have missed it. If it hasn't, I suspect that I'm not the one who isn't paying attention and being dishonest.

 

IMO, there is no difference between being for something or against something. The dems have their constituents and the repubs have theirs. Just because they don't agree on something does not make either one universally right or wrong.

I agree with this.

[TGHusker]

This brings up another question altogether:

What is the role of the 'loyal opposition' (dem or repub)? To be quiet, to oppose, to support?

To negotiate in good faith. To accept shared government. To not demand unilateral concessions. And finally, to act for the good of the country and not for the good of the party.

 

What should the opposition do if the majority passed legislation that was morally wrong/unethical (this is a general question not aimed at a party or a current policy)?

Adopt an ethically correct policy. Campaign on it. Convince the people and win enough elections to enact your new ethical legislation.

 

If the legislation is somehow illegal/unconstitutional it should be contested and defeated in the courts.

 

Current:

Are the current actions of the repub house, acceptable actions of the loyal opposition party?

If we're talking about the threats of shutting down the government to get rid of legislation that they couldn't defeat at the ballot box or in the courts . . . no. It is not acceptable for a party to attempt to rule solely from the House of Representatives.

 

If we're talking about the same goal as above but with the threat of failing to lift the debt ceiling . . . it's not even close. That is so far out of line (and not to mention profoundly dangerous to our economy) that it shouldn't even be a question.

+1

[walksalone]

Neither side cares, just like neither side cares about what any of us think about the whole situation...

[carlfense]

The present shutdown threat is nothing like those cases. For the first time, a single party, controlling a single house of Congress—despite having lost the popular vote for that chamber by more than a million ballots in the most recent election—is refusing to fund the government unless the other chamber and the president agree to suspend previously enacted legislation.

 

That’s some chutzpah. No wonder the president and the Senate have refused to capitulate. And for this, in a final stroke of chutzpah, the GOP accuses them of intransigence.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/09/obamacare_shutdown_compromise_how_republicans_invented_a_fake_middle_ground.html

[BigRedBuster]

I don't want a shut down and I think both sides for not coming to an agreement of some kind to prevent it are pathetic.

 

However, this isn't panic mode/horrible/the world is falling apart crisis.

 

Heck, Tip Oneil presided over 12 shut downs when he was speaker and 7 of them happened during the Reagan era.

 

The whole issue leaves me banging my head against the wall and I am sick and tired of the media types that are acting like the entire world is going to come to an end if this happens.

[carlfense]

I don't want a shut down and I think both sides for not coming to an agreement of some kind to prevent it are pathetic.

How are both sides to blame?

 

Edit: I know that there is a sort of reflexive "a pox on both houses" tendency . . . but I can't see how anyone can follow this narrative and end up blaming both sides. I'm genuinely interested in how you think the GOP and the DNC share the blame in this story.