Dems Rebuild

[zoogs]

I don't think being partisan is a bad thing, if being partisan means having opinions and leanings about issues.

 

Regarding talking points, for example, certainly there are Democratic talking points laid out to make their case for the law and also to continue making that case in the face of referendums against it. On the other side, it's the argument that this was all such tyrannical overreach, so thoroughly disastrous, that the obstruction was a natural response.

 

If the Republican talking points on this issue are to be taken as valid, then I think so too does it follow that their response was completely justified.

 

My thesis here is that they went nuclear over this for petty reasons, mostly for their political gain and also because they are true and uncompromising warriors on behalf of the industries they represent. I suppose that judgment is my partisanship. The GOP, while hawking an everyman populist appeal, serves mainly the interests of the wealthy and the financial sector. These are not evil or stupid constituencies, but their needs and those of the country at large diverge.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not going to defend the Republicans and yes...a major part of the bill came from their proposal from the 90s. They also didn't help make it better.

 

However, somehow many Dems thought this was a great bill. I honestly think most of them had no clue what they were doing when they put it together and really had no clue about the issues.

It's like all they had on their minds were..."We are going to get health care for everyone who doesn't have it and....oh...don't worry about it....we can make companies do what we want and if they don't like it so what."

 

Well...you know what??? Sometimes it's good to listen to business owners complaints because they just might know what they are talking about.

[BigRedBuster]

I don't think being partisan is a bad thing, if being partisan means having opinions and leanings about issues.

 

Regarding talking points, for example, certainly there are Democratic talking points laid out to make their case for the law and also to continue making that case in the face of referendums against it. On the other side, it's the argument that this was all such tyrannical overreach, so thoroughly disastrous, that the obstruction was a natural response.

 

If the Republican talking points on this issue are to be taken as valid, then I think so too does it follow that their response was completely justified.

 

My thesis here is that they went nuclear over this for petty reasons, mostly for their political gain and also because they are true and uncompromising warriors on behalf of the industries they represent. I suppose that judgment is my partisanship. The GOP, while hawking an everyman populist appeal, serves mainly the interests of the wealthy and the financial sector. These are not evil or stupid constituencies, but their needs and those of the country at large diverge.

As someone stuck in the middle without a party...I must say, your post is extremely one sided.

 

So, your thought on this is that the Democrats come to the table with well thought out arguments with all the information in the world and good intentions. The Republicans come to the table with nothing but a bunch of whack job rants that is nothing but filled with propaganda.

 

Well....I can list off times when those descriptions are completely reversed. When someone doesn't see that, it's the start of a problem of understanding the other side.

[knapplc]

To be certain, both parties have problems and both have glaring flaws.

 

The Republicans' glaring problems & flaws are far, far worse than Democrats'. We need to fix both. We need to fix the Republicans more. It's the difference between a stabbing & a gunshot wound. Stitch up the one, perform major surgery on the other.

[zoogs]

I do happen to think universal healthcare was an immensely important and highly belated step for the United States to be taking.

 

So on that issue, yeah, I applaud Obama specifically for sticking with it and for what he did manage to achieve in passing the ACA. And I do think the Republicans invented a great deal of propaganda to justify shutting down Congress over this for six years. This one is a one-sided issue, IMO.

 

If the Democrats weren't the party pushing for healthcare, an expanded safety net, and an already tardy environmental response, and if the Republicans weren't resisting all this in the name of things like privatizing Medicare and sweeping deregulation (dismantling Dodd Frank seems like a rather dangerous response to the financial crisis we just emerged from), I'd probably feel differently about intentions.

 

This isn't to say either party is all perfect, or all bad (I can list some criticisms if you like), although I do think I'm covering the recent domestic agendas of each party in broad strokes. I appreciate appeals to balance, but not to the extent that our ability to distinguish between the two coalitions of power in this country is minimized.

 

(edit) knapp put it so much more succinctly

[Moiraine]

To be certain, both parties have problems and both have glaring flaws.

 

The Republicans' glaring problems & flaws are far, far worse than Democrats'. We need to fix both. We need to fix the Republicans more. It's the difference between a stabbing & a gunshot wound. Stitch up the one, perform major surgery on the other.

 

Indeed.

[TGHusker]

I do happen to think universal healthcare was an immensely important and highly belated step for the United States to be taking.

 

So on that issue, yeah, I applaud Obama specifically for sticking with it and for what he did manage to achieve in passing the ACA. And I do think the Republicans invented a great deal of propaganda to justify shutting down Congress over this for six years. This one is a one-sided issue, IMO.

 

If the Democrats weren't the party pushing for healthcare, an expanded safety net, and an already tardy environmental response, and if the Republicans weren't resisting all this in the name of things like privatizing Medicare and sweeping deregulation (dismantling Dodd Frank seems like a rather dangerous response to the financial crisis we just emerged from), I'd probably feel differently about intentions.

 

This isn't to say either party is all perfect, or all bad (I can list some criticisms if you like), although I do think I'm covering the recent domestic agendas of each party in broad strokes. I appreciate appeals to balance, but not to the extent that our ability to distinguish between the two coalitions of power in this country is minimized.

 

(edit) knapp put it so much more succinctly

I agree wt the bold and I'll give Obama a (notice - it is the correct finger - in this case a thumb) for taking action. The proof is in the pudding in regards to how good of a bill it is/was. Yes it has brought millions into the # of insured, yet the costs and the 'keep your doctor' promises have not worked out so well. One could rightfully argue than if the Repubs had gotten over their 'sour grapes' of the 2008 election, they might have been able to work wt the Dems to make it a better program. The exchange situation wtin the states has also driven up the costs. Perhaps something this big should have had a broader participation - a cross-section of governors, congress and the President. Since Pelosi's famous line, "Don't know what's in it until we pass it" - a broader group of participants may have saved it from its short comings and perhaps purchased more buy in. Notwithstanding, the repubs in congress and their corresponding repub governors earmarked this as a campaign issue from then to 2016.

If Trump is smart (debatable) he'd reach out to the dems and get local input before he and congressional repubs "redesign" the ACA.

[TGHusker]

To be certain, both parties have problems and both have glaring flaws.

 

The Republicans' glaring problems & flaws are far, far worse than Democrats'. We need to fix both. We need to fix the Republicans more. It's the difference between a stabbing & a gunshot wound. Stitch up the one, perform major surgery on the other.

Maybe you can start a thread on this - what needs to be fixed in both parties.

[knapplc]

 

I do happen to think universal healthcare was an immensely important and highly belated step for the United States to be taking.

So on that issue, yeah, I applaud Obama specifically for sticking with it and for what he did manage to achieve in passing the ACA. And I do think the Republicans invented a great deal of propaganda to justify shutting down Congress over this for six years. This one is a one-sided issue, IMO.

If the Democrats weren't the party pushing for healthcare, an expanded safety net, and an already tardy environmental response, and if the Republicans weren't resisting all this in the name of things like privatizing Medicare and sweeping deregulation (dismantling Dodd Frank seems like a rather dangerous response to the financial crisis we just emerged from), I'd probably feel differently about intentions.

This isn't to say either party is all perfect, or all bad (I can list some criticisms if you like), although I do think I'm covering the recent domestic agendas of each party in broad strokes. I appreciate appeals to balance, but not to the extent that our ability to distinguish between the two coalitions of power in this country is minimized.

(edit) knapp put it so much more succinctly

 

I agree wt the bold and I'll give Obama a (notice - it is the correct finger - in this case a thumb) for taking action. The proof is in the pudding in regards to how good of a bill it is/was. Yes it has brought millions into the # of insured, yet the costs and the 'keep your doctor' promises have not worked out so well. One could rightfully argue than if the Repubs had gotten over their 'sour grapes' of the 2008 election, they might have been able to work wt the Dems to make it a better program. The exchange situation wtin the states has also driven up the costs. Perhaps something this big should have had a broader participation - a cross-section of governors, congress and the President. Since Pelosi's famous line, "Don't know what's in it until we pass it" - a broader group of participants may have saved it from its short comings and perhaps purchased more buy in. Notwithstanding, the repubs in congress and their corresponding repub governors earmarked this as a campaign issue from then to 2016.

If Trump is smart (debatable) he'd reach out to the dems and get local input before he and congressional repubs "redesign" the ACA.

That Pelosi line was stupid, and an example of awful governance. It's not asking too much to get the bill read before you sign it. After all, it's your job.

 

It reminds me of the same failure - bipartisan this time, rather than just a Democrat line - of how the Patriot Act was passed. Nobody read it but everyone voted for it. And we're still dealing with that dang thing to this day.

[HuskerNation1]

The Dems are weaker now than at any point in decades, with the GOP controlling the entire federal government and 2/3s of state governments. They have become the party of bi-coastal elites, and today made a decision to re-elect Nancy Pelosi as their leader, the queen of bi-coastal elitism. It doesn't make sense to me, but maybe that's why I'm not a Democrat...lol.

[zoogs]

I'm unfamiliar with this Pelosi quote. Here's what I came up with in googling it. Here's the quote:

 

“You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,” she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”

And the explanation:

 

During a lunch in the Capitol with opinion writers today, House Minority Leader Pelosi was asked about those infamous words. “It’s because we didn’t have a Senate bill,” Pelosi said forcefully before Eleanor Clift of Newsweek even finished asking her a question about the statement’s context. “We were urging the Senate to pass a bill.”

Without making any other comment on Pelosi, nowhere is it even implied that they didn't read the bill, or didn't know what might be in it. This appears to be a politician inartfully trying to tell people how great something was going to be once the Senate passed a version for everyone to read. The paraphrase supplied seems like a distortion to me.

 

This is also not a rebuttal or commentary on whether Congresspeople read the bills on which they vote. A scary proposition, to be sure!

[Lil' Red]

The Dems are weaker now than at any point in decades, with the GOP controlling the entire federal government and 2/3s of state governments. They have become the party of bi-coastal elites, and today made a decision to re-elect Nancy Pelosi as their leader, the queen of bi-coastal elitism. It doesn't make sense to me, but maybe that's why I'm not a Democrat...lol.

 

I never understood the "coastal elite" criticism. Is Trump not a coastal elite? And why are midwestern/southern elites better than coastal elites?

[HuskerNation1]

 

The Dems are weaker now than at any point in decades, with the GOP controlling the entire federal government and 2/3s of state governments. They have become the party of bi-coastal elites, and today made a decision to re-elect Nancy Pelosi as their leader, the queen of bi-coastal elitism. It doesn't make sense to me, but maybe that's why I'm not a Democrat...lol.

 

I never understood the "coastal elite" criticism. Is Trump not a coastal elite? And why are midwestern/southern elites better than coastal elites?

 

 

Look at the map...the Democratic party wins most of its states on both coasts, and the party used to be focused on blue-collar hard working Americans and has turned into the party of telling everybody what to think, and then making fun of those that don't agree with them. This is not to say that elites do not exist in both parties and among Independent voters, but the thinking in the Democratic party over the last several years is that they know what's best, and that government should tell Americans what to do and how to live. The Democrats just lost the Presidency because white working class voters left them in droves, they had a reasonably-minded challenger for House Minority leader who would help earn back some of that working class appeal, and what do they do...renominate Nancy Pelosi who is the ultimate elitist.

[TGHusker]

I'm unfamiliar with this Pelosi quote. Here's what I came up with in googling it. Here's the quote:

 

“You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,” she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”

And the explanation:

 

During a lunch in the Capitol with opinion writers today, House Minority Leader Pelosi was asked about those infamous words. “It’s because we didn’t have a Senate bill,” Pelosi said forcefully before Eleanor Clift of Newsweek even finished asking her a question about the statement’s context. “We were urging the Senate to pass a bill.”

Without making any other comment on Pelosi, nowhere is it even implied that they didn't read the bill, or didn't know what might be in it. This appears to be a politician inartfully trying to tell people how great something was going to be once the Senate passed a version for everyone to read. The paraphrase supplied seems like a distortion to me.

 

This is also not a rebuttal or commentary on whether Congresspeople read the bills on which they vote. A scary proposition, to be sure!

 

Thanks Zoogs. Regarding the bold, I've heard my congressman complain about the reality that many don't read the bills. They may read some staffer's summary. The repubs were suppose to have more transparency by posting bills at least 48 hours before a vote - I understand they did not keep that 2010 or 2012 promise.

I'm sure some bills are much to big to read in their entirety and a high level summary is needed. But holding votes on bills wtout time to review is a tactic of leadership to reduce opposition. It fails at accountability however.

[knapplc]

Look at the map...the Democratic party wins most of its states on both coasts,

 

 

Clinton won tens of millions of votes in the central states, too. She just didn't win a majority in those states. Trump won tens of millions of votes in the states on the coasts. You're drawing lines based on 2%-6% of the voters in these states. It's not as black-and-white (or blue-and-red) as you apparently think.

 

and the party used to be focused on blue-collar hard working Americans and has turned into the party of telling everybody what to think

 

 

Telling everybody what to think isn't reserved to one party. Republicans want you to think abortion is always wrong and that minorities aren't being victimized.

 

and then making fun of those that don't agree with them.

 

 

You are, perhaps, the worst member on this board to make this accusation. This entire paragraph is one long diatribe making fun of people whose political ideology you disagree with.

 

This is not to say that elites do not exist in both parties and among Independent voters, but the thinking in the Democratic party over the last several years is that they know what's best, and that government should tell Americans what to do and how to live.

 

 

This is a caricature of the Democrat Party, the kind you'd get from a guy at a booth at the county fair.

 

The Democrats just lost the Presidency because white working class voters left them in droves,

 

 

The Democrats lost because people dislike Hillary. The Democrat base didn't turn out to vote for her like they did for Obama. "White working-class voters" have almost nothing to do with why Clinton lost.

 

they had a reasonably-minded challenger for House Minority leader who would help earn back some of that working class appeal, and what do they do...renominate Nancy Pelosi who is the ultimate elitist.

 

 

This I agree with.