It's not a one-way street of hypocrisy.

 

If you mean party-line votes in general I agree. The number of party-line votes seems to be increasing.

 

Nothing this big was ever so divisive and lacking bi-partisan support. Now 'moderates' whose constituents may have looked to lay on the tracks of these 2 rail roaded laws are paying the price.

I've always held the view that politics has been a timelessly dirty game. Hamilton and Jefferson despised one another and employed every dirty trick in the book to undermine the other one. So, I thing our country has a long standing tradition of that. But, I have to think the rise of the internet and technology allows us to hear only what we want to hear and incentivizes our "leaders" to make obstructing their opponents just as much of a valid goal as implementing their own ideas. We all loathe Congress, but I think they are a symptom of our political discourse these days

 

Agreed. But the person occupying the WH has an opportunity to either inflame or temper the emotional divisiveness. I'd like to think that of the conservatives on here, I've been one of the conservatives that has been the fairest in their evaluation of President Obama. Former President Bush did his part in inflaming the Democrats (and the hard line extremist conservatives too). When President Obama campaigned with a platform of unity and bi-partisanship I was hopeful after he got elected that he'd follow through on his campaign rhetoric. All in all, in my opinion, he has not. Actually his actions and agenda during his first two years of office play a large role in the huge gains made by the Tea Party supporters in the 2010 elections.

 

Even if I fully supported the healthcare reform act, there is a time and a place for everything and in my opinion, it was the wrong time to force it through. Rs are freaking out about the national debt (increased dramatically by Bush) and extremely costly reform is crammed down.

 

Heck, I'm a rare conservative that thinks the federal govt should increase it's spending during economic downturns. But even so, I think it was a bad move politically to cram his stimulus plan down the throats of the Republicans very shortly after he had been sworn into office. It, again, was the wrong time to push a bill that lacked any Rsupport in the House and only got 3 R votes in the Senate (one of which was Arlen Specter who later switched his affiliation to D). When I said it was a bad move politically, I meant from the perspective of trying unite both parties.

 

President Obama's frequent comments during his initial 2 years about blaming everything on Bush didn't help improve relations with the Rs. Even if he was right 100% in his comments (and I don't think he was), no R wanted to have his/her nose "rubbed in it". I attributed President Obama's almost childish references to Bush as nothing other than inexperience in a leadership position so it didn't bother me all that much, but many conservatives did not. Which of course did not help in his efforts to unify the two parties. Likewise, President Obama's constant blaming of the banks and Wall Street for the housing bust made matters worse with the conservatives. Did they deserve some of the blame? Sure. Were they the sole cause of the bust? Nope, not at all. But I don't remember President Obama taking ignorant home buyers to the woodshed, not do I remember President Obama taking Frank and other Democratic elected officials to the woodshed for strongly supporting policies that made it easier for people to borrow money to acquire homes they couldn't afford and pressuring banks to lend money to those people (if President Obama did take those folks to the woodshed, such lacked the vigor and frequency that he was attacking Wall Street, big business and the banks). It may have been popular to the lunch bucket crowd, but it infuriated a lot of conservatives because it was so unfair and inaccurate.

 

Every successful leader; every successful manager knows when and how to push change and agenda. Having the power to push the change only gets you so far. President Obama had the power to push his agenda through in his first two years. It resulted in the Ds losing the House in 2010. It resulted in the moderate Rs in Congress running towards the extreme part of the R Party or risk not getting re-elected. It resulted in a net loss of power for President Obama.

 

Members of Congress generally vote in the manner they think their constituents feel. They want to get re-elected. It is what they think of every time they have to cast a vote: will this help or hurt my chances of re-election. If a lot more members of Congress moved from being moderate to the more extreme position of their party, it was only because they felt that that was how their constituents felt. If moderate candidates got beat by more extreme candidates, it was only because the constituents felt and voted that way. What caused more and more constituents to feel that way; to feel so extreme in their political beliefs?

 

The internet, technology, 24-7 political talking head programming, etc. played a large role in that happening. But President Obama had to know that was going to occur. Heck, he had tapped those resources to get elected. Yet, he foolishly (in my opinion) played right into the hands of his critics using those resources when he used a heavy hand in his first two years. He exascerbated the problem of partisanship. He didn't unite; he divided.

 

Critics of my position will point to McConnell's statement that his goal was to make sure that President Obama was a one termer. They will forget that McConnell made such statement after President Obama had crammed down his stimulus plan and healthcare reform. McConnell, the king of knowing his constituents, made the comment after President Obama had inflamed a large majority of McConnell's constituents. Critics of my position will blame Rs of being obstructionists and making it impossible for President Obama to lead from the middle. I'm sure there is some measure of truth in that position. Unfortunately, President Obama lacked the leadership and management experience to handle that obstructionism; he came into the WH with an idealogical agenda full of big changes in a time that a large percentage of the country was not willing to accept. He surely listened to those political "sages" that advised him to strike while the iron was hot and advised him that he'd never have as much political capital as he had shortly after getting re-elected. I think those political sages gave him bad advise. He did nothing to reduce the obstructionism found every day in two party politics; rather he made it worse.

 

Do I know that Romney can do better? No I don't know it. But I do know we have a toxic situation in DC right now. I do know that it is extremely unrealistic to think that the constituents out there, all inflamed and emotional, are going to wake up and start voting for moderate candidates for Congress in the near term. So if there is going to be change for the better in the short term, it's going to come from the WH. Personally, I think President Obama is tainted goods and it's impossible for him to gain the image of being moderate and willing to lead from the middle. Frankly, even if it was possible, I don't think he has the leadership and management skills needed. I just don't. Maybe he does by now, after having served approx 4 years as the President, but I just don't see the development of those skills in his actions and speeches.

 

So if President Obama can't, the only quick turn around alternative is Romney. Detractors will find fault in his Governorship of Mass. There were failures. But he did manage to lead a strong Democratic state legislature and get some positive things accomplished. If a R Governor can work with a D legislature in Mass to get even one positive thing accomplished, to me that means hope he can do it in DC.

 

The best chance we have of getting moderates elected to Congress or bring back towards the middle some of the existing members of Congress is to have a President willing to listen and compromise; not use his power even if he has it to push an agenda surely to inflame; to use his past management and leadership experience to find concensus; and to take baby steps to rebuild the moderate base in Congress.

 

We can complain and bemoan the driving of moderates out of Congress all we want to and it, by and of itself, is not going to change things. A vast majority of voters are emotional creatures. I like to think I'm one of the most logical and unemotional posters on this site (and perhaps I'm wrong on that point) but if I can't come to the conclusion that President Obama can push a moderate agenda and unite Congress, is there really any hope that the emotional voters will start electing people to Congress with moderate beliefs?

Compromise can be over-rated. Especially when one party comes in with a radical leftist agenda then accuses the other party of being non-compromising because they won't compromise somewhere between far left and somewhat left. How is it any different and less appealing than when you are selling a house and someone comes in offering half of what you asked then wants to negotiate from there.

It works this way too:

Compromise can be over-rated. Especially when one party comes in with a radical right-wing agenda then accuses the other party of being non-compromising because they won't compromise somewhere between far right and somewhat right.

I lean toward the right, but radicalism is radicalism no matter what form it happens to take.

Compromise can be over-rated. Especially when one party comes in with a radical leftist agenda then accuses the other party of being non-compromising because they won't compromise somewhere between far left and somewhat left. How is it any different and less appealing than when you are selling a house and someone comes in offering half of what you asked then wants to negotiate from there.

 

I disagree wholeheartedly. If it weren't for the idiotic, intractable nutjobs on the extremes of both sides who won't shut the hell up, reasonable people could hammer out legislation that benefits everyone, instead of just one side. Those putting party above country seem hell-bent on destroying the country so that they can pad the pockets of themselves and their campaign donors.

I disagree wholeheartedly. If it weren't for the idiotic, intractable nutjobs on the extremes of both sides who won't shut the hell up, reasonable people could hammer out legislation that benefits everyone, instead of just one side. Those putting party above country seem hell-bent on destroying the country so that they can pad the pockets of themselves and their campaign donors.

 

In other words, the non-moderates.

Sorry to be such a cynic, but I don't think Henry Clay could unite Congress as it is currently constituted.

Compromise can be over-rated. Especially when one party comes in with a radical leftist agenda then accuses the other party of being non-compromising because they won't compromise somewhere between far left and somewhat left. How is it any different and less appealing than when you are selling a house and someone comes in offering half of what you asked then wants to negotiate from there.

 

Conversely, when one party comes in with a radical right wing agenda then accuses the other party of non-compromising because they won't compromise somewhere between far right and somewhat right, you have the same problem. While I'm not a fan of any social welfare, I'm practical enough to know that any effort I might make as the President or as a member of Congress to totally eliminate social welfare is a wasted effort unless my sole purpose was to use my position as negotiation leverage to at least get a significant reduction in social welfare spending. Even then, my chances of being successful are pretty slim. So there is no reason for me to push an agenda that is very unlikely to be successful. Even if I am successful in cramming down the elimination of all social welfare spending or even a significant amount of social welfare spending, I will have alienated a large number of Democrats in Congress, thus making my ability to continue to lead much more difficult. Thank baby steps folks; baby steps.

 

Look, as an attorney I understand negotiation tactics as well as anyone on this site. I spend the bulk of my working days negotiating on behalf of my clients. I realize fully however that if I take too extreme of a starting position, negotiations either breakdown completely at the outset or become extremely difficult. The key to understanding negotiations is to understand the leverage point before negotiations begin. In the current political climate, neither the Dems or the Reps have the leverage. This country is pretty much evenly split in political idealogy, with the moderate independents moving back and forth in a relatively narrow middle ground band. For either party to demand that its extreme position be the ending position (or even close to the ending position) is not being practical or realistic. It's just not.

 

In order for a President to be successful in this day and age, he's going to have to bring enough of the members of Congress in from the extremes. It can be done. It takes credibility, trust, leadership and management skills, but it can be done. There will always be those members of both parties staying in the extremes to serve as anchor points for the negotiations. But with the right mix of talent and skill in the WH, it can be done. Egos have to be stroked and massaged, cover given for party leaders "abandoning" the extreme positions of their respective parties, and charm, grace and civility must take the place of power and might at the negotiation table. Whomever is our next President, he must be willing to get involved at the onset of any negotiations between the Ds and Rs. He definitely cannot sit back and hope and wait for Congress to come to an agreement.

Sorry to be such a cynic, but I don't think Henry Clay could unite Congress as it is currently constituted.

 

You may be right, but I've seen people step into negotiations that had totally broken down and stopped be able to pull the two sides together to get the deal done. No one thought it could be done, but it was. Hence my reason for optimism if Romney is elected.

I disagree wholeheartedly. If it weren't for the idiotic, intractable nutjobs on the extremes of both sides who won't shut the hell up, reasonable people could hammer out legislation that benefits everyone, instead of just one side. Those putting party above country seem hell-bent on destroying the country so that they can pad the pockets of themselves and their campaign donors.

 

I don't think we are disagreeing. However, I think the tea party movement was a counter to the leftist gorillas like Nancy Pelosi who expect the compromises to be well left of central.

 

You may be right, but I've seen people step into negotiations that had totally broken down and stopped be able to pull the two sides together to get the deal done. No one thought it could be done, but it was. Hence my reason for optimism if Romney is elected.

 

Has he demonstrated that particular skill in the past? Serious question. I don't know enough about him.

"How do you compromise with party that has no plan?"

 

First 2 minutes are Rand Paul asking this basic question.

 

Rand Paul and Senate GOP:

 

To meet half way there has be the other half.

Ben Nelson - made a backroom deal for his state and sold his vote for Obamacare He also voted for the failed stimulus.

Jim Webb - also voted for Obamacare and the failed stimulus. He is now calling out Obama but his bed was made in 2009. See here.

Kent Conrad - made a backroom deal for his state of ND. The problem - Obama reneged on the deal. So he voted for Obamacare and got the shaft by Obama. He also voted for the failed stimulus.

Jeff Bingaman - voted for Obamacare and the stimulus.

 

 

So these 'moderates' voted like every other Democrat on the two most most divisive bills in recent history. They had a chance to stop these two train wrecks - and did not and voted the party line in both cases.

 

Moderates? Maybe sometimes, but everyone remembers to 'big 2'.

 

Locally Ben will be in a fight. But he did get his gerrymandered district to help him. He did not vote for Obamacare but voted for the coal bill. Pelosi counted noses and gave Mr. Ben a pass on Obamacare. He was lucky on that.

 

First I need to dispute the definition of terms. The stimulus was a huge success. I improved the growth rate for the economy by over two percent. If it had been larger, with more of it spent on infrastructure rather than tax cuts it would have been even better. Second, the ACA was the compromise. The far left position was single payer (Medicare for all). The moderate left position was private insurance with a public option. The moderate right position was private insurance with an individual mandate. The Republican position was you're on your own baby. Mitch McConnell could have negotiated improvements in the bill if he had said I'll bring 10 Republican votes if you make these x changes. Instead he opted for no. That left every democratic senator with a veto over the final bill. That is a tough place to operate from. I think that the bill he got was the best it could be under the circumstances.

The stimulus was a huge success. I improved the growth rate for the economy by over two percent.

 

As best, arguable. And that is a stretch. Like the unemployment weekly numbers the GDP (assuming that is what the 2 percent is) has been over reported. Its easy to see - in social security receipts and income tax revenue. Given that this went down on party lines in the senate the Republicans did not have any leverage.

 

My favorite 'stimulus' story is this. While standing at the Jefferson memorial a tour guide for an 8th grade trip pointed to the big Recovery Act sign in front of the wall they were building to shore up memorial around the Tidal Basin and she proudly said 'this project is getting done with stimulus funds'. My reply was 'Were we going let TJ slide into the river if there was no stimulus?'. That ended further political comments for either of us.

 

The key measure of stimulus was the unemployment rate - it was supposed to stay below 8 %. Even with the Enron type games with numbers they can not get back below 8%. Thank goodness the 99ers are now 'no longer looking for work'.

 

 

 

 

Second, the ACA was the compromise. The far left position was single payer (Medicare for all). The moderate left position was private insurance with a public option. The moderate right position was private insurance with an individual mandate. The Republican position was you're on your own baby. Mitch McConnell could have negotiated improvements in the bill if he had said I'll bring 10 Republican votes if you make these x changes. Instead he opted for no. That left every democratic senator with a veto over the final bill. That is a tough place to operate from. I think that the bill he got was the best it could be under the circumstances.

 

ACA as passed was/is a Trojan horse for the single payer system. Most know that. Now I will throw you a bone on this one. Companies want a single payer and badly. Why? They are tired of dealing with 50 states different laws and cost that goes with it. They want to dump company provided health care as soon as they can. It is broken but this was not the fix. And its costs are far, far higher than 'as sold'.

 

But the worst part of ACA was how it was passed. It showed arrogance that has never before been seen. Middle of night votes, weekend votes (I remember a key vote during the Ohio St. / Michigan football game.) It was literally passed in the dead of the night while no one was paying attention.

 

So the moderates are paying the price for the arrogance of the 'far left'.