There is one thing in Washington worse than the lack of compromise - one party being in control of Congress and the Presidency.

 

So 2009 was the 'best of times'?

Who solely blamed McConnell?

 

The infamous quote he made has been referenced throughout this thread, specifically by yourself, rockmom & Trinity Alum. Aside from RM mentioning Rand Paul, I didn't see any other names listed.

 

I certainly don't condone what McConnell said, nor do I believe his words to be anything remotely resembling leadership. At the same time, I wholeheartedly believe other Congressional leaders over the last decade or so share similar desires & display just as little leadership.

The infamous quote he made has been referenced throughout this thread, specifically by yourself, rockmom & Trinity Alum. Aside from RM mentioning Rand Paul, I didn't see any other names listed.

 

I certainly don't condone what McConnell said, nor do I believe his words to be anything remotely resembling leadership. At the same time, I wholeheartedly believe other Congressional leaders over the last decade or so share similar desires & display just as little leadership.

Still, McConnell made it very clear that it was his first priority, and it's that attitude that works against anything resembling the ideas of collaboration, cooperation and partnership.

 

Give him an 'A' for honesty but an 'F' for putting party above country.

Still, McConnell made it very clear that it was his first priority, and it's that attitude that works against anything resembling the ideas of collaboration, cooperation and partnership.

 

Give him an 'A' for honesty but an 'F' for putting party above country.

 

I don't disagree with any of this. But I also think Mitch simply verbalized what many other prominent government leaders keep to themselves.

 

I don't disagree with any of this. But I also think Mitch simply verbalized what many other prominent government leaders keep to themselves.

 

McConnell is an "elder" in DC. He should lead by example, IMO. He may have just verbalized what others thought, but that was terribly inappropriate, IMO. And he's not the only obstructionist. You are right. There are the likes of Pelosi and Reid and many more. But McConnell's comments escalated the bull-headedness in both parties. And with such a comment, I literally get a choking feeling in my throat when he makes a comment decrying Presidential lack of compromise.

So 2009 was the 'best of times'?

 

No more so than 2001 to 2006. :thumb:

I think that might be to simplistic a response. Tip O'Neil was from a Reagan Man but he worked with him to try and create and America he dreamed of. The same was true of an LBJ or even Newt Gingrich. They did not work openly with the main aim of unseating the President. They worked to save America and create the best of their vision for America.

 

Don't get me wrong, I too think this is not just an R or D issue, but I'm not sure I've seen it as extreme as it has been in the last 10 or so years.

 

Even though Reagan and Tip didn't work as closely as you indicated, they did know how to compromise. Make no mistake though, Tip's goal was to make Reagan a one term president. It's the nature of politics. I really think it started getting out of control with the Republicans taking over in 1994 and has been getting worse with each congress since then.

If you goggle 'Congress compromise 2009' you won't find much. When you have the White House, a 60 vote super majority in the Senate and control of the House you can pass what you want. And they did.

 

Now if you are going to stuff bad legislation down everyone's throat you should not be surprised the stuffee throws up after your done.

 

There is a lot of blaming McConnell - the MINORITY leader of the Senate. A position that is supposed to be the loyal opposition. Where is Reid? Where is Boehner? The are the MAJORITY leaders of each of the houses. Where is a budge plan from Nancy Pelosi? There is none. So how do you compromise with vapor?

 

There are lot of office holders who need to go in November from both sides. It would not hurt to start with the top 4. As a group they are not getting it done.

 

I believe there is equal disdain for those you mention as well. I for one hold them all accountable for this impasse. If I didn't make that clear earlier, I hope this points it out . :thumb:

Even though Reagan and Tip didn't work as closely as you indicated, they did know how to compromise. Make no mistake though, Tip's goal was to make Reagan a one term president. It's the nature of politics. I really think it started getting out of control with the Republicans taking over in 1994 and has been getting worse with each congress since then.

 

 

I'm sorry if I presented the idea that Tip and Ronnie were having a beer and hanging out. :lol:

 

I remember it very well. Sure Tip's goal was to make Reagan a one term President, but he didn't say that nor did he do things to promote that there were detremental to the nation as a whole. I believe you are hitting at something when the Republican Revolution came to power in '94 it brought an arrogance to the forefront. (Could have just as easily been the Dems too had they received the same results from the electorate)

 

The problem is obviously extremism at the expense of the nation. (IMO) Tip was as liberal as any Democrat could be but he wasn't so extreme that he wouldn't work with Reagan. In the end, Reagan got his military build up and Tip got his social/domestic programs.

I don't think 1994 R's were arrogant as much as they were drunk with power and seeking revenge in addition to not knowing how to lead. Remember prior to that the democrats had held both chambers for something like 40 of the prior 45 years. Since then I do think that paybacks rather than leadership have ruled.

No more so than 2001 to 2006. :thumb:

 

Without checking I assume that is when in recent history the Repubs held the WH and both houses. But, as we now know, the Senate really needs a 60 vote super majority to get things done. The Demos did have that for one year in 2009. If they voted as a block in both houses there was literally nothing they could not pass. They did not need or care what the Repubs wanted in 2009 because it did not matter. They just had to satisfy the moderates and bluedogs of their own party. Hence the deals with them that have been exposed.

 

Interesting article on 'moderate Demos' here who flipped and didn't in 2009:

 

ObamaCare: Political Trouble for Moderate Democrats? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar crunched the numbers and found that “Democrats who opposed the bill are in surprisingly decent shape, given the lousy political environment.” Meanwhile, the coalition of moderate Democrats who played key, last-minute roles in ensuring that the law would pass are faring far worse:...

 

Emphasis added.

 

When you see the 'death of the moderate' articles that ran earlier this year you have to laugh at the premise. Moderate is not a 'flip-flopper', moderate is not one who 'goes with the flow'. A good moderate is one who adopted their own beliefs and own principles independent of party and lobbyists. Then they stand on those principles in the tough times and the tough votes. The compromising, moderate flippers of 2009 paid or will pay the price. They are respected by neither the radical wing of the Demo party or the conservative base they represent.

No more so than 2001 to 2006. :thumb:

 

Without checking I assume that is when in recent history the Repubs held the WH and both houses. But, as we now know, the Senate really needs a 60 vote super majority to get things done. The Demos did have that for one year in 2009. If they voted as a block in both houses there was literally nothing they could not pass. They did not need or care what the Repubs wanted in 2009 because it did not matter. They just had to satisfy the moderates and bluedogs of their own party. Hence the deals with them that have been exposed.

 

Interesting article on 'moderate Demos' here who flipped and didn't in 2009:

 

ObamaCare: Political Trouble for Moderate Democrats? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar crunched the numbers and found that “Democrats who opposed the bill are in surprisingly decent shape, given the lousy political environment.” Meanwhile, the coalition of moderate Democrats who played key, last-minute roles in ensuring that the law would pass are faring far worse:...

 

Emphasis added.

 

When you see the 'death of the moderate' articles that ran earlier this year you have to laugh at the premise. Moderate is not a 'flip-flopper', moderate is not one who 'goes with the flow'. A good moderate is one who adopted their own beliefs and own principles independent of party and lobbyists. Then they stand on those principles in the tough times and the tough votes. The compromising, moderate flippers of 2009 paid or will pay the price. They are respected by neither the radical wing of the Demo party or the conservative base they represent.

I believe there is equal disdain for those you mention as well. I for one hold them all accountable for this impasse. If I didn't make that clear earlier, I hope this points it out . :thumb:

 

I think the 'old guard' has so much history that either the game is no fun to them anymore or they just hate each so much after all the battles that they will not even engage. Anyone with more than 20 years in the office really needs to go packing.

The Republican's threw down the gauntlet when Mitch McConnell declared it was his mission (sic) to ensure President Obama was a one-term President. There couldn't have been any clearer indication of how the next four years were going to go than that. That's our leadership, folks...right there. The President (despite his party affiliation) will only get as far as Congress will allow. When Mitch made his feelings public, he ensured that the "other side" were going to dig in their heels. Add in the mix of Rand Paul and his ilk, and we've got no chance of compromise in Congress. The most moderate and willing to compromise HAVE to choose a side because there's no hope of anything getting done at all, whether we like what gets done or not, without a majority vote eventually.

 

McConnell made the comment about wanting to make sure President Obama is a one term president in October of 2010; roughly a year and three-quarters into President Obama's term and only made it after President Obama had rammed legislation down the throats of McConnell and the Rs in Congress. McConnell did NOT say it at the commencement of President Obama's term. Hell, I'd have said and felt the exact same way as McConnell and I'd offer zero apologies for it had I been in McConnell's shoes. It can be effectively argued that McConnell gave President Obama a chance to live up to his campaign promises of unification and bi-partisanship. When President Obama failed to do so, McConnell decided to fully play the obstructionist rule and work to make President Obama a one termer.

McConnell made the comment about wanting to make sure President Obama is a one term president in October of 2010; roughly a year and three-quarters into President Obama's term and only made it after President Obama had rammed legislation down the throats of McConnell and the Rs in Congress. McConnell did NOT say it at the commencement of President Obama's term. Hell, I'd have said and felt the exact same way as McConnell and I'd offer zero apologies for it had I been in McConnell's shoes. It can be effectively argued that McConnell gave President Obama a chance to live up to his campaign promises of unification and bi-partisanship. When President Obama failed to do so, McConnell decided to fully play the obstructionist rule and work to make President Obama a one termer.

 

What legislation are you talking about? I am curious because I remember Obama and the dems being far less agressive than they should have been IMO. The only bills that I can recall of consequence from the 111th congress were the stimulus package, which was compromised way down from what Obama originally wanted and the Health Care Reform which I've already referrenced in previous post was compromised down so much that it ended up being a republican proposed reform with no public option. Surely Cash for Clunkers didn't get Mr. McConnell in such a tizzy?