Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

By giving a little, taking a little, letting your little heart break a little...

It's nto so much comprimising on a given specific issue, but prioritizing where you pick your fights - fine, do the stimulus, but give up on health care. We can't afford both. We'll agree to tax cuts, but we also have to cut defense spending to compensate.

At least it would be a step in the right direction.

That's why the GOP got tossed out in the first place. If they really believe that the stimulus and the heatlh care bill were both bad, why would you let one of them go through? That is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

By giving a little, taking a little, letting your little heart break a little...

It's nto so much comprimising on a given specific issue, but prioritizing where you pick your fights - fine, do the stimulus, but give up on health care. We can't afford both. We'll agree to tax cuts, but we also have to cut defense spending to compensate.

At least it would be a step in the right direction.

That's why the GOP got tossed out in the first place. If they really believe that the stimulus and the heatlh care bill were both bad, why would you let one of them go through? That is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

By giving a little, taking a little, letting your little heart break a little...

It's nto so much comprimising on a given specific issue, but prioritizing where you pick your fights - fine, do the stimulus, but give up on health care. We can't afford both. We'll agree to tax cuts, but we also have to cut defense spending to compensate.

At least it would be a step in the right direction.

That's why the GOP got tossed out in the first place. If they really believe that the stimulus and the health care bill were both bad, why would you let one of them go through? That is absolutely ridiculous, and not a step in the right direction at all.

I totally agree on tax cuts going with defense cuts, but I don't get the sense that's what Issa is talking about.

 

[unofan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

That's why the GOP got tossed out in the first place. If they really believe that the stimulus and the heatlh care bill were both bad, why would you let one of them go through? That is absolutely ridiculous.

Because by letting one through, you then get something you want in exchange?

Because it's called governing? At some point in the course of running a country, you have to actually stop campaigning and actually run the ***** country?

Your wife must really love dealing with you, if you never give in on anything...

 

[Rover]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

This is funny: From The Onion...

WASHINGTON-According to recent media reports, Democrats stand to lose as many as 8,000 congressional seats and more than 917 gubernatorial races in November's midterm elections. "Republicans are poised to pick up 1,500 seats in Ohio alone, and could wind up with a 23,576-to-12 majority in the Senate," Beltway observer Isaac Hundt said Wednesday, noting the GOP's advantage is likely to increase by Election Day given that its candidates are outspending their opponents by some $900 trillion. "With Democratic disapproval ratings in the quadruple digits, it's a foregone conclusion that Republicans will not only retake Congress, but hold it for the next 20,000 to 25,000 years." Experts also predicted the one-sided election results would cause Barack Obama to die on the spot, at which point the nation's leading conservative talk-radio host would be sworn in as president of the United States forever.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Six years of control of the House and Senate by the Liberal Lunatics has ruined this country. 11/2/2010-kick the Loons to the curb and take our country back!

What's funnier yet is Obamacare is a Republican health care bill from the '90's. What we need are some real right wingers in there instead of these nambie pambie wishy washy compromise fanatics.

The filibuster is a hammer. Use it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

What's funnier yet is Obamacare is a Republican health care bill from the '90's.

They have always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Because by letting one through, you then get something you want in exchange?

Because it's called governing? At some point in the course of running a country, you have to actually stop campaigning and actually run the ***** country?

Your wife must really love dealing with you, if you never give in on anything...

First of all, sorry for the triple post, board was messed up this morning.

I get what you're saying about *** for tat, I'm saying that approach is silly. It's passing bills for the sake of passing bills. Bipartisanship is vastly overrated. Is a terrible bill somehow less terrible if both parties teamed up to screw you?

And that doesn't just apply to these past two years, I can think of a bunch of examples from the Republican Congress as well.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Bipartisanship is vastly overrated.

Yes and no. Sometimes you have the "can't jump a chasm in two small leaps" problem, and bipartisanship doesn't work. But sometimes you have the problem that your car is driving along a wet highway and starts to skid. The Dems see steering as the problem and want to drive faster as if that will regain purchase; the Republicans see speed as the problem and want to slam on the brakes. Bipartisanship will produce the correct answer -- don't panic, turn into the skid, and let the car shed speed gradually.

Warning: metaphors, like scientific theories or religious deities, are incomplete models of reality, and have their limitations.

Problems like health care and pollution invite bipartisanship -- everybody recognizes the problem (cost and coverage, health), so there is universal motivation to do things that will address the symptoms while we fight about the cause of the disease. Political issues like erosion of property rights and militarism as foreign policy can't be solved by bipartisanship, since one side literally doesn't see a problem. Those are the things you just have to force through by the sheer weight of electoral results, the other side be ****ed.

Some issues metastasize from one class to the other. Slavery was dealt with by bipartisanship for 80 years until it reached the point where it had to be winner take all. Hopefully there's nothing analogous worth fighting an actual civil war over, now, and we shouldn't pretend there is. In a lot of ways, the stakes have never been lower, as much as that offends our sense of Currentist Alarm.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Yes and no. Sometimes you have the "can't jump a chasm in two small leaps" problem, and bipartisanship doesn't work. But sometimes you have the problem that your car is driving along a wet highway and starts to skid. The Dems see steering as the problem and want to drive faster as if that will regain purchase; the Republicans see speed as the problem and want to slam on the brakes. Bipartisanship will produce the correct answer -- don't panic, turn into the skid, and let the car shed speed gradually.

Warning: metaphors, like scientific theories or religious deities, are incomplete models of reality, and have their limitations.

Problems like health care and pollution invite bipartisanship -- everybody recognizes the problem (cost and coverage, health), so there is universal motivation to do things that will address the symptoms while we fight about the cause of the disease. Political issues like erosion of property rights and militarism as foreign policy can't be solved by bipartisanship, since one side literally doesn't see a problem. Those are the things you just have to force through by the sheer weight of electoral results, the other side be ****ed.

Some issues metastasize from one class to the other. Slavery was dealt with by bipartisanship for 80 years until it reached the point where it had to be winner take all. Hopefully there's nothing analogous worth fighting an actual civil war over, now, and we shouldn't pretend there is. In a lot of ways, the stakes have never been lower, as much as that offends our sense of Currentist Alarm.

Boy, you liberals sure do love your car metaphors don't you?

I agree with you on the larger point, however that's a broad context to view bipartisanship in. I'm talking about it in a slightly different way. I've been watching a lot of the Senate debates lately, and a common question that comes up is about ability to reach across the aisle. In a Wisconsin debate here recently, Feingold suggested the stimulus was bipartisan because Snowe voted for it. Did that somehow make the stimulus bill more effective? Bills shouldn't be judged on how bipartisan they were, they should be judged on whether they worked or not.

Which brings me back to the point I was originally trying to make. Rep. Issa seems to feel that his party is on the receiving end of this groundswell of support because voters want him to hang out in the middle with Obama and sing kumbaya together. I'm saying that's certainly not why I'm voting Republican, and I suspect it's not why many many others are voting that way either.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

My take on the car analogies: The Republicans drove the car into the ditch, but the Democrats insist on leaving the darn thing in (D)rive.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Boy, you liberals sure do love your car metaphors don't you?

Which is ironic, since 90% of the liberals I have met can't change their own oil, and 90% of the mechanics I've met have the stars and bars on their bumpers.

The 33% hard core on either wing spit blood whenever anybody compromises -- they're True Believers who think the other side is literally Satan.

The 33% in the middle want somebody to do something rather than argue endlessly about anchor babies on the head of a pin. They say: take the complete non-starter proposals of each side off the table and get to a compromise price so we can do something. Spending all that time in the negotiating room has no appeal to them because they don't care about their side "winning," they just want the problem solved. "It's amazing how much work you can get done if you don't care who gets the credit."

The remaining 1% are those of us who have achieved Enlightenment and transcended the whole spectrum.

 

[unofan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Rep. Issa seems to feel that his party is on the receiving end of this groundswell of support because voters want him to hang out in the middle with Obama and sing kumbaya together. I'm saying that's certainly not why I'm voting Republican, and I suspect it's not why many many others are voting that way either.

Perhaps he should have said, "People want us to get things done and fix the country, which will necessarily involve crossing the aisle on numerous issues."

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Perhaps he should have said, "People want us to get things done and fix the country, which will necessarily involve crossing the aisle on numerous issues."

Fair enough. It's a lot to read into one quote I guess.

Though I'm still of the mind that they should start by introducing conservative bills, and see if any Democrats come along for the ride, at least for the first few weeks.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Rep. Issa seems to feel that his party is on the receiving end of this groundswell of support because voters want him to hang out in the middle with Obama and sing kumbaya together. I'm saying that's certainly not why I'm voting Republican, and I suspect it's not why many many others are voting that way either.

I sincerely believe that most voters just want the economy to recover already so they can stop caring about national politics.

Any pol who reads more into it than that (whether Obama in 08 or pick-your-GOP-leader in 2010) is just rationalizing.

 

[joecct]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Which is ironic, since 90% of the liberals I have met can't change their own oil, and 90% of the mechanics I've met have the stars and bars on their bumpers.

The 33% hard core on either wing spit blood whenever anybody compromises -- they're True Believers who think the other side is literally Satan.

The 33% in the middle want somebody to do something rather than argue endlessly about anchor babies on the head of a pin. They say: take the complete non-starter proposals of each side off the table and get to a compromise price so we can do something. Spending all that time in the negotiating room has no appeal to them because they don't care about their side "winning," they just want the problem solved. "It's amazing how much work you can get done if you don't care who gets the credit."

The remaining 1% are those of us who have achieved Enlightenment and transcended the whole spectrum.

Even when doing nothing is the best course??

Interesting Hillsdale College lecture over on Imprimis that contends that all the government intervention during the Great Depression actually made things worse.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

This is funny: From The Onion...

WASHINGTON-According to recent media reports, Democrats stand to lose as many as 8,000 congressional seats and more than 917 gubernatorial races in November's midterm elections. "Republicans are poised to pick up 1,500 seats in Ohio alone, and could wind up with a 23,576-to-12 majority in the Senate," Beltway observer Isaac Hundt said Wednesday, noting the GOP's advantage is likely to increase by Election Day given that its candidates are outspending their opponents by some $900 trillion. "With Democratic disapproval ratings in the quadruple digits, it's a foregone conclusion that Republicans will not only retake Congress, but hold it for the next 20,000 to 25,000 years." Experts also predicted the one-sided election results would cause Barack Obama to die on the spot, at which point the nation's leading conservative talk-radio host would be sworn in as president of the United States forever.

That's the least they should do!

With all that dirty foreign money on their side and all.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Not from The Onion

Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON – Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.

In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising "is not the first option," but it is "on the table." That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate."

Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas' heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Johnson's campaign declined to comment on Broden.

In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.

"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.

"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

New CAGW ad. Fair or foul?

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OTSQozWP-rM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OTSQozWP-rM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[unofan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I mean, the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America. They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They’ve opened the floodgates, and personally, I’m investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn’t be a judicial activist, and he wouldn’t overturn precedents.

– Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.)


What a dipsh**.