What really bothers me about this election...

[varwoche]

Yes, I think they are both partisan, and they are pandering to their base. All they want to do is blame the other for the partisan problems.

OK kiddies, in the next lesson we'll learn about death and taxes, and slop it all together into more false equivalency, facts be damned.

 

[RandFan]

You're entitled to your opinion then

But you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But you are not entitled to your own facts.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...democrats-and-republicans-together-pass-agen/
What more am I supposed to do when the facts I've cited already aren't read by those responding?

 

[RandFan]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...democrats-and-republicans-together-pass-agen/

Which proves what exactly? I reject your claim of equivalency not that there are problems with partisanship. I've already conceded the point so your link does not at all help.

So, tell us about the Democrat equivalent to the Norquist pledge?

 

[Brainster]

There is currently no movement afoot among the Democrats, grassroots or otherwise, to destroy any insufficiently radical legislator through primary challenges.

The Blue Dog caucus has been under fire for awhile now; however the radicals have been so successful (and Obamacare so unpopular) that there are very few Blue Dogs left.

Here's a Norman Solomon column about a "progressive" challenger to a Blue Dog:

Right now, Congresswoman Jane Harman is facing a serious primary challenge from a genuine progressive, Marcy Winograd, in Southern California’s 36th congressional district.

Winograd was adored by liberal bloggers, but was unable to defeat Harman.

Joe Lieberman was forced to run as an independent in 2006 because he was felt to be insufficiently radical and defeated in his primary by a "progressive" named Ned Lamont.

I do think both wings have been largely unsuccessful; true "progressives" won't win in a Blue Dog district, and tea party darlings like Christine O'Donnell get stomped in relatively liberal states like Delaware.

 

[R.Mackey]

Interesting theory.

However, I'm quite familiar with Jane Harman, and her vulnerabilities are legion -- and had little to do with willingness to compromise. She destroyed her challenger in 2010 by almost 20 points, and she finally left the House in a surprise decision with the wind at her back. If anything, she is proof against deliberate destruction of moderate Democrats.

Similarly, Joe Lieberman deserves his own category. I really don't see what you're getting at by bringing him up.

The point isn't that, on occasion, individuals become so flawed or so strange that a primary challenger appears. After all, if this never happened, there'd be no point to primaries. The point is that on the Republican side this challenge is automatic, and institutional. It makes unwillingness to compromise a desirable trait and a survival strategy in nearly every contest. The same cannot be said for the Democrats.

 

[RandFan]

...and tea party darlings like Christine O'Donnell get stomped in relatively liberal states like Delaware.

Shouldn't someone as ignorant and incompetent as O'Donnell get stomped just about anywhere? Seriously, the drivel that often spewed from her lips was so inane even small children and some house pets could figure out it was nonsense.

 

[Brainster]

Here are two more examples from this year's primaries:

Representatives Jason Altmire and Tim Holden both lost in primaries to opponents who joined together with activist groups to pummel the veteran lawmakers over the opposition to the new health care law and climate change legislation — positions they had used to their advantage in the past to show their independence from President Obama and the Democratic Party.

“A lot of us thought of his record as his strength,” said Hugh M. Reiley, the chairman of the Schuylkill County Democratic Party, referring to Mr. Holden. “He was not falling prey to all that party bickering. He was able to reach across the aisle.”

“Last night, the Democratic Party became more liberal,” he added.

Of course, they no doubt belong in that special category with Harman and Lieberman and other "reactionary" Democrats who have been ousted by the progressives.

 

[R.Mackey]

Neither Harman nor Lieberman was ousted by progressives...

Again, the existence of one or two candidates being replaced by different ones in the primary process -- assuming you understand these correctly, which so far you haven't -- is not equivalent to an organized, well-funded, national shadow party that actively tests every candidate, and challenges every one found wanting.

It amazes me that you can't see this. It does, however, shed some light on Republicans's inability to police Mitt Romney.

 

[RandFan]

Here are two more examples from this year's primaries:



Of course, they no doubt belong in that special category with Harman and Lieberman and other "reactionary" Democrats who have been ousted by the progressives.

Neither Harman nor Lieberman was ousted by progressives...

Again, the existence of one or two candidates being replaced by different ones in the primary process -- assuming you understand these correctly, which so far you haven't -- is not equivalent to an organized, well-funded, national shadow party that actively tests every candidate, and challenges every one found wanting.

It amazes me that you can't see this. It does, however, shed some light on Republicans's inability to police Mitt Romney.

Yeah, any comparison to the Democrats fails big time.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Which proves what exactly? I reject your claim of equivalency not that there are problems with partisanship. I've already conceded the point so your link does not at all help.

So, tell us about the Democrat equivalent to the Norquist pledge?

There is none, that's why he hasn't responded.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You can't even properly word what it is you're against. What you mean to say is that "when we hear that he would cut tax <rates> by 20% we all understand that he's proposing to cut taxes by 20%.

No. I meant exactly what I said. When someone leaves out the word "rates" it is not a mischaracterization of what Romney's official platform position states because there is no other construction of the sentence. It means exactly the same thing. No one thinks that saying Romney is calling for an across the board 20% tax cut thinks that it means he's calling for whatever tax rate cuts would result in a 20% reduction in revenue.

It may be his fault for wording, but the plan is closer to tax reform, a la 1986-style, than tax cuts, GWB-style.

No it's not. The first point in his proposal is an across the board 20% cut in tax rates. That is a tax cut. It's not tax reform. His arm waving about unspecified changes in deductions and loopholes might make up for that tax cut doesn't make it not a tax cut.

That Romney chose to emphasize the rate reductions during the primary, is hardly unsurprising given his weakness with the GOP base at the time.

It really is the first point in his tax platform proposal. Why would it NOT be emphasized? It's a radical tax cut.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've already responded to this notion.

The problem will not magically go away with one side "giving in" when both sides are playing this silly game, whether it's "lopsided" is irrelevant; what's more important is neither cares for an actual solution, it's "they're pushing me so I'll just push back." In that context I find policy differences a mute subject, they can't get anything done while they're playing giggles on the house and senate floor

If that's meant to be a response to my post #60 about how many Republicans in Congress have taken the Norquist pledge and what you can cite among Democrats in Congress that is comparable, it's a swing and a miss.

In 2011, 87% of GOP Senators and 98% of House Republicans had signed the Norquist pledge. That means nearly all Republicans in Congress have committed to not negotiate in good faith. Is there anything at all comparable to that with Democrats in Congress?

And I think you mean moot not mute.

ETA: And your claim that Democrats in Congress don't care about an actual solution is just an unsubstantiated claim. (And your made up fictional quote is worth nothing at all.)

 

[SezMe]

The point is that on the Republican side this challenge is automatic, and institutional. It makes unwillingness to compromise a desirable trait and a survival strategy in nearly every contest. The same cannot be said for the Democrats.

The quintessential example being Richard Mourdock win in the Indiana GOP primary. He said:

I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view,” Mourdock declared. “If we [win the House, Senate, and White House], bipartisanship means they have to come our way, and if we’re successful in getting the numbers, we’ll work towards that.

He won that primary in part because the Indiana Tea Party cheered his attitude.

 

[RandFan]

The quintessential example being Richard Mourdock win in the Indiana GOP primary. He said:

I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view,” Mourdock declared. “If we [win the House, Senate, and White House], bipartisanship means they have to come our way, and if we’re successful in getting the numbers, we’ll work towards that.

He won that primary in part because the Indiana Tea Party cheered his attitude.

This is the kind of childish BS that drove me from the party. I don't deny that the Democrats aren't partisan and that they don't play politics (DUH). But there simply is no comparison.

Norquist was NOT elected to ANYTHING. But thanks to lobbyists like him and Jack Abrahmof the buying and selling of America is out in the open. Norquist tells it bluntly. The corporations and lobbyists don't want political leaders that will listen to their constituents and craft policy decisions. Hell no. To Norquist and his ilk they only need puppets.

Norquist went on: “Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States.

IOW: The rich and powerful only need leaders who will do what we the rich and powerful tell them to do. Plutocracy.

 

[varwoche]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...democrats-and-republicans-together-pass-agen/
What more am I supposed to do when the facts I've cited already aren't read by those responding?

Facts? Actually, you seem to be avoiding facts at every opportunity.

You've yet to cite a single policy position as evidence of the Obama administration failing to act in a bipartisan way. Whereas you've been presented with (1) the Norquist pledge (2) Romney's refusal on 10:1 (3) the fact that Obamacare is from GOP playbook and (4) overall GOP intransigence, which you seem to acknowledge as a real phenomenon, but then you wave it away presumably because Obama said he was going to change the tone in Washington!? <loud guffaw>

Get real. And by that I mean, get specific.

 

[Corsair 115]

IOW: The rich and powerful only need leaders who will do what we the rich and powerful tell them to do. Plutocracy.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't want a cartoon dog... or a demoted planet... running the government!!!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Which proves what exactly? I reject your claim of equivalency not that there are problems with partisanship. I've already conceded the point so your link does not at all help.

Bringing up the norquist pledge is irrelevant to my point. You're not dealing with someone who thinks the Republicans are being innocent. You're not dealing with someone who cares about the extent to which one side has gone partisan. You're dealing with someone who's being critical of neither side successfully dealing a solution. And you've by far failed to understand what I was referring to when I said I considered the two parties to be the "same". The similarities I consider STOP at the point where POLICY is considered as part of the discussion, I made that quite clear.

Facts? Actually, you seem to be avoiding facts at every opportunity.

You've yet to cite a single policy position as evidence of the Obama administration failing to act in a bipartisan way.

First of all... you never refuted what was said in the link I provided several times already. Again, you either didn't bother to read the link... or you're completely confusing what I referred to when I said they were the "same". There's nothing for me to dodge there even if I wanted to.

Secondly... assuming you read the article you'd know why I don't feel it necessary to point out specific policies. The majority of those are covered within the scope the statistics it presents. Both sides of the aisle have set records on their partisanship and the results speak for themselves. Intentions do not equate to the results.

 

[RandFan]

Bringing up the norquist pledge is irrelevant to my point. You're not dealing with someone who thinks the Republicans are being innocent. You're not dealing with someone who cares about the extent to which one side has gone partisan. You're dealing with someone who's being critical of neither side successfully dealing a solution. And you've by far failed to understand what I was referring to when I said I considered the two parties to be the "same". The similarities I consider STOP at the point where POLICY is considered as part of the discussion, I made that quite clear.

You are completely missing the point. You are trying to make a false equivalency. It's nonsense and easily shown to be nonsense. I don't claim that you think the republicans are not innocent or that you care about either side. That's all beside the point.

Your claim that both sides are equivalent is false.

 

[Aridas]

You are completely missing the point. You are trying to make a false equivalency. It's nonsense and easily shown to be nonsense. I don't claim that you think the republicans are not innocent or that you care about either side. That's all beside the point.

Your claim that both sides are equivalent is false.

It's true... at the point where sides don't matter in the first place?