Republican Party Modus Operandi Redux

[SanHeChuan]

The self-fulfilling prophesy.

Republican tactics when out of power is to criticizes the government’s ability and then do everything in their power to hamper the political process. Thus blaming your opponents for a problem you have created.

Filibustering Senate Republicans delayed 80 percent of major legislation in 2009, compared to an average of one a decade from the dawn of the Republic until the Civil War.

Because this tactic requires total non cooperation the GOP has to force out all moderate bipartisan republicans, thus polarizing the party. Republican's will demand some legislative fix, filibuster it in to oblivion, and then shout to the rafters how ineffectual the government is. A good example would be Mitch McConnell who demanded deficit-reduction and then lead a filibuster against it.

The present era of polarization may have reached its nadir on January 25, 2010. That was the day Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell led a filibuster to kill a deficit reduction commission — something he’d loudly demanded earlier. All it took was President Obama’s endorsement to turn McConnell and the six Senate Republicans who co-sponsored it against the bill.

Republicans complain about bipartisanship not being there, but they are the ones who refuse to cooperate even to fight for their own ideas. They'll turn on their own bill, just to spite a Democratic administration, that would dare to support Republican ideas, like the Job's bill. Republicans will even turn around again to vote for legislation that makes it through their filibuster. This tactic kicked ass during Clinton’s presidency where they had a near permanent filibuster on legislation, because the Democrats’ didn’t have 60 votes without crossing the isle. And those moderate Republicans who did reach out in bipartisanship were ostracized and labeled enemies to the party.

Republicans have largely hoped that voters would remain ignorant of the degree to which Republicans themselves have been largely responsible for lack of progress on any front.

Devious little wankers

[KC Elbows]

The senate is not the only place where Republicans and bondage go together.

[1bad65]

What do you propose they do, rubber stamp everything Obama wants?

Look at history before spouting off. Democrats during Reagan's terms openly met with Communist dictator Manuel Ortega, even telling him in a letter that opened with "Dear Commandante," that they would use every legislative tool to try and stop Reagan's foreign policy initiatives concerning his country.

[MasterKiller]

[sanjuro_ronin]

Politics, the great equalizer:
ALL ARE *******S !

[SanHeChuan]

What do you propose they do, rubber stamp everything Obama wants?

I would have them not filibuster every piece of legislation. I would have them support their own ideas. Mitt Romney passed a health care bill in his own state that similarly required everyone to buy health insurance . I expect them not to demonize their own ideas because the Democrats support them. I expect them to work to make legislative gains consistent with their own ideals, not intentionally throw the game to build support for the rematch. They could have made greater gains for their ideas that were included in the bill if they had actually supported them. I expect them not to create a problem to blame on the other party.

[1bad65]

[1bad65]

I expect them not to create a problem to blame on the other party.

LMAO at this. Guess you never heard of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

[1bad65]

I would have them not filibuster every piece of legislation. I would have them support their own ideas. Mitt Romney passed a health care bill in his own state that similarly required everyone to buy health insurance .

The Constitution leaves that right to the STATES. It bars the Federal government from doing it though, throught the 10th Amendment. So while it may look hypocritical, from a Constitutional standpoint it is not.

[Reality_Check]

The Constitution leaves that right to the STATES. It bars the Federal government from doing it though, throught the 10th Amendment. So while it may look hypocritical, from a Constitutional standpoint it is not.

And I quote...

From the non-partisan Congressional Research Service:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40725_20090724.pdf

Certain health insurance mandate proposals could rely on Congress's spending and taxing authority. For example, if Congress chose to require individuals to have health insurance by levying a tax, then using the revenue for funding health benefits, this could be viewed as an appropriate use of Congress's taxing and spending power. Or, if Congress were to require individuals to purchase health insurance, and then enforce this requirement by conditioning receipt of a tax benefit (e.g., a tax credit) on compliance, this also could be seen as a legitimate exercise of Congress's taxing authority. Similarly, if Congress were to enact a proposal under which individuals who did not purchase health insurance were subject to a tax penalty (e.g., a loss of a tax deduction), this also could be seen as valid under this clause of the Constitution.

In addition, Congress's Spending Clause authority could be invoked if a proposal to require individuals to purchase health insurance involves state participation. Congress has frequently promoted its policy goals by conditioning the receipt of federal funds on state compliance with certain requirements. Accordingly, if Congress were to condition payment of certain funds to states based on whether that state requires its residents to have health insurance, this could also be seen as acceptable under the Spending Clause. While the Court has recognized that Congress cannot force states to take certain courses of action because of state sovereignty protected under the Tenth Amendment, the conditioning of funds can be a legitimate inducement to get states to follow the will of Congress. Thus, if Congress were to grant federal funds to states that enacted laws which required individuals to purchase health insurance, this type of law would likely be considered a legitimate use of Congress's spending clause authority.

[1bad65]

Well RC, we will find out. It's headed to the courts. Of course the voters will have the first say come November. And I'm pretty confident on how that one will turn out.

[SanHeChuan]

The Constitution leaves that right to the STATES. It bars the Federal government from doing it though, throught the 10th Amendment. So while it may look hypocritical, from a Constitutional standpoint it is not.

Health Care Flip-Flop

Let’s take a look at the first: the health insurance mandate. The health insurance mandate was first proposed by President Richard Nixon – a Republican – in the 1970s as an alternative to a single-payer proposal. In 1989 and again in 1993, the Heritage Foundation also proposed a health insurance mandate as the basis for its solution to the health care crisis. Even Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley authored a bill in 1993 pushing a health insurance mandate as a free market-based alternative to the Clinton health care reform proposal. For these senators and other Republicans to claim that a health insurance mandate is now “totalitarianism” and “unconstitutional” is farcical and belies the hyper-partisanship of the Republican Party today.

Cadillac Tax

Then there is the tax on so-called “Cadillac” health insurance plans, which are expensive and provide super comprehensive coverage that is usually only affordable to the wealthy. Of course, it was Senator John McCain that campaigned on health care reform with the idea of taxing these “Cadillac” health insurance plans during his Presidential bid. Now, according to Republicans, this tax is apparently outrageous, even if the tax is one of the only few ways to make sure that a market-based health care reform system does not explode the deficit.

Filibuster

Republican senators who once condemned the filibuster now use it more than ever before. They called for its abolishment, but now call on it excessively.

They should go back to the old rule where you actually had to take the floor and talk for hours on end, rather than just declare intent to filibuster.

Now I will concede that both parties flip flop on all sorts of issues, that is not the issue I have. Even politicians should have the right to freely change their minds, or else debate would be pointless. What I find disingenuous is republicans not just withdrawing their support but demonizing ideas that they created, in order to cast the Democrats in a negative light. How many examples can you find of Democrats demonizing their own ideas after they are taken up and used by the Republicans?

Guess you never heard of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

You'll have to elaborate on your reference, what problems did they create that they blamed on Republicans?

[SanHeChuan]

In an e-mail I got I thought 1bad65 would appreciate.

[David Jamieson]

hey we got our problems with lying flip flopping conservatives up here in Canada too. lol

We have a prime minister who wanted to do away with our appointed senate by having an elected senate. This was a point I strongly supported. Until he APPOINTED 18 Senators and did NOTHING to get the ball rolling on an elected senate.

he promised to roll back a frivolous goods and services tax that was implemented by the former conservative government during an economic downturn. He relieved it by a couple of cents and then went ahead and is having it combined and rolled into provincial taxes so that now even more can be collected.

seriously, the conservatives up here claim to be law and order people and fiscally responsible, but like your conservatives they got involved in this stupid endless war crap, continue to tax us till we're blue, have done nothing for law and order per se except delay or hold off important social moves forward, have participated in the torture of people in Afghanistan by proxy of allowing our prisoners to be handed to the afghans who have about as much order as a pack of dogs on a downed goat when it comes to any semblance of a justice system and hundred of other completely opposite to conservative actions.

and to make matters worse, we have no one else of any measure of competence or honesty in our house of commons!! we are totally buggered up here.

just sayin...

[1bad65]

You'll have to elaborate on your reference, what problems did they create that they blamed on Republicans?

The subprime mortgage fiasco. And in 2004, Frank went on record saying Fannie Mae was in no trouble at all. Frank and Dodd also defeated Bush's efforts to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to just open their books.