djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,223
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2015 16:41:32 GMT -5
Okay, I get it. You are referring to previous suppression of the dogmatists and not to their current rise where they are now running the pragmatists out. I think I misread your meaning before. yeah. i was talking about HISTORY, not present. in the present, it is exactly the opposite. the hard right is attempting to marginalize the pragmatic right.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,190
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 27, 2015 16:49:26 GMT -5
Split the party in two. It's the only rational solution remaining. The differences have widened to a point that it likely isn't salvageable.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,223
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2015 16:51:44 GMT -5
Split the party in two. It's the only rational solution remaining. The differences have widened to a point that it likely isn't salvageable. if Buckley was correct, and i think he is, that is precisely what is going to happen. it is the ONLY thing that CAN happen. once dogmatism infects an institution, there is no place for it to go, other than to the grave. the solution for a gangrene limb is amputation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 20:40:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2015 17:21:44 GMT -5
I think and have thought for a long time that Boehner didn't do his job based on principles. He tried to be too pragmatic and make deals just for the sake of making deals. It is like the people here who will not vote for a third party. They would rather be on the winning side even if that is ideas they disagree with then be on the losing side and with their actual values. I am glad he is gone. I had little to no respect for his performance.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,223
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 27, 2015 18:14:14 GMT -5
I think and have thought for a long time that Boehner didn't do his job based on principles. He tried to be too pragmatic and make deals just for the sake of making deals. It is like the people here who will not vote for a third party. They would rather be on the winning side even if that is ideas they disagree with then be on the losing side and with their actual values. I am glad he is gone. I had little to no respect for his performance. this post is a textbook study on why the party is doomed, imo.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,190
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 27, 2015 18:16:55 GMT -5
A fundamental misunderstanding of the American political system....
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Sept 27, 2015 21:10:34 GMT -5
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Sept 28, 2015 5:17:59 GMT -5
wild guesses on my part:
Boehner will take Nov & Dec as pure vacation time keep a VERY low profile untill after the 2016 election - maybe an academic position
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,223
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 28, 2015 10:28:12 GMT -5
wild guesses on my part:
Boehner will take Nov & Dec as pure vacation time keep a VERY low profile untill after the 2016 election - maybe an academic position
yeah, i think he is done with politics.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 30, 2015 7:04:24 GMT -5
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 1, 2015 22:07:07 GMT -5
I can understand the frustration with Boehner. The voters have given the republicans the largest majority in congress they've experienced in 100 years, and yet all you hear from the hill is compromise and retreat from the Obama policies.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but I can understand the frustration. You'd think with such a majority, the republicans could have gotten more done.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,190
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 1, 2015 22:27:43 GMT -5
What have they actually TRIED to get done, other than concentrate on stupid sh** that never had a chance?
And frankly, they deserve nothing. Ideologues cannot govern. It is not even their intent to try to govern. They want to make noise, and are stuck in the delusion that just because people hear them that those people will believe in and respect them. There is an art to governing which consists of negotiation, compromise, and working together. The ideologues (idiots) of the far-right would not be interested even if they were capable. There is a price to be paid for running the more moderate and reasonable voices out of the party. Intransigence is not a virtue, and it should be no surprise that both Congress and the Republican Party are suffering with some of the lowest approval ratings in memory.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Oct 7, 2015 14:36:43 GMT -5
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/nancy_pelosi_should_help_elect_kevin_mccarthy_speaker.htmlThe fight over Gillett was an intra-party fight, but maybe Democrats should take a page from the progressive Republicans’ playbook. Or, to put it differently, maybe Democrats should come to McCarthy’s rescue. That might sound a bit crazy, but bear with me. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi should offer McCarthy a deal: Democrats would provide the votes necessary to make him speaker and keep him in the chair for the remainder of the 114th Congress. In exchange, McCarthy would commit to bringing certain specified bills to the floor for a vote—the list might include a clean debt-ceiling increase through 2017 (or even an abolition of the debt ceiling entirely), a continuing resolution funding the government at last year’s levels for the remainder of the fiscal year, something like the immigration bill that passed the Senate in 2013, and more. The details would have to be carefully negotiated (and other members of the leadership, perhaps starting with Rules Committee Chair Pete Sessions, would have to be brought on board), but there are no insurmountable practical considerations preventing such a deal.
In essence, this deal would make House Democrats the junior partners in a coalition government of the chamber. It certainly wouldn’t be as nice as controlling the House, but it would be an improvement over their current position. Getting their high-priority bills to the floor would be a win-win: if the bills pass, they score a policy win, and if they fail, they’ve got Republicans on record, once again, voting against popular measures. Moreover, Democrats could publicly present their willingness to support a Republican speaker as an act of patriotic statesmanship, a willingness to put governing the country ahead of partisan advantage, and a reason to trust them with a majority in the 2016 elections.
What’s trickier to say is what the GOP might get out of it, but it could actually be a win for them as well. McCarthy would, in a key sense, be weakened as a speaker—after all, he would be starting his speakership reliant on a party that seeks to oust him from office. But presumably he would prefer a weakened speakership to no speakership at all. And in another sense, McCarthy might actually be stronger as the head of a quasi-coalition: Instead of being a prisoner to the most extreme members of his caucus, he would be free to kick them to the curb on certain issues and proceed with some Democratic votes.
The deal would also be a win for the majority of the Republican caucus, which doesn’t want a shutdown or a default. More broadly, it doesn’t want to continue to be held hostage by its most conservative wing, the “false prophets” lambasted by outgoing Speaker John Boehner. Making this deal would allow most Republicans to demonstrate that they are, in fact, capable of governing responsibly, which, in turn, would tie in to their arguments that they should be trusted with a continuing majority in the next Congress. With a speaker vacancy—or, perhaps worse, the Tortillans in charge—routine and necessary legislation would likely fall by the wayside in favor of partisan warfare, further suggesting to the electorate that the party currently in charge of governing can’t successfully do so. While it’s true that there are political risks for more moderate Republicans to taking this approach—such as facing a Tea Party primary challenge—a number of them are from less rabidly conservative districts. And, at the end of the day, very few congressional incumbents have been successfully primaried out of office by a right-wing opponent since 2010, perhaps suggesting that centrist Republicans have less to fear than some think.
The fact that Democrats, McCarthy, and the majority of the Republican caucus all stand to gain something from this arrangement should suggest that, crazy-sounding or not, it might just be politically feasible.
|
|