A Civics Lesson For Obama-Bashing DU'ers.

[RBInMaine]

As a middle school social studies teacher, I find it unfortunate that I have to provide some adults a basic civics lesson, but given the ignorant Obama-bashing I've seen of late, I shall do so.:

We have three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. They are co-equal, and there is a system of checks and balances to ensure that they remain co-equal. While the President can submit legislation for consideration, the law-making powers fall essentially to the bi-cameral legislative branch, each chamber of which has its own rules. The legislative process is intended to be slow and cumbersome in general given the complexity and gravity of the issues at hand. The President can advise, urge, and even veto, but he can not dictate to the legislature.

With regard to healthcare, the President advised the law-making branch leadership of his preferences and then properly allowed those law-makers to perform their function and make law. Numerous committees across both chambers reported out bills after long deliberations, and the House proceeded to a vote, passing a bill which now must go to a bi-cameral reconciliatory conference. The Senate is different and has much tougher reporting-out rules essentially requiring a supermajority to do so in order to trump filibusters. The majority party has a far more diverse caucus than the minority party and therefore needs every possible vote to proceed (notwithstanding a rarely-used limited reconciliation process that could set difficult precedents). In the Senate, there are not enough votes to get a public option bill out of the Senate and into conference. Several majority party Senators will simply not support it. Therefore, it seems, the Senate side must report out an insurance reform bill, and hopefully one that will significanly bend the cost curve. Polling data suggest most Americans are now preferring this approach and not a dramatic overhaul of the entire system.

Given that change in America has always come slowly, that signifiant insurance reform is still an advance, that we have been trying for decades to do something on this, that the minority party is lined up even against insurance reform without a public option, and that governing is always the art of the doable and not the ideal, the executive is right to support the doable, and the legislature is right to do the doable.

If the executive had its ideal, it would be a robust public option. But the legislative realities are what they are. The national majority opinion is what it is. Getting a bill passed that achieves some movement in the right direction (cost cutting, no more pre-existng conditions exemptions, a healthcare exchange, etc.) is worth doing. The only other option is doing nothing, and that is no option.

Since our inception as a nation we have done what is doable in real time and have changed slowly. Should we not have written the Declaration of Independence because all Americans were not equal nor free? Should we not have emancipated the slaves because there was no attached voting rights act?
Should we not have passed anti-pollution laws because they didn't completely eliminate carbon emissions? Should we not have passed minimum wage laws because they still allowed for the working poor?

Folks, please, think back on your basic history and civics lessons. Politics is the art of the doable. You take one step at a time. And that first step, even if smaller than the ideal, is still worth it.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RBInMaine]

8. Sometimes reality hurts. Obviously you can't face it.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RBInMaine]

32. Snipe if you must. Refute the facts if you can.

[avaistheone1]

124. You must have missed the history classes on the New Deal and the Great Society.

Each were broad, swift and massive social changes in America for the better.

[SanchoPanza]

131. Apparently he wasn't the only one.

Considering both FDR and LBJ had Democratic majorities that constituted over 70% of the seats in both the House and Senate, and even then they couldn't pass a national health insurance program. The Democrats controlled 69 out of 96 Senate seats and 322 out of 435 House seats after 1934, and 68 out of 100 Senate seats and 295 out of 435 House seats after 1964. Obama has a 60% majority in both the House and the Senate.

Want more? National health insurance became so toxic for FDR that he completely dropped it from his domestic agenda out of the fear that it would compromise the Social Security Act and the entire New Deal II. Truman offered it up as part of his Fair Deal agenda, but it never even got passed the committee hearing stage, and LBJ could only get it to the floor because Medicare was limited to retirees as a compromise.

Single Payer is a complete non-starter. It's not even an initial point of negotiation. And besides all that, it isn't even necessary to ensure reduced costs and universality in coverage. And yet some expect Obama and the Democratic caucus to deliver it. Or a Single Payer buy-in provision. I guess while on the subject of "Things That Will Never Happen To Get Pissed Off About," maybe I should start castigating Obama and Reid for not personally guaranteeing me a unicorn that shits money.

[CTLawGuy]

143. but they money can't have the unicorn's shit all over it

otherwise it would be a failure, A FAILURE!

[treestar]

158. DU of today would have had posts saying FDR was a failure because

the law did not have national health insurance! it stinks, FDR is a one term, etc.

There are people determined to be unhappy. If single payer had just passed, they'd have a problem with the bill.

[treestar]

156. They were done through the process

Though the repukes of the time were not using the filibuster automatically.

As the OP said, you'd have said the New Deal was a failure. It didn't go far enough.

[goclark]

168. The New Deal was way before M$M and the Internet

This is a New Day.

[Kalun D]

192. New Day

Yes it is a new day.

It's a lot harder for the prez to pull the wool over our eyes when we can get facts quickly on the internet.

like the fact Obama got $990,000 from Goldman Sachs

we don't have to depend on the wholly corporate owned television for our news

It took me several years before I realized how bad Clinton screwed us but I've woken up to Obama in just a few months.

They can keep it off the TV but they can't keep it off the internet.

Who is Rahm Emanuel, the TV won't tell you, the internet will

who is Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, according to the TV they're stand up guys, according to the internet we see that they are crooks who should be in jail. Why does Obama have them in his admin?

[Joe Chi Minh]

200. Silence came the stern reply.

[rasputin1952]

57. It is the way things work...

why disparage the messenger?

I get the impression that far too many people slept through Civics classes.

[RBInMaine]

60. Thanks. Much appreciated. I tend to agree.

[Hangingon]

182. Good OP!

[Old Codger]

93. OK

factually true according to our laws but realistically naive in practice. The president cannot force congress to do anything, that is true, BUT he has the power through the "bully pulpit" and using his influences to get his wishes across and to sway the people and their reps , he has not shown the leadership necessary to do what was needed.. He is not alone no one in any part of our government has shown any desire whatsoever to do what is needed to help the people.

[rasputin1952]

101. And...to be honest, what if Congress essentially tells him to...

bug off?

The wise man chooses his fights well, and waits for his enemies to make fatal errors in judgment, it appears to me that PO is doing this quite well. I don't agree with precisely how he's doing it, but he's staying above the fray and watching the GOP and Lieberman wither on the vine. They are the ones who will be held accountable in the end.

[Old Codger]

111. Sounds good

But what is he going to fight for???The public option was supposedly one of his pets, he seems to have folded on that , he stated back at the start that he would not sign any bill that did not contain a public option....This is an important bill it is worth fighting for, I doubt seriously it will come around again next year as they will all be scrambling to get re elected. And I do not think we will maintain anything that resembles a majority through the next election.. I am in Oregon we got rid of smith last time around, and I will not vote for a repug myself but that is not germane since I do not think any are up this time around anyway...

[rasputin1952]

132. More things get done behind the scenes than in the spolight...

Eisenhower was good at getting things done from behind closed doors; Johnson excelled at it. It appears to me PO has taken that tack as well. If that is true, coming out publicly would take that tactic off the table. PO does not have the twisting power that LBJ had, few pols do, we'll have to see what gets cobbled together in the House/ Senate squabble that is at the door.

[Old Codger]

157. Hopefully

I am an inveterate optimist but also been around long enough to be a tad cynical too, I hope the optimistic side of me is the is the winner this time around.

My main point at the outset was that the OP was technically correct but seemed to ignore the reality of politics and comes across as naive....

[Pirate Smile]

106. People act like Obama is a friggin dictator who is just choosing not to use his powers.

It's idiotic.

[rasputin1952]

109. Yep...

that's exactly it...:hi:

[Mojorabbit]

196. He is not using the power that he does have

He has not done a major push, he has not used his office to mobilize support in a significant way and I know that he has the ability to do just that. I watched him do it for two years during the primaries. I also take offense at the condescending tone of the op but that is just me.

[treestar]

155. ???

Just what do you argue with? That there are 3 branches?

[optimator]

2. unrecd

look in the mirror

[timeforpeace]

185. Real presidents with real platforms come prepared with the bill in hand. They do their homework.They

give this homework to Congress and say "make it happen" and then veto anything that doesn't meet with their approval. You flunk.

[Inuca]

191. And then they get HCR passed the way CLinton did n/t

[Lerkfish]

3. I certainly hope you're not teaching my child civics.

[RBInMaine]

6. Perhaps your child should teach you civics. I speak reality. You think non-reality.

[Lerkfish]

9. you have access to my thoughts? really?

have I said anything in this thread except that I don't want you to teach my child civics?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. The OP views his/her role as lecturing highly informed adults on middle-school civics...

Would a presumption of mind-reading ability be that much more arrogant?

[RBInMaine]

58. Consider it a reminder then moreso than a "lecture," and some obviously require the reminder.

[RBInMaine]

31. I teach the objective curriculum and am highly regarded. Your comment is foolish and based on not

liking the less than objective parts of my OP. You can disagree on the decisions of the governmental branches, but you can not disagree on the factual components which are the bases of school curriculum and where I do not inject opinion.

[Lerkfish]

36. "the less than objective parts of my OP"

well, you finally learned something yourself, there.

yes, that is precisely why I would not want you teaching my kid...because you inject your subjective view into a mechanicaly discussion and get offended when someone disagrees with that. That makes you a subpar teacher in my book.

[Joe Chi Minh]

206. 'I..... am highly regarded.' Oops. Not a compelling testimony, if you have to say so.

[rasputin1952]

59. I was taught Civics...

and the OP is dead on.

[niceypoo]

30. Perhaps you should learn some civility

...towards people who disagree with you.

[Lerkfish]

37. perhaps you should address that admonition to the OP

as well as me.

[niceypoo]

43. Um, it is addressed to the OP

...look which post it replies to, I agree with you completely.

:)

[Lerkfish]

146. sorry, lost my way in the thread hierarchy.

:hugs:

[Ken Burch]

68. You teach surrender.

If we do it your way, we give up.

There will never be any meaningful incremental gains on this issue.

[rasputin1952]

110. There have been incremental gains throughout our history...

the real losses have come from jammed through legislation.

Reality also dictates that you win some and you lose some...politics imitates real life in several ways.

[Writer]

7. Why, because this is the way the system works, and sometimes it doesn't work out in our favor?

That's a low-blow personal attack. I think it's great that we have someone on DU who is willing to take the time to remind us about the structural mechanisms that comprise our democracy in action.

[Lerkfish]

12. way to miss the point.

although, admittedly, I was posting in shorthand.

the mechanics are fine. the admonition to STFU if I disagreed with the OP is not fine.

there, is that a little better?

[Writer]

17. You WERE posting in short-hand. And you were being a jerk.

Take your bullying somewhere else.

[Lerkfish]

21. wow, overreact much?

in what way was I a bully?

seriously? in what way?

the OP, on the other hand, was needlessly condescending, insulting and an attempt to control my free speech through shame.

who is the bully, again?

[Writer]

33. The bully is you for taking a post that was supposed to be helpful and turning it...

into a personal attack. The OP is just explaining how the process works, and why we're not getting the results we want because of that system. That's all. But your saying that this OP shouldn't be teaching your kids demonstrates a remarkable amount of contempt for the OP PERSONALLY. And contemptible people are jerks.

[Lerkfish]

39. but you're being kind and complementary?

whatever.

[niceypoo]

48. Look at the how the OP deals with anyone who disagrees with him

...calls them names, calls them stupid. Do the math.

[RBInMaine]

66. I never called anyone "stupid," and I responded fairly to the fire I took.

[niceypoo]

74. You imply it

[PVnRT]

91. Oh, horseshit

It is a nasty, condescending flamebait post and you know it. Give me a break.

[spoony]

126. Treating people like ignorant dullards in need of a poster's

enlightenment is NOT TRYING TO BE HELPFUL.

[spoony]

125. One feels sorry for their students.

Having to endure patronising, repetitive lectures packed full of logical gaffes (holy false dichotomy, this bill or nothing? Geez).

[gkhouston]

171. Fits right in with my memories of middle school. n/t

[Romulox]

172. The OP seems to have no awareness of the difference between facts and her opinion

which is a bit frightening, I agree...

[Old Codger]

4. Steaming

Pile of do-do, if you think that is all there is to it and that the president, who is actually sometimes referred to as a "leader" has no leadership role in legislation you should not be attempting to teach anything.

[billh58]

188. While the POTUS may

have a de facto and partisan "leadership" role in suggesting, lobbying for (or against), and making speeches about, any given piece of legislation, he or she has absolutely no Constitutional role in the Legislative process. The Founders made absolutely sure that the position of POTUS would never become a unilateral seat of power, even though some Republicans (and apparently some on the Far Left) would like to change that.

Dubya's "leadership" consisted of a rubber-stamp Congress, and when that changed he went back to the Neoconservative concept of a Unitary Executive with the issuance of Executive Orders and the excessive misuse of "signing statements."

As has been pointed out, many Democratic Presidents and Congress members have attempted to introduce some form of Universal Health Care for all Americans, and none of them have ever gotten to the point of an up or down vote by Congress.

For those who believe that "all, or nothing" is the only honorable thing to consider in the debate about Health Care Reform, I wonder if they would have viewed the almost toothless Emancipation Proclamation the same way. Although President Lincoln issued the EP as an Executive Order under his "war powers" authority as the CIC, it offered little initial relief for the majority of slaves in America. It would take another 100 years and countless lives for slaves and their descendants to see the full benefits of that small first step toward social equality. And, believe it or not, the battle for full social equality for ALL Americans is not over yet.

Hopefully, like Social Security (which also started as a small step) Universal Health Care will enjoy a much shorter trip to full fruition than did the Civil Rights journey in this nation. You can thank a Liberal Democrat for almost ALL social progress in the USA since the Great Depression. Big Business and Big Money can thank the Neoconservative Republicans (and the DLC DINOs) for anti-Labor, anti-Middle Class, anti-education, anti-fair taxation, and anti-Equality legislation which made them obscenely wealthy.

[Writer]

5. Exactly. Democracy would be easy if it weren't for all those "other" people.

Excellent post. K&R.

[Yuugal]

10. social studie, pre-existng ?

Me ignorant Obama basher, me giggle at your misspellings, me not want bad health plan. Me like SCHIP for my kids for free, not bullshit corporate extortion.

[RBInMaine]

14. Note I fixed the typos. It is an older keyboard. Do forgive me.

[Lerkfish]

23. that excuse does not change my child's grade, now does it?

LOL!

[niceypoo]

35. I didnt know that older keyboards work like a player piano

...

[jgraz]

137. It's probably one of those Middle English keyboards

Chaucer had a lot of misspellings, too.

"older keyboard": Best. Excuse. Ever. :rofl:

Well, second best excuse. Right after the OP's entire post. :eyes:

[O is 44]

11. Thanks to you for being

a teacher! I come from a family of teachers. I do wonder where many were during civics class.

[billh58]

189. Some posters on this

thread seem to believe that "Middle School Civics" is somehow less credible than Civics as perceived by those who are ignorant (not stupid) of what the Constitution actually states. It is a documented fact that recent new citizens of the USA know and understand rights and duties of citizenship much better than the average natural born citizen.

Could that be a result of teaching them basic Middle School Civics, and American history?

[Popular Front]

13. Amen. We have a civic duty to our commander-in-chief

I am happy we agree.

[villager]

24. A civic duty to do what? Shut up and watch sell-out after sell-out?

:shrug:

[Popular Front]

26. How exactly has President Obama sold us out?

Please be specific.

[villager]

44. Please be specific in what you meant by"duty to the commander-in-chief"

I was responding to that...

[Popular Front]

53. We owe him our loyalty

I joined this because this is DEMOCRATICunderground.

[villager]

62. We do? We "owe" him our "loyalty," no matter what?

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

28. Achtung! Achtung!

Gott mit uns!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

67. Yes! It's just like Nazi Germany!

:silly:

[IndianaGreen]

94. More like Oceania

Emmanuel Goldstein is lurking waiting to pounce.

[AndrewP]

161. But we OWE our dear leader!!!!

LOL

Actually, I owe the progressive movement. I don't owe blind loyalty to any person.

[mix]

42. What are you talking about? nt

[Popular Front]

46. Just saying I support the President

:)

[mix]

49. I do too, but you've got a militaristic way of putting it.

He is "our" Commander in Chief in that he commands the armed forces on our behalf. But he does not command us, nor should.

:)

[Popular Front]

50. He leads us though

And thankfully.

[ima_sinnic]

99. excuse me, he's not my "commander-in-chief"

and I don't owe him shit.

[jgraz]

135. You do understand that Obama is CinC of the *military*, not of all citizens, don't you?

Maybe middle-school civics is a bit too advanced for jingoistic apologists. :shrug:

[pecwae]

145. Did you have that same

duty under the Bush administration?

[Romulox]

173. When will this OBVIOUS bozo be TSed? nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

204. Benjamin Franklin was not omniscient, but he seems to have been a particularly wise statesman,

as well as one your nation's Founding Fathers.

Perhaps you and the OP have forgotten his precept concerning the most basic civic duty:
'It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.'

Note that he did not qualify the questioning of authority as 'the second', 'third', 'fourth' or any lesser order of civic duty, but as the very 'first'.

Your invocation of a blind obedience to your leader/commander-in-chief (Ger. Fuhrer), does you no credit. Subject to the Geneva Convention and common humanity, 'Ours not to reason why, ours but to do or die', may, be a legitimate tenet of an infantry soldier to live or die by, but it is not appropriate for members of civil society.

[marybourg]

15. "Don't tell me what can't be done, Tell me how to do what I want

to do." - every lawyer's client ( in reference to above comments)

[RBInMaine]

51. Sorry, but it is not a perfect world.

[marybourg]

104. I was agreeing with you & summing up your critics' complaints. I guess. I

I didn't do it well.

[IndianaGreen]

16. What debunks your argument is that we could have used the reconciliation route

rather than chase the undemocratic, and unconstitutional, 60 votes.

Anyhoo, thank you for your post.

:hi:

[RBInMaine]

47. Tricky route with this one though. Very tricky. Take insurance reform for now and get a victory.

Build on it later.

[Dr.Phool]

201. If it was reform, I'd take it.

It's a shakedown and a giveaway. Calling it reform doesn't make it reform.

[Joe Chi Minh]

202. Tricky, tricky, tricky! Do you think any worthwhile achievement in government is not

tricky?

Do you have any conception of the difficulties facing Aneurin Bevan, who was not PM, when he was setting up the free to all, NHS, in the UK? He even faced the opposition of the GMC and the vast majority of the doctors. It was at that time he called the Tories, 'vermin', which did not go down well with their knuckle-dragger base at all.

[rwheeler31]

19. Thank you for making sense. People are fuming mad

they will settle down and start thinking soon.

[bluestateguy]

20. You get an A-

I'm not giving you a full A because too many people here like to get caught up in their own revisionist history tales of the New Deal and the Great Society ("But, but, if we only had another Roosevelt!!!! "LBJ would have done (insert blank)") You won't convince them.

[RBInMaine]

41. I'll take the A- :-) And I like SchoolhouseRock, as factually lacking as it is, it's fun.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Keep in mind...

one of the people flaming you once suggested that the president declare single payer health care via executive order, so that's the sort of people you're dealing with.

[RBInMaine]

55. Is that the same parent who wants to jail teachers because her child doesn't do his/her homework?

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Two Suggestions, And A Statistic

1. Look up the phrase "bully pulpit".
2. Read Caro's biographies of LBJ
3. 2/3rds of Americans are in favor of "Medicare for Everyone"

[avaistheone1]

119. Thank you.

What Manny said!!

[billh58]

199. I'll see your two suggestions

and a statistic, and raise you a fact: only the Congress of the United States of America can enact legislation. Why are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, along with the other Congressional cowards, not being vilified and blamed for inaction as well? Is it just easier to focus your anger on one man who can do little without the support of his Party's Congressional leadership -- especially if that "leadership" is afraid of its own shadow?

A presidential "bully pulpit" isn't worth a tinker's damn if there is no support from Congress, and that Congress is filled with turncoat DINOs as well as Republican obstructionists. LBJ had the full support of dedicated Democrats, like John McCormack, in the middle of a 40-year run of Democratic control of Congress.

[firedupdem]

29. Rec'd....thank you! n/t

[tularetom]

34. That's rather patronizing

I know all that. I didn't totally sleep through my history and civics classes in HS. Of course that's how things are supposed to work. The problem is there is a lot of deal making and posturing that takes place behind the scenes that affects the outcome a lot more than what is revealed in public speeches or oratory on the floor of congress.

I also know that, regardless of the three branches/separation of powers argument, the president is the titular head of his political party. As such he wields a substantial amount of power over senators and congresspeople of his own party. If he wanted single payer health insurance or a public option, he could lean on Harry Reid and that's the bill that would be proposed. If he wanted to force the issue through reconciliation, all he would need to do is say the word. Reid wouldn't stand up to him. He doesn't stand up to anybody.

This isn't 100% Obama's fault, there's plenty of blame to go around. Nevertheless if he had advocated from the start for a single payer system or a strong public option, it would have moved the whole debate significantly in that direction.

I'm not sure this crappy bill is doable. It might pass but then what? Not one republican will vote for it no matter how watered down it is. The whole thing will be blamed on the Democrats and the liberal media will pile on with glee. The Democrats will be beat over the head with it in 2010 and Obama will have to listen to people bitching about it for three years. And if it is perceived to be ineffective, the voters will not give him or the Democratic congress a second chance.

There are great risks in accepting a shitty bill just because it is "doable"

[spoony]

113. Well put top to bottom! nt

[harun]

181. Teachers think they have to talk down to everyone because their

job is talking down to everyone.

The civics lesson they tend to miss:

* You don't live in a Democracy, you live in a Corporate Representative Republic. Examples of some real Democracies are ...

[Starry Messenger]

38. "Obama bashing"--what a refreshing change of pace!

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnnyLib2]

40. Good reminder, thanks.

And can you imagine being a sub and facing this crew?
:scared:

[RBInMaine]

45. Most here are very well-meaning and have a right to their views. What becomes tiresome are the

reality deficits. You'd think they'd be jumping for joy now after 8 long years of Bush/Cheney/Rove and having prevented McSAME and Failin'Palin from getting into office. Ah well. Some folks will never be satisfied.

[BlueIdaho]

98. And some folks are far too easily satisfied.

[JamesA1102]

52. Excellent post. Thank you. nt

[FLyellowdog]

56. Thanks for reminding us about the basics.

I'm guessing we all thought Pres. Obama would wave a magic wand and all our dreams would come true. And now we're pissed because it hasn't happened. He will still do great things but most assuredly at a pace slower than we would wish. We just simply forgot the role Congress has to play in all these changes we'd hoped (and voted)for. :hi:

[RBInMaine]

61. Thanks. And Obama inherited HUGE messes. They can't be fixed overnight as some would like.

[avaistheone1]

120. He is creating huge messes by not doing much of anything in

the way of real change and reform regarding health care, the banksters, and civil liberties.

[rasputin1952]

63. Excellent OP...

most people who post here don't have the faintest idea how things work in the political spheere.

Kind of sad to say that, but it is true.

I laugh when I see the R's misquote Founding Documents, their expressions of ignorance is a great source of amusement. I tear up when I see people here falling over themselves trying to "tell" everyone how things work.

Idealism is a good thing, but practical reality trumps it every time.

[RBInMaine]

70. Thanks! Hey, I'd love to see single payer. Can't happen now though. So take the best you can get.

[rasputin1952]

72. Everything is incremental in politics...

with the exception of something like war.

People forgot what happens when "everything" is demanded...the "Patriot Act" stands out as a disaster shoved through Congress.

We'll get there, it is going to take time though...and effort from citizens to fire up those in Congress.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

65. Good explanation.

It seems like an awful lot of people don't really know how the system works. And there are even a few who think Obama should just rule by fiat, the way Bush did, in order to get what *we* want. We were outraged about Bush's disregard for the legislative process -- the signing statements and executive orders, all the ways he used to circumvent Congress and implement the policies he wanted, separation of powers and the Constitution be damned. But is that what we now want from Obama? Is it OK just because the policies are Good and Liberal instead of Bad and Conservative?

[RBInMaine]

69. Very good point. American democracy is the art of compromise, not cowboyism.

[niceypoo]

78. In theory, yes...

...in reality it is closer to the Jerry Springer show.

The only, 'compromise,' is from timid Democrats. Republicans never compromise, they just ram it down out throats. All the GOP has to do is yell real loud and the Democrats submit, giving the republicans anything they want for nothing in return. A few rounds of this and whatever the Democrats are attempting to push through becomes watered down to the point of being absolutely toothless.

I wouldn't exactly call it art.

[Armstead]

71. Why are "realist" Democrats so good at explaining why things can;t get done?

Always an excuse. Always.

Perhaps the math in this is against it. But the problem is that we are even in this position because of a long and repeated pattern of failure and excuse making rather than vision.

Jeezus if the Republicans were so "pragmatic" Reagan would have never gotten out of California.

[RBInMaine]

77. Dems have always had a more diverse caucus, and things do get done. Maybe not your ideal, but that

doesn't mean "nothing" gets done. Please see the point. Change rarely happens in America in one fell swoop. Maine just voted down gay marriage. Does that mean "nothing" gets done in Maine? No. In '05 gays WON protected civil rights status. They would have WON civil unions. But marriage went too far for too many. That's REALITY. Gay marriage CAN NOT pass now. Our society isn't ready, at least nationally or even in whole-state votes. Too bad, but THAT is REALITY. So, get what you can. Civil unions CAN pass, and it would be an ADVANCE and worth doing. But some say, "Marriage or Nothing !" OK. Then take NOTHING and get NOTHING. And don't complain ! Just to use an analogy.

[Armstead]

84. I'd be a little more open to your point if faiklure was not so longstanding and entrenched

What successful major legislation or policy have the Democrats successfully championed since 1980?

How many policies has the GOP successfully championed in the same time period?

Which party has dominantly shaped our economy and politics and culture?

[rug]

73. This sounds like the Three Little Pigs without the Big Bad Wolf of capital.

[BlueIdaho]

76. You forgot the part about corporate lobbyists taking control of the government.

Your theories may work well in a middle school poli-sci class but it ignores the reality of billions of dollars in graft and corruption used to frustrate the will of the people. Not exactly the neat and tidy version of "how a bill becomes a law" but it is the political reality of the 21st century.

[RBInMaine]

80. True, and yes, we do talk about lobbying. But lobbying of many kinds is legal and good. And $ ?

Well, we must be fair. Unions give large amounts. Trial lawyers give large amounts. Individuals can give pretty darn large checks. Etc.
Lobbying reform is a balance between free speech and free political activism and over-the-top money-giving. Yes, more lobbying reform is needed. How do you do it fairly and legally? Right now, that too is what that is, much as it stinks in some ways. You still do the doable whatever the variables.

[BlueIdaho]

83. Here's the reform we need.

Kick every last one of them out of the capitol. That's right, labor, AARP, the NRA, the Insurance Industry, Banking, even the fucking Girl Scouts lobbyists. They are a cancer on the American political landscape. The congress will not do the work of the people as long as special interests are stuffing money in their pants. There is no such thing as corporate "free speech" that's a load of right wing bullshit.

[RBInMaine]

90. The first amendment might have something to say about your idea though.

[BlueIdaho]

97. I don't care what the courts say

Corporations do not have the same rights as citizens - period.

[Better Believe It]

79. It's obvious you need some American history lessons. So please don't lecture us!

Change in American has not always come slowly. In fact, huge changes have come very quickly as a result of mass movements demanding changes. Why, we've even had to very real revolutions in our history that brought about basic economic and political changes.

They were the American revolution for independence and the Civil War followed by radical Republican reconstruction.

[RBInMaine]

85. How little you really know is quite striking. Read on.

But for the taxation resulting from the expenses of the 7 Years War, it may well have been decades before a full separation from Great Britain would have been considered, much as occurred in Canada. Even still, it was 13 years of declining relations before the Declaration of Independence, and barely then even after the British army's invasion of Massachusetts. Declaring independence had to be negotiated, and that took months on end and one hell of a lot of arm-twisting and deal-making. By all estimates, maybe half the population at most sympathized with independence. The other half were either Tories or neutral. Without foreign assistance and recognition, which took several years to secure in a significant way, the revolution would likely have failed. The constitution took many long months of tedious negotiations and compromises to adopt, and from the end of the revolution to the Civil War the nation struggled to remain united and nearly broke apart permanently. Deep divisions remained for many more decades, and some divisions still remain. The slaves were freed on paper, but remained "slaves" to many years of forced segregation and brutal, "legal" discrimination. It took many years for women to get the vote, and only then nationally with court action as "civilized" men in most states would not grant it at the voting booth. The "movements" you talk about took many years, some ultimately failed. Look how long it took us to get out of Vietnam. Look at the failure of the temperance movement. Look at the dramatic decline of the labor movement. Look at the failure of the socialist/communist movement. Look at the decline of the conservative movement. Look how long it took to grant full rights to minorities and women. Look how long it is taking to get full rights for gays. Need I go on?

[rasputin1952]

95. Well...

The Revolution lasted 6 years; the Civil War 4; women were not granted suffrage until 1920; slaves were not emancipated until 1863, and that was only in the states that were revolting at the time; Civil Rights were not Federally granted until the 1960's even after many a law and 2 amendments to the Constitution were enacted; WWII took 4 years for us, and many more for others; Vietnam went on for 7 years after Nixon was elected on the platform of getting out, Ford actually got us out after Congress cut funding; the list goes on.

Do you know what happened quickly? The "Patriot Act"...now there is something to be proud of!

[RoyGBiv]

108. Wow ...

You advise an educator of a need for a history lesson, and then you go and put on display for all to see both an ignorance of history and a stunning lack of perspective.

I barely even know where to begin to explain how poorly stated your comments are.

I could begin by noting that the cause of independence, of an American identity seeking an independent voice and eventually political separation from England, began fully a century prior (1675 - 1676 to be precise) to the first shots being fired, that after those shots were fired, over a decade passed before the new nation had an attempt at a sustainable form of government and that nearly half a century had gone by before the United States was not fully reliant upon European tensions overwhelming foreign powers' ability to subdue us into what would amount to a puppet state in the modern world. Even so, to which European nation we owed our allegiances was a hot concern all the way up to the Civil War itself.

Independent in name, we were, from the moment the Declaration was signed. Independent in reality we were not. Our independence was imperfect, but we took what we could get at the time and sought to improve upon it.

Or, I could begin with the notion that the American Civil War was more of a continuation of the Revolution than a separate conflict and that we were not a genuine union of states until roughly 1877. Even without that premise, the Civil War itself did not come "quickly" as the issues that led to the first recognized shots being fired at Sumter had been brewing fiercely since the 1830s, had led to wars against foreign powers in the 40s, a quasi-guerrilla war in the 50s, and did not end as a shooting war until well into the 1880s.

I could also note that radical Reconstruction was a failure and was in fact a failure partly due to hardened extremists at all ends of the political spectrum, that the fights of the civil rights era, from the 1940s through the 1970s, were the very same fights that had transformed into a hot war in the 1850s and 60s only to cool into essentially a terrorist insurrection and complacency for the next hundred years and that genuine change did not take place in anything like an instant.

And, finally, I could take issue with your broad premise and discuss how your reliance upon a shooting war as an example of quick change is a false one. These wars you mention are symptoms of intense pressures for and attempts at change that had become increasingly violent for, in both cases, at least a hundred years prior. The wars themselves are in fact evidence that change comes too slowly and thus erupts into massive violence. Your premise would have meaning only if the rapid change brought about by organized and sanctioned murder occurred in a vacuum of time, which it does not.

[Number23]

115. Great post. It is the lack of basic PERSPECTIVE on this site on a host of issues, not just how

laws get made, that would terrify the crap out of me if I took this place even the slightest bit seriously.

I've seen posts proudly proclaim that "change doesn't happen in increments. It happens in broad sweeps" that get 100 and something recs and pats on the back to the person stating it. All you can do is shake your head.

[RoyGBiv]

118. I do a lot of head shaking ...

... for precisely that reason.

I've decided my head shaking is a personal metaphor for keeping the crazy out.

Such things get a lot of recs and pats on the back for understandable reasons. It *sounds* good. It makes us feel better to think that, maybe tomorrow, it'll all be better. I would love to believe that Superman is real and that there's not a single problem that can't be fixed in 30 minutes, including bathroom breaks and runs to the refrigerator for snacks, but I can't make myself do it. I don't want to do it. Believing that, even subconsciously, leads directly to the kind of abject anger and bitter disappointment we feel when that perfection doesn't materialize in a single moment.

Hell, I think Lord of the Rings is too short. :)

... and before I close I'll note that I attempted this lame, geek-fueled analogy and realized before hitting Post that in the original Tolkien books, even an author of fiction recognized and tried to make clear that such broad and sweeping changes took place across a vast swath of time and that the journey of the Fellowship was only a small slice of a much larger, much longer series of events ... and that there is no end to it.

[Number23]

121. Oh, common sense AND a Tolkien fiend??

You've just made a friend for life. :loveya:

The time between Isildur cutting the ring off of Sauron's finger and Aragorn's ascension to becoming King of Gondor took literally THOUSANDS of years and countless deaths. There are few works of literature or non-fiction worth even mentioning that don't describe change as painful, bloody and torturous particularly for those waiting for it. Whether based on real life events or not.

Yes, it is a geek-fueled analogy but I enjoyed it anyway and it definitely has the ring of truth. Thanks for that. :)

[JTFrog]

138. Wow... LOL!

:crazy:

Some folks never fail to amaze in just how wrong they can be. :shrug:

[Clio the Leo]

81. You may be talking over their heads....

.... we should try...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

We're at the 1:57 mark if that helps anyone.

[quakerboy]

82. Thats the civics class version

Now, do you want to talk about how politics really happen, how choices are made, and how politicians get reelected in the real world, or do you want to live in the civics class textbook?

[RBInMaine]

87. First, that also is what it is. All kinds of lobbying happens,

and all kinds of deal-making which in turn adds to the incrementalist nature of politics. Regardless, the essential system also remains what it is, notwithstanding lobbying influences. There is still a separation of powers, and one branch can't be blamed for another's "failures" or imperfections or differences in role and process. That, and that change is usually slow regardless, are my main points. Whatever the lobbying influences or any other variables, let's do what can be done. Let's do SOMETHING.

[quakerboy]

96. Do what? My senators do not appear to be listening to me,

And I am in a "liberal" state. At least if I was in a "red" state, I could work against my elected officials with a completely clear conscience. But what do I do?


I am a strong subscriber to punctuated evolution. In my experience "slow" changes are generally not beneficial, but rather prove to be degradations. My reading of history seems to bear me out. Change seems to come in leaps, then people get scared and hold off a while, nursing their concerns about all the scary newness.

[depakid]

86. Here's a civics lesson- reconciliation has been used over 20 times by different presidents

in assorted matters.

All your post represents is more excuse making for FAILURE to get responsible public policy passed.

Moreover- the bottom line is that whether you like it or not- the American people are sick and tired of excuses. They WILL blame the administration and Congress for this and other exercises in corruption and procedural ineptitude- and there will be a price to pay, if the Senate version is what comes out of this at the end of the day.

[NYC_SKP]

88. Yes, that's it! Reconcilliation! President Obama MUST Use teh Reconcilliation!!!

:silly:

[depakid]

100. If you want responsible public policy- that's what will have to happen

Of course, if you simply want to be a shallow cheerleader who gets something they can try to claim is 'win' then by all means continue pandering to right and attempting to appeasing the likes of Lieberman, et al.

Yep- that'll solve your problems!

[RBInMaine]

89. This is different though, and polling data indicate they don't want major overhaul. Most Americans

are used to their employer-based coverage and like it. They want it reformed, not replaced. Look at the numbers. Indys and the elderly don't want a dramatic, costly overhaul. Do insurance reform, and then a larger overhaul later if needed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. No-one in Congress is proposing a major overhaul

Things like single-payer were never really considered. But:

"every American man, woman, and child (should) be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive healthcare. In meeting after meeting, people expressed moral outrage with a health care crisis that leaves millions of Americans–including nine million children–without health insurance and millions more struggling to pay rising costs for poor quality care.
...
Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan."

From the 2008 Democratic Party platform: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

Adding a public option is not a major overhaul, and they get to keep their present insurance if they like it. And this was the first policy in the platform. This got the Democrats elected.

[Joe Chi Minh]

205. The simply doesn't have answers to elementary objections to his

pompous maunderings.

[depakid]

102. You must have been looking at entirely different numbers than I've seen

repeatedly.

I might also add that something you could point out in your civics lesson is that the process in the OP is a prescription for a failing state- one that's no longer capable of addressing the challenges your students face in the 21st Century.

[TheKentuckian]

177. I think there are right and wrong interpretations here

created by misunderstanding the real make up of independents because folks ignore that Republican ID is down to like 19% but Democrats haven't grown much, if at all. What happened was large amounts of Republicans have become independents to jump off the sinking ship but they are still definitely conservatives which means Republicans need 50% or more of them to just reach parity. I think anything above 40% of indy's is a strong number for us and we might not be losing an effective coalition until we drop below 30% support.

I think it is also clear and largely undiscussed on a national level even in more liberal circles that what people don't want is this lackluster at best plan but they are more than cool with a public option and probably even single payer is at worst at parity with the crap under discussion.

The other thing here is that the elderly aren't balanced out properly by the remaining population because they show up to be heard and the majority of the rest of us cannot be bothered so we will get rolled anytime we don't have them full on onboard and locked in. Anything that they are against for whatever reason is probably completely out of reach so any initiative must be senior-centric so we don't have the biggest and surest voting block way off the reservation.

[SeattleGirl]

103. This is a good reminder, RB

It's too bad it's garnered so many hateful responses, but then, these days it's not surprising.

Some folks around here are dedicated to Obama hatred. No matter what the topic, they'll always find a way to throw the hate around.

Thank you, though. I for one appreciate your post.

[billh58]

105. K&R

Thanks for the reality check, and Civics refresher.

[bridgit]

107. Wha!? "doable"?! Gah man geeze, we be all about the Utopian Pies n'Da Skies...

Able to rain Cool Aid & Gummy Bears now *that* seems doable

[avaistheone1]

122. We would never have had the accomplishment of FDR New Deal or LBJ's Great Society with your thinking

You think too small.





http://obit-mag.com/media/image/800px-Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_2_July,_1964.jpg

[bridgit]

164. This from a person too bawk-bawk-bawk to show any kind of profile?

You're the silicon mouse of The New Dem Party, where humor stops at the tip of your whiskered nose - congrat'z, how proud you must be, though I'll suggest that if you think it all ended with LBJ at that table then you're just not thinking *wide* enough

[Zomby Woof]

112. Since you teach middle school...

...then you are obviously prepared for the onslaught of juvenile, sanctimonious, insulting, pouty, and whiny replies you will have received by the time I post this.

Although I agree with you, and even quixotically recommended your post, I knew your pedantic approach would piss these people off like Yosemite Sam on a 100 proof whiskey bender.

It's never the right approach around here. Then again, there is no correct way to present the facts around here to people not of sound mind to receive them.

[Number23]

116. +20 I rec'd the OP too. Got him/her to +1 for about 14 seconds.

:)

[Kaleva]

114. k&r'd

[burning rain]

117. The fact that there are not 51 Democratic senators willing to abolish the 60-vote rule...

in favor of simple majority for cloture, shows they really don't care to enact major rather than anemic reform.

[avaistheone1]

123. Here's a civics lesson for you.

“There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”
Robert Francis Kennedy

[jeanpalmer]

127. "While the President can submit legislation for consideration"

Did he submit any legislation? Leadership required his researching the issue, finding a reasonable solution, and submitting it to Congress in the form of proposed legislation. He couldn't have reasonably expected to take an issue as complicated as HCR, throw it up for grabs to 500 people, and get a workable solution. What results is giant cluster of the kind we have now. That was either a midjudgment on his part or it could have been intentional, I don't know. But either way, he didn't use the leadership powers that he has.

Being co-equal doesn't mean a President can't propose legislation. If he had proposed good legislation, had worked hard to get it passed, but failed, I'd give him credit for that, he can't do much more than that. And most people would give him credit. At that point, it would be clear that the failure rested with Congress.

[lamp_shade]

128. K&R

[elleng]

129. Thanks.

Helps my frame of mind.

[Kalun D]

130. Obama is a failure

Look at history, look at LBJ pushing civil rights, that was a way bigger fight, the prez is very influential

Obama hasn't done crap to win health care, he's laying down bigtime

Obama beat the Clintons then he won the presidency

Now he has 60 dems in the senate and majority in the house

and he can't get meaningful healthcare? Give me a break.

It's because he doesn't want it. The people that own him don't want it.

He hasn't even tried.

Obama is a one term prez big time. Worse than any dem in recent memory.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

133. Please list the 60 Democrats in the Senate.

Because I count 58 and Bernie Sanders.

[Kalun D]

187. Obama and Lieberman

Yeah and Obama is on the turncoat's side.

[rasputin1952]

134. Kind of premature don't you think?

PO is not LBJ, few pols have the arm twisting power that LBJ had...he was a master of the art.

FWIW...LBJ spent so much time in the House and Senate, he had the goods on everyone...others knew this and acquiesced readily, he was a unique politician, he knew hw to get things done, and God forgive whomever got in his way...but PO is not LBJ; nor did he ever grasp the old Chicago politics that made people genuflect before political figures.

[ClarkUSA]

160. LBJ also had 68 Democratic Senate votes to work with when he got Medicare, not 58 + Bernie Sanders.

Somehow, the "Obama Should Be Like LBJ" crowd always leaves out that little inconvenient FACT.

[CTLawGuy]

144. you look at history

LBJ lost 120 dems on civil rights act and 70 on medicare. Sounds like a "leader" by your standards :eyes:

[jgraz]

136. Wait... we have *three branches* of government??? REALLY??

:wow:

Gee, teacher. Can you tell me which branch of government made Obama abandon Single Payer without a peep?

Or which branch of government made him cut secret deals with Big Pharma?

Or which branch of government made him put DLCer Rahm Emanuel in charge of shepherding this legislation?

Or which branch of government made him yank support from Harry Reid when Reid said he was going to pursue the opt-out instead of the worthless trigger?

Or which branch of government made him refrain from showing a molecule of public support for even a weak public option?


In other words, which part of your civics class covers the President's Constitutional authority to con the fuck out of a credulous population?

[urgk]

139. If he thought that were necessary to overcome the conservative members of congress...

then the answer is easy - the Legislative branch.

It just doesn't make any sense for Obama to make health reform an issue, then stifle it.

[backscatter712]

140. I'm not demonizing Obama for this.

I think he could have used better tactics, but at the same time, Presidents have tried and failed at reforming health care for over a century, and Obama's gotten the process further along than any previous president. We were two, maybe four votes short of cloture this time. Clinton didn't get this far along, nor did Kennedy in the 70's. Johnson made progress with Medicare, but didn't get everyone covered, and that was in a far less hostile political environment. Truman couldn't do it either, nor could Roosevelt even with his massive support for the New Deal.

[TexasObserver]

141. You're a single engine prop pilot lecturing fighter pilots about hostile engagements.

Politics IS the art of the doable, and "doing" means not sitting on one's ass and accepting as inevitable weak results.

You stay back in the hangar. Some of us have been here before and won't sit on the sidelines with you.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTLawGuy]

142. didn't LBJ

strong arm the Southern "Democrats" into supporting the civil rights act and Medicare, which then passed unanimously among Democrats? :eyes:

Why can't Obama just do that? :sarcasm:

[itsrobert]

147. A Steaming Pile of Crap

Maybe we should start with Social Studies teachers reform first?

[rasputin1952]

148. How can you say that facts are a "steaming pile of crap"?

This is the way things work, it is set in the Constitution...and yet, somehow, you decide it is a "steaming pile of crap"...I do not understand this at all.

[Lerkfish]

149. are you responding as a moderator or a member?

if a member, I would address your question. If as a moderator, I'm not allowed to.

[rasputin1952]

151. You can address or answer any post I put in DU...

I often do not post as a moderator,; and as a member, I have every right to post what I feel. Good rule of thumb, if you see me posting in a thread, it is almost always because I speak as a member first.

Now, please tell me where I am wrong, or where the OP is wrong.

It might take me a little time to get back to you as I am on my way out to get to a Law class Final . But I promise I will reply.

[Lerkfish]

159. I cannot speak for the other poster, but IMHO the steaming pile refers to this section

Given that change in America has always come slowly, that signifiant insurance reform is still an advance, that we have been trying for decades to do something on this, that the minority party is lined up even against insurance reform without a public option, and that governing is always the art of the doable and not the ideal, the executive is right to support the doable, and the legislature is right to do the doable.

If the executive had its ideal, it would be a robust public option. But the legislative realities are what they are. The national majority opinion is what it is. Getting a bill passed that achieves some movement in the right direction (cost cutting, no more pre-existng conditions exemptions, a healthcare exchange, etc.) is worth doing. The only other option is doing nothing, and that is no option.

Since our inception as a nation we have done what is doable in real time and have changed slowly. Should we not have written the Declaration of Independence because all Americans were not equal nor free? Should we not have emancipated the slaves because there was no attached voting rights act?
Should we not have passed anti-pollution laws because they didn't completely eliminate carbon emissions? Should we not have passed minimum wage laws because they still allowed for the working poor?

Even if you ignore the blatant condescension and attitude of the OP poster's headline and preamble, this section is not really fact, but opinion masquerading as fact. It sets up a false dichotomy of this flawed bill or nothing, which, in civics, is the opposite of participating in a democracy, its submitting to a failure in democracy and calling it acceptable. The reality is, the OP glances off the truth and ignores it: that the representatives do not represent the people. That is a FAILURE of the system. The OP then goes on to access hyperbole and straw men fallacies that attempt to paint anyone who doesn't like this bill or "bashes Obama" as being against the declaration of independence, the voting rights act, the minimum wages laws, etc, which IS A STEAMING PILE OF CRAP, because it implies that only by remaining quiet and allowing our representatives to not represent us is the way to good legislation, is wrong on its face: those monuments of freedom were HARD FOUGHT, BY PROACTIVE INVOLVEMENT OF THE PEOPLE, not by the people sighing and accepting what is doable. They were steps beyond the status quo into the possible and ideal vs. the mediocre and leftovers of "doable".

No one is arguing with the mechanical part of the post, but let's be honest, the mechanics were not the point of the OP, the point of the OP is that we can only achieve progress by allowing that progress to be betrayed.


and that, is a steaming pile.

[rasputin1952]

165. I don't agree...

throughout our history as a nation, most things were done incrementally and with pretty good reason. Virtually every one is afraid to a certain degree with change. Whether it be change in the workplace, local traffic laws, pet ordinances...and especially when something as large as societal change is in progress. One of the reasons Blacks weren't granted full Rights and Privileges is because they were seen as a threat, not just in the South, but all over the nation. The same thing is happening to Hispanics today. The underlying fear is that jobs will be lost, we'll all have to learn Spanish, money will flush out of the country through various means. When women were demanding suffrage, they were seen as a threat to the established way of things...years later, after they gained suffrage, they were seen as not being up to snuff to be many things in the military...we have seen these changes over time, and they have been good changes. Once society did not perceive a "threat" changes were made.

The same can be said about GLBT issues; for many a year, they have been seen as a threat by most of society. Today, the numbers have risen dramatically for their complete inclusion into society. Sadly, once again we are stuck in a "time frame", society just does not like to upset the status quo.

With HCR, we see many in this nation that really don't give a damn, because they have coverage, and some of those who complain the most about "socialized health care", are receiving benefits under Medicare, a social health plane. Take a look at the "crowds" that show up for teabagger photo-ops...the majority are clearly receiving retirement benefits that you and I are paying for today...but they are just too damn dumb to see that they are the recipients of government largess. I had an oldster around here complaining about "socialized health care", I told him I was sick and tired of paying for his health care under Medicare, and I was going to suggest to my congresscritters that Medicare be taken away...I thought he was going to die on the spot. FWIW...he saw the light and gave up on his ranting.

What it comes down to, is that change takes time. I wish it didn't, but in some ways, I'm glad it does. Seeing the monstrosity that is the "Patriot Act", (an incredibly mis-named piece of legislature if there ever was one, talk about your "steaming pile"), go into effect as rapidly as it did was a wake up call for all citizens, and one of the reasons the GOP is no longer in control. Quick legislature is rarely clean legislature.

We live in a democratic-republic, we elect people to represent us. Congress has, for the past 30+ years come in on the short end of trust from the population. Generally speaking, they are just above used car salesmen and just below gonorrhea when it comes to popularity. But that is Congress overall...when it comes to congresscritters in their own districts and states, it's a whole 'nother matter, that's why some have literally lifetime appointments; the people of their districts/states like them...they dislike everyone else. It is like this all over the country, and explains why Congress seen in such a bad light.

For all of the clowns, especially on the right side of the aisle, I got a burst of pride whn I saw Al Franken crush Thune with facts and truth. It should be a guide for all of the D's and they should follow the path. If they did, they would destroy the GOP and it would go the way of the Whigs...perhaps opening a door to less radical and more sane individuals.


edited: typo's :blush:

[Lerkfish]

166. that's a huge amount of typing to say basically the same thing

you should have stopped at "I don't agree". That's your right to disagree, but the sheer volume of your typing does not convince me I am wrong, sorry.
You're essentially doing the same thing as the OP: making allowances for a broken system and suggesting its our civic duty to live with that broken system.

That's not participatory democracy, that's rule by the elite, the same thing the french revolution fought against.

[rasputin1952]

167. You have your right to your opinion...

I don't see it that way.


edited: dumb typo's...blush:

[Lerkfish]

169. then why do you ask for clarifications?

if your mind is already set?

[rasputin1952]

170. Basically, you asked for the conversation in Post #149...

I am obliging.

[Lerkfish]

174. no, #149 was a response to your #148, asking for clarification from another poster

although I suppose its easy to become confused.

I asked in a way if you wanted a clarification as a moderator or a member. Its clear your request was rhetorical, I suppose at this point.

[billh58]

175. Actually, the Constitution itself

"makes allowances" for a broken system -- when, and if, that actually occurs. Your argument that the system is somehow "broken" is subjective, and uses fuzzy logic to arrive at that conclusion. In our Constitutional and representative form of democracy, a citizen's only "participatory" role is to vote for the Representative of his/her choice periodically, or to lobby their Congressional State and District elected officials. There is no Constitutional provision for an average citizen to participate in the procedural enactment of a law. Our "civic duty" is actually a social contract to work toward the betterment of our community through economic participation, public service, exercising our right to vote, volunteer work, and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens.

When an elected official does not meet the expectations of individual citizens, we have the freedom of speech to criticize that official, but we have absolutely no effective influence over how those we elect will vote -- until the next election. In a true "direct democracy," each eligible citizen is allowed to vote on legislation as well as for those running for elective office. The United States of America has never been, nor was it founded as, a direct democratic form of government. The combined Congress of the United States of America is the only representative "voice" that free citizens have in the day-to-day workings of Executive oversight and the enactment of new laws.

The OP is entirely correct in her portrayal of how our government actually works, and in her observations that social progress is relatively slow in this country. In my lifetime alone, however, I have seen the Democratic Party lead the way with Civil Rights and Labor advances that my parents and grandparents could only dream about. In only a short 233 years (eight generations) we Americans have socially, economically, and morally surpassed any Democratic form of government in the history of the world.

Those who truly believe that ours is an "evil" country because our elected representatives do not grant all of our wishes instantly, need to take a deep breath and actually read our Constitution, and study the historical progress made by the seven generations of Americans who preceded us.

Proud of my country, warts and all? You bet!

[Lerkfish]

176. but why argue to leave the warts untreated?

that's the crux of my argument, not whatever you seem to envision it is.

[billh58]

178. And again, my

point is that we, as a nation, have been removing the warts for the past seven generations. In geological, social, and political time, that is almost supersonic speed.

Each generation of Americans has experienced the same urgency, the same sense of frustration, and the same righteous indignation as its predecessor. The truth is, that each current group of patriots (and I know some find that word distasteful) sets the stage, and lays the groundwork for their successors to complete, and the cycle continues.

Having the maturity to recognize a need for patience, is not the same as shirking a civic duty, or ignoring a problem. The energy wasted on negativity, name-calling, and hand-wringing would be better used on constructive criticism, volunteerism, civility, and calls for reason. Many of us tend to forget that majority rule requires negotiation and moderation in order to arrive at the most good for the most people -- at this point in our growth as a nation.

[Snazzy]

195. "Quick legislature is rarely clean legislature."

Lot of pressure to get this done, something done, by x-mas it seems. Why the rush?

That is rhetorical (at least for me) because I think I have a good take on our fine mess, just feel a little suckered once again despite being old enough to know better.

I mostly quit being a professional political activist when many do; what? late 20's, maybe early 30's. I got my gray hair then, not a coincidence I figure; I was doing mostly environmental and peace issues. And one of those subjectively important nuggets that I took away, something I now frequently remember saying to someone in frustration as I was getting out, was that I should somehow focus on geriatric issues--that way I'd see change in my lifetime on something I worked on that actually benefits me and my friends.

(That comes off more self-interested than it was meant but, since I'm not full of shit, I decided to reproduce my dwelled-upon quote in its entirety anyway.)

Turns out that, amazing to me, many issues I worked on have seen incremental improvements and sometimes even victory. Some of the water and air is cleaner, some nearly extinct species are still not extinct. A dangerous nuke plant/weapons lab is no more, and no one has lit off an offensive nuke 'cept the good ole US, still. In various places there is real concern for sustainability (usually too late, but hey). And medical marijuana, really?

Meantime, there are thousands of new issues to be pissed off about, almost always driven by the greedy alpha-male. I had hoped we were making enough activists to keep up, but I worry they are almost all playing MMO's/FPS or watching reality shows.

However some of the current crop must have helped Obama get elected. Really worked it. This is where the premature gray hair sets in. Now.

Edit: mischievous & misbegotten comma

[zulchzulu]

152. Absolutely! K&R

I find it puzzling that I have to remind people that the President is not a King who can wave his wand and decree laws.

[treestar]

154. Exactly

This is the process at work.

[architect359]

162. K&R n/t

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swede]

179. And that's why they say it's like watching sausage being made.

Thanks.

[itsrobert]

180. Stick to teaching the kids how it is suppose to work

Leave the real world to the experts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

183. So why did Reagan and Bush get so much done with less favorable

numbers in the House, the Senate, or both?

[billh58]

184. Not to be

snarky, but exactly what DID Raygun and Dubya accomplish that was beneficial for all Americans? The economic breakdown began under Reagan with deregulation, and culminated under Dubya with a purposeful lack of oversight of the financial sector. Both administrations used Executive Orders to favor their wealthy buddies, engage in war, support despots, and bypassed Congress on most issues. In both administrations, the Republicans in Congress voted as a "rubber stamp" block with absolutely no dissent. Raygun began the concept of a Neoconservative Unitary Executive, and it came to full fruition under "a dictatorship would be easier," and the Constitution is just a "God-damned piece of paper" Dubya.

Through all of this nightmare period for America, Congress shirked their primary responsibility of overseeing and restraining runaway Executive Branch administrations. It is also telling that these administrations were made up of the same cadre of Neoconservative traitors who were actually pulling the strings of the idiots sitting in the Oval Office, and were aided and abetted by the DINOs of the DLC "Centrist" movement.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

190. Duh, of course they weren't beneficial, but they accomplished so much of their agenda

much more than any Dem has since LBJ.

[billh58]

193. ALL criminals can

accomplish much of their agenda, when they pay no attention to established law, and circumvent the legal system with aid and assistance from a corrupt group of law-makers. It seems to me that we are still trying to understand the lessons learned from Neoconservative attempts to subvert our Constitutional form of representative government since the Raygun era.

Candidate Obama campaigned with promises of doing away with the concept of a "Unitary Executive," along with promises of representing ALL Americans equally, while attempting to heal the acute Neoconservative-caused partisan divide in this nation. It remains to be seen whether President Obama will be allowed to live up to his campaign promises, but I am here to support his efforts to do so.

To me, and many Middle Americans, it is refreshing to see a President demanding that Congress step up and be accountable to their constituency as envisioned by the Founders. We haven't had a responsible Congress since the days of Sam Rayburn, Tip O'Neill, and Tom Foley. Try and remember what life in the USA was like when Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert virtually ran the country from 1995 until 2007 (after 40 years of Democratic guidance and progress), and imposed their PNAC/Heritage Foundation "agenda" of total destruction of FDR's New Deal on the nation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

194. You think we have a responsible Congress NOW?

What does "responsible" mean to you?

Avoids upsetting the corporations?

[billh58]

198. No, we do not

have a responsible Congress at the present, and you know full well that is not what I said. What I actually said was that President Obama is attempting to force Congress into being responsible to the citizens who elected them.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have failed the American People, and like the economic crisis, two wars, and a deeply divided country, President Obama inherited them as well. Our anger, vitriol, and efforts should be focused on the elected officials who actually have the power to pass needed legislation, but are serving their corporate masters instead. Raygun and Dubya had the help and support of not only Big Money, but the Congressional leadership, and all Republicans (along with the Blue Dog DINO traitors) fell in line and voted as a rubber-stamp block.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

203. And to think it took only 183 posts to point out the obvious.

:shrug:

[grahamhgreen]

186. It's not a small step, it's a step in the wrong direction.

[EFerrari]

197. How do kids survive the cr@p they're served up in Middle School.

[dcsmart]

207. GREAT POST..wake up and smell the political system...K &R.

[racaulk]

208. You lost me at "Obama bashing."

Not only in your OP title, but again in your first paragraph. You may have a very valid point to make, but it is drowned out by the confrontational and patronizing tone you take very early in your post.

:thumbsdown: