Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

No doubt on the obstructionism. The difference is I can see obstructionism coming from both side. For me in the senate, Reid, Schumer, McConnell, there isn't much difference. I do long for the days of Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole, even Baker and Byrd. None of them being the party leaders in the senate would obstruct just to obstruct. None of them would have reverted to the nuclear option either. I suppose I'm just an old foggie waxing for the good old days.

I hate tribalism as you put it. I also hate Republicans automatically opposing any Democratic proposal and Democrats automatically opposing Republican proposals. Regardless of who proposes something, it ought to be considered on its merits, not by who proposed it or who is president.

Sure, there are issues where no compromise available. But I'd wager on 90% of the issues something could be worked out between parties. That is if they had a mind to.

I blame Hastert and his Hastert rule for this. That was the start. Prior to him, it was very possible for the minority party in the house to get legislation passed with some of the majority party voting for it. His rule, no legislation could be passed without a majority of Republicans being in favor of it.

I usually stick to my election forecasts without getting involved in too many issues. But I do believe that every piece of legislation and appointment should be brought to a vote on the floor of the senate. All this tabling of bills passed by the house, whether it was Reid tabling the bill or McConnell is just plain wrong in my book.

He's a right leaning independent. Just like I'm a left leaning independent. We aren't enemies but there are several shades of ideology between us.

He wants to keep more poor people poor so the rich can prosper further.

That's what I'm throwing into the debate because that is the result of Centrist policies. We haven't been lurching right and left. We've gone straight down the center and only changed parties without ever changing policies.

Look around the world. It's a mess. If we'd made any effort at all we could have cleaned things up as we went along. Mighta got in the rich folks pockets though...

I don't mind being call right wing or left wing. On another site I've been called both and much worse. Yeah, no more liberal Rockefeller Republicans from the Northeast, no more southern conservative democrats either. Both parties have long ago shed their unwanted wing. There has been times I think both parties want to get rid of their moderates. Those in the center, center right and center left. That's a shame, it brought balance to both parties. But that is the past.

I'm not opposed to change either, as long as it does make sense. I can't understand all the time and energy the Democrats put into which bathroom a transgender could use. They're much more important issues to be addressed. That left me scratching my head.

As a nation we've been moving left since FDR. slowly, but surely. Right now I'm looking for some steady, reliable leadership. Someone who realizes getting the ship of state back on even keel. Bring some sanity to governance and this country. Once that is done, then we can address these other things. We're taking on water now, far as I'm concerned that lurch left can wait until we bail most of that water out.

Most of Sanders Ideas won't go anywhere even with a democratic congress. Like you said, there are too many center left democrats. This nation isn't ready for them today, perhaps in 2024 once everything is straighten out. Who knows?

Perhaps in 20 years, Sanders agenda will have become the law of the land. But not today, not in 2020. I'm also a political realist.

For our government to be good, we have to have political leaders from both parties that put the country ahead of party politics. Democrats worked great with IKE. Eisenhower actually had LBJ, then Majority Leader in the senate over to the White House three times a week to discuss getting his agenda through congress. JFK and LBJ worked very closely with Everett Dirksen, then the minority leader in the senate to get things through like Medicare and the civil rights and voting rights acts. More recently Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neal worked great together. Compromise and give and take, on toward the future.

Good governance is a two way street. Politics is the art of achieving the possible. A good politician grabs what is possible and puts what is impossible off to another day. Or administration or congress or whatever. When it comes to politics, I'm a realist, not an ideologue.

Yeah that's a biggie.
I love bandying about the issues and watching them play out in real time. Guessing how each scandal or crisis or pandemic is going to turn out. And your knowledge and deft handling of polls here is an invaluable resource to the debate, because I will sometimes just make shite up out of my head for the sake of the argument. I do this for fun y'know.

I'm an incredibly useful resource when it comes to election forecasts!

Anything I want to happen will never happen. If I dare to ever get excited about a candidate they will walk off a cliff. First it was Beto...then I went for Liz. Finally Bernie, it looked for a moment like he had a lock...I've made it very clear over the months that I considered Biden to be the worst case scenario.

And here we are.

This isn't a new thing. Just a fact of life here on the left. And this is why left leaning voters just sit home. It's pointless, it's hopeless. Who honestly cares. Your favorite guy will never win but here, vote for this guy you don't like instead...meh.

And I believe that it was the Republican party that changed the flow of traffic. It's been nothing but head on collisions ever since.

Maybe I'm wrong and Biden will turn things around. I hope so

Meh? I don't think I ever missed an election. At least presidential since 1968 when one had to be 21 to vote. I started off this year with Hickenlooper, then Steyer, then I suppose Biden. In 2016, it was Webb as my first choice, when he decided not to campaign, I switched to Kasich, when Trump and Clinton won the nomination, I voted for Johnson. Not necessarily a vote for Johnson as it was a vote against both Trump and Clinton. Some 9 million of us did that, voted against both major party candidates. Any third name on the ballot would have sufficed.

You know I said more on this site tonight than I probably have since I joined.

As far as the November election, in the swing states Biden does around 3-5 points better than Sanders against Trump. Biden wins Florida, North Carolina, Arizona where Sanders loses to Trump. So at the moment, being a numbers guy, Biden looks the better choice. Again I'm not very ideological. Once the general election campaign begins, that's a whole new ball game with all the negative attack ads etc. Polls this far out are basically useless except to give us a good indication of how things stand today.

Last political contribution I sent in was John Edwards, just before he crashed. I think I'm the kiss of death, so I refrain from making any more contributions!

Hasturd was the problem alright: He was a college coach, so he brought the concept that winning was more important than anything else. He played right into America's fixation on sports. In order to win, your team had to be on the offensive, initiate the play, and accept nothing from the other team. Since his reign, we have had zero cooperation between the benches in congress. There used to be a lot of cooperation, a lot of quid pro quo, which is exactly what a legislative body is supposed to do.

There still is a LOT of legislation needed that both sides could agree on, but they each try to lard up the bills with their pet projects. We need the ability to get bills stripped of their riders if they can't pass both houses. Likewise, I think Obama should have just given the senate 30 days to consider his SC nominee and then declared him to be a member of the court. Nothing in the constitution says the senate leader can veto a supreme court nominee.

I agree that Garland should have had a vote in the senate on confirmation. With 54 GOP senators at the time, it was a stupid political ploy. McConnell had more than enough senators to defeat or not confirm Garland. He should have had a floor vote. Obama or any other president can't appoint or declare someone to the SCOTUS without senate confirmation. The Constitution states as such. Article II, Section 2. In the era of paybacks, I suppose that was McConnell's way of getting back at Schumer for saying the senate wouldn't take up or confirm any of G.W. Bush's SCOTUS nominees in his last 19 months of his presidency. These things have a habit of coming back around on you.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee

Just like the nuclear option, bad mistake. But when you have both leaders in the senate putting party first, I'd expect no less. I like the idea of having some of the minority party give their consent to any SCOTUS nominee with the 60 vote cloture option. That prevented any extremist from being appointed and confirmed when the senate and president are of the same party. Doing away with minority rights in the senate is the last thing I would have thought the Democrats would do. But then again, we're talking Harry Reid. Him and McConnell are two peas in a pod when it comes to party first.

We're paying a price for Reid's first use of the nuclear option for a short term political gain. I hope he still thinks it was worth it. I realize Reid excluded the SCOTUS, but these thing escalate, McConnell adding the SCOTUS was no surprise. Soon the filibuster will be just a footnote in history as the nuclear option will be applied to all legislation.

The early Obama years would have been a lot better without Reid and Pelosi. I will be most disappointed if Pelosi does not step down as she promised.

Which is to say....they'll beg her to stay and she will.