StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 11:46 AM) Regression to the mean. Stats explains the worlds. Unfortunately true in our political landscape. Emergence of anything outside the established norm is almost guaranteed to be squashed or subsumed.

We have no reliable evidence that the costs are really $200M.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 11:14 AM) I agree with this. And in case you guys haven't seen, in the middle of all my ranting/raving I'm not stating the republicans would have done things differently. You're still painting a false picture of Democrats being completely unwilling to compromise on anything with Republicans. Hell, Republicans published manuals on how to obstruct anything and everything.

If one party wants $4 billion in jobs programs and the other wants $4 billion in taxes cuts, that doesn't necessarily mean $2 billion for each is the best answer. Compromise for the sake of compromise leaves us with terrible policies like DADT.

Compromise for the sake of compromise and split power for the sake of split power isn't a real answer. Appeal to moderation is a fallacy. It assumes that the correct answers really do lie somewhere in the middle of the current political spectrum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation It could be that some policies are just manifestly wrong and that there's no reason to compromise good policy simply for the sake of compromise.

The Democrats aren't a fractured party right now, why would Feingold try to make it one? The GOP is going to have a harder time reconciling the more sane part of their base with the tea party crazies.

Please cite travel costs and "entourage" sizes for Bush v Obama.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:55 AM) They made huge headway in the senate despite it being an election cycle in which by and large it were republican seats up for re-election. They held all of their seats and made significant headway. What happened in the house was the biggest swing in 60+ years. Why were there so many Dem targets? Why could they pick up so many House seats? Oh, right, because the Dems had such a strong majority. It was a big night for the GOP, pretty much across the board. There's no doubt about that.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) There is only one way to measure a revolution: what happens after. I imagine in 2 years, the R's will lose a bunch of seats in the house, maybe gain some in the senate. Who knows? One election does not lasting change make. Step away from the Kool-Ade. There were plenty of Democrats writing the GOP obituaries after 2008.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:49 AM) First, look at the bills that DID pass. The Stimulus bill was half tax breaks, which was not the Dems' intention, that was a concession to the GOP. The Health Care bill had all sorts of modifications to it to make it palatable. Clearly, concessions were made for votes. Second, its been well-reported that Obama and his cohorts have reached out to GOP leaders in Congress, and were basically told that there was no interest in compromise. To be fair, some of those concessions were made to get Blue Dog Democrats, aka conservative Democrats who vote Republican on just about every major issue, to go along. But still, the way Jason is painting history is clearly not accurate.

Let's not forget that the $200m figure isn't exactly well-sourced.

Do we have typical presidential travel costs? Really the only comparable would be Bush in a post-2001 world.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:38 AM) Show me where it happened. Show me where any sort of serious discussions happened. The dem's threw a middle finger to the repubs after 2008. They had all the mandate they needed from the voters and could push through whatever they wanted. All the repubs could do is try to block the progress and sit around and do whatever they could to slow the stuff that they didn't believe in from going through. And well, they had little ability to impact or stop it and the bills pushed through are all the evidence I need to support my opinion. Cap and Trade. Public Option/UHC. Jobs Bills. A Stimulus focused on jobs and spending and not tax cuts. Dozens of administrative appointments. Yes, the Dems did manage to get some major legislation passed over historic opposition from a minority party completely unwilling to compromise on anything. That doesn't mean they were completely unwilling to work with Republicans. Republicans seem to have this strange idea that, when in power, they get to pass anything they want. And, when they're not in power, the Dems should still pass what the Reps want. Compromising with a party with a super majority means you're not going to get a lot of your policies enacted. So they decided to actively oppose everything and anything they did and to demonize Obama, the Democrats and government in general.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:37 AM) As far as I'm concerned its the truth. Generalized a bit, certainly, but what I said above is the absolute truth. It is clearly, objectively not true. This is not necessarily true, and especially when politics are as caustic and hyperbolic as they are now. Compromise is impossible when you paint the President as an evil Communist Marxist Socialist Nazi Muslim Kenyan and leading the evil Democrats bent on destroying America. Yeah, some are based on facts, some aren't...

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:32 AM) No, it is as simple as the democrats pushed everything they could through for the past 2 years and never reached out for any sort of olive branch. Obama never had any conversations with the minority republican leaders. It was pretty much an FU given by the democrats to the republicans. They didn't want to work with the repubs and had the power to do so because America had voted them in. Well, that has changed significantly now. Eh, no. The democrats did plenty to compromise. They did plenty to not push through any sort of actual progressive agenda. They didn't push things through--healthcare took 18 months, the stimulus bill was almost half tax cuts. The Republicans simply made it their mission to not let Obama and the Democrats accomplish any of their legislative objectives. They were given concessions and given opportunities and still refused to vote for anything. The held up record numbers of appointments. Filed record numbers of obstructionist motions. If anything, the Democrats were took weak and too unwilling to push a progressive agenda. It'll be interesting to see if Obama and the Senate do take a "f*** you" tactic at this point, but they clearly haven't so far.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:28 AM) Ya, they've passed legislation that had major holes and it is pretty evident that America wasn't happy with what had been passed for the most part. America was pretty ignorant in general about what was passed thanks to bulls*** like "DEATH PANELS!"

One good thing to see was the failure of a lot of the Tea Party candidates.

Should Presidents just not leave the country then? I'm sure daily security costs for just sitting in the White House aren't cheap, and the motorcades and plane trips around the US aren't exactly frugal, either.

Oh I know, the next two years will be great for the lulz.

Already talking about dismantling HCR http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn...0,7938061.story Of course, picking up some seats in the Senate and taking back the house in a strong showing = clear mandate. Landslide victories in the House and Senate to get supermajorities and taking the White House doesn't mean mandate, and trying to enact any policies you campaigned on = "shoving it down our throats". Gotta love the cognitive dissonance in politics.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:48 AM) Given the circumstances and the clear opposing views on how to fix the problem, wouldn't you expect the GOP to fight back with what little power they had? I would expect the GOP to break government and try to paint it as a good thing, yes. I would expect them to be belligerent if the Dems did half of what they did. Oh, wait, they were.... Minority caucuses aren't there to break government by abusing parliamentary rules.

A positive note from last night: Prop 23 failed in California. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/11/03/03...-law-13439.html

Also there will be no African Americans in the next Senate. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021572-503544.html

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:31 AM) So, Balta is claiming they're the most productive Congress since Johnson, you guys are claiming they weren't able to get anything done because the GOP somehow stopped them. Which is it? They were able to get a lot done because of the strong majorities they had. That doesn't change how hard the Republican minorities in both sides of Congress tried to block just about every single thing. Seriously, this is easily quantifiable. This article is from last March. Since they lost control in 2006, they've more than doubled previous obstruction measures.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:29 AM) I don't see how this is true. You have a 50/50 Congress. Either they all sink together or they all get something accomplished. Either way, there won't be an entire country pissed that the party in power "did nothing" despite having 2 years to do it, because there is no one party in power who takes all the responsibility. Obama might be the scapegoat, but not anyone in Congress. I agree with what you're saying here. Two years, no improvement? Blame it on the Democrat President and Senate. Not enough time to fix all the bad policies enacted in 2009 and 2010. Two years, economic recovery? Pat yourself on the back, that watershed election in 2010 was the turning point. Without the courageous Republicans, we'd be over 10% unemployment! I'd say the Democrats would do the same, but they're generally too weak, ineffectual and just bad at messaging.