NationStates Jolt Archive

what the fuck is wrong with the democratic party of usia?

What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"? (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/09/filibuster/index.html)

Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general "60-vote requirement" for everything.

How, then, can this be explained?

The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night, approving him despite Democratic criticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terrorism detainees.

The 53-to-40 vote made Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, the third person to head the Justice Department during the tenure of President Bush . . . Thirty-nine Democrats and one independent [Bernie Sanders] opposed him.

Beyond that, four Senate Democrats running for President missed the vote, and all four had announced they oppose Mukasey's confirmation. Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey's confirmation -- more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?

i honestly do not understand what benefit they think there is to be gained (even within the limited range of usian political discourse) by appearing like ineffectual capitulating whiners. it seems like it would be very very easy and politically beneficial to actually win something every once in awhile.

and we are well past the point where collaborationism makes even the slightest sense, given the mood of the country in poll after poll. shit, we're to the point where normal fascist collaborators would be busy trying to make it look like they hadn't even been in the country during the occupation for fear of the post-liberation lynch mobs. but not these geniuses.

so what the fuck is up?

A paralyzing fear of the Republican Noise Machine spinning their blockage of Beloved Dear Leader's apeshittery as "politics as usual," "obstructionism," "unpatriotism," and "aiding and abetting the terrorists."

A paralyzing fear of the Republican Noise Machine spinning their blockage of Beloved Dear Leader's apeshittery as "politics as usual," "obstructionism," "unpatriotism," and "aiding and abetting the terrorists."

Is "unpatriotism" even a word?

And in any case, "patriotism is the virtue of the vicious", as Oscar Wilde noted.

A paralyzing fear of the Republican Noise Machine spinning their blockage of Beloved Dear Leader's apeshittery as "politics as usual," "obstructionism," "unpatriotism," and "aiding and abetting the terrorists."

Wha? Please don't use your phycobable, it hurts my brain.

A paralyzing fear of the Republican Noise Machine spinning their blockage of Beloved Dear Leader's apeshittery as "politics as usual," "obstructionism," "unpatriotism," and "aiding and abetting the terrorists."

but nobody outside of the democratic leadership and the dead-enders believe that shit anymore.

and somehow, it strikes me as even worse to be constantly portrayed in the press as "bowing to the bush administration".

also, why don't they just fight the noise machine head on, since its going to call them terrorist-lovers no matter what they do anyway? i just see no benefit to halfway opposing things and then capitulating in the end. what does it get them?

nobody else finds it fundamentally bizarre that the democratic party does these sorts of things, again and again, for no good reason? alternatively, nobody understands the incredibly subtle and politically awesome reason behind their actions and wants to explain it to me?

nobody else finds it fundamentally bizarre that the democratic party does these sorts of things, again and again, for no good reason? alternatively, nobody understands the incredibly subtle and politically awesome reason behind their actions and wants to explain it to me?

Ineptitude? The Republicans are by a large, large stretch more politically savvy than the Democrats, and it has shown in things like this. I guess the congressional Democrats just suck at politics...

Ineptitude? The Republicans are by a large, large stretch more politically savvy than the Democrats, and it has shown in things like this. I guess the congressional Democrats just suck at politics...

see, but the level of ineptitude that is necessary to explain it is like enough to make it so that it ought be impossible for them to get elected in the first place. shit, it would make it impossible for them to tie their own shoes. so while your answer has the benefit of parsimony, it seems to me that it doesn't fully fit the data without requiring some even more complex explanations elsewhere.

I think the reason why this guy got through was because if the Dems didn't cave in Bush just wouldn't have appointed an attorney general for the rest of his term. Rather then have the country look even more retarded for having a petulant president refuse to fill a major job the Dems took one for the team so to speak.

Is "unpatriotism" even a word?

And in any case, "patriotism is the virtue of the vicious", as Oscar Wilde noted.

Wilde was also a creepy pederast.

I think the reason why this guy got through was because if the Dems didn't cave in Bush just wouldn't have appointed an attorney general for the rest of his term. Rather then have the country look even more retarded for having a petulant president refuse to fill a major job the Dems took one for the team so to speak.

wait, so rather than risk having no ag, we instead get to have one that approves of torture...for the team?! i think that is just exemplifying my point about nonsensical collaboration and capitulation.

wait, so rather than risk having no ag, we instead get to have one that approves of torture...for the team?! i think that is just exemplifying my point about nonsensical collaboration and capitulation.

The end goal is in less than a year, though. The D's want to hold onto the American center, and to do that they've got to take actions that aren't going to get them portrayed as obstructionists.

Wilde was also a creepy pederast.

That doesn't make him wrong about patriotism.

The end goal is in less than a year, though. The D's want to hold onto the American center, and to do that they've got to take actions that aren't going to get them portrayed as obstructionists.

except that this plan doesn't actually work for them and never has. it especially doesn't work when the majority of the american people actually want them to obstruct the bush admin's nonsense - including the (mostly imaginary) 'center'.

i mean there is an empirical claim here, and the facts not only fail to support it, but actively say it s retarded. and we know they have seen the numbers, and they know that the people who still support the bush admin will never vote for them no matter what they do. i'm just not seeing the benefit that they think they can see. in fact, what i see is that every time they cave, their support drops further, and it is only the nearly universal utter hatred for republicans that is going to cause them to sweep the next elections.

except that this plan doesn't actually work for them and never has. it especially doesn't work when the majority of the american people actually want them to obstruct the bush admin's nonsense - including the (mostly imaginary) 'center'.

i mean there is an empirical claim here, and the facts not only fail to support it, but actively say it s retarded. and we know they have seen the numbers, and they know that the people who still support the bush admin will never vote for them no matter what they do. i'm just not seeing the benefit that they think they can see. in fact, what i see is that every time they cave, their support drops further, and it is only the nearly universal utter hatred for republicans that is going to cause them to sweep the next elections.

I'm not saying it's necessarily the correct course of action, but that is their, somewhat odd, reason for doing so.

That doesn't make him wrong about patriotism.

Absolutely ludicrous. A true patriot will carry a respect for his country, and for the important elements of his country. In the United States and Europe, for example, there should be a healthy respect for the ideals of debate, democracy and openness built into one's patriotism. Without that, patriotism is just another form of worship.

I'm not saying it's necessarily the correct course of action, but that is their, somewhat odd, reason for doing so.

yeah, i know. it just seems to me that this requires them to be monumentally stupid. which isn't necessarily a mark against it, but it does make their continued existence as a party at least problematic.

any theories beyond monumental retardation?

any theories beyond monumental retardation?

You could try explaining it by a greater lack of party cohesiveness by the Dems, I suppose.

what the fuck is wrong with the democratic party of usia?

Everything.

what the fuck is wrong with the democratic party of usia?


usia?

I am not one of the sticklers who is insulted by USian (although I agree with those who think it is a bit forced, and am coming to agree with those who think it is often times USED to be insulting) but 'usia' doesn't even make sense.

'usia' doesn't even make sense.

sure it does. clearly you understood what it was referencing, thus it made exactly as much sense as it needs to.

so about those truly baffling democrats...

sure it does. clearly you understood what it was referencing, thus it made exactly as much sense as it needs to.

so about those truly baffling democrats...

I really didn't until I read further into the piece to find out who the democrats in question were.

As to the American Democrats you were referring to, often Democrats vote their conscience (or lack thereof) rather than their party line. Not terribly confusing at all. Republicans tend to be more hard nosed about sticking to the party ticket, Democrats tend to be more issue oriented. This is not, of course, a hard and fast rule, just a generalization that tends to be true oftener than it is false.

nobody else finds it fundamentally bizarre that the democratic party does these sorts of things, again and again, for no good reason?
No. The Democrats don't have the balls to get anything done, everyone (but you, apparently) has known this since forever ago.
Until they can find their own equivalent to DeLay or Rove, they're going to continue piddling about making lukewarm promises that they'll never actually fulfill.

The Republicans and Democrats differ in so little that they may as well just merge. Both support empire, big government, a burgeoning welfare state, and an increasingly intimate (bordering on incestuous) relationship between the state and politically connected big businesses that got to where they are not through merit, but from patronage.

No. The Democrats don't have the balls to get anything done, everyone (but you, apparently) has known this since forever ago.
Until they can find their own equivalent to DeLay or Rove, they're going to continue piddling about making lukewarm promises that they'll never actually fulfill.

but it isnt even about having balls - its about not even acting in their own clear and obvious self-interest. they're like the world's worst altruists.

As to the American Democrats you were referring to, often Democrats vote their conscience (or lack thereof) rather than their party line.

and this explains the utter failure to actually stand up to the weakest and most hated president in the history of polling?

but it isnt even about having balls - its about not even acting in their own clear and obvious self-interest. they're like the world's worst altruists.

True.

any theories beyond monumental retardation?

I think fear of another Republican "revolution" in the style of 1994 and the twelve years of their majority rule also plays in to it; the Democrats still have a defensive mentality that prevents them from really making the kind of bold, aggressive moves necessary to make any real policy changes.

I think fear of another Republican "revolution" in the style of 1994 and the twelve years of their majority rule also plays in to it; the Democrats still have a defensive mentality that prevents them from really making the kind of bold, aggressive moves necessary to make any real policy changes.

except those terribly unpopular radical policy changes backed by republicans. those they'll put up for a vote and pass them themselves..

but it isnt even about having balls - its about not even acting in their own clear and obvious self-interest. they're like the world's worst altruists.
What is in the interests of the Democratic party isn't neccessarily in the interests of the individual Democratic Senators who are too disorganized and scared of taking any risks whatsoever to get anything done.