Scott Brown, as you will recall, was elected by a margin of roughly 52-47. He didn’t get close to 60% of the vote, but in our majority-rules system, 52% was enough to put him in the Senate.
And yet, apparently Senator Brown (or, at least, his press guy) doesn’t think that a 52-47 majority is enough for democracy to work its magic. Just look at his comments about the possibility of moving a health care bill through the Senate using reconciliation, a long-established procedure that would avert the anti-democratic filibuster rule. Under those circumstances, it’s quite possible that the vote on health care would be 52-47 or thereabouts. Here’s what Brown’s flack said about that:
“If the Democrats try to ram their health-care bill through Congress using reconciliation, they are sending a dangerous signal to the American people that they will stop at nothing to raise our taxes, increase premiums and slash Medicare,” said Brown spokesman Colin Reed in a statement. “Using the nuclear option damages the concept of representative leadership and represents more of the politics-as-usual that voters have repeatedly rejected.”
“Damages the concept of representative leadership”?? WTF? Colin, either you can’t count, or you have no idea what “representative leadership” is. Your boss was elected 52-47. Presumably you think that’s legit. So … care to explain what’s wrong with advancing legislation by a 52-47 vote?
Really, Mr. Reed’s ridiculous statement represents the absurd state to which DC politics have sunk these days. The Democrats, still possessed of the presidency and huge majorities in both chambers of Congress despite the election of Saint Senator Brown, can’t get anything done. The congressional Republicans, despite minuscule approval ratings and relatively small numbers by recent historical standards, continue to take outlandish positions both on the merits and on process, and are largely unchallenged both by the meek national press and the meek Democrats.
Mind-boggling.
The “nuclear option” was the destruction of the filibuster not the use of reconciliation.
It was one too many stupidities to work into a single blog post. đŸ˜‰
Like “death tax,” etc. rebranding voting as “the nuclear option” is the latest lockstep nonsenseburger from the Republicans.
<
p>Not a gaff, a stratagem. A frame.
are not representing the voices of the people. We have seen a giant shift in the way people feel about the economy and the way this government is running. Scott Brown was a shining example of how the people feel “today” and not 2-4 years ago or even a year ago.
<
p>If the people could elect a new Senator and new Congressman to their districts today, I’m sure the current lot would be thrown out in droves since people do not believe they are being “represented”.
<
p>I think your simplistic argument about the “numbers” of the majority doesn’t come close to understanding what the people want. Obviously the members of Congress do understand this a little or they would have won every single vote over the last 14 months with their “majority”.
<
p>And while you may be ignoring the elephant in the living room, you must understand that the tides of politics may be changing drastically in November. The left is playing with dynamite by “forcing” their will “of old” on the people of “today”!
I’m not talking about “what the people want” (though I admire your apparently omniscience on the subject). I’m talking about Mr. Reed’s (and perhaps Mr. Brown’s, though I recognize that it’s not always fair to impute a press flack’s every word to his boss) pathetic (or, perhaps, willful) ignorance of what representative democracy actually is.
<
p>”The people” elected the folks currently sitting in DC to their terms. Those folks’ responsibility is to do the job they were sent there to do in the time allotted, not to fret about getting reelected. They are failing in that key respect, which is why a lot of them will probably lose their jobs come November.
You know, I have a hard time believing there is a true understanding of “representative democracy” for many people. I have so often heard politicians say they voted a certain way because “they followed their constituent’s will after visiting, town meetings…” while other times they take the “if they wanted me to vote their wishes, we would just have ballots for every issue…”.
<
p>I hope people do remember that they send someone to DC for 2 or 6 years so please be very careful since they may just ignore what we want now and remember what we wanted 5 or 6 years ago. How outdated!
I remember how vociferously you spent 2005-09 protesting that Bush and Cheney resign because their priorities were entirely unreflective of the will of the American people.
<
p>Oh, wait, you didn’t?*
<
p>*NB: This represents my weekly response to JohnD. While I attempt to hold out against his baiting as a matter of policy, I need at least one per week to ease the blood pressure.
Try counting backwards from 10 if the need arises and you have already entered your obligatory single response for the week.
Just today, JohnD has outposted you by 25 posts to your measly 5. It’s why his “contributions” are so hard to just scroll past. When you’re taunting rather than conversing, it’s easy to disrupt a given discussion.
<
p>If we judge on content and moving the discussion forward, you win 5 to 0.
<
p>See, everything ISN’T equivalent!
…you’re arguing that elected officials’ votes should count more, the less time they’ve been in office, or something?
Bate is in then VHS takes over, Sony Walkman then Ipod… We elect people and those people should have their finger on the pulse of the people who put them there. If we elect someone because of their anti-war position (as are we) then the economy falters then JOBS should become their #1 issue, not the war from x years ago.
and what now? Something do to with the Sony Walkman and betamax. That pretty coherent.
<
p>Plus your sig line is hilarious, I get a good chuckle, maybe you can ask Charlie what he means by “Climate” since he changes his mind daily.
I don’t have time to explain the metaphors.
<
p>You’re in the decidedly odd position of attempting to argue that the pace and rate of change somehow signals constancy and universal stability.
<
p>Beyond bizarre… positively Orwellian. “Fecklessness is stability” will now stand alongside “Freedom is Slavery” and “War is Peace” in the lexicon of newspeak and doublethink.
<
p>Orwell:
<
p>Hey look, 1984 got here 26 years late…
We hear that from the right every 2 years. In 2006, THE math said this was happening…and reality proved them wrong. Conservative concern trolling has such poor historical accuracy, that it isn’t credible anymore.
…by a profoundly unconservative argument.
<
p>If I remember my Burke, the job of the representative is to employ his considered judgement on behalf of his constituents, even if that judgement was politically unpopular.
<
p>For shame; I’m heartbroken.
JohnD is neither principled nor a conservative. He’s a Fox News Republican.
Just someone with whom I have a (to date civil) disagreement or three.
<
p>…and I’ve read more than a few of his posts.
<
p>I simply see no reason to concede either populist or conservative arguments to Rupert Murdoch, any more than I’d concede progressive arguments to the Greens; or liberal arguments to the Democratic State Committee.
The taunting, threatening and downrating other posters does.
And a not very creative one at that.
don’t be so moody. A serial disrupter? Every time I post you seem to disrupt my posts so are you a serial serial disruptor?
<
p>And I am creative sometimes, you just won’t give me any credit. If you have an iphone or an iTouch we should play “WORDS WITH FRIENDS” sometime… in between sales calls!
I disagree with many of the principles voiced here.
<
p>If I get “uncivil” with you then please remind me. Sorry you are banding with BMGers who are obsessed with insulting me. I haven’t dialogued with huh since Nov 13th, 2009 but for some reason huh feels obliged to mention my name “several” times a day. Isn’t that a little creepy? I mean, if huh disdains me so much, why read my posts?
<
p>Kathy has followed suit and now blogs daily of how little I add to the debate here… it is getting old. Just ignore me! If you feel I am of no value here then make me invisible. At some point your tireless assaults on me do start to look like a serious problem.
<
p>For those who attack FOX I would suggest they also consider making remarks about MSNBC since they are as far left as anything out there. Listen to Maddow and Olbermann for a week (if you can) and tell me how zealous they sound.
<
p>News is news, whether you like it or not.
“not dialoging” in JohnD’s world means constantly downrating my comments and never responding directly, just posting insults “nearby” instead. See above.
<
p>Another childish game is to post nasty comments about my previous posts, without directly mentioning me. This one, for example, brings back a grudge from over a year ago, back when JohnD was denying there was a recession:
<
p>
<
p>If you want, I’ll go dig up the posts from JohnD literally ordering me and KBusch to “shut up.” Disagreement is not welcome in JohnD world. Kathy is 100% correct. JohnD’s main purpose here is to disrupt and distort.
<
p>And, for the record, Massimino’s only takes reservations for parties greater than 6…
the next re-election.
<
p>So much for his best judgment trumping his constituents opinion, uninformed as they may have been.
It just shows the system worked. His constituents had entrusted him to act in Parliament on their behalf as he judged best, based on the majority of them believing his judgment to be sound and roughly in line with their principles – or at least more so than any other candidate(s). When eventually at an election a majority of them decided that they trusted another candidate’s judgment more for the next term, they voted Burke out. Burke no doubt disagreed with that majority’s determination, as I assume he’d have rather kept his seat, but in no way does it undermine his argument about the role of a representative.
I was a Jimmy Carter volunteer in 1980.
<
p>…and no, I’m not conflating Brown with Carter.
who are great examples of the “concept of representative leadership”?
<
p>Also, does this mean they are “only” to use their judgement “on behalf of his constituents” with no regard for others (example, does a MA Congressmen vote for the HEalthcare Reform Bill even though MA already has 97% coverage)?
<
p>I believe politicians should represent their constituents. Thankfully, we have developed a method to counter the politicians who do not follow the will of the people in the form of “referendum petition”. THis allows our voices to be heard and for the majority of is to vote for a constitutionally legal issue/question.
…who got croaked in-house because of their adherence to conservative principle in the face of the Free-Lunch Right:
<
p>Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush.
His defense of e.g. gay rights and choice came from staunch conservative principles. Today it would get him booted from the GOP.
St. Ronnie himself would get booted.
<
p>And you know this… how? Because Glen and Rush say so?
<
p>Maybe most of our delegation don’t represent your voice, but they represent mine. And they represent a majority of the people who voted for them. At any given time our representatives don’t represent everyone. They’re not supposed to. They’re supposed to represent a majority of people within the bounds of the constitution. To suggest otherwise is insane — it suggests that elections don’t matter, which they do.
Until their terms are over they hold the seat. By 2007, George Bush was in the 30s in approval – did you call for him to step down. Even by early 2005, in a Gallup poll to see if their was voters regret, there was enough that Kerry would have won. I didn’t see you saying at that point that Bush should not govern or that Kerry should replace him or there should be a new election.
<
p>The fact is that within MA, there might already be people who wish that Coakley would not have won the nomination and Brown had not won the election. It would not take a huge shift in people who opted not to vote wishing they had – against Brown. The fact though is that he won.
<
p>Right now, there are 59 Democrats in the Senate and a large majority in the House. Bush pushed his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts through under reconciliation. In 2003, he had just 50 votes, Cheney broke the tie. If you look at the Alito confirmation, many Republicans in office in early 2006 were swept out in November. By your logic, they should not have voted against the new feeling in the country.
Was the Deputy Press Secretary at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, before being snatched up by Brown to be his DC Press Secretary. Not sure of the duties of a Deputy at the NRSC but you would think he would have a decent understanding of what the “nuclear option” and “representative leadership” mean.
<
p>His quotes make him sound like a buffoon.
It is certainly past time for the Democrats to exercise their majorities and do what they were elected to do. You are absolutely correct that the Democrats have been meek — to the point of embarrassment.
<
p>President Obama signaled a welcome start in his press conference and Saturday address just after Scott Brown’s election. Even though President Obama has chosen to avoid calling the GOP the obstructionists that they are, it is time for house and senate Democratic leaders to speak plainly and name names.
<
p>Yes, the health care bill should be pushed through using reconciliation. Yes, filibusters should be busted or abolished. Yes, it is time to break some GOP china. Yes, the Democrats may lose some swing seats. Yes, it is time to push the blue-dogs into line.
<
p>The time for action is right now.
I saw his floor statement when 5 Republicans voted with Democrats to ALLOW DEBATE (What is it saying when THAT kind of thing makes news?). He just very calmly said this is good without challenging them to build on it. His book is called “The Good Fight” or something like that, but where is it? Even if he didn’t actually DO much differently, it would be at least a psycological and morale boost if Reid occasionally raised his voice a few decibels and came across as somewhat passionate. He has not been a good public face of the party. I cringe whenever I hear him speak; he is physically difficult to listen to.
We have once again elected a Senate Majority Leader whose seat is in jeopardy in the upcoming election. As I recall, this was some kind of misguided attempt to demonstrate bipartisanship on the part of Senate Democrats — an “olive branch” to his red-leaning district or some such malarky. The result is something worse than a lame duck, he’s some sort of wounded duck that still holds power and can’t exercise it. He is a “Majority Leader” who can’t lead.
<
p>Senate Democrats need a new majority leader.
…at least to take one example is that polls (Research 2000, I think) show that Nevadans oppose the Senate health bill without the public option, but favor it with. Once again this proves POPULAR, but conventional wisdom is apparently a tough nut to crack. This seems like a classic case of what you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
Popular Vote:
Obama – 52.9% – 69.4 Million (rounded down)
Brown – 51.9% – 1.2 Million (rounded up)
<
p>What buffoon would make this arguement?
That’s a really smart framing of the issue. Ingenious really. If ANY Dem would challenge Brown on TV with it he’d be shut down. There’s nowhere to hide.
<
p>Would that Dem leaders would take your framing and run with it. This is just emblematic of their continued weakness at framing.
…if assuming a two-person general election only those who one with 60%+ of the vote in the most recent election were seated, but they were joined by those who nominally lost, but achieved 41%+ of the vote.
and waste time reaching far across the aisle in order to adopt failed Republican policies, American people are still not spending money and jobs are still not being created by “market forces”, in spite of the bailouts and continued tax cuts for the rich on behalf of GWB.
<
p>
<
p>All you hear on the news these days is how everyone is so upset about the debt/deficit; therefore, that has to be our priority while the middle/working class continues to dive into the pit of unemployment, lost houses, low wages, higher costs, and lousy health benefits.
<
p>If the damn money from tax cuts for the wealthy, bank bonuses, and ridiculous billion dollar profits does not voluntarily trickle down to the heart of America, we are not going to get anywhere anytime soon. Having billions of dollars floating back and forth up in the top tiers of our economy is not going to do anything to change the crisis in our country.
<
p>So while the Repubs talk about the debt/deficit, keeping government out of the way, and letting market forces handle the economy, and the Democrats keep succumbing to their fear of the Republicans, America’s middle and working class stand here and watch it all happen in complete and utter disbelief.
<
p>It’s not the teabaggers cry for less government that will turn this economy around. We need trickle down economics to work, or we need strong government intervention.
<
p>Health care reform is needed government intervention. It’s needed because the “market forces” aspect of health care at all levels is not working and greed has become the way to play. Same thing with jobs, wages, housing, and all.
<
p>If trickle down economics worked, it would have worked.
<
p>
It looks to me like “trickle down” is a euphemism for “piss on you”. Whatever is trickling down isn’t money.
<
p>I don’t think our elected Democrats are succumbing to their fear of the Republicans, I think they are instead doing the will of the corporate interests who bankroll them — just like their GOP counterparts.
<
p>This talk of “fear of the deficit” is leading us to repeat the disastrous mistake of FDR in 1937, when he mistakenly attempted to curb growing federal deficits — the effect was to cause the recession of 1937-38.
<
p>Consumers have no money, small business has no money, and the states have no money. The feds are the only player with the ability to re-energize our economy, and putting money directly into the wallets of consumers and small businesses is the only way that is going to work. The fundamental question that nobody seems willing to face is whether the government is willing to recapture wealth from the relative handful of the truly wealthy who have successfully captured so much real wealth from the rest of us that they’ve starved the consumer economy to death. “Starve the beast” has backfired.
<
p>”Jobs”, in the traditional sense, are not likely to come back at all. We’ve been multiplying worker productivity for decades, the quantity of goods has been correspondingly increasing, and we have saturated (or exceeded) our ability to consume them. We should have seen this a decade ago, but the financial industry flim-flam hid the reality with an Enron-style pyramid scheme that created the appearance of prosperity by artificially pumping up the value of essentially worthless credit instruments. For ten years, we lived in an economy fueled by credit card debt and unsustainable home mortgage deals. Now the ugly reality is starting to reveal itself, and our “leaders” are still afraid to confront it. The rest of us have to face it every day — voter anger is a thin veneer over desperation, fear and deep pain.
<
p>I see precious little evidence that we have yet tackled the root causes of the collapse; we have instead bailed out the players and thereby perpetuated the practices that created it.
We don’t have a “majority-rules” electoral system. A plurality is all that’s needed, and when it comes to POTUS, you don’t even need that — as Bush proved in 2000, you can win when you lose the majority.
<
p>This is why we need to abolish the electoral college, and install instant runoff nationwide.
<
p>As for the content of your post, I agree completely đŸ˜‰
WikiQuote:
<
p>
I prefer dealing with the conflict between Hobbes and Locke.
<
p>Or if we must deal with French Enlightenment types, Voltaire.
No, seriously…what?
<
p>Though we may disagree on how often to apply Rousseau’s thinking (aka direct democracy), he stands apart from the English, who spent most of their time figuring out an equation to limit public involvement to “acceptable people”.
<
p>As a matter of fact, Hobbes and Locke would recognize themselves in the most insular “Villager” writings put out by Broder et al. Rousseau accepted the messiness of democracy, whereas Locke and Hobbes read as if they’d be upset at the idea of their butler actually getting a voice in public affairs.
and ahistorical. We can start with the concept of the “Noble Savage” and move from there.
<
p>Given the historical circumstance of repeated civil war in 17th Century England, both Locke and Hobbes had to deal with real-world questions (as did Voltaire, by way of Locke).
<
p>Colonial American settlement and cultural patterns were such that those questions were addressed in post-revolutionary America, by way of the Federalist Papers, if not in contemporary Britain. (The French, with exceptions such as Voltaire and Montesquieu, avoided even asking.)
<
p>Comparing 17th Century English philosophy with its later variants, or its American offshoots is IMHO, apples to oranges.
<
p>And don’t get me started on Mill, please.
I genuinely love political philosophy debates, so I, personally, wouldn’t mind in the least if you did. (It might be a tad off-topic for this thread, I suppose. But that never stopped our differently-winged friends!)
How about this as a topic:
<
p>Resolved that American political thought has been unduely and adversely affected by the absorption of European romantic philosophies, particularly since World War Two, to the detriment of our own political thought; and that said absorption adversely affected American conservatism and liberalism alike, to the detriment of American politics and public policy.
<
p>In short, that we’ve been fighting the bastard stepchildren of the French Revolution and Spanish Civil War, and ignoring our own intellectual history.
<
p>Of course as you correctly observed, it would have to be on a separate thread.