Refreshing honesty from our friends over at RMG. According to Rob Eno the opposition party’s job is not to govern, not to compromise to move legislation forward and not to support legislation that they approve of – the GOP’s job is to “oppose”
http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/17308/five-things-tech-tax-repeal-leadership-doesnt-stand-with-diehl-and-more
Disappointing but refreshing honest.
Please share widely!
With the exception of Brownsberger, the rest have taken an oath not to compromise when it comes to chaining social security to CPI. Is this not obstructionism, akin to the Grover Norquist pledge not to raise taxes?
“Brownsberger said that while many in Washington arrive with their hands tied, unwilling to move from their party’s position, which results in short-term policymaking and prevents real progress, he will not contribute to legislative stagnation by making blanket promises never to compromise.”
are not the party. Taking stands to oppose cuts in specific programs is about policy not politics. One thread does not a blanket make.
But a statement of the purpose of the “opposition” as simply opposing everything rather than governing to the best of ability is disappointing. And Dan, compromise is a two way street. Threatening to shutdown government unless you get your way isn’t compromise.
No matter what else is in the bill. So the Repubicans could agree to a $13 minimum wage in exchange for CPI, and Spilka and the lot would vote against the bill, any bill, at all costs. That’s not progress, that’s obstructionism, just like those on RMG cheer for.
… Every politician has, and ought to have, a reasoned and heartfelt line beyond which they, personally, will not cross and the devil is in the details: for many Dems that line is crossed when somebody suggests using a monkey wrench to ‘tweak’ social security (e.g. “chained CPI”); for many in the GOP that line is crossed when they awake in the morning and find the world not at all to their liking… The Dems have a specific and tangible concern about the proposed legislation… At the very least it’s an indication that they are paying attention to the actual argument. The GOP cannot say this: their complaints are generalized and not at all specific and lead to, as was pointed out earlier, actual opposition to items they have supported in the past. They don’t even want to have the argument but would just much rather Dems agree to lose already and do everything their way, eff you very much…
Opposition for the sake of opposition is a childish game: holding your breath to get what you want has never, ever, worked. Not once.
for cities and towns and Republicans supported it.
Then once the legislature was in session the leadership made it a top priority and passed it, obviously with the support of almost all of the members.
So I don’t think there’s any lines in MA. The vast majority of legislators do as they are told.
This sounds more like a Fox News Talking Point, because I remember this being a huge deal for Ted Kennedy, who seemed to know he was not going to be around much longer and wanted this legacy.
…? What, exactly?
If I recall correctly, the specific policy of which you speak occurred at the intersection of health insurance reform and collective bargaining for municipal employee unions. Both sides ended up making significant concessions to pass the ultimate bill. So instead of being a data point in the abstract that supports your argument it turns out (again) to be a data point in context that supports MY argument and undercuts yours.
I am against Health Care Plan design. At that point all the municipal unions were opposed.
Then they changed their minds.
The unions had to cave because the legislature and the governor were going to pass it anyway.
I’m not sure of the Ted Kennedy connection mike_cote. This was MA.
where not compromising on CPI chaining is somehow equivalent to GOP brinkmanship on the debt ceiling. is so transparent and obvious that no thinking reader requires the slightest guidance to recognize its disreputable foolishness.
Remember this is a guy writing television sound bites on a blog where people read them and have a chance to think.
is the key, however. Mass GOP opposing the software tax is principled opposition, at least according to their principles.
Shutting down the federal government if it doesn’t do what the Congressional GOP wants, however, is not principled. It’s ultimately destructive, much of it based on politics, not principle.
One lesson I’ve tried (and failed) to teach myself is —
I can’t get mad at the opposition party for not being the opposition party I want it to be.
Corollary: I can get mad at my own party.
I’m probably wrong on both counts.
Plus let’s make sure we don’t confuse opposition with obstruction. If the GOP doesn’t like a Dem President’s plan that’s their prorogative, but in the Senate they should not threaten filibusters and place holds and in the House they are on the hook for their own plan since they are in the majority.
I think the Neighborhood of Make-Believe in which Mr Eno resides is a parliamentary democracy in which the opposition party has precisely that role.
Because to extend that metaphor means that the majority party would actually govern the way it wants for a few years without bending over backwards to achieve the Holy Grail of bipartisanship for its own sake.