US Politics: Common Ground Between Democrats and Republicans

[Tywin Manderly]

Sure. Obama thinks Ted Cruz is an asshole. Republicans agree.

Wow. They agree about something. ;)

[Inigima]

The Obama presidency has been defined by Obama bending over backwards for Republicans who offer no compromise whatsoever in return and attack him for it. I really don't understand what universe people live in where "GOP give, Obama take" is an accurate portrayal of reality.

[Fez]

The world of projection.

[aceluby]

Because conservatives live in a bubble where anything pre-2009 didn't really exist unless you're talking about the God Reagan.

[awesome possum]

These are the same people that look at the ACA's positive effects on the economy and see eeeeeevvvvviiiillllllllll because they're told to see evil. They don't think for themselves.

Shit, just look at one of Commodore's last posts in the previous thread:

All Obama wants to do is restrict/mandate human activity and redistribute wealth.

He said that with a straight face and probably means it from the bottom of his heart. It has absolutely no basis in reality, there is absolutely no evidence to back any of that up, and yet he believes it. We like to make fun of caricatures of the GOP but all we have to do is look at Commodore's posting history to see that they're not caricatures. These jokers don't just exist but make up a majority of an entire political party.

The US has become a country ruled by small-minded idiotic hypocrisy and no group of people better characterize that than the Republican party.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I really don't understand what universe people live in where "GOP give, Obama take" is an accurate portrayal of reality.

I wasn't saying that's the world we live in. I was saying that's the type of "compromise" you demand of the GOP.

There seems to be a sense of outrage that conservatives aren't falling to their knees and thanking Obama for not just nationalizing healthcare by fiat or something

[Commodore]

if the opposition is not justified, make that case and punish them at the ballot box

with all the bitching and moaning, you would think Obama is the first president to have political opposition

[TrackerNeil]

I wasn't saying that's the world we live in. I was saying that's the type of "compromise" you demand of the GOP.

There seems to be a sense of outrage that conservatives aren't falling to their knees and thanking Obama for not just nationalizing healthcare by fiat or something

Ramsay, Republicans had ample opportunity in 2009 to strike a deal with Democrats over the ACA; Max Baucus just about ruptured himself trying to get at least one Republican senator on board, but the pressure from the party in the other direction was just to great. Michael Grunwald reports in The New New Deal that much the same happened with the stimulus, although there the Democrats were a bit more successful in garnering Republican support. (It should be noted that of the three GOP senators who voted for ARRA, one was voted out of office and another quit soon after in disgust.) I don't recall Democrats ever telling Republicans "roll over or else", but perhaps I misremember. Can you cite some examples?

[Ramsay Gimp]

Bush had a period of political consensus and bipartisan support that has not been replicated under Obama, but that was because of 9/11. I don't like it either - some very serious damage was done to the country during that period where Bush had nearly free reign. But whining that poor Obama is now entitled to the same treatment is silly

[DanteGabriel]

I wasn't saying that's the world we live in. I was saying that's the type of "compromise" you demand of the GOP.

There seems to be a sense of outrage that conservatives aren't falling to their knees and thanking Obama for not just nationalizing healthcare by fiat or something

That's not what the outrage is over, and I'd have to consider your good faith if you really think that Obama was trying to unilaterally impose his will on Republicans. They refused to negotiate with him.

if the opposition is not justified, make that case and punish them at the ballot box

with all the bitching and moaning, you would think Obama is the first president to have political opposition

Not the first to have political opposition, but it's been well documented that the GOP decided to stonewall and block everything he'd try, in the middle of an international economic crisis.

Seriously you guys. You want to be taken seriously, you need to avoid strawmanning the situation as "liberals are just pissed because Republicans won't do EVERYTHING Obama wants." Congressional Republicans refused to do their jobs. Refused to legislate in good faith. Spent time trying to shut down the government and wasted time with pointless and endless repeal votes on a passed piece of legislation.

[Suttree]

I wasn't saying that's the world we live in. I was saying that's the type of "compromise" you demand of the GOP.

There seems to be a sense of outrage that conservatives aren't falling to their knees and thanking Obama for not just nationalizing healthcare by fiat or something

Uhhmm no, this is utterly divorced from reality.

In other news...ladies and gentleman, I give you the party of supply side voodoo and job creation.

The proposals would mainly benefit energy industries, reduce taxes and regulations for businesses generally, and continue the attack on the Affordable Care Act. It is a mix that leaves many economists, including several conservatives, underwhelmed...

Mr. Slaughter, who served on President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, “it just struck me as sort of a compendium of modest expectations. If you ask me, ‘What’s your ballpark guess for how many jobs are going to be created?,’ it’s just not many.”..

Missing from both Republican lists are two pillars of Mr. Obama’s agenda that many economists consider important for expanding the labor force and promoting long-run growth.

One is significantly higher spending for infrastructure. The International Monetary Fund recently called for such spending, saying it would pay off in broader economic growth.

The other is an overhaul of immigration laws. Despite business pressure to provide a path to citizenship for the millions here illegally, and to admit more foreigners with skills, Republicans’ opposition has only hardened in this campaign. A bipartisan Senate-passed bill on immigration would increase economic growth by 3.3 percent in a decade and save $175 billion by then, the Congressional Budget Office estimated.

“That should be on anybody’s list,” Mr. Slaughter said

You know you're in trouble when your best case scenario is "doing no harm":

They would be content if Republicans simply “do no harm,” as some put it, by avoiding self-imposed crises like the government shutdown last year that cost $24 billion and further across-the-board spending cuts that have been a drag on the economic recovery and kept pressure on the Federal Reserve to maintain its expansive monetary policy. Congressional Republicans, however, have said they are committed to continuing those spending cuts.

The Republicans’ jobs agenda is their response to those who say they need to stand for more than opposition to Mr. Obama.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I don't recall Democrats ever telling Republicans "roll over or else", but perhaps I misremember. Can you cite some examples?

The New Deal maybe? Those kind of interactions are a lot more likely within a party, i.e. the leadership pressuring some scrub to go along with the agenda.

Again, I agree, the GOP is not rolling over for Obama or the Dems. But the expectation from most of you seems to be that they should, and that their refusal to help him say, massively expand government-provided healthcare was somehow...out of line?

BTW it's 8AM here and I got literally 0 sleep last night, so I might be totally misunderstanding you

[DanteGabriel]

Can we have some examples of party dynamics and politics from within the last, oh, quarter-century or so?

For fuck's sake. FDR strong-arming the New Deal through Congress? That's your example to back up an argument about Obama's heavy-handedness?

I half expect the next argument to be that the Democrats are the real racist party, because Robert Byrd, Dixiecrats, something something something.

Again, I agree, the GOP is not rolling over for Obama or the Dems. But the expectation from most of you seems to be that they should, and that their refusal to help him say, massively expand government-provided healthcare was somehow...out of line?

Oh yes, Republicans are totally against expanding government, except of course if a Republican President wants to create a whole new federal department to scan our assholes before we get on planes, or create a massive prescription drug entitlement to kiss up to the senior vote.

See what I did there? I used a political example from this century. It's not that hard. Try it.

[TrackerNeil]

The New Deal maybe? Those kind of interactions are a lot more likely within a party, i.e. the leadership pressuring some scrub to go along with the agenda.

Again, I agree, the GOP is not rolling over for Obama or the Dems. But the expectation from most of you seems to be that they should, and that their refusal to help him say, massively expand government-provided healthcare was somehow...out of line?

Well, I'm not going to debate the New Deal, which was enacted 80 years ago. It's reality and conservatives must live with it.

As to your second point, I have never held or voiced an expectation that Republicans simply roll over and allow Democrats their way on everything. However, there's a long league between roll over and obstruct in the most destructive way imaginable. For example, if Republicans had demanded malpratice liability limits in return for their support for the ACA, that's a reasonable position to take. Or if Mitch McConnell had said he'd work with Harry Reid on the Dodd-Frank bill in exchange for some rules changes here and there, that would also be well within the bounds of protocol.

However, what we've gotten over the last six years is Republicans shutting down the government, attempting to blockade all appointments to the DC Circuit Court and the CFPB (thus stripping the president of his appointment power), and threatening to tank the world economy by forcing default on US debt. That's not asserting the rights of the minority; it's sabotage, plain and simple. Surely you can see that?

[Ramsay Gimp]

Can we have some examples of party dynamics and politics from within the last, oh, quarter-century or so?

For fuck's sake. FDR strong-arming the New Deal through Congress? That's your example to back up an argument about Obama's heavy-handedness?

I half expect the next argument to be that the Democrats are the real racist party, because Robert Byrd, Dixiecrats, something something something.

Ok, we're talking at cross-purposes. I answered Neil's question as best I could but I don't really know why he asked it, since it didn't relate to my point.

I'm not claiming that Obama has strong-armed anyone (outside of his own party) politically, or that the GOP has been too compliant, etc. I was objecting to the cries of "obstructionism!" "stonewalling" etc., because their underlying assumption seems to be that Republicans should help Obama enact policies they oppose (and their constituents oppose). It's akin to saying "but it's not faaaaiiiiir!!" The President does not have a "right" to see any part of his legistlative agenda passed - if he can get it through with blood, sweat and tears then great. If not, well...checks and balances.

[DanteGabriel]

Ok, we're talking at cross-purposes. I answered Neil's question as best I could but I don't really know why he asked it, since it didn't relate to my point.

I'm not claiming that Obama has strong-armed anyone (outside of his own party) politically, or that the GOP has been too compliant, etc. I was objecting to the cries of "obstructionism!" "stonewalling" etc., because their underlying assumption seems to be that Republicans should help Obama enact policies they oppose (and their constituents oppose). It's akin to saying "but it's not faaaaiiiiir!!" The President does not have a "right" to see any part of his legistlative agenda passed - if he can get it through with blood, sweat and tears then great. If not, well...checks and balances.

Stop with this bullshit about the Democratic assumption of no resistance. It is not true. Rolling over is not expected. Opposition is expected. But you can disagree with the President and still negotiate with him and his party.

The President should be able to propose an agenda and then have the opposing side negotiate in good faith. The Republicans announced their intention, from before he was inaugurated, to categorically stop all his proposals. Does that strike you as good faith?

[TrackerNeil]

If not, well...checks and balances.

I believe the last paragraph of my previous post addresses this. Have you seen that?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Let's not ignore the fact that after Obama took office the Republicans used the filibuster to change the normal function of the Senate from a chamber that passed most legislation by simple majority to one where a 60 supermajority was required for almost every action. That is absolutely unprecedented intransigence. No other President has received that treatment from the opposition. It's also a frighteningly undemocratic development in an already grossly undemocratic legislative body.

Ok, we're talking at cross-purposes. I answered Neil's question as best I could but I don't really know why he asked it, since it didn't relate to my point.

I'm not claiming that Obama has strong-armed anyone (outside of his own party) politically, or that the GOP has been too compliant, etc. I was objecting to the cries of "obstructionism!" "stonewalling" etc., because their underlying assumption seems to be that Republicans should help Obama enact policies they oppose (and their constituents oppose). It's akin to saying "but it's not faaaaiiiiir!!" The President does not have a "right" to see any part of his legistlative agenda passed - if he can get it through with blood, sweat and tears then great. If not, well...checks and balances.

Crucially, what we're really saying is that Republicans have refused to find common ground with the President even when he proposes policies that, up until he proposed them, they themselves had supported. Like the individual mandate, immigration reform, or cap-and-trade.

[BloodRider]

Seriously. Before any legislative action was even taken. Hell even before he was in office the propaganda machine was in full force, giving the Repubs an "excuse" to do what they could to actively undermine the government. Hell - he was blamed for the deficit BEFORE HE RELEASED HIS FIRST BUDGET RECCOMENDATIONS! Remember the "You Lie" at his first SotU address? I could go on, but RG has no mind on this to be changed.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/%C2'>

The real truth here is that in refusing to compromise, Republicans also gave very short shrift to their own constituents.

[lokisnow]

Other presidents have faced fierce opposition, but no other president has had the senate forced into a 60 vote super majority for every single piece of legislation from day one.

https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/supreme-court-term-limits-pursuing-apolitical-predictability-part-2?utm_content=buffer27a04&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

This is a link about the idea of what would happen if we passed a constitutional amendment to limit supreme court term limits to 18 years with an appointment every two years (scheduled for non election years so 2015, 2017 etc)

the trickiest piece of the puzzle is figuring out how to transition to the new system without everyone getting angry over how the transition will affect their darlings. There’s probably no way to make everyone happy on this score. But it’s important to recognize that both sides will be affected. Imposing term limits means cutting short the terms of the four younger justices who each could have 20–30 years left in them. But this affects both the conservatives (Roberts & Alito) and the progressives (Sotomayor & Kagan). So there’s nothing lopsided about it.

As for the five older justices, they’ve each already been on the Court for more than 18 years: Scalia (28), Kennedy (26), Thomas (23), Ginsburg (21), and Breyer (20). Forcing these justices to end their terms at a scheduled time, which won’t come for several more years, shouldn’t be a problem. After all, if we’re going to decide collectively that 18 years is long enough, then we can say without reservation that these justices have already served long enough.

Thus, the best way to implement the term limits is to simply implement the term limits. As soon as possible. Ideally, we would start in 2017, in the first year of the new president’s first term.

Of course, practically speaking, that’s not going to happen. It’ll take a few years to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment eliminating life tenure, and to pass legislation detailing how the term limits will work. But let’s be optimistic and say that term limits become a minor election issue in 2016, and we’re able to accomplish all this in time for the new system to take effect on January 1, 2021 (after the 2020 election).

The newly elected (or re-elected) president could make the first scheduled appointment to replace the most-senior justice in 2021. Assuming only Ginsburg retires before the sitting justices see the writing on the wall and decide (or agree) to hang in there until their new fixed terms come to an end, the scheduled retirements/appointments would look like this:

2021 – Scalia’s term ends (after 35 yrs); Kennedy becomes CJ

2023 – Kennedy’s term ends (after 35 yrs); Thomas becomes CJ

2025 – Thomas’s term ends (after 34 yrs); Breyer becomes CJ

2027 – Breyer’s term ends (after 33 yrs); Roberts becomes CJ (again)

2029 – Roberts’ term ends (after 24 yrs); Alito becomes CJ

2031 – Alito’s term ends (after 25 yrs); Sotomayor becomes CJ

2033 – Sotomayor’s term ends (after 24 yrs); Kagan becomes CJ

2035 – Kagan’s term ends (after 25 yrs); [Ginsburg replacement] becomes CJ

2037 – [Ginsburg replacement]’s term ends (after 18–20 yrs); transition complete

Now, once you see that schedule, you know that conservatives will not support the amendment in congress if democrats win in 2016. First, the schedule is wrong, if democrats win in 2016, Breyer retires in 2017 and Ginsberg in 2018. that means that the first five judges to be replaced by the term limits are all the conservative judges, republicans would NEVER support that.

I think this is a doable constitutional amendment to get passed if it were not for the above schedule of justice retirements. However, if one or two of the conservative justices are flipped by democrats in the 2016 or 2020 presidential terms, conservatives would probably flip to supporting the constitutional amendment. So it is entirely up to chance whether or not the amendment has a chance of passing.

But, if a republican president is elected in 2016 or 2020 all three of those Reagan Bush judges would retire in the first term probably in the same year immediately after the midterms (when the republicans are likely to have a stronger representation in the senate).

If all three of those justices retire in the next republican presidential term then republicans can expect to hold those seats for 25-35 years and will not support a constitutional amendment.

The biggest win for democrats in the constitutional amendment would be in the eventual removal of Roberts as Chief Justice, there hasn't been a democrat appointed Chief Justice in what, 70, 80 years? so breaking the back of that strangelhold would be an incredible victory. Roberts realistically has 30 to 40 years left in him, so he would provide nearly 100 years of continuous republican dominance of the chief justice slot without a constitutional amendment to oust him.