U.S. Politics, 16

[Swordfish]

That would be true if there was a single, universally held "conservative" stance, but there isn't, any more than there is a single "liberal" or Democratic stance. And I pointed to the lack of such an enactment as evidence that the "stance" wasn't nearly as common as is being made out here and by liberals in the press.

If you want to criticise the Heritage Foundation specifically, fine. They've tried to rebut that claim by saying "well, we looked at it again and changed our mind even before the election." Well, whatever. That's their argument, not mine.

Fair enough. My opinion on that is that they really didn't like mandates even back then, but they were scared to death of the HillaryCare proposals, and were trying to offer any other alternatives that would sink it. If you followed the debate back then, which I did, the mandate support that did exist among a small group of Republican senators mysteriously evaporated as soon as HillaryCare was killed. The mandates didn't get a lot of press among citizens back then because the whole discussion revolved around HillaryCare. It was, in my opinion, simply a legislative tactic to kill HillaryCare. Alhtough I do know that a lot of conservatives even back them were bitching about the "RINO" Republicans who were offering alternatives that we didn't want any more than we wanted HillaryCare.

So I think the more valid observation would be that the support for mandates back then was partly disingenuous, but the opposition to them now is genuine. You'd have had a hard time finding any real grass roots supports for mandates among conservatives then, but no problem finding widespread, strong opposition to them now.

To complicated.

The unwashed masses want simple explanations, and a villain to hate.

[Lord O' Bones]

To complicated.

The unwashed masses want simple explanations, and a villain to hate.

Thank god we have the Democrats and Obama then.

[Swordfish]

Thank god we have the Democrats and Obama then.

two sides of the same coin!

[TrackerNeil]

To complicated.

The unwashed masses want simple explanations, and a villain to hate.

If by "to [sic] complicated" you mean "doesn't make sense", then I agree. Four senators who found the mandate perfectly acceptable when it was a Republican proposal now think it's the Footstep of Doom. Either they were lying then, are lying now, or else they've dramatically changed their opinions. I'd like an explanation of that, if it's not too simplistic.

[alguien]

Too complicated.

The unwashed masses want simple explanations, and a villain to hate.

I think the explanation of the inconsistency as "Weellllllll, we really didn't want mandates, we just were saying that to stop healthcare reform from passing" is still very OK to criticize. So they weren't inconsistent, just dealing in bad faith. That may be politicking as usual, but not an explanation to be proud of.

[Swordfish]

If by "to [sic] complicated" you mean "doesn't make sense", then I agree. Four senators who found the mandate perfectly acceptable when it was a Republican proposal now think it's the Footstep of Doom. Either they were lying then, are lying now, or else they've dramatically changed their opinions. I'd like an explanation of that, if it's not too simplistic.

You've already been given one.

[The Progressive]

I didn't follow it as much back then (being in high school) but I think that you could be correct. Still makes it a bit dodgy IMO.

Hell, from what I understand, Bob Dole switched from being a supporter (and practically a drafter) of the '94 health bill to its biggest opponent because it would help his presidential election chances.

ETA: or the link you just posted.

About 20 Senate Republicans signed the Dole-Chafee bill ........... I would hardly call that a small minority of Republicans, especially some of them are the most prominent and influential Republicans at the time.

It's also funny how they didn't have a constitutional issue with the mandate that they proposed at the time. I wonder if the Constitution changed in the last 17 years.

And to argue that support for the Dole-Chafee bill is disingenious political manuvering is sorta like admitting that opposing the ACA is also disingenious political manuvering.

[alguien]

Personally, I think Dole's wishy-washiness on the this whole thing was part of what killed his support with much of the GOP base.

Wasn't it Bill Kristol who urged him to firmly be against Clinton's healthcare proposal, by convincing Dole he wouldn't even win the GOP nomination without such a hardline stance?

[Swordfish]

I think the explanation of the inconsistency as "Weellllllll, we really didn't want mandates, we just were lying stop healthcare reform from passing" is still very OK to criticize. So they weren't inconsistent, just lying. That may be politicking as usual, but not an explanation to be proud of.

politicians lie?

surely you jest? ;)

Is the concept of someone supporting something they don't like in the interest of political expediency because the alternative is even less palatable really so uncommon as to be worth calling out? Isn't that the EXACT kind of 'compromise' people have been clamoring for?

Is the notion of politicizing an issue to kill the rest of a bill you really don't like even newsworthy at this point?

That's the way the system works, unfortunately.

Blame the constituency that keeps voting for these assholes.

[Lord O' Bones]

two sides of the same coin!

Is it trolling if I say "duh!"

You've already been given one.

Not really. Does it make any sense for them to so drastically change their minds when the situation hasn't? I mean, without blatant outside political influence? You know, not based purely on the facts of the matter?

ETA: In either direction if you prefer

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Is this like concern among Republicans about increasing government debt, which in 2006 was partly disingenuous but is now genuine? (This is what you told me in another thread.)

I'm not sure that's quite accurate, so I'll just briefly restate what I think about that. A lot of Republicans were not happy with Bush's spending on domestic issues, but they were kind of stuck supporting him because he was the head of the GOP. Some opposed those initiatives anyway, though.

For the most part, I think it's fair to say that most Republicans were willing to have deficits at that levelif those deficits were due to the war, which they viewed as something being within the legitimate purview of government. They would be unwilling to support deficits due to increased social spending that they viewed as being beyond the proper purview of government. I also think that the growth in deficits and the debt between 2006 and today has led many politicians in both parties to be much more concerned about the debt than they were previously.

My, but it sure is difficult to know exactly which Republican concerns are real and which adopted for the sake of expedience! Perhaps in 2027 Senator Rand Paul will argue that deficit spending is the path of true conservatism.

Substance aside, and purely as politicians, Republicans are no better or worse than Democrats. Unless you think all those Democrats who voted for the Authorization of Force in 2002 did it out of conviction rather than "expedience". ;)

[Lord O' Bones]

Is the concept of someone supporting something they don't like in the interest of political expediency because the alternative is even less palatable really so uncommon as to be worth calling out?

Absolutely. It's a fucking pandemic.

Blame the constituency that keeps voting for these assholes.

Fucking A.

[TrackerNeil]

Is the concept of someone supporting something they don't like in the interest of political expediency because the alternative is even less palatable really so uncommon as to be worth calling out? Isn't that the EXACT kind of 'compromise' people have been clamoring for?

Compromise is saying, "I don't like this, but it's the best we're gonna get." What Senators Grassley and Company are doing is saying one thing then and the opposite now, without any acknowledgment of the change. GWB would have called that a flip-flop, and the rest of us call it a lie. And while I don't expect politicians to be paragons of honestly, I think we deserve a bit better than a bunch of truculent assholes who swear that a proposal they backed in the 90s is now the Death of Liberty.

[Lord O' Bones]

Substance aside, and purely as politicians, Republicans are no better or worse than Democrats. Unless you think all those Democrats who voted for the Authorization of Force in 2002 did it out of conviction rather than "expedience". ;)

OK. But fuck that! What's wrong with wanting good governance? Why can't we have these 535 fucking fools turned out on their asses? (Rhetorical)

Why do we in fact choose sides between corrupt assholes and corrupt idiots?

[The Progressive]

Does it make any sense for them to so drastically change their minds when the situation hasn't? I mean, without blatant outside political influence? You know, not based purely on the facts of the matter?

You could say that the situation (healthcare expenditure as percentage of GDP leading to wage stagnation) is actually even worse now than 17 yrs ago.

[Swordfish]

Is it trolling if I say "duh!"

Not really. Does it make any sense for them to so drastically change their minds when the situation hasn't? I mean, without blatant outside political influence? You know, not based purely on the facts of the matter?

I wouldn't say that the situation hasn't drastically changed though.

In the end, I guess my expectation for congress to really care about facts outside of blatant political influence is just a lot lower than some peoples.

It's why they don't get my support.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Too complicated.

The unwashed masses want simple explanations, and a villain to hate.

True, but I don't think the "unwashed masses" have put much stock in the "hey, these are old GOP ideas" line the Administration advanced anyway. Which may mean they are sometimes more savvy than people think. Ultimately, I think the "unwashed masses" could care less about whether it was a GOP idea or not. At the end of the day, all they care about is whether or not they like it. And as tough as it might be for folks like TP to understand, there is a quintessentially American quality of not wanting to do something you're ordered to do, even if it's for your own good.

Makes me proud to be an American.

[Swordfish]

OK. But fuck that! What's wrong with wanting good governance? Why can't we have these 535 fucking fools turned out on their asses? (Rhetorical)

Why do we in fact choose sides between corrupt assholes and corrupt idiots?

Duh!

[TrackerNeil]

For the most part, I think it's fair to say that most Republicans were willing to have deficits at that levelif those deficits were due to the war, which they viewed as something being within the legitimate purview of government. They would be unwilling to support deficits due to increased social spending that they viewed as being beyond the proper purview of government. I also think that the growth in deficits and the debt between 2006 and today has led many politicians in both parties to be much more concerned about the debt than they were previously.

This reminds me of your statement that Republicans never promised not to increase the debt; they promised not to increase the debt through additional spending. I can see Squealer on the ladder with the paintbrush now, amending the commandment, "No animal shall sleep on a bed with sheets."

I'd previously thought that conservative positions tended towards the simplistic, but I am now learning they are much more nuanced than those of liberals. So nuanced, in fact, that they even give the appearance of lying unless very carefully parsed. So I stand corrected. :thumbsup:

[alguien]

politicians lie?

surely you jest? ;)

:) No, I'm not surprised that there is politicking in Congress. But when it happens, surely its OK to call them out for it.

Is the concept of someone supporting something they don't like in the interest of political expediency because the alternative is even less palatable really so uncommon as to be worth calling out? Isn't that the EXACT kind of 'compromise' people have been clamoring for?

I think the criticism is that they were demonizing proposals that 15-20 years ago were their own more palpable alternative.

Is the notion of politicizing an issue to kill the rest of a bill you really don't like even newsworthy at this point?

That's the way the system works, unfortunately.

Blame the constituency that keeps voting for these assholes.

I blame them, but more and more, I'm beginning to get sick of 24 hour news networks. Instead of reporting facts, they've become sort of a masturbatory place for people to vent their rage and justify their hardening political stance.

Edmund Morris, who just finished his third volume of Roosevelt's biography stated that someone like TR would have zero chance in politics today because the 24 hour news cycle would essentially devour him. Its just sad.