US Politics: Thread #hbar

[awesome possum]

Shryke,

What could GOP senators have asked for that would have made the ACA paletable to most Republican and conservative voters?

Scot,

I think the point is more that the Republicans refused to even sit at the table rather than they didn't find anything at the table palatable. Because the bill that passed is basically the Republican bill from the 90s, to say that they disagree with all of it is a blatant falsehood.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It's pretty easy to prove since they, you know, already did it.

No, they didn't.

They needed 60 votes, they didn't have it, so they cut deals. That's how the US legislature works.

They cut deals to get enough votes for passage, and they got enough votes for passage. You're suggesting they would have been willing to make even more compromises after they already had enough votes for passage. There's nothing suggesting the progressives would have been willing to do that, and plenty to suggest that they weren't.

Because the GOP refused flat out to negotiate, the concessions went to Democrats instead of Republicans.

No, the concessions went to Democrats because the concessions being demanded by those Democrats were more "progressive" than the conservative changes sought by Republicans, and therefore more acceptible to progressives within the Democratic Party. The majority of Democrats wanted a public option, but lacked the votes. If they couldn't get that public option, then they wanted a bill that was as progressive as possible. That meant compromising with people in their own party was preferable to compromising with Republicans.

If some Republican Senators had been willing to vote for the bill if they were given X, the Democrats would have taken them over Lieberman or the like as long as X was reasonable enough.

Okay, fine. What is the "X" you think the GOP should have demanded that the Democrats were willing to give? I'm not asking for proof -- just tell me what you think they could have gotten.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

The Conservative and Republican voters of 2010 are the same voters as in 1993?

[Shryke]

They cut deals to get enough votes for passage, and they got enough votes for passage. You're suggesting they would have been willing to make even more compromises after they already had enough votes for passage. There's nothing suggesting the progressives would have been willing to do that, and plenty to suggest that they weren't.

No, I'm suggesting that the GOP could have been those votes they needed instead of people like Liberman. They needed 60 and they needed it any way they could get it. It doesn't matter if that 60th vote is Lieberman or Snowe or whoever, as long as it's a vote.

The thing is, because Lieberman was that 60th vote, he got something out of it. Snowe got nothing. Coons? Nothing. McCain? Nothing. Chambliss? Nothing. etc, etc

Shryke,

What could GOP senators have asked for that would have made the ACA paletable to most Republican and conservative voters?

What did they want? And, as we all know, it doesn't even have to be related to Health Care.

They could have got some concession, something phrased the way they wanted it, some money for some project (like Nelson did).

Instead they got nothing. And not because they couldn't offer a better deal then Lieberman, but because they refused to offer a deal in the first place.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

What could they have wanted and obtained that would have outweighed their voters anger at their compromise?

[Shryke]

Damn Federal Courts and their real trials and shit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/17/AR2010111705663.html

The first former Guantanamo Bay detainee to be tried in federal criminal court was found guilty on a single conspiracy charge Wednesday but cleared on 284 other counts. The outcome, a surprise, seriously undermines - and could doom - the Obama administration's plans to put other Guantanamo detainees on trial in U.S. civilian courts.

The Obama administration had hoped that a conviction on most, if not all, of the charges would help clear the way for federal prosecutions of other Guantanamo detainees - including Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators accused of organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The administration did not want to rely exclusively on the military commissions that the George W. Bush administration had made a centerpiece of its detention policy.

President Obama's strategy, however, has run into fierce, cross-party opposition in Congress and New York, in part because of concerns that it would be harder to win convictions in civilian court.

The failure to convict Ghailani ... on the most serious terrorism charges will bolster the arguments of those who say the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be kept open, both to host military commissions for some prisoners and to hold others indefinitely and without trial under the laws of war.

...

Ghailani could be sentenced to life in prison and faces a minimum of 20 years, according to the Justice Department.

Gotta love that. "The trial didn't convict him on all counts, damn this stupid justice system!"

BTW, it appears that a large reason he wasn't convicted was that most/all of the evidence was gained under torture or while he was detained in secret prisons.

Also, the GOP weights in heavily for liberty and justice, as always:

"This tragic verdict demonstrates the absolute insanity of the Obama Administration's decision to try al-Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts," said Republican Representative Peter King, in line to chair the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee when his party takes control of the chamber in January.

King said last week one of his main priorities as committee chairman would be stopping Obama's plans to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States to stand trial in civilian courts..

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2010/11/18/16195716.html#/news/world/2010/11/18/pf-16195676.html

[alguien]

Shryke,

What could they have wanted and obtained that would have outweighed their voters anger at their compromise?

Scot, do you think voter anger have been a significant factor if scare tactics such as Death Panels and Socializm weren't used? And, even if they were, weren't the majority of Americans for healthcare reform?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What did they want? And, as we all know, it doesn't even have to be related to Health Care.

Frum's went ballistic because he thinks the bill itself was a "disaster", and that the GOP should have obtained compromises on the bill itself. So saying that the GOP may have been able to get compromises on something unrelated to health care is completely irrelevant to his point. It has to be a health care bill compromise, or his point makes no sense.

So again, what significant concessions on the health care bill do you think Republicans could have gotten that would have addressed Frum's concerns, and that Democrats may have been willing to give up?

[Shryke]

Frum's went ballistic because he thinks the bill itself was a "disaster", and that the GOP should have obtained compromises on the bill itself. So saying that the GOP may have been able to get compromises on something unrelated to health care is completely irrelevant to his point. It has to be a health care bill compromise, or his point makes no sense.

So again, what significant concessions on the health care bill do you think Republicans could have gotten that would have addressed Frum's concerns, and that Democrats may have been willing to give up?

I'm not a republican, fuck if I know what they would have wanted. They never tried, so I guess we'll never know. Can't win if you don't play.

Which was Frum's point.

[alguien]

Yeah, why exactly is this a failure of the justice system, again? The guy is getting a mandatory 20 years, after being held for the better part of a decade without charges.

What I couldn't help but notice is that they were only able to convict him on 1 out of 285 charges. That seems odd to me. The scary dilemma I can't help but ask is whether it's because of our use of torture that we had difficulty making charges stick or was it because the suspect was innocent?

From the articles, couldn't tell enough about the particulars of the case to get an accurate picture.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Alguien,

I don't know. However in the environment that existed any compromise on this issue would have hurt the right at the ballot box earlier this month.

[awesome possum]

Ser Poss.,

The Conservative and Republican voters of 2010 are the same voters as in 1993?

Their are 10 Republican Senators currently serving who were serving in 1993. Bob Bennett, Kit Bond, Orrin Hatch, and Dick Lugar are all still serving and were all co-sponsors of the 1993 bill.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Coco,

It's not a failure. The failure was Eric Holder insisting there would be a guilty verdict when asked what happens if there were an acquital. He couldn't know that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

I didn't ask about the Senators. I asked about the voters.

[awesome possum]

Alguien,

I don't know. However in the environment that existed any compromise on this issue would have hurt the right at the ballot box earlier this month.

The environment that existed was created by the GOP and it's televised propaganda machine. If they wouldn't have spent the summer of 2009 breeding and raising hysteria like it was a puppy to be entered in the freaking AKC Championships, the environment you're talking about would not be there.

[awesome possum]

Ser Poss.,

I didn't ask about the Senators. I asked about the voters.

Voters are, for the most part, idiots. They'll listen to whoever either talks the smoothest game or screams the loudest. So no, they haven't changed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

The voter are idiots? Hmmmm... Do you propose doing something about that? If so, what?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm not a republican, fuck if I know what they would have wanted. They never tried, so I guess we'll never know.

You don't have to be a Republican to know what Frum said, because he was actually pretty specific regarding what he disliked about the plan. He specifically said that he wanted the surtax on wealthy taxpayers to be replaced by a tax on high-end (primarily union) plans. Oh, and he also said he opposed starting up a new entitlement program.

What real incentive did the Democrats have to give up either of those given that they had the votes without that compromise?

[Guy Kilmore]

Coco,

It's not a failure. The failure was Eric Holder insisting there would be a guilty verdict when asked what happens if there were an acquital. He couldn't know that.

I remember there was an old politics thread where the NPR interview that sparked this discussion was under some dispute. I have a hard time seeing this situation as a failure of justice or of Eric Holder.

Editted for Clairity

[Shryke]

Glen Greenwald with some interesting thoughts on the trial: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/18/trials/index.html

Last month, the federal judge presiding over the case, Lewis Kaplan, banned the testimony of a key witness because the Government under George Bush and Dick Cheney learned of his identity not through legal means but instead by torturing Ghailani (and also possibly coerced the testimony of that witness).

Then there is the false premise -- found at the center of every attack on the Obama DOJ's conduct here -- that the key witness would not have been excluded had Ghailani had been put before a military commission at Guantanamo. That is simply untrue. The current rules governing those military tribunals bar the use of torture-obtained evidence to roughly the same extent as real courts do.

Initially, it should be noted that the verdict in this case -- no matter what it was -- would be largely inconsequential in terms of Ghailani's imprisonment. He has already been imprisoned without charges for six years, including two years at a CIA "black site," and yesterday's verdict means he will spend decades more in prison.

But even had he been acquitted on all counts, the Obama administration had made clear that it would simply continue to imprison him anyway under what it claims is the President's "post-acquittal detention power" -- i.e., when an accused Terrorist is wholly acquitted in court, he can still be imprisoned indefinitely by the U.S. Government under the "law of war" even when the factual bases for the claim that he's an "enemy combatant" (i.e. that he blew up the two embassies) are the same ones underlying the crimes for which he was fully acquitted after a full trial.

But the most important point here is that one either believes in the American system of justice or one does not. When a reviled defendant is acquitted in court, and torture-obtained evidence is excluded, that isn't proof that the justice system is broken; it's proof that it works. A "justice system" which guarantees convictions -- or which allows the Government to rely on evidence extracted from torture -- isn't a justice system at all, by definition.