Will the Republicans continue to obstruct, or will they actually work with the president this time around?

[Hersh]

Trying to rush it thru WHILE telling me what is reasonable ain't gonna get ya much cooperation Hersh ...you might sell it to some Northern Rep, but I see things differently

I'm telling you what the likes of Graham and Coburn said not to mention the likes of Hannity. I'm not sure they qualify as northern Republicans and I don't think getting something done in 2013 is rushing it.
Edit: It did just occur to me that everyone is Northern to you



---------- Post added November-11th-2012 at 07:55 PM ----------

Understatement of the year . . .

It's a political reality if the Republicans plan on winning national elections. For that matter, they need to consider statewide races as well.

[twa]

Its interesting you mention that.

I am in general an "open borders" guy. I think labor should have the right to move freely wherever it wants to go. Amnesty+open borders+reduction of welfare state would greatly help our country.

However I do have family in Texas, Houston in particular. Partisan Democrats. ALL opposed to amnesty/loosening the border at all. Its one place where "our sides" essentially flip flop

Yep, Open boarders won't work w/o controlling our freebies and adjusting tax bases, simply too many poor out there

Many immigrants here are among the most fervent in opposing illegals....you should here some of my customers rants(especially the Indians and Koreans)
I've lived and loved among immigrants and illegals all my life...a real solution would be nice

[DogofWar1]

The current Republican platform is just wholly unsustainable.

The writing was on the wall by 2000. Thing is, Bush was reasonably popular with Hispanics, so they were largely able to ignore the problem. That, and Cuban Americans supported Republicans by a sizable margin, so even as the Hispanic population grew and turned away from Republicans, the most important state in play, Florida, was help in place thanks to Cuban Americans.

Now Hispanics are a large enough group in enough states that NM, NV, CO, and a few others are in play. And with Cuban Americans suddenly about 50-50, there's no longer any last-line-of-defense in Florida.

That and women are more of a factor now than men. 53% of VA was women.

Even in the House things will sooner or later cave in. States become more diverse, and women become a larger share of the vote, leading to state legislatures/governors shifting left. This means that when districts are redone, they can't be done to subtly give Republicans an advantage, and might even be done in the opposite direction. If/when that happens, they literally will not be able to hold any national power without a major shift in platform.

I think many Republicans understand this, and want the party to become more socially moderate, and pass immigration reform.

Also, they need to drop the pro-choice/pro-life debate, it's over, pro-choice won, the end.

So yeah, on social issues I think Republicans will cease obstruction, or lose even more ground trying.

Fiscally, I think the party line is fine, their problems demographically are social, but in terms of immediate reality compromise is vital. Boehner realizes that he's not getting the Senate or Presidency soon, so he might as well compromise towards the center. My hope is they come to a reasonable consensus prior to the fiscal cliff.

The funny thing about he fiscal cliff though is that the end result is not really a bad idea, the problem lies in the execution. If you did everything the fiscal cliff was going to do over the course of two years, it would probably improve things drastically in the long run. Heck, you could just let the cliff happen and it honestly wouldn't be a big deal if the markets didn't freak out and we didn't have the media reminding us about the cliff all the time.

[Rdskns2000]

There will be some deal on immigration; only because the Republicans will want that issue off the table. That deal though won't change how republicans really feel about immigrants-legal or not.

If 9/11 hadn't happened; Bush would've gotten immigration done in his first term and it would probably included amnesty, a worker visa program where people could easily come and go with permanent worker visas.


The fiscal cliff will be postponed for 2 years and that will be all. I don't think they will reach that agreement until after January 1 but within a month. One month of hell breaking loose will get the sides to reach a deal. It will only be 2 years; because they will of course want things for the next election.

[NLC1054]

They won't change.

They just won't. They didn't change in 2008. In fact, they went further right, and in 2010 were rewarded for it when the won the House and slowed the Senate to a crawl. They won't change this year because they lost, because these guys don't understand what losing means.

Republicans are already telling themselves this wasn't a referendum on their ideas. They just didn't get the latino vote. "If we had the latino vote we would've won." So their idea of "change" is probably going to be lightening up on immigration, without taking into account how vilified the hispanic community has become and their entire parties outright rejection of the DREAM Act, it's embracing of the "Paper's Please" laws, and their attempts to supress the vote among minorities. Their idea of change is a guy like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz getting more air time, not realizing those two are already screwed because they, by nature of being Republicans, have already been forced to adopt the same language into their platforms.

The Republicans problems are bigger than just getting one part of the electorate that they've more or less shunned and treated unilaterally like second class citizens to vote for them. Their problems are with their whole approach. For the Republicans to change, they'd have to cut ties with the two parts of the electorate they have left----the super-duper uber wealthy, and the disgruntled white male vote.

They're like those people on Kitchen Nightmares who refuse to change because they don't want to scare off the old people who eat at their place because even though the food sucks, they're the only people that come here because it's cheap. At a certain point you need to move past those people if you want to succeed.

The Republican party has no intention of doing that.

[Thiebear]

I know this is going to fall on deaf ears and the Repubs have been obstructing more than previous but:
To say that they got options in the HealthCare bill is like this scenario.

side1:
I want everyday to wear flipflops and cutoff shorts to work (single payer option)
side2:
WHAT? No, we wear a suit (current clothing), with some with no tie
side1:
Okay Jeans and a collar
Side2:
Dockers and a collar
Side1:
we passed Jeans and a collar 200/135, you guys never compromise and nobody voted for it on your side.

Edit: Though most of you think Single Payer is the only option so the above is obviously a flawed argument from someone in the pocket of big pharma and big ER that wants his mom and siseter and kids to die a slow horrible death.

I would have mentioned the Obamacare and abortion but HHS has come out with a new rule that seems to have fixed it for the States whether they want it or not, and i'm not smart enough to understand the wording in the we don't fund it except for maybe a surcharge?

So like most 3000 page bills that span a decade it will take both sides and the Scotus to fix it into something that resemble AmeriFrance

The next bill that comes to the House/Senate: Lets dissect the "bipartisan effort".

[Larry]

I know this is going to fall on deaf ears and the Repubs have been obstructing more than previous but:
To say that they got options in the HealthCare bill is like this scenario.

side1:
I want everyday to wear flipflops and cutoff shorts to work (single payer option)
side2:
WHAT? No, we wear a suit (current clothing), with some with no tie
side1:
Okay Jeans and a collar
Side2:
Dockers and a collar
Side1:
we passed Jeans and a collar 200/135, you guys never compromise.

Redskins2000: Tell me exactly again how I feel about legal immigrants? It seemed kind of a vague.
I've dated a couple terrorists and immigrants apparently but still hate them?

Problem with inventing an imaginary scenario and claiming it's reality, is that it isn't reality.

The reality is:

Republicans: This bill pays for abortions!
Democrats: No it doesn't. In fact, existing federal law already prohibits federal dollars paying for abortions, except in case of rape or incest. And this law doesn't change that one.
Republicans: This bill pays for abortions!
Democrats: OK. Look, we added additional language to the bill, specifically stating that it won't pay for abortions. (Even though existing law already prohibited it, anyway.)
Republicans This bill pays for abortions!

Republicans: This bill pays for illegal immigrants!
Democrats: No it doesn't. In fact, it specifically says that it doesn't.
Republicans: This bill pays for illegal immigrants!
Democrats: OK, look! We added additional language to the bill, mandating that e-Verify must be used, to make sure that it doesn't pay for illegals. (Even though it already, specifically, didn't pay for them, before.)
Republicans: This bill pays for illegals!

Republicans: This bill creates single payer. Filibuster!
Democrats. OK, we can't override your filibuster, because 2 Democrats agree with you. Here, we'll remove it.
Republicans: We still don't like it anyway. Filibuster!

The measure comes to a vote. The Republicans still, unanimously, vote against it. And still, unanimously, filibuster it.

Republicans: The Democrats are partisan and mean and won't compromise or listen to us in any way, and it's all their fault, because we tried as hard as we could to compromise, and they rejected every single thing we proposed, because they're mean and partisan.

I've listed, above, three specific examples in which the proposed bill was modified, to meet Republican demands. (Even though two of the demands were completely fictional, to begin with.)

But, after those concessions, how many Republicans voted for the bill? (I'll give you a hint. It's "zero".)

And how many simply pulled out the next demand? (I'll give you a hint: It's "every single one of them".)

[deejaydana]

How many Dems voted against Obama's last two proposed budgets Larry? I'll give you a hint: every single one of them.

[RedskinsFan44]

How many Dems voted against Obama's last two proposed budgets Larry? I'll give you a hint: every single one of them.

Perhaps we should start a thread about whether the Democrats will work with the president this time. My guess is coming off the election win, they will.

[Thiebear]

Perhaps we should start a thread about whether the Democrats will work with the president this time. My guess is coming off the election win, they will.

Reid is going to reduce the fillibuster so the repubs will also, or figure out a loophole.
*disclaimer: make bills and amendments default to vote on floor and i'm all in.

[Larry]

How many Dems voted against Obama's last two proposed budgets Larry? I'll give you a hint: every single one of them.

And what that has to do with the topic is . . . ?

In fact, your point (which I strongly suspect is untrue, and that's why you won't state it) is . . . ?

---------- Post added November-12th-2012 at 10:50 AM ----------

Reid is going to reduce the fillibuster so the repubs will also, or figure out a loophole.

I doubt it. The Dems cried too loudly when the Republicans threatened to do that.

Although, granted, it wouldn't be the first time a political party changed their opinion on the filibuster, based on whether they were the majority or the minority.

(Just look at the Republicans.)

[DogofWar1]

I doubt it. The Dems cried too loudly when the Republicans threatened to do that.
Although, granted, it wouldn't be the first time a political party changed their opinion on the filibuster, based on whether they were the majority or the minority.
(Just look at the Republicans.)

I don't think there are many people who wouldn't say the filibuster is broken as it is, the problem is how they fix it, and no one really agrees on that. Do away with it? Modify it to require fewer votes? Put a cap on the number of times it can be used in a Congress?

Something needs to happen, but until there's something resembling agreement on what to do probably nothing will happen. My hope is that some Republicans are willing to compromise and just make the filibuster difficult to use in general. Unfortunately, lock-step with the party line tends to be the way these guys vote, and the moderates find themselves magically out of office next time they come up for election.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And what that has to do with the topic is . . . ?

Absolutely nothing, but a diversion was needed because you just pointed out the reality of the GOP obstructionism that destroyed the ficticious narrative told by the Right that pretends that the GOP has been negotiating in good faith instead of feigning negotiations when in fact they just want to continually move the goal posts and in the end say, "Well we're still not going to vote for it even though you've proven our objections are wrong or absurd and that you've actually capitulated to our demands."

Now they'll respond with, "The Democrats never capitulated to any GOP demands or negotiations" as they try in vain to reconstruct the wall of their own ignorance to reality.

[Larry]

I don't think there are many people who wouldn't say the filibuster is broken as it is. . .

"Broken"? I guess I must be one of not many people.

(Darn. I just hate being one of the small group of people who are right.)

Yeah, there certainly are times when I fervently wish that the rules required the filibuster to be public. Mostly I feel that way when I see Republicans in here claiming that the Republicans haven't been doing it. Not once.

Although I have to confess that, if there were a proposal to change that rule, I'm not sure I'd even vote for that.

I can see the public good in a Senator being able to block a piece of legislation, without revealing that he's doing so.

No, I don't think I'd change the rules for a filibuster.

(Even if it were possible to change them, a little, without creating the precedent that it's all fine for the GOP, next time they get power, to change it some more. And it isn't possible to do that.)

Not even as fervently as I would like for the public to actually see what's already been going on, for years, anyway.

---------- Post added November-12th-2012 at 11:54 AM ----------

Is there a chink in the wall?

Yahoo: Kristol Open to Raising Rates on Wealthiest Americans

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol said on Sunday that the Republican Party should stop defending “a bunch of millionaires” and let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans.

“It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires,” he said on Fox News Sunday. “It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000.”

He continued: “Really, the Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood?”

(It's a really short article: Only four paragraphs. And I thought three of them had to be quoted. )

[bird_1972]

Its interesting you mention that.

I am in general an "open borders" guy. I think labor should have the right to move freely wherever it wants to go. Amnesty+open borders+reduction of welfare state would greatly help our country.

However I do have family in Texas, Houston in particular. Partisan Democrats. ALL opposed to amnesty/loosening the border at all. Its one place where "our sides" essentially flip flop

So you are true, dyed in the wool Libertarian then?

I'm told that is the future of the GOP (if there is ever a future) since the youth on the right seem to have more of that Libertarian streak to them - see: Ron Paul.