Rekna

Since the Democrats took back the senate the Republicans have continued to obstruct any legislation by esentially filibustering all legislation. The latest example being the tax hikes for oil companies while giving tax breaks for alternative fuels. When Tom Daschell (D-SD) was the minority leader he lost his senate seat because Thune(R-SD) successfully painted him as an obstructionist who was preventing anything from getting done in the senate. The Democrats could take this same approach in 2008. Do you think that the Republican strategy will help or hurt them in 2008?

aceventura3

Perhaps more research is needed to determine the impact of the proposed legislation. Oil companies and the oil industry are global, if costs are increased through taxes why wouldn't those costs be passed on to consumers? Is the intent of the legislation to hurt the American consumer especially those on fixed incomes or those with low incomes? Many have this concern.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...67232247184662

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ubertuber

When I read your thread title, I immediately thought of this article:

Congressional Approval Ratings at All-Time Low

It's interesting to note that back in April and May when Congress was "playing politics with soldiers' lives" their approval ratings were higher. I wonder if the low approval rating has more to do with ineffective Democratic initiatives or Republican obstructionism or something else...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

ratbastid

I think the public perception is that the Democrats who were sent to Congress at mid-term to change things haven't done that. The fact is, attempts at change have been thwarted by the White House and congressional Republicans. I'm not sure whether that's generally known or not. For whatever reason, though, America is pretty sure it's not getting what it thought it bought in the mid-terms.

Superbelt

Perhaps the increase in costs (some of which must be attributed to inflation though) are EXACTLY the reasons needed to halt the tax breaks that oil companies are getting (which is what these tax increases really are) and aggressively fund alternative fuels.

Reduce the demand for fossil fuels and their costs will fall.
Maybe if they pay their executives a few hundred million dollars less, they might not have to increase their costs to consumers quite so much?

I wish the Democrats were smart/shrewd enough to use the same strategies that were used against them. Some targeted commercials where they flash the annual compensation of oil co executives. Then a few shots of gas pump prices. Then a voiceover tells about how Senator Oilpocket blocked legislation two years ago that would have taken money from said executives and put it into aggressive alternative fuel research.

Rekna

Ace my point was not to argue for or against the legislation but merely pointing out the tactic being used to stop a majority of the bills going through congress. If you want to discuss this bill then take it to a new thread.

aceventura3

My bad.

I support the use of "the tactic" to block or delay poorly thought out legislation. I would support "the tactic" being used by either party to block or delay poorly thought out legislation, wouldn't you?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ratbastid

The assertion, ace, is that "the tactic" is being used to block legislation for strictly partisan reasons. The longer the Republicans can hold out and George can wield a veto, the worse and worse the Democrat majority looks.

aceventura3

I am sure some participate in the use of "the tactic" for that purpose (from both parties from time to time), but I think most use it because they don't support the legislation in question.

If there is a pattern of Republicans currently using "the tactic" on legislation they would normally support I would admit that I am wrong, but that would involve discussing the legislation - we would have to start a new thread.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Rekna

I'm wondering if people will blame the Dems or the Republicans for the lack of things getting down. In my view i've seen a lot of legislation that would have little impact on anything get blocked (Gonzales no confidence vote, ect). The Republicans complain that the legislation doesn't do anything, but if that was the case then why block it? I have a feeling that the public will grow tired of this quickly and the 2008 elections will be very bleak for the Republicans.

Elphaba

The Dems must learn to do a better job of explaining/selling the progress or lack thereof of legislation. The Republicans have done a superior job of this since Reagan, and Newt advanced the sound bite as an effective tool.

I am not troubled that the Senate cannot easily move legislation forward as it was intended to be the more deliberative body. A bill must be acceptable to the majority of the body and the President to pass into law. That these have until recently been held by a single party is the best argument I know of that we must have at least a two-party system effecting new legislation.

Partisan voting in my mind is simply a reflection of a party's ideology. Generally speaking, conservatives would not support corporate taxation to fund alternative fuel research and therefore "obstruct" a bill of that kind. Dems must sell this bill to the majority of the American people or wait for the possibility of a Democratic President in '08, who agrees with the legislation.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

dc_dux

In 2008, there are 21 Republican senators up for reelection and only 12 Democrats up for reelection.

The voters will decide if they approved of blocking legislation like the energy bill, a new strategy for Iraq, changes to the Freedom of Information Act, campaign reform, a bill to allow small businesses to join together to form health pools, a bill to allow the government to negotiate (lower) prescription drug prices for medicare, immigration reform, etc.

Although its too early for predictions that have any credibility, Republicans senate seats are considered potentially vulnerable in Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Virginia (if Warner retires).

Democratic senate seats are considered potentially vulnerable in Louisiana and South Dakota.

I'll take those odds.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

joshbaumgartner

Democrats really hurt themselves with the war funding bill. Republicans may just be rubberstamping the Administration's policy on Iraq, but the difference with the Democrats is they appear to put up a bit of whining but then when told more sternly they went ahead and did the stamping too. It really hurt their credibility on the war as a whole. Now of course many individual Dems are not in that group, but if Democrats want to improve their margins in the Congress, they have a year to show themselves to be fighters on these issues. If they fight tooth and nail to stop the war and Bush just won't quit, then that is what it is, but if they lay down and accept Bush's agenda, then what's the point?

I hope for the country's sake that the Dems learn from this lesson and correct themselves before the next election.

Elphaba

Josh, I agree with you overall, but in truth the Dems didn't have the votes and the Republicans did a masterful job of painting the vote as not supporting the troups. The Dems were hurt badly by their lack of spine, but I'm willing to wait to see what spine the Repubs have in September when their jobs are on the line.

I don't look for hero's any longer in either party.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Willravel

That's why I vote green. Sure, we have a 1 in 1,000,000 shot at winning, but at least I know the guy I'm voting for isn't going to pussyfoot around for votes. The same can be said of many non-mainstream runners from Ventura to Perot.

Elphaba

Will, who is your Green hero? Nadar certainly can't be called one.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Willravel

Right now? Me. Politics isn't about modeling yourself after other people. It can be about recognizing a better philosophy or perspective and adding it to your own, but at the end of the day you need another you to represent you. The idea would be to search out the candidate most like you and go vote. If you can't find anyone, create one by trying to change the minds of those in power or run yourself.

Nader is an inconsistent hero, having terrible problems and brilliant ideas at once. I find 2004 Green Presidential nominee David Cobb to be an interesting man. This is an interview he gave in October 2004: http://www.counterpunch.org/frank10042004.html
In it he explains how he would have removed the troops from Iraq in a 5 week period (very similar to my stance at the time), repealed the Patriot act, created a single-payer universal healthcare program, and end the 'war on drugs'. He wanted DC statehood, and to hold up our treaties with Native Americans. He called for a 50% budget cut to the Pentagon over a ten year period, and those extra funds would have gone into the development of alternative energy resources. He called for the end of commercial logging on public lands (something I support STRONGLY). He obviously wanted an end to the stupid ballot restrictions that had kept Nader off, kept him off, and have solidified the two party system's hold for years. He believed in some form of reparations, which is bold.

These are all brilliant statements and the fact that this man was Green meant that he was less likely to have long standing agreements that would compromise him in office. No oil ties. No military contractor ties. No corporate ties.

I regret voting for Badnarik. I should have voted for Cobb.

Getting back, I'd name Author Rachel Carson, Al Gore (he's a Green masquerading as a Dem for votes as much as Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist masquerading as a Republican), artist Ansel Adams, and Henry David Thoreau as heroes of the Green movement. Really, though, there are numerous unnamed people who do work every day to preserve the earth and who lead the movement for peace. It's they who are the heroes.

/threadjack