Tidal Forces


Social Networks in the U.S. Senate Hat-tip to Ezra Klein.


--

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Panel 11 (#205647)
by Bird Dog

There's your core group of Republicans that you failed to work with, Democrats. The result: Crashed and burned agenda.

--

Man, I love this theoretical pitch: (#205656)
by Desidiosus

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and his wife were leaving dinner at a new pizza joint near their home in Omaha one night last week when a patron began complaining about Nelson’s decisive vote in favor of the Senate’s health care bill.

Other customers started booing. A woman yelled, “Get him the hell out of here!” And the Nelsons and their dining companions beat a hasty retreat.

"Senator Snowe -- this could happen to you, except with your primary voters as well as the folks in the general."

The blob image proved the gang of six never happened (#205655)
by catchy

.

Heh. (#205648)
by Desidiosus

Yep, there were no efforts whatsoever to woo Olympia Snowe during this process. None at all. Indeed, we didn't spend a month on her will-she-or-won't-she dithering.

I deeply enjoy these outbursts of grievance. Truly, there is no group more oppressed than conservatives.

And there's your problem, (#205663)
by Bird Dog

thinking that a strategy of getting one GOPer to flip would be successful. This may be challenging to grasp, but real bipartisanship means finding common ground first and going from there. Consider Medicare Part D as an historical reference.

--

I've said this before... (#205798)
by Wagster

But I think it's worth repeating. If you want to make a deal...

1. You don't rile up your base. That just makes them turn on you if you do make a deal.

2. You set a target. If Dems get to such and such a place, we can talk about supporting the bill.

The Republicans (with the exception of Snowe for a little while in the summer) followed neither of these guidelines.

So have I (#205980)
by Bird Dog

Republicans want a bill, just not that bill. Dan McLaughlin is one of the smarter Redstate bears, and he explains. The bottom line is that conservatives "work around the margins rather than launch a massive federal takeover of the whole shebang that rewrites every aspect of the system from Washington with no possible way to anticipate how all those changes will play out." This is the prevailing sentiment of those on the right.

--

Where "those on the right" (#206010)
by Desidiosus

is defined as "BD."

Conservative != GOP. GOP does launch Fed takeovers (#205990)
by BlaiseP

of everything it wants to control. When it takes over, it gets rid of the regulators. These they call Damnable Bureaucrats. In this way, they concentrate power in themselves by empowering their corporate constituencies, who then close and power the circuit with campaign contributions.

Government thus sells itself off to the highest bidder.

You may think this is a good thing, that government gets out of the way, that by putting designer bandages over treatable cancers they have cured the patient. All this nonsense about the Bill, the GOP played the FUD game, and that's all it is, you said so yourself: "that rewrites every aspect of the system from Washington with no possible way to anticipate how all those changes will play out."

That's FUD. It's perfectly obvious something must be done about our appalling health statistics. It's a measure of our culture, of our nation. We're right down there with some of the more-odious dictatorships on our live birth statistics. The government does have a role to play, of regulation and disbursement, and all the GOP can say is what they've always said: Death to the Bureaucrats. It's the stupidest thing in the world.

Laws without regulators are no laws at all. The absence of regulators does not make a market free. Haven't the GOP screwed up the world enough with their deregulation? When will you guys get the point here: the GOP is interested only in enriching their cronies. Every policy move they make only damages the economy. Demanding more tax cuts, what a bunch of innumerate idiots. Everyone who votes GOP is voting against his own economic interests.

BS (#205985)
by HankP

the GOP did nothing about this when they were in the majority - nothing. The idea that the bill as it's presently constituted is a government takeover of everything is also BS. The bill does more to preserve the current system than anything else.

Just stick with the Republican line that the American system is the best in the world. When you get away from the propaganda it just doesn't ring true.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

Heh. (#205984)
by Desidiosus

Yes, you are totally going to be persuasive to sane people by linking to RedState.

Indeed (#206064)
by Bird Dog

I acknowledge that I won't be persuasive to bigoted people. Because their minds are made up.

--

Oh, I get it! (#206176)
by Desidiosus

You see, you're equating "sane" with "bigoted" in this sentence! And, to me, it actually makes a lot of sense that a conservative would see them as equivalent, so . . . wait, I don't get it again.

Maybe you can explain it.

Addressing the substance of this comment, (#205680)
by Desidiosus

given that no Republican health care proposal was floated until halfway through the process, what is it that Dems were supposed to compromise with?

The Republican position was, "If we defeat this bill, it's bad for Obama, so we're going to defeat the bill no matter what." This brings to mind a more general question:

What is the basis for compromise with a group whose stated main policy priority is to cause you harm?

Still missing the point (#205721)
by Bird Dog

Again, go back and see how it was done for Medicare Part D. The process was handled by grown-ups on both sides of the aisle.

As for the "Republican position," you're once again guilty of making invidious overgeneralizations. The GOP wanted a bill, just not that bill. That it made Obama and the Democratic "leadership" look bad, well, that was just gravy. But that said, I'm sure there are some GOPers who are against anything that Obama is for, not unlike a number of Democrats who were against anything that Bush was for.

--

The GOP did not want a bill (#205796)
by HankP

they did nothing when they had the majority for 6 years, and since Obama was sworn in they haven't supported any major initiative that he proposed. They negotiated and got changes they wanted inserted in the bill, and even then not a single Republican voted for it.

There's no factual support whatsoever for that statement.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

That's a factual statement. (#205755)
by Desidiosus

Look, I've supported my statement with quotations and other events which were similar. I don't believe that the GOP wanted a bill. I don't find it a credible statement. I don't really understand why you do.

The GOP wanted a bill? (#205754)
by JKC

News to me. Where was this vaunted GOP bill? Where were the serious Republican proposals? I remember people chortling about Obama's Waterloo. I do not remember any serious policy proposals.

So we should lie about the cost of the bill? (#205678)
by Desidiosus

I dunno, man. I think that trick's been used.

Precisely so. - nt (#205665)
by Bernard Guerrero

.

--

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

I want that info. in a continuous video (#205630)
by catchy

of blobs morphing shape and shifting position.

Make it happen, O'Reilly media.

Support The Forvm

Powell's Books

Amazon.com

Help support the Forvm by buying items through our links. All proceeds go to defraying our hosting costs.

Links

Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference

Related Sites

Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)

Foreign Affairs

Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
War and Piece

Politics

Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
This Modern WorldTruman Project
Winds of Change.net

War

Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog

Economics and Business

Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture

Science and Tech

Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb

Legal

Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy

Sports

Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist

Film and Music

They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide

News and Aggregators

Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot

Dead Tree Media
The New York Times
The Washington Post
Los Angeles Times

References

Wikipedia
Your Dictionary