Most partisan Senate ever

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • snusgetter
    Member
    • May 2010
    • 10903

    #1

    Most partisan Senate ever

    ~
    Why it's been worse

    Politics - The Exit Interviews


    By NBC's Ken Strickland Senate producer
    9/13/2010


    The U.S. Senate’s polarizing debate and passage of three monumental bills over the past two years have led most Americans to believe that Republicans and Democrats simply cannot — or will not — work together. The economic stimulus, health care, and financial reform bills — trillions of dollars worth of legislation that touched every citizen — were all essentially party-line votes.

    An examination of senators’ voting practices last year inspired this headline from a Congressional Quarterly analysis: "2009 Was The Most Partisan Year Ever."

    But ask the men and women who have actually served in the chamber, and you’ll hear a less rancorous tune.

    Almost all of the senators who are retiring or were defeated in their primary elections this year say that it’s hardly the most partisan of times. One goes so far as to call such a notion “absurd.” History is replete, they say, with more intense periods of animosity, more anger, and violence.

    These departing veteran senators say that partisanship isn’t solely measured by vote totals in Congress' upper chamber, but by a bitterness that floods Washington as a whole and often soaks the entire nation.

    “It’s possible that this is a very partisan time, and yet it’s not the most partisan time,” said Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh. The son of former Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh, who was elected in 1962, recalled the Civil Rights and Vietnam eras as more destructive than today’s political squabbles.

    I remember seeing machine gun nests on top of government buildings here in Washington to protect them from demonstrators,” he said of the 1960s. “We had political assassinations — Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy. We had the anti-war demonstrators shot at Kent State University.”

    Republican Sen. Robert Bennett, 77, agreed. “I’m old enough to remember Vietnam,” he said. “I'm old enough to remember the bitterness.”

    For other senators, Congress' most caustic days were more recent. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., remembered the beginning of the “Reagan Revolution” as a time when “the intensity was much higher, much more visceral than what we have now.”

    At the beginning of 1981, Ronald Reagan had just walloped Jimmy Carter in a landslide election, and Republicans had regained control of the Senate after 25 years of Democratic rule. But the House was still controlled by Democrats and their speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill.

    “Tip O’Neill would just try to beat our brains out,” said Gregg, who had just arrived on the Hill as a freshman congressman that year. “He backed up a truck of manure every morning to your office door and unloaded it … and he was surrounded by people who took no prisoners.”

    It’s all about the numbers
    Some blame the perception of partisanship in the current Senate on the body’s party breakdown.

    “It’s always been partisan,” said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky. “But the reason it’s so partisan now is because of the big, wide separation in numbers.”

    Since the beginning of the Obama administration, Senate Democrats have held either 60 or 59 votes — the first time a party has achieved such power in over three decades. Those filibuster-proof (or near filibuster-proof) majorities render Republicans virtually powerless to stop any united Democratic agenda. With a supermajority, the need for compromise is almost obsolete.

    “So, what else is there to do except to try to stop [legislation],” Bunning said. “We can’t have any input on a bill.”
    ...

    “Partisan politics,” declared Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, “is what made the place.”

    He cited the founding fathers’ debates in Philadelphia that created the country and formed its government, saying it was hardly a sedate and cordial summit. “There was a real clash of ideals … it was raucous, rollicking, tough. It was as partisan as anything, in fact, more so in some ways.”

    Dodd said he’s “mystified” by arguments that senators should become more bipartisan. “It’s the wrong words,” he contended, “we need better civility in the process.”

    With 30 years experience in the Senate, Dodd worries that there has been an increase in deeply personal attacks, with members seeking to destroy reputations or link an opponent to a polarizing group. Such behavior, Dodd claims, prevents senators from working together.

    “If I attack you personally, there’s no way in the world you're going to sit down with me and find that common ground,” Dodd said. “That just defies human nature.”

    MORE



    Good ole Tip from Myassachusetts ... we've lost the mold!
    “Tip O’Neill ... backed up a truck of manure every morning to your office door
    and unloaded it … and he was surrounded by people who took no prisoners."
    The guy had class!!
  • Darwin
    Member
    • Mar 2010
    • 1372

    #2
    A modest contribution to the conversation:

    http://oiukm32.blogspot.com/2008/05/...-we-stand.html

    Comment

    • raptor
      Member
      • Oct 2008
      • 753

      #3
      How is it different now from post '94 when the Reps had both houses?

      Comment

      • snusgetter
        Member
        • May 2010
        • 10903

        #4
        Originally posted by Darwin View Post
        A modest contribution to the conversation:
        http://oiukm32.blogspot.com/2008/05/...-we-stand.html
        Partisanship can slow down the legislative process to a crawl or even in its exquisite fullness derail it altogether. I thrill to think how much crap-awful legislation has been abandoned because party loyalty demanded it. I also despair to think of it because of how much consensual meddling is represented by the millions of pages of federal law that have NOT been prevented by partisan maneuvering.

        Partisanship is the only real bulwark against one party steamrolling over the other and committing feckless follies in the heat of the moment.
        On the non-partisan side, we can now add the PACTCRAP Act to the list of misguided legislation.
        Didn't this pass in a rushed voice-vote (and later signed without fanfare by the Big O)?

        Where was the partisan steamroller when we really needed it!

        Comment

        • Darwin
          Member
          • Mar 2010
          • 1372

          #5
          No kidding. I've commented that our tribulations are far off the national radar and this proves it because PACT sailed through both houses without a whimper. There has to be at least some small groundswell of public/media attention nationally for a pol to consider throwing sand in the gears of legislation and either no one bothered to examine the details of this bill, a familiar refrain these days, or if they did they considered tweaking the nose of the anti-tobacco zealot community to not be worth the grief they would inevitably get.

          Comment

          • sgreger1
            Member
            • Mar 2009
            • 9451

            #6
            Originally posted by raptor View Post
            How is it different now from post '94 when the Reps had both houses?

            The difference is that after a few years with the republicans having the majority during clinton's term, we ended with a surplus and a decent economy, except for the whole dot com thing. Democrats have ran the country since 2007 and its been nothing but pure unadultered disaster. Since they have been in charge, this country has seen more economic devestation that it has for several generations. Now we owe more money than exists on the planet, and we have no plan to bring the economy back on its feet. The only semi-plan ive seen is to be anti-business while pretending to be pro business, and increasing the size of government. This usually doesnt work well when you couple an overbearing government with a bunch of businesses pissed off at you. It amounts to bad economic times.

            Comment

            • Curtisp
              Member
              • Jun 2010
              • 189

              #7
              We need to print more money, then change the currency, print more, change. etc.. it works for Brazil..lol

              Comment

              • dreed2
                Member
                • Jul 2010
                • 256

                #8
                Originally posted by snusgetter View Post
                On the non-partisan side, we can now add the PACTCRAP Act to the list of misguided legislation.
                Didn't this pass in a rushed voice-vote (and later signed without fanfare by the Big O)?

                Where was the partisan steamroller when we really needed it!
                I agree! And Obama is a smoker, on top of it all! That's what really gets my goat re: PACT. He understands nicotine addiction (which is an addiction that doesn't hurt anyone else, as long as those addicted use safer alternatives or go outside to light up). Yes, I voted for him, and, NO, I won't vote for him again. That's where he lost me - the day he signed the PACT act.

                Comment

                • raptor
                  Member
                  • Oct 2008
                  • 753

                  #9
                  Originally posted by sgreger1 View Post
                  The difference is that after a few years with the republicans having the majority during clinton's term, we ended with a surplus and a decent economy, except for the whole dot com thing. Democrats have ran the country since 2007 and its been nothing but pure unadultered disaster. Since they have been in charge, this country has seen more economic devestation that it has for several generations. Now we owe more money than exists on the planet, and we have no plan to bring the economy back on its feet. The only semi-plan ive seen is to be anti-business while pretending to be pro business, and increasing the size of government. This usually doesnt work well when you couple an overbearing government with a bunch of businesses pissed off at you. It amounts to bad economic times.
                  The Dems merely picked up what the Republicans left off under Bush Jr, and you give too much credit to the government for the surplus years in the 90s, except with regard to paying off the national debt.

                  But I wasn't even asking about that. The article mentions that the new Republican strategy is to counter every Democratic initiative because they see no need to compromise. I don't recall this being an issue during the Republican-controlled Congress in the 90s.

                  Comment

                  • raptor
                    Member
                    • Oct 2008
                    • 753

                    #10
                    Originally posted by dreed2 View Post
                    I agree! And Obama is a smoker, on top of it all! That's what really gets my goat re: PACT. He understands nicotine addiction (which is an addiction that doesn't hurt anyone else, as long as those addicted use safer alternatives or go outside to light up). Yes, I voted for him, and, NO, I won't vote for him again. That's where he lost me - the day he signed the PACT act.
                    I think it's hilarious that PACT was the tipping point for you when Obama's done much much worse up until that point (civil liberties, wars, etc).

                    I too voted for him and I probably won't in 2012.

                    Comment

                    • sgreger1
                      Member
                      • Mar 2009
                      • 9451

                      #11
                      Originally posted by raptor View Post
                      The Dems merely picked up what the Republicans left off under Bush Jr, and you give too much credit to the government for the surplus years in the 90s, except with regard to paying off the national debt.

                      But I wasn't even asking about that. The article mentions that the new Republican strategy is to counter every Democratic initiative because they see no need to compromise. I don't recall this being an issue during the Republican-controlled Congress in the 90s.

                      Oh, I see what you mean. And yah I don't give any real credit because they paid off the debt through less than appropriate ways.

                      Their claim is that since the democracts have an unprecedented fillabuster-proof majority, they are powerless to do anything but block it. At first, like with healthcare, they tried to suggest their own proposals but the democrats said "no, we got this" and ignored them. So the republicans, realizing they will have no input, do the only thing they can do: block EVERYTHING and make it all difficult to pass, in an attempt to make the democrats look bad or inept or something.


                      The republicans have no strategy, we know exactly what they will do when they get back in. They won't repeal anythign in the HC bills, they won't slim government, they won't spend less money, and the middle class's taxes will remain the same. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking a vote for repbulican is going to save us from anything. Third party is the only way, just to destroy the 2 party power structure.

                      Comment

                      • sgreger1
                        Member
                        • Mar 2009
                        • 9451

                        #12
                        Just gonna leave this right here, re: PACT act


                        Republican Minority Leader Boehner passed out checks from tobacco companies to fellow Republican House members on the floor of the House as they voted down a bill that would have ended tobacco subsidies

                        Comment

                        Related Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X