Randall Flagg wrote:Don't equate the simplistic arguments of others with what I am saying. I've never claimed Obama has done nothing nor do I say they're moving too fast as a whole (though the speed that the healthcare bill is being rammed through [1000 pages in a matter of days] is very reminiscent of the Patriot Act which I opposed at the time and still do [for the most part at least]) .
I don't at all get the "rammed through" argument. Healthcare has been worked on for a year now, and has been on the Democratic agenda for the better part of a century. The Patriot Act, on the other hand, was crafted, debated, and passed in a matter of days.
In addition, Democrats have campaigned on healthcare, so there's a reasonable argument to be made that, even if they truly did "ram it through", they would be doing what they were elected to do. The Patriot Act, on the other hand, came about because of a national emergency and was not something that could reasonably be claimed to have been voted on by the people in any way whatsoever.
Randall Flagg wrote:What I am saying is that there is more than one opinion on an issue, and just because 52% voted Barack Obama in, doesn't mean that every policy issue he desires should be allowed to come to fruition. Obviously because not everyone in that 52% agrees with every policy he ran on (or there'd be no comments from Michael Moore calling the war President) but because 48% of people out there didn't vote for him because they didn't agree with the majority of his issues. You seem to have had no problem with Democratic opposition when the GOP was in charge, but now it's a violation of democracy if the GOP uses its legislative power to prevent what it and its constituents view as bad legislation. I'm asking for some consistency here. When the Republicans are in power again, and the Democrats attack their agenda (and from their view, rightfully so) you'll bring up the wonderful, old gem of a saying "Dissent is part of Democracy."
Dissent IS part of democracy,and I have no problem with that. The question is how much dissent until we have tyranny of the minority? Yes, the Dems used the filibuster under Bush, though not so extensively as we've seen it here. They also began his term as fairly constructive partners, bringing us such legislative masterpieces as No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act. While the quality of these policies is poor, in my mind, the fact remains that Bush came to office determined, first and foremost, to reform education and many Democrats joined in that effort.
In contrast, if you look at the stimulus package for example, the content was pulled more and more toward what Republicans would want...tax cuts. Yet, in the end, they decided it was best to pursue the politics of obstructionism, demanding supermajorities on every issue.
Randall Flagg wrote:You write "The right believes the will of the people counts only if it's also the will of their ideology.” But you're entire argument is prefaced on the notion that because the Democrats are presently in power, there will is absolute and fuck the nearly 50% of the house who voted against the bill and 40% of the senate. You're attacking the Republicans for the same mentality the Democrats have now. Barney Frank gets on TV advocating banning the filibuster, calling it undemocratic, but where were such gripes when his party used them.
Keep in mind that the GOP was much in favor of the so called "nuclear option", doing away with the filibuster when it suited their purposes, and with a much slimmer majority than the Democrats currently hold. In general, I'm in favor of keeping the filibuster, but feel that it should be used rarely. Democrats have abused it in the past. So what? Does that make it right for the GOP to use it CONSTANTLY? They had control for 8 years and at the end of that eight years people voted to try something else. Given that Democrats have pushed for universal healthcare for decades, and given that Barack Obama made it a centerpiece of his campaign, it's tough to argue that the majority have serious objections to this policy. Those 41 GOP Senators are representing the will of their constituents by voting "No" on the bill, but I have difficulty believing that the will of the people is to have the filibuster used on every issue that comes before the Senate, from now until the end of our republic.
Randall Flagg wrote:The fact that a Republican was elected into Ted Kennedy's seat should remove any illusion about a mandate for the DNC and Obama's policies. Blame it on a piss poor campaign all you want, the DNC chose to run her and she was given the easiest contest to run for any senator in a long time. Accept that people voted against her ideals just as much if not more than they voted against her personality. The same thing happened to the Republicans in 2008 and you had a bunch of idiots saying McCain ran a poor campaign and Palin was a moron. All of which may be true, but the real truth is that people didn't want to buy what they were selling. I would have thought the Democrats could have learned from this mistake, but as of now it appears they haven't. Obama still has time, but if he doesn't learn from this mistake, he'll be vacating Washington in early 2013.
I wouldn't make ANY assumption based on a special election. They claimed that turnout was "high"...and by "high" we mean in the 40% range. Hardly the same as an election in which 125 Million people voted.
However, there are two points here I agree with. Palin IS a moron (spot on!) and Democrats NEVER learn anything.
Randall Flagg wrote:So which is it I ask you? When there was a very vocal segment of the population opposing the Iraq war even though the majority supported it (originally) as well as the majority of congress, were they now retroactively wrong?
I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking, though it seems like you're hinting at a philosophical question...is the majority always right, simply because it is the majority and, thus, relects the will of the people.
I would say "no". Among other things, that's why we have the Bill of Rights, so that even a majority cannot trample the rights of the minority (without the extreme measure of amending the Constitution).
I'm not sure the Iraq war is the best example, since it was based on faulty premises. I feel that the choices made by, especially, Democratic politicians were largely political. Bush was popular, post 9/11. He made his case for war and people bought it and Democrats by and large said "ok". I don't blame the people for buying into the war, when both parties were largely for it. After all, I think we've both said something about dissent and democracy. There was dissent, but from inside the government it was not strong enough, with 40% of House Dems in support and 60% of Senate Dems.
Two scoops of The GNR Syndicate in my morning coffee helps to keep me regular.
Thanks, GNR Syndicate!
