Bipartisanship, Dems with no ideas
 

Wasting way too much time at work today, but eh, what the hell, I can spare a little time to post. (Start a new position in 3 weeks, so I'm "short-timing" my current position) ;-)

Watching the news channels this morning and the responses to the State-of-the-Union address really highlights exactly what's wrong with politics today. The whole thing is a mess. There's a few themes you always here from Republicans:

- Why won't the Dems stop their bipartisan tricks and work with us?
- We're the only ones with ideas, the Dems don't have any original thoughts. All they do is insult our wonderful plan-for-the-future.

And the Democrats always say:
- The Republicans preach bipartisanship but everything they do is an effort to force their agenda down our throats.

*sigh*

When are they going to get it in their minds it's NOT "us vs. them". The current state-of-affairs is easy to figure out.

YES, capitol hill is bipartisan, has been for years. Because of that the party-in-power is able to force their agenda. Since Repub's control both houses of congress and the presidency, it means they can constantly try to push their agenda, and all the Dems can do is try to derail it. (ie, Social Security reform).

The Dems *can't* have any ideas for two reasons: 1) Anything they put out there will get shot down. No one will fight a war they know they'll lose. 2) These people ARE individuals. Dems don't always agree 100% with all dems, just like Repubs don't agree 100% with all Repubs. But since we have a damn 2-party system, in order to get anything to pass you MUST meet two requirements:
1) Your party must be in power
2) You must force your party-in-power to enact the changes that the leader of the party dictates

Since the Dems aren't in power there's constant in-fighting as they try to establish dominance, and wait for the pendulum of power to swing back their way. Then we'll have the exact same rule-by-insanity... only with a Ass in charge instead of an Elephant.

I'm really starting to think that we'd be better off if we had a multi-party system like other countries. At least then the political parties would be forced to work together to try to accomplish the common good, instead of their own self-serving interests.

(The BEST case would be a 0-party system, but that ain't happening).

Frustrating.

I agree Riddil. The struggle for greed and power outweighs any democratic ideals, and this is why we have such a mess. The "2 party" system has been effectively and intentionally stifling any other parties (libetarian, green, etc). It is too bad we don't all realize our own mortality more, it might help us realize that there are more importnant things than power and wealth.

What's wrong with the parties.

IMO, the only thing worse than a two-party system is one with multiple parties and, more often than not, a coalition government where the plurality party alligns with the "lesser of evil" other parties.....not an effective way to govern.

The biggest problem with our current system is the influence of money. One only need to look at the Abramoff scandal. The solution is simple -- public financing of national elections. We spend $billions to "promote democracy" around the world, yet are unwilling to ensure a better democracy at home by taking the money out of politics and enabling members of Congress to focus on policy and legislation rather than continuous fundraising.

As to the Democrats being without ideas, time will tell. I recall that the Republican "Contract with America" was presented to the public only six weeks before the 2004 mid-term elections, which they went on to win. No reason for the Dems to blow their wad too soon, only to have the right wing blogs nitpick it to death for the next nine months.

I cannot see the dems wishing to hold the present bag of shit pre 2012, at least.

Hi dux.

Btw, code red will take away any options in 2008. IMO.

My first usage of IMO, I think it is redundant. If it were not IMO, it would be quoted and linked.

I think this will be my last usage of IMO.

IMO is a disclaimer, IMO is, and I am human, with a specific, exclusive perspective, a unique perspective, so if any poster wishes to challenge my post they cant because they cannot see the issue from my point of view, IMO.

OK, I incorporated it twice, sue me.

How rude, dov, it should be IMHO.

/just my HUMBLE opinion...

:)

No, maffick, no humble there.

Humble? Moi? I will let you know how opinionated goes, Maffick, as I adhere to humility, k?

I vote for a new word... "humbility". The ability to be humble. Humility of course is the state of being humble. Humbility on the other hand implies that you can be humble. If you so choose.

What wad? As one Democratic insider noted, the Democrats had a winning formula pioneered and executed by Clinton. They even threw that away. A responsible Democratic party would have seen right through reasons for the "Mission Accomplished" war. And yet their own leadership (ie Tom Daschle) literally did not have either balls or a grasp of history to understand how wrong that war was (and is).

Democratic actions in the Alito hearings were just as devoid of strategic planning. Too often, their responses have been reactionary rather than planned and studied. Furthermore, Democrats have failed to create outright liars (spin doctors) such as Rush Limbaugh to preach to the naive.

Remember, why do politician lie? Because we want them to. We lie to ourselves and call their lies as being politically correct. We don't discuss with the blunt 'only facts matter' attitude as this poster routinely does. Therefore we have the liars we want. It’s just that the Democrat liars don't have an agenda upon which to focus their lies.

Posted those years ago, I noted that George Jr was so vulnerable that the election would have to be lost by Democrats rather than won by Republicans. Democratic support for Kerry was that poor because the party (and Kerry campaign) could not even form a message. That is total political incompetence that plagues much of the Democratic Party.

Why do Republican extremist (and Rush Limbaugh liars) so routinely attack Hillary? She is one of the few competent leaders in that party. Surprisingly, Hilary has a better focused agenda than top Democratic leaders.

So again, I ask, "What Wad?" What is this political consensus that the Democratic Party could rally behind? They don't have one which is why they had leaders such as Tom Daschle who demonstrated no backbone when George Jr lied about aluminum tubes, Saddam, a so incompetently executed attack on Tora Bora, and George Jr's 'all but protecting bin Laden' agenda.

TW...I agree with much of what you said. The current Dem leadership is lacking a coherent vision and focusing too much on what they believe was the successful rhetoric of the past.

2004 was a lost opportunity. What visionary candidate for president would make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign (and then not even fight for his reputation when it was smeared). Kerry was a miserable candidate.

On the positive side, there are up and coming Dem leaders who understand how to combine pragmatism with policy in a way that will play to the growing number of Independents, who now form the key voters. Hillary is one, despite the villfication of the wing nuts. As is Barak Obama in the Senate. He can talk about economic opportunity for all and the role of government in providing a social safety net that most workers understand. Rahm Emanuel in the House (a former policy wonk in the B. Clinton White House) is another. He is heading the House Dem Campaign Committee this year and is a master at defining the issues in a way that will resonate beyond the old Dem base.

And then there are governors in traditional red states like Bill Richardson in New Mex, Janet Napolitano in Ariz who arent afraid to take on the immigration issue and Mark Warner (former Gov) in Virginia, who is as articulate as anyone I've heard about transforming the US to be successful in the new global economy

As to spin doctors, I marvel at how the Bush White House has mastered the art.

- warrantless eavesdropping on citizens is a "terrorist surveillance program"
- gutting the Clean Air Act is the "clear skies initiative"
- opening more of the wilderness to the logging industry is the "healthy forest program"

Not to mention the "successful" spinning of the folly in Iraq (Bush - "Mission Accomplished", "Congress had access to the same intelligence as the White House", Cheney - "the insurgency is in its last throes", Rumseld (or Wolfowitz) - Iraq will fund its own reconstruction with oil revenue")

2006 will be an interesting political year.

2008 should be more interesting.

And even when they say something that sounds good:
Guess what? Just kidding! It was a sort of silly way to phrase it anyways, since oil is fungible.

Well... IMHO (in-my-hyperbolic-opinion) the biggest reason the Dems are so quiet is b/c there's some serious in-fighting. We don't see the power struggle for the most part b/c if the Dems let on that there's multiple factions that can't agree then they'd lose even more support.

Which goes back to the sad truth that disagreeing with your party is seen as a BAD thing, when it should be the norm. Why should All Dems / Reps feel exactly the same on every single issue. Why does it seem that every vote on a major issue is polarized down party lines? Why can't Lieberman stand up and support the war, and at the same time a Republican senator announce he thinks it's a bad idea?

And yeah... even back in middle-school when I first learned of PAC's and lobbyists the thought that went through my head was... "how the hell can this be moral / legal / just?" And I'm still asking myself that question.

It gets better.

Tw has a systemic problem I perpetually bash him on: he thinks things would be perfectly all right if we could just leave dictatorships, and unfriendly dictatorships that control our friends' main energy sources, alone and unmolested.

Having resources, particularly vital ones, hostage to the unfriendlies, is -- well, how would you describe it? Parlous? Alarming? Scary? Undesirable? See a pattern here?

The problem with alternative energy ideas is one that is usually rather glossed over: they lack concentration. The very history of civilization is the history of devising more and more powerful and concentrated energy sources. To make things work on a large scale, you need to deliver lots of watts, in any quantity needed.

Urbane Guerrilla's idea of intelligence is a 'big dic' mentality. His is bigger; therefore he must be more intelligent. Lurkers are warned that UG often brags about his superior intelligence.

He does same here. His political agenda is a solution for energy shortages. Numbers be damned.

The very history of civilization is always doing same with fewer resources. It’s called innovation. That means less energy every decade to accomplish a same task. A concept so hostile to right wing reactionary politics of Urbane Guerrilla. Innovation? There is no room for innovation in a world where only Urbane Guerrilla can be right. No wonder he never posts facts - only insults.

UG, show us how the Domino Theory was proven by Vietnam. Why did you go so silent when you were caught lying about Vietnam?

UG is promoting Cheney concepts: conservation is a formula for failure. UG advocates a world where innovation is a bad word. Urbane Guerrilla again rewrites the lessons of history rather than admit his political agenda is based in myths. Unfortunately that last sentence is only deja vue. That last sentence a warning to lurkers that Urbane Guerrilla's history is to declare himself of superior intelligence. That claim justifies his accusations and insults.

"They lack concentration". What does that mean? Did Rush Limbaugh teach you that nonsense?

I was not caught lying, not having lied: some if not all of the dominoes in question did indeed fall: South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and we might as well add Burma to the list of screwed-up dictatorships -- regardless of ideological brand, dictatorships are more alike than different. Your denial of these points says much more about you than about me.

Under the heading of personal remarks, let me point out that your penis is too small to knock over dominoes, hard or soft, so you try and compensate here. All part of the pettiness that is tw, demonstrated as many times as anyone could think necessary.

I had really thought I had made clear what I meant by "they lack concentration." Go reread my post and at the last, comprehend that I mean greater and greater amounts of energy delivered in smaller times and smaller places. An example of "lacking concentration" is solar power. Fine stuff for set-and-forget DC, but how many watts does old Sol lay on the average square foot of Earth? Not really enough to power very much, and there's the matter of diurnal availability and overcast weather.

I said absolutely nothing, pro or con, re conservation. Make up stuff and lie to yourself about me, or anything, all you like, tw. It's your right, but it's also a stupid thing to do, isn't it? And your more egregious postings are met with embarrassed silence by anyone who'd like to be your partisan -- so yeah, I'm smarter than you are, by a high cut above. And you, you petty little wannabe, you cannot stand it. Fine. Scream like the baby you're not far removed from being. Rant like a three-year-old denied cookies. I'll watch. I'll smile, too. I don't need the last word, so long as I can have the best.

Insults and bragging about his superior intelligence. His posts are so predictable.

~_0

I sense some hostility. History of bad blood? Without knowing any of the history, I do think UG has a respectable point. You look at the history of "power" and it's always driven not necessarily by concentration, but by peak output. It's just that the two have gone hand-in-hand for the greater part of history. We went from wood-burning steam-power, to coal, to gas, to refined gas, on and on to nuke-u-lar power.

But you also look at history of power development... the primary focus has never been about efficiency so much as raw output. But just as with computer processing power we're starting to reach the right wall, and in order to continue making advancement we're learning about novel ideas like efficiency. The biggest reason that cell phones can go for 3-4 days w/o a recharge as opposed to 8 hours like phones just 10 years ago isn't primarily because of battery improvements, but b/c we've gotten a lot more clever in power usage / consumption of the devices.

They've got "high efficiency" homes in CA that actually input power BACK to the power grid b/c they collect more than enough to run the home off of a small cluster of solar panels... power high-efficiency devices in the home. The theme here is if we cand find ways to be more efficient but accomplish the same tasks, then we'll be able to move back to lower-output energy, without loss of convenience.

But anyhow. The key to actually GETTING there is having the researchers working to make it happen.

(*apologies in advance for potentially stepping into some sort of forum feud*)

Nonsense, the forum apologizes for your shoes. :lol:
UG keeps trying to convince us we should beat up the world and anyone who disagrees is not as smart as he thinks he is.
TW keeps presenting logical arguments in such an abrasive manner that people won't digest them.
Making electricity, yes, but it's still steam, just different fuels. A huge breakthrough would being able to store that electricity. That way the power plants could run balls out 24/7 instead of idling half the time.
Matter of fact, if we could store the electricity, we could power the whole damn country with lightning....... with enough power left over to produce all the hydrogen we could use.
But, it's much easier (and profitable for a few)to kick Canada's ass and take their oil. ;)

The result was massive raw output. But what made that raw output so large? Countries that created more from less therefore vastly increased their raw output, productivity, wealth, strength, etc.

Need we cite what made Henry Ford's Model T and Model A so successful? Not for a minute more consumption. Henry Ford innovated - made more from less.

Take recent history as an example. Starting the in the 1970s, cars went from 18 MPG down to 10 MPG. This because Detroit was more concerned with raw output rather than innovating - emergence of the MBA as a corporate leader. Auto executives who did not drive were also blaming unfair competition, government intervention, etc rather than note all automotive innovation was stifled. Do you remember the late 1970s? Do you remember those cold winter days when at least one car every morning would not start? Jobs were scarce, incomes dropping, and everything was about cost controls - because (in part) we massively increased petroleum consumption. We also had to produce too many parts for each auto, too much time, too much labor, too much of everything that meant total output was diminished.

America, the third largest producer of oil, imported more than 50% of its oil. A massive increase in costs and decreased production because we stopped producing more with less.

By 1980s, with homes being insulated, with new innovations (and Japanese products) significantly increasing efficiency, then the economy turned around (other factors were also involved). Why did the auto industry get profitable? Same products manufactured from fewer parts, consumed less energy, required less time to build, etc. The restoration of America in the 1980s was characterized by innovation - doing more with less. Cars did same with only half the energy. Therefore America began growing again.

History is chock full of massive production created because that production took less to accomplish. Even a structurally inferior Sherman tank was so successful in WWII because massive production was made possible by doing more from less. Massive consumption did not make America wealthy and productive. Doing more with less created America's remarkable growth and power. Massive consumption is but a symptom of innovation - repeatedly doing more with less. The heart of so much growth is from America's secret weapons - nurtured by free markets, et al - innovation.

There is no bad blood. There is only Urbane Guerrilla rewriting history and posting insults to justify an extremist attitude. My point about UG repeatedly is his inability to cite facts and details accurately. When caught in lies or half truths, he then posts insults. His same above claim about the Domino Theory was debunked by others. Note how he forgot to mention that part of that discussion. After watching him invent history to justify his political extremism, this and about 6 days of following posts resulted:
Understanding terrorism
Understanding terrorism