Comments on: Score One for Obama http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/score-one-for-obama/ programming, politics, & other religious issues Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:16:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Robert Fischer http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/score-one-for-obama/#comment-32631 Robert Fischer Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:25:43 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2008/02/21/score-one-for-obama/#comment-32631 I don't say the parties are indistiguishable. I used to, but since the Democrats have come to power, I've discovered that's wrong. In the Democrats, it seems like there's a populist minority kicking around which doesn't exist among the Republicans. I assumed that the populist minority was a political play which wouldn't be reflected in actual votes or legislation, and that it mainly existed because the Democrats were the minority. My assumption was that it would evaporate when the Democrats became the majority in the Senate, because then they could pander to the big donors and actually offer those donors something of value. Part of the reason I expected this to happen was because I saw it happen with the Republicans -- they were the party chanting for civil rights and against beltway corruption back when they were the minority, but at the end of Clinton's Presidency, all of that just evaporated. With the Democrats, though, the story has been a bit different. Although some Democrats have voted against their advertised populist roots in favor of corporations and unions (most notably in the person of Sen. Clinton), it hasn't happened to nearly the extent that I expected. I don’t say the parties are indistiguishable. I used to, but since the Democrats have come to power, I’ve discovered that’s wrong.

In the Democrats, it seems like there’s a populist minority kicking around which doesn’t exist among the Republicans. I assumed that the populist minority was a political play which wouldn’t be reflected in actual votes or legislation, and that it mainly existed because the Democrats were the minority. My assumption was that it would evaporate when the Democrats became the majority in the Senate, because then they could pander to the big donors and actually offer those donors something of value. Part of the reason I expected this to happen was because I saw it happen with the Republicans — they were the party chanting for civil rights and against beltway corruption back when they were the minority, but at the end of Clinton’s Presidency, all of that just evaporated.

With the Democrats, though, the story has been a bit different. Although some Democrats have voted against their advertised populist roots in favor of corporations and unions (most notably in the person of Sen. Clinton), it hasn’t happened to nearly the extent that I expected.

]]> By: Brian http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/score-one-for-obama/#comment-32630 Brian Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:35:59 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2008/02/21/score-one-for-obama/#comment-32630 There is a difference between the parties. I note that one party voted 48-0 against this bill. <EM>Not one</EM> opposed the measure, and only one even abstained, everyone else stood up and were counted. The other party voted 31-18 in favor- not just Obama and Klobuchar, but names such as Kerry and Kennedy and Reid and Dodd and Boxer and Schumer and Feingold and Harkin. And it's not just this vote- vote after vote, you see a minority- a large minority, but a minority none the less- of Democrats breaking away to vote with the unanimous Republicans to pass some truely horrid peice of legislation. These days, "bipartisian" means "all the Republicans and just enough Democrats to get it passed". Now, the second party definitely needs some work. About 40% of it's members need to be given a hard lesson and/or given their walking papers. Including the current leadership- both Reid and Pelosi have pissed me off. But the bulk of party is in more or less the right place. There isn't a single Republican fit to hold office currently in the Senate. Not if you care about civil liberties and the constitution and the rule of law. Not one. So don't tell me the parties are indistinguishable. I'm not having a hard time at all distinguishing them from here. There is a difference between the parties. I note that one party voted 48-0 against this bill. Not one opposed the measure, and only one even abstained, everyone else stood up and were counted. The other party voted 31-18 in favor- not just Obama and Klobuchar, but names such as Kerry and Kennedy and Reid and Dodd and Boxer and Schumer and Feingold and Harkin.

And it’s not just this vote- vote after vote, you see a minority- a large minority, but a minority none the less- of Democrats breaking away to vote with the unanimous Republicans to pass some truely horrid peice of legislation. These days, “bipartisian” means “all the Republicans and just enough Democrats to get it passed”.

Now, the second party definitely needs some work. About 40% of it’s members need to be given a hard lesson and/or given their walking papers. Including the current leadership- both Reid and Pelosi have pissed me off. But the bulk of party is in more or less the right place. There isn’t a single Republican fit to hold office currently in the Senate. Not if you care about civil liberties and the constitution and the rule of law. Not one.

So don’t tell me the parties are indistinguishable. I’m not having a hard time at all distinguishing them from here.

]]>