You need to reduce the autonomy of members of congress so that they’re more-or-less saying “yes or no” to proposals cooked up by people who know what they’re talking about.Blue Dogs ruled by small pockets of Blue Dog Voters/polls who think their own viewpoints should be adhered to to the point of shutting down the machinations of Congress just for it's own sake is probably a disaster (I tried to find his thing a few weeks ago re: if you polled people on how to build the highways, they'd would be a disaster.)
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Eggzackly
Yglesias:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWYwNDc1MDYwZTY4OGJjNTA1MGQzMWYxNTczNzI0NTY=
hey, i didnt see that one coming. shouldve listened to my gut, done a pre-emptive "Here comes Marley!" as faux-populist-knows-best post.
youre on record as a fan of gridlock. which is fine. but let's drop this act of yours that we need to patronize every single American on every single issue just so they can feel better about themselves. youre smarter than that (but we wont say so, will we, since that would scream "Marley is an elitist who went to school!!") Let's not make this another case of "Arnold disappoints the Karate Kid."
I've said nothing about patronizing anyone. Rather, I think that when the progressive Left is down to atatcking dummies, process, the dangerous opposition, the fact that "the fix is in" (structurally) etc . . well, it seems not only silly (a silliness underscored by my link) but self-defeating.
It seems that the Yglesian trend is to focus outward rather than hold the administration accountable to a standard that guided the Bush and Clinton administrations. This is all the more perplexing because both of those administrations had to work with Congresses held by both parties. Obama has had the luxury - and even with a shellacking of the Democrats in 2010, will continue to have the luxury for 2 more years - of having Congress held by his party.
So, this new emphasis on what "we" need to do to the folks in Congress, when anything "we" would have them do must be agreed to by them, is ridiculous and frankly, further immunizes a political operation that has been sucking rather badly of late.
Everything I've written is ideologically neutral. It is all tactical.
Ideologically, there's nothing more I could ask for than the self-defeating libe Yglesias takes, and you endorse. The two of you are like doting mothers of a fat fuck of a child, and when you notice the little butterball gorging on pie and chocolate, you lash out at Mrs. Smith and Hershey, instad fo expecting the tubber to eat a rice cake now and again and run some laps.
More on that here -- http://article.nationalreview.com/424643/the-liberal-temper-tantrum/rich-lowry
Again, tactically, this is a line you don't want to take.
as per your shizophrenic Animal Farm list, you've veered off here into "Standard Marley Talking Points." all im saying is i don't think a Congress that is able to vote on things is too much to ask for. thats it. we vote them in, they talk to experts, they vote, voila. if we dont like it, we vote them out. obviously thats incredibly simplistic, but its getting harder and harder and sucking, as you say, (at least on bills the public finds out about, like healthcare, not the hundreds of bills they dont feel like digging into because stewart/beck at al arent talking about them), partly due to things that you either like to pretend dont exist (over the top, empty obstruction, doubling of the filibustering, blue dogs power toggling with under-populated groups getting over-represented power) or simply dismiss in your usual "Bush is gone, let it go!" way. i think we both can agree reality is reality, but we can disagree wither present reality is particularly good or bad.
ps - I was gonna use this line to push your button and send you into outer space, but cut it. hippies!!!
imagine if you were in Congress and shit you wanted done was held up because some dude in CA insisted everything be held up because of the concerns of a couple thousand "dirty hippies"?
The other day, you were the Congress for passing (i.e., voting on) so much legislation. I thought it was a banner year, legislatively?
Why must Congress now enact a new regime, whereby experts put together the bill (the Yglesian proposal suggests dipensing with amendments) and they vote yea or nay?
All I'm saying is that prior administrations had to deal with these same institutional impediments. Indeed, the GOP was driven to distraction by Democratic obstruction on judicial nominees and when some in the GOP suggested a "nuclear option" to defeat the need for sloture, I opposed it. What happened? The parties struck a deal. Holds have been placed by members of both parties, filibusters threatened and used by both parties, as well as the cloture process.
But NOW, it's all too much.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
The present reality wasn't cooked up to deny the yummy goodness Obama has to give us. It is a reality that has been around for some time. I actually prefer the structural impediments, even when they thwart my chosen policy or nominee. My guess is that when the GOP has the juice, so do you - and so does Matt Yglesias.
Honestly, would you be comfortable with this Yglesian reform is this were Bush's third term, Mitch McConnell was Senate majority leader, and Eric Kanotr was Speaker?
No fucking way. And Yglesias would be writing the exact opposite column, cherishing our uniquely American system of checks and balances.
So, my first "talking points" are that you're engaging in loserdom politics. These "talking points" question whether your new-found love of congressional reform is a true deep and abiding love that will endure for President Palin.
And "talking points" are argument, rather than a string of feelings that has no kinship to what you said or believed 48 hours ago.
as ive mentioned several times, im talking about the bills that are "sexy" and get the msnbc/fox treatment; any other bills not sexy enuogh for the Constitutional Lawyers of Facebook, or bloggers like myself, seem to be getting through (or at least actually voted on.)
and yes, i hafta nod my head "the last administration went through the same thing" since i cannot rationally argue what may be TECHNICALLY true, but to suggest the levels of obstructionism/filibustering/appointees et al are equal is laughable and, again, an adherence to pretending it doesnt exist. which means it will remain unarguable. or inarguable.
and when Bush et al were in power, we DID mostly resign to having to suck it, which you DID gleefully remind us every chance you got. but now, everything is about adhering to rules that were "always there," but really weren't. i dont remember all the "super-majority" chatter before Obama.
OLD MARLEY I BELIEVE IN: hey, we're using Congressional tactics you guys were too pussy to use, thinking you had to do the "nice, right thing" and that grandstanding wouldnt work, and the shit's totally working and you guys are sucking it even when you shouldn't have to; when we get back in power we're probably going to bomb you faggots.
NEW MARLEY: but oh, golly, we're just following the rules that were always there before, we're not doing anythign any opposition party has ever done before us. golly, hope that's okay!
btw, great work you're doing now
http://footballfansfortruth.us/
ooooooh, they're real!
BLAMMO!!!!!!!!!
So, by the "sexy" bills, you're really talking about health care reform, right?
Well, that bill hasn't been defeated by cloture or filibuster. That bill passed the House in one form and the Senate in another, and the Democrats made the tactical decision to by-pass a conference committee and instead go behind closed doors and come up with a private reconciliation bill. Then, they lost the Massachusetts Senate race, the threat of filibuster became viable, and, the Democrats began to crap their pants publicly on the bill.
And now, you and Yglesias propose we amend the process.
In response, I think its bad politics (it's a scapegoat that prevents healing thyself), bad precedent (you'll cherish the filibuster one day and perhaps as soon as January 2013) and a bit daft (you need 67 senators to abolish the filibuster; how can you get that when you can't get 60 to invoke cloture?)
You do say this:
"but to suggest the levels of obstructionism/filibustering/appointees et al are equal is laughable and, again, an adherence to pretending it doesnt exist. which means it will remain unarguable. or inarguable."
It's entirely arguable. Can you find me a compendium of all the GOP obstruction/filibustering you cite? Off the top of my head, I have the threat on health care, the senatorial hold (recently released) on appointees, and the fact that the NLRB nominee - with the assistance of 2 Democratic senators who voted with the GOP - could not get cloture.
You also wrote "and when Bush et al were in power, we DID mostly resign to having to suck it, which you DID gleefully remind us every chance you got."
Look, it may vex you that the last administration was more adept than this one with its legislative strategy and in its ability to garner bi-partisan support for its evil designs, but your hurt feelings don't really enter into the equation, do they? No one put a gun to the head of the Democrats and said, "Suck it!" Enough of them provided the fellatio willingly.
Old and new Marley are the same and will remain so. You and Yglesias are politically tone-deaf, not very forward thinking, and unrealistic on this issue of obstruction.
actually, i said no such about amending the process. i said it's a disaster for those more interested in passing progressive legislature and a boon to those who prefer gridlock based on the supposed pollings of small populations. I dont believe I said "change it so that it fits my own whims!!", and i very clearly stated that the GOP has used it to it's advantage while the Democrats havent. and we've seen how different the two parties act as opposition.
Eggzackly
that was me
(hugging it out)
Don't worry, ill send you my copy of 1L. I really should'nt have to explain how to make a case to you.
BOING!! IN EVERYONE'S FACE!! RIGHT NOW!!!! ;)
Post a Comment