The Glade 4.0

I disagree. In a gridlock situation, everyone plays chicken until the last minute, and then hastily puts together some bandaid peice of crap because the public is frantic and everyone needs to look like they are "doing something". The only reason that people agree with it is because they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I have no doubt that some situations would play out exactly the way you describe.

That doesn't, however, disqualify gridlock as being the best condition. The alternative is what we're experiencing now with the Democrats pushing through legislation they've wanted passed since the 40's because they finally have the numbers, at the least appropriate time to do so.

For the last year congress has been trying to spend as fast as they can and jobs have been neglected.

The number of people employed in the US in the first quarter of 2008 was 146 million, and it's at 138 million today. A year of spending as the tax base is collapsing. That's just damn poor governing and I wouldn't expect that the Republicans could do better.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Demonstrate this or retract.

I'm always excited when Congress does nothing, and I don't appreciate being grouped into some relativistic group you've created whose morals fluctuate based on the group in power.



Except that compromise is always in favor of larger government. There shouldn't be any compromises. Politicians should stand by the principals of their electorate. If the electorate wants change, they'll elect new people. Otherwise, the "compromises" being made will inevitably grow the bureaucracy.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Fine, *most* everyone.

People don't even know what change they need. Both parties have everyone convinced that they are radically different. What we have is what people want. AMerican's don't want freedom, that's a burden, they want the illusion of freedom.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Americans' wants become marginalized as more control is passed from local governments to the federal.

Ask and you shall receive:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... erformance


You can make the argument that 60% of people don't think Congress knows how to address the most important issues of the nation (whatever they may be). But it sounds more like people know the Legislature is gridlocked.

_________________

But congress isn't politically gridlocked. There is a clear majority in both houses AND in the executive.

The democrats are totally in power. This is just what that looks like.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The problems with this are that

A) different politicians have different electorates; compromise is a result of different electorates within the national electorate compromising with each other
B) electorates only very vaguely have principles
c) those electorates may want a certain degree of compromise rather than inaction and
d) avoiding larger government is not a goal in and of itself. Soem electorates are in favor of larger government.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That doesn't indicate anything at all about gridlock. It only demonstrates that people don't believe Congress is actually going to deal with pressing issues.

Reading more into a poll that what the poll concludes invalidates your assertion. Basic stats.



None of this changes the fact that bending your principles for the sake of compromise is a betrayal of those principles, and thus the people who voted for you along those lines.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Not everyone who voted for you because of principles, nor did those who did necessarily agree with all of your principles. It's not a betrayal of the electorate to compromise at all if that's what the electorate as an aggregate wants. You're applying a nonexistant homogeneity to the opinions of the electorate.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Then you're advocating for a non-partisan system. While I personally strongly favor such a system, a partisan system cannot be reconciled with the things you're stating.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It doesn't need to be. There's nothing to "reconcile".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sure there is.

The idea behind partisan systems is to allow the voters to know what they're getting without having to do as much research. Much like certifications for certain professions, or accreditation. A party therefore advocates a specific platform and ideals. Deviating from those platforms and ideals, specifically through compromise, undermines and works against the very idea of a partisan system.

Now, if individuals ran on their own beliefs, they'd actually need to represent themselves to their electorate, and find more compromises. Under a partisan system, there shouldn't be any compromise, because the platforms and ideals are clearly laid out for the electorate, which then chooses.

Compromise, therefore, under a partisan system, is duplicitous and shouldn't be tolerated.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I sent Senator Brown a long letter yesterday, basically criticizing his analysis of what actually "creates jobs". Government dosen't create wealth, it consumes and redistributes, which actually costs jobs in the form of either inflation or taxation bases lay-offs in the private sector. Jobs lost flipping burgers due to legislation is much harder to calculate than government jobs saved or created... since those jobs will only consume wealth and destory even more private sector jobs in a never ending letcherous cycle, blah blah blah, and all that jazz.

Saddly, Scott is still in the process of repaying political favors to John McCain and his ilk, for helping him to get elected.

I've got to say, I'm very disappointed.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

How exactly does an independent vote without betraying one or the others belief that he is an independent?

Its either Aye, Nay, or don't vote at all, abstain.

You don't get to vote maybe, you don't get to vote for something else entirely, you vote for or against the proposal put before you and whichever side loses your vote feels betrayed because you are an independent and not beholden to the other side and should have voted with them.

Since the bill was going to pass anyway, since he wasn't the deciding vote, it was technically and tactically a good time to pay off a political favor vote. Politics is an ugly game, clear out the favors on the stuff that is useless and you don't give a fig about.

Still, yeah, sure, he sold out. He could have saved his sellout for a much more important vote where he was the deciding factor. Now he's clear with one faction he needed to be even with.

Now that he's 'paid his debt' he's free to vote his conscience. Could be the timing and situation on this vote was important to him clearing the way for the ones that matter to him.

Damn sellout.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

What you're describing is a how things work out in a parlimentary system like the UK has where there's party discipline and MPs are generally expected to vote on strict party lines. That's why Winston Chruchill was considered such a rogue for crossing the aisle, but here it's no big deal. Anyone can do it and party whips have far less ability to get them back in line. Congressmen and Senators are far more concerned with looking good to their constituents than not pissing off the party. It's rare that a party will risk sacrificing an incumbent because he's pissed them off too much; they might lose the seat entirely if he's making his constituents happy.

We don't have that. We DO have a "system" where people campaign as individuals. That's why we have primaries; people within parties are different from each other and one must be selected. People do represent themselves to the electorate.

Moreover, there is no "system" in the first place. The "system" we have isn't deisgned or intended to do anything; it's just the result of how politics has shaken out over the last 230+ years. There is no "idea behind it"; the ideas come after it, and describe how it works; they aren't some theoretical model the "system" was created upon. Hence why Ross Perot could jump in as an independant; there is no "system", formally. The "system" just appears to exist because of the complex socio-political forces that result in 2 major parties.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And in the end, we all get screwed by the 'system'.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

BUT, do they strip us to our skivvies and pilot us across a river?

So, it could be worse.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Only if we're lucky friend Camellid.Only if we're lucky.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!