This is more media based, but it still annoys me. Plus, I have not posted anything political in a while :)

This story is one example of many I have come across:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/02/borger.obama.speech/index.html

In it, there are lines like this:

“But Congress became bogged down (surprise!) in its own partisan free-for-all. Some House committees passed predictably liberal legislation and the Senate dithered just as predictably on trying to reach some sort of bipartisan compromise.”

“In the end, over the summer, two key Republican senators who had been part of bipartisan negotiations bolted.”

“Won't any presidential plan become a target? "At this point, we already are a target for those folks who don't want to do anything," says this adviser. "People like Grassley and Enzi have pulled the plug on this process."”

“It's not as if the White House expects that suddenly Republicans will start clamoring for health reform, but it gives the administration the ability to say "We compromised in a big way, and Republicans still said no way."”

My question. What does it matter what the Republicans think? How can you now own all of Washington, and still continue to put blame on your inabilities to perform, on a party that has no power to stop you?

It’s getting old hearing this kind of shit.

Ever heard of a filibuster?

There are lots of ways that a minority group can throw a wrench in the works for the majority, especially in the US legislature. Sometimes slowing things down to a crawl is just as good as a full power veto.

Ever hear of a super majority?

With 60, congress is filibuster proof.

Also, with that logic, everything accomplished over the time the Republicans ran things is equally Democrats fault, as they didn’t filibuster. Not sure I would spread the blame that way. Republicans are to blame for all the horrible things they did while the controlled Washington, and  Democrats are to blame for what’s going on in Washington today.

True, a fillibuster can be ended with 60 votes; however, the Senate Democratic Caucus possessed a supermajority for less than two months. A portion of that time was spent on the nomination process for Justice Sotomayor.   

True they had 60 but they now have 58 with Kennedy dead and Byrd about to go. I too am sick of this BS. My rep Perriello (D-VA) 5th CD, said that the Repubs had so much time with Obama the Dems couldn't get a word in edgewise. I wanted to fall out of my seat laughing.

If the Dems go reconciliation route for HR 3200 they can kiss leaning and some safe '10 and '12 seats goodbye and prepare for the 2nd Republican Revolution.

I imagine that the complete opposite would cause a rant as well. If democrats steam roll their health care bill without any republicans, then it'll be a national crisis and the democrats will be called evil, baby killing, hyper-partisan liberals. This is politics- it happens every cycle and will continue to repeat itself.

You can't make nice with the other party, you can't run ahead without the other party, and you can't blame the other party. The minority party (regardless of affiliation) is essentially a giant tumor. The majority can't do anything except drag it along.

I find the "blame republicans" approach to be rather desperate. They hold all the cards at the moment and they had all the votes they needed to get the job done back before the August break. They didn't pass the bill, not because republicans were in their way, but because the American people were screaming "SLOW DOWN - LETS DO THIS RIGHT".

People have and will continue to argue all day about what is and isn't in the bill because on any given day there are 4 to 6 of them being discussed...but none of them are actually a true "Obamacare" proposal from Obama. As a result you can claim something about bill A and someone else can say "hey that's not in the bill!" (while talking about Bill C).

What has been needed for a long time on this issue is leadership, Obama needed to step in and lay out his plan and fight for it. But he has avoided it precisely because he is afraid to put something concrete on paper that he would/could be held directly accountable for down the road.  Something they can lay out and rally around, modify as needed, and push for as a cohesive group rather than being scattered trying to defend 5 bills.

So if anyone is to blame, it is Obama and his complete lack of leadership on the issue. I don't know if you can really even argue with that either. I can't think of anything he has done in the way of leadership on healthcare, and certainly nothing that has been effective.

The Republicans blamed as much as they could on "partisan Democrats" in the past 8 years, I'm not sure why you'd expect the Democrats to behave any differently. I thought hypocritical complaints about partisan behavior while engaging in partisan behavior was a well-known characteristic of American politics.

If non-partisanship was as great as everybody says it is, there wouldn't be parties at all, would there?

Edit: I should add that you're right, the Democrats do share much of the blame for the past 8 years, though for somewhat different reasons. The Democrats were a spineless and pathetic opposition, largely content to murmur a quiet objection, then roll over and let the Republicans do whatever they want. Right now, the Republicans are as directionless as the Democrats were then, but at least they have a little backbone. They're at least capable of pointing out flaws in Democratic proposals, even if they're incapable of proposing alternatives or negotiating a compromise.

sqrl is right, really. Strong leadership is what would be most beneficial. Something Obama doesn't seem to be willing to do.

The problem, as FamousRingo has pointed out, is that the Democrats have built their modern strength on their ability to build wider coalitions. It makes them weaker in action, but prevents them from losing key votes because they have to adhere to one single dogma, as is more or less required by modern Republicans. The Republicans are playing to their hardcore base right now (the town-hall screamers and their ilk), and it's making a lot of noise, but ultimately it should alienate more people in the long run.

I figure Kennedy's death should help, not hurt, if only because it spurs the democrats on to quicker, more decisive action, which is how it should have been from the beginning.

Chavez sucks big time, anyone else from Venezuela here?