Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

M$M consistently implies Demcrats are just as responsible for 'DC comix' as Repulicans - Bull!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 03:15 PM
Original message
M$M consistently implies Demcrats are just as responsible for 'DC comix' as Repulicans - Bull!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/09/michael-tomasky-data-show-the-gop-s-one-sided-war-on-democrats.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet">The GOP’s One-Sided War on Dems


I thought this might be a good time to look at some numbers and see. So I conducted a little experiment, in which I’ve settled on four signal legislative achievements of each president and studied the roll call votes in each house on those eight measures to see what the numbers tell us.

The four Bush bills I chose: the first tax cut; No Child Left Behind; the Iraq War vote; and the 2003 Medicare prescription-drug bill. The four Obama bills: the stimulus; the health-care vote; the Dodd-Frank financial reform; and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal. Other people might have selected others, but these just seemed to me commonsense answers to the question, “What were each president’s top legislative accomplishments?” As a country we spent a heck of a lot of time on these eight issues, so my findings must tell us something. And here’s what they tell us: levels of partisanship are not even remotely close.

~~
~~

damgeHere’s how it all adds up:

Average Democratic Senate support for Bush: 45.5 percent.

Average Democratic House support for Bush: 36.8 percent.

Average combined Democratic support for Bush: 41.1 percent.

Average Republican Senate support for Obama: 8.8 percent.

Average Republican House support for Obama: 2.7 percent.

Average combined Republican support for Obama: 5.75 percent.

(more)




.. now if somebody could get this message across to Mr. Obama, maybe he would stop blaming "Congress" for all his problems and (publicly) state that it's the Republicans who are fighting and trying to sabotage everything he has tried to do to repair the damage done to the economy by the Republican's TRICKLE DOWN - DEREGULATION DISASTER.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Obviously the answer is to give the GOP more concessions
:sarcasm:

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cool Logic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. If you ignore what both sides say and examine what they actually do...
Edited on Sat Sep-10-11 03:34 PM by Cool Logic
the results have been pretty much the same no matter which party is in charge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walerosco Donating Member (449 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. +100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. It doesn't go back as far, but this is more informative:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. and maybe this one is even better:
Edited on Sat Sep-10-11 07:05 PM by bhikkhu


I think there is a big difference between the parties, and it has grown larger in recent times.

edit to note - if it were redrawn to include the final bush years, the red line would be way down off the end of the scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cool Logic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The problem with your chart is not with the time frame; but with the missing pieces of the puzzle.
Moreover, the pieces that are missing are the ones that actually write and pass spending legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Clinton deserves the credit for the success of his economic policies
and both bushes and reagan led the spending charge during their presidencies.

There is some logic behind looking to congress for the source of spending, but in practice the buck stops with the president; congress knows it, and so does the president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cool Logic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-11-11 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yeah, Rs try to take credit for the dot com boom as well...
They claim the economy didn't take off until after they took control of Congress in 94.

However, to the knowing observer, it is clear that neither party can claim credit for the boom that morphed into a bubble that burst in 2000.

The President submits a Budget every year; however...

(Obama, 2012) The President’s $3.7 trillion budget for Fiscal Year 2012 was dead on arrival in Congress. The Senate voted unanimously, 97-0, to reject the President’s budget.

(Bush, 2007) "Democrats need to say loudly that Bush's budget is Dead On Arrival, just like the Cato Institute did back in 1998, or when John Kasich said it again in 2000, or when any number of other loony Reeps said the same thing for any parochial reason. Say it often, and say it loudly: Bush's budget is dead on arrival. There is no better expert on why Democrats should do this than Grover Norquist himself. If it was good enough for the GOP to say against Democrats, then it is good enough for the Democrats to say against Bush."

(Clinton, 1997) Republican congressional leaders, abandoning their previous practice of declaring the president's budget dead on arrival in Congress, declared their willingness to use Clinton's plan as the basis of negotiations over the shape of next year's government spending and revenue policies.

(G H Bush, 1990) Bush had sent his budget to the Hill on January 29 where the Democrats, despite the afterglow of Panama, had promptly pronounced it Dead on Arrival.

(Reagan, 1981) Reagan's 1981 budget (the only one not to be declared "Dead on Arrival" by House Democrats)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-11-11 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Excellent counterpoint
All those "Dead on Arrival"s put together makes the usual bluster almost humorous...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill USA Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. here is an article that compares how the economy (measured by stock market growth) has done under
dems and republicans:

https://sites.google.com/site/gopgames/test_1">How the S&P has grown under Democratic & Republican administrations


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill USA Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. re Government inability to get things done here is a good article
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1966451,00.html">Why Washington is tied up in Knots - Peter Beinart

In the Clinton years, Senate Republicans began a kind of permanent filibuster. "Whereas the filibusters of the past were mainly the weapon of last resort," scholars Catherine Fisk and Erwin Chemerinsky noted in 1997, "now filibusters are a part of daily life." For a while, the remaining GOP moderates cried foul and joined with Democrats to break filibusters on things like campaign finance and voter registration. But in doing so, the moderates helped doom themselves. After moderates broke a 1993 filibuster on campaign finance, GOP conservatives publicly accused them of "stabbing us in the back." Their pictures were taken off the wall at the offices of the Republican Senate campaign committee. "What do these so-called moderates have in common?" conservative bigwig Grover Norquist would later declare. "They're 70 years old. They're not running again. They're gonna be dead soon. So while they're annoying, within the Republican Party our problems are dying."
(See the top 10 unfortunate political one-liners.)

In Clinton's first two years in office, the Gingrich Republicans learned that the vicious circle works. While filibusters were occasionally broken, they also brought much of Clinton's agenda to a halt, and they made Washington look pathetic. In one case, GOP Senators successfully filibustered changes to a 122-year-old mining act, thus forcing the government to sell roughly $10 billion worth of gold rights to a Canadian company for less than $10,000. In another, Republicans filibustered legislation that would have applied employment laws to members of Congress — a reform they had loudly demanded.

With these acts of legislative sabotage, Republicans tapped into a deep truth about the American people: they hate political squabbling, and they take out their anger on whoever is in charge. So when the Gingrich Republicans carried out a virtual sit-down strike during Clinton's first two years, the public mood turned nasty. By 1994, trust in government was at an all-time low, which suited the Republicans fine, since their major line of attack against Clinton's health care plan was that it would empower government. Clintoncare collapsed, Democrats lost Congress, and Republicans learned the secrets of vicious-circle politics: When the parties are polarized, it's easy to keep anything from getting done. When nothing gets done, people turn against government. When you're the party out of power and the party that reviles government, you win.
(See 10 GOP congressional contenders.)

The Endless Filibuster

All this, it turns out, was a mere warm-up for the Obama years. On the surface, it appeared that Obama took office in a stronger position than Clinton had, since Democrats boasted more seats in the Senate. But in their jubilation, Democrats forgot something crucial: vicious-circle politics thrives on polarization. As the GOP caucus in the Senate shrank, it also hardened. Early on, the White House managed to persuade three Republicans to break a filibuster of its stimulus plan. But one of those Republicans, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter — under assault for his vote and facing a right-wing primary challenge — switched parties. That meant that of the six Senate Republicans with the most moderate voting records in 2007, only two were still in the Senate, and in the party, by '09. The Wednesday lunch club had ceased to exist. And the fewer Republican moderates there were, the more dangerous it was for any of them to cut deals across the aisle.
(more)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC