WP:Democrats digging harder than ever for dirt on Republicans

[Bliz]

We'll see come Nov. who has a better finger on the pulse of the voters and I hope you're keeping score.

Neither of the parties has their finger on the pulse. And hasn't for quite some time. Congress is a hopelessly corrupt, inefficient machine that is far beyond repair without, at the very least, institution of narrow term limits. All politicians care about is getting re-elected, and raising money so they can try to get re-elected, and they dedicate far more time to fundraisers than they do to us. Any benefit realized by "we the people" is entirely incidental. At this stage, politics is pretty simple, when you boil it all down.

'Pubs are in power for a while, but they suck and we hate them, so we replace them with 'Dems. 'Dems are in power for a while, but they suck and we hate them, so we replace them with 'Pubs.

wash. rinse. repeat.

You think Obama had his "finger on the pulse" in 2008? HA! His finger on the pulse of why America hated 'Pubs, maybe.

[The Evil Genius]

When did SHF become a political hack?

I miss the old one who was tired of both sides.

:evilg:

[NewCliche21]

What is "total control" to you? And what do you call what the Democrats had prior to "Kennedy's seat" being taken by a Republican?

Democrats had Obama for a few months before Kennedy passed, and Republicans were united in leaving things the way that they are. They now don't even threaten filibuster because everyone knows that 60 is needed, which is ridiculous. The filibuster is out of date and out of touch just like the Electoral College.

Al Qaida became a problem long before Bush. He "inherited that mess" from Clinton.

Who inherited it from Bush, who inherited it from Reagan? Do you really want to play that game?

Nope.

And I hated the Bush administration.

But, still... nope.

Afghanistan war? Check. Iraq? Check. Deregulation? Check. Cutting taxes while increasing spending? Check. Financial meltdown? Check.

Am I missing something?

[Redskins Diehard]

Democrats had Obama for a few months before Kennedy passed, and Republicans were united in leaving things the way that they are. They now don't even threaten filibuster because everyone knows that 60 is needed, which is ridiculous. The filibuster is out of date and out of touch just like the Electoral College.

They had Obama for over a year before Sen Brown was sworn in. But you didn't answer the question for obvious reasons. It is much easier to play the blame the other party for the ineptitude of your own. Whatever your opinion of the value of the filibuster or electoral college is inconsequential because it was a non-factor for the first year of the Obama administration. Nothing stood in the way of the Democrats except the Democrats.

Who inherited it from Bush, who inherited it from Reagan? Do you really want to play that game?

Funny how you only suggest "that game" in terms of a one particular President. I imagine no way possible we could "play that game" with the problems that President Obama inherited from Bush.

All that being said you appear to not know much about the history of Al Qaida. Since this isn't a thread about them I'll just leave it at that.

[NewCliche21]

They had Obama for over a year before Sen Brown was sworn in. But you didn't answer the question for obvious reasons. It is much easier to play the blame the other party for the ineptitude of your own. Whatever your opinion of the value of the filibuster or electoral college is inconsequential because it was a non-factor for the first year of the Obama administration. Nothing stood in the way of the Democrats except the Democrats.

Funny how you only suggest "that game" in terms of a one particular President. I imagine no way possible we could "play that game" with the problems that President Obama inherited from Bush.

All that being said you appear to not know much about the history of Al Qaida. Since this isn't a thread about them I'll just leave it at that.

Obama was sworn in in January of 2009. Kennedy died seven months later. Off to a bad start in your fact reporting. When it comes to health care, losing the ultimate champion of it is not exactly able to be extracted from the world of context.

I didn't avoid the question at all. It is not Obama's fault that Democrats were actually trying to get something done, as the bill would not be passed overnight. I'm not sure if you know how the legislative process works with comments like yours.

I in no way suggested that we could play that game with only one president. I actually do know a very reasonable amount about the history of al Qaeda, but if you want to try to throw pointless barbs, then feel free. You also neglect to address any of the problems that are a DIRECT result of Bush's ineptitude. But, you know, I guess that reality and debate have nothing to do with each other.

[The Evil Genius]

NC21,

I think you are wrong and so would the late Sen. Byrd. The filibuster is an appropriate tool for the minority party.

That said, the majority party should do everything in their power (and beyond) to let the voters know who is holding up legislation. I doubt if most of the joe public knows that the GOP right now is systematically blocking votes and causing gridlock.

[Redskins Diehard]

Obama was sworn in in January of 2009. Kennedy died seven months later. Off to a bad start in your fact reporting. When it comes to health care, losing the ultimate champion of it is not exactly able to be extracted from the world of context.

I didn't avoid the question at all. It is not Obama's fault that Democrats were actually trying to get something done, as the bill would not be passed overnight. I'm not sure if you know how the legislative process works with comments like yours.

I in no way suggested that we could play that game with only one president. I actually do know a very reasonable amount about the history of al Qaeda, but if you want to try to throw pointless barbs, then feel free. You also neglect to address any of the problems that are a DIRECT result of Bush's ineptitude. But, you know, I guess that reality and debate have nothing to do with each other.

You are off to a bad start in knowing what a "fact" is. When was Senator Brown sworn in?(Thus giving the Republicans the numbers needed to "filibuster every piece of legislation".)

Reread my posts and find the place I said anything was Obama's fault. That place does not exist. Republicans have been blamed for stonewalling legislation that they could not stonewall.

Sorry, but someone that makes a claim that Al Qaida can reasonably be passed from President to President doesn't know much about them. You may want to include an "operational timeline" in your "reasonable amount of history"

[Duckus]

faster and more aggressively than in previous election years to dig up unflattering details about Republican challengers.

Not really.

First off it is impossible for someone on the outside to even gauge the level of opposition research because most employees doing it are hidden inside separate organizations. Campaigns do hire opposition research directly to their campaigns, but more than 50% are hidden.

Is there a lot of opposition research? Yup, more than anyone can imagine. Is it more than any other year? Not really. It is already at such an enormous and expansive level that increasing it is almost impossible.

Opposition research is fun as hell :evilg:.

[The Evil Genius]

Why create the unflattering details in the first place?

[Redskins Diehard]

Why create the unflattering details in the first place?

That is a good question.

[War Paint]

Newcliche21, your real name doesn't happen to be Julio, does it?

vY84fF2hzhY

[Hubbs]

The filibuster is out of date and out of touch just like the Electoral College.

The best argument I've heard for at least maintaining a system by which each state is won or lost by a particular candidate is what would happen if we had a really, really close election with a national popular vote. Think recounting Florida is a giant pain in the ass? Try recounting an entire freakin' country of over 300 million people. *shudder*

On the other hand, that still leaves the potential for another 2000, with the popular vote winner losing the election. So I guess it's a matter of which problems you enjoy more.

Afghanistan war? Check.

You're crazy if you think Gore wouldn't have done something similar with Afghanistan.

Iraq? Check.

Yup. Cluster****.

Cutting taxes while increasing spending? Check.

Bush was bad with debt. But he's not the beginning nor the end of the problem.

Deregulation? Check. Financial meltdown? Check.

Really now? That's interesting, because perhaps the single most housing-bubble-relevant deregulatory change in the financial industry came in 1999 with the repeal of Glass-Steagal. I'm at least 80% sure that Bush wasn't president in 1999.

Or maybe you're referring to this little 2003 moment, as described by the New York Times:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

And this is a particularly fun snippet from later in that same article:

"'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. 'The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'"

Frank's counterpart in the Senate, Chris Dodd, made similar comments in 2005 when, in the wake of a series of accounting embarrassments/scandals at Fannie and Freddie, the Senate Banking Committee - then controlled by Republicans - proposed major regulatory reform that would have imposed stricter limits on how much of the GSE's portfolios could be loaded with risky assets. The proposal was eventually defeated by Democrats.

Then there's the Fed's response to the tech crash, a response loudly promoted by one Mr. Paul Krugman:

"The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

You may not believe this at the moment, but I always marvel at the times when I'm put in the position of defending the Bush administration around here. I'd take Clinton or Obama over Bush any day of the week. And I think the current state of the GOP is laughable. But even more laughable is the notion that everything bad that's happened over the past few years can be pinned to the letter R. And that's not much better than describing something as broad as the word "deregulation" as inherently bad, or describing something as broad as the word "regulation" as inherently good. (Or vice versa.) Both of those are about on the same level as claiming that Bush "directly caused" the financial meltdown, when most of its causes were either out of his control or put into motion before he changed anything. Now, he certainly didn't do much to help, and he did make some things worse, but the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is the difference between Jason Campbell not exactly blowing anyone away when dealt a bad hand over the past two years and Jason Campbell being the reason, damnit, that we aren't trying to become the first team in Super Bowl history to three-peat.

[SnyderShrugged]

Oh Hubbs, there you go with your pesky facts again.

[NewCliche21]

You are off to a bad start in knowing what a "fact" is. When was Senator Brown sworn in?(Thus giving the Republicans the numbers needed to "filibuster every piece of legislation".)

Reread my posts and find the place I said anything was Obama's fault. That place does not exist. Republicans have been blamed for stonewalling legislation that they could not stonewall.

Sorry, but someone that makes a claim that Al Qaida can reasonably be passed from President to President doesn't know much about them. You may want to include an "operational timeline" in your "reasonable amount of history"

1) Republicans were pulling the filibuster out since 2007. History didn't start with Obama. And apparently I misspoke, and I apologize for that: Republicans use the filibuster at every opportunity. There is no up or down vote; there is whining, complaining, and nothing being done.

2) Of course they can stonewall it. They don't want to participate in anything bipartisan and would rather see Obama fail than the country succeed.

3) I'm wondering when al Qaeda formed. I'm wondering when the assault at Tora Bora was halted. I'm wondering who the presidents were at those times. Just curious.

NC21,

I think you are wrong and so would the late Sen. Byrd. The filibuster is an appropriate tool for the minority party.

That said, the majority party should do everything in their power (and beyond) to let the voters know who is holding up legislation. I doubt if most of the joe public knows that the GOP right now is systematically blocking votes and causing gridlock.

Byrd was from a different time, and one senator doesn't change my opinion that it is outdated. The filibuster was created so that a few in the majority couldn't just meet and do a vote without everyone there. The filibuster simply delays the vote to end debate. It should be used to continue debate, not kill a bill. It should be used sparingly, not all of the time.

Kind of like using a nuke to kill an ant, no?

The best argument I've heard for at least maintaining a system by which each state is won or lost by a particular candidate is what would happen if we had a really, really close election with a national popular vote. Think recounting Florida is a giant pain in the ass? Try recounting an entire freakin' country of over 300 million people. *shudder*

On the other hand, that still leaves the potential for another 2000, with the popular vote winner losing the election. So I guess it's a matter of which problems you enjoy more.

Every vote should count, but that's a different thread.

You're crazy if you think Gore wouldn't have done something similar with Afghanistan.

It wasn't about going into Afghanistan; I fully support that. It was about Tora Bora for me. It doesn't matter what Gore would have done; it matters that Bush failed miserably.

Yup. Cluster****.

Well at least we agree on something.

Bush was bad with debt. But he's not the beginning nor the end of the problem.

He was a major, major part of it today. How many billions were spent just on those wars alone?

Unbelievable research job.

I honestly don't know enough of the details that you do to provide anymore than a talking point argument. I disagree, but I can't argue with you with a straight face. As usual.

[19Skins72]

Who needs dirt? Every piece of legislation proposed has been filibustered for the first time in history. That doesn't seem like a very good record on the Republicans part either, unless getting nothing done is a record to run on.

They did not filibuster everything - let's stick with the facts. What they did do is try to obstruct almost everything they could in whatever manner that they could. I say "almost" as they largely avoided obstructing anything related to the military - there are probably a few other things they went along with too (albeit never quietly, this newest incarnation of the GOP is as loud as they are hypocritical.)

I can't respect them for it, but to a certain extent that was their job as the minority party, and we both know the Democrats have acted the same way in the past when they were the minority party.

As an independent, I voted for Obama because I thought he was the best of two bad choices. I still feel that way, but I don't grade him out very well at this point (better than W, not as good as Clinton or Bush Sr or Reagan, barely edging out Carter) and I will be voting for a third party candidate in the next election - my disillusionment with both parties is utterly complete.

The Tea Party folks can do all they want to try to save the GOP from itself - I call them...optimists (to be nice) because the GOP was NEVER what they claimed they were...and unfortunately, the Democrats are exactly what they claimed they were =p

[Ingtar]

All of our politicians are dirty pieces of trash. Both parties can find ample dirt on each other. These guys wield too much power and, as such, have grown corrupt. Politicians are only out for themselves. They couldn't care less about any of us. That goes for Repubs and Dems alike. They are just opposite wings of the same bird. The career politician is our problem.

[Riggo#44]

Oh Hubbs, there you go with your pesky facts again.

You notice how the liberals here utterly ignore that post?

Bush bad with debt? How about Obama's rampant spending? I love, love the "when all else fails, blame Bush" tactic. Obama basically got elected on that premise. I wonder how well it'll work in this upcoming election...

[NewCliche21]

You notice how the liberals here utterly ignore that post?

Bush bad with debt? How about Obama's rampant spending? I love, love the "when all else fails, blame Bush" tactic. Obama basically got elected on that premise. I wonder how well it'll work in this upcoming election...

I don't think that I ignored that post at all, and I'm the only liberal to post since he made it. Pesky facts biting you?

I also don't think that anyone is trying to excuse Obama by blaming Bush. Obama inherited major problems from the Bush administration, as all presidents do, and he's working on them without any support for Republicans. Bush is the worst president that I've lived through, and I'm not 100% happy with Obama, but to say that Obama isn't cleaning up a lot of things that Bush either didn't deal with or directly caused just shows a person out of touch with reality.

[mjah]

The best argument I've heard for at least maintaining a system by which each state is won or lost by a particular candidate is what would happen if we had a really, really close election with a national popular vote. Think recounting Florida is a giant pain in the ass? Try recounting an entire freakin' country of over 300 million people. *shudder*

Couple of thoughts on popular-vote Presidential elections:

1) Campaign math inevitably leads to spending money/time where the greatest bang may be had for the buck. Inevitably this leads to most money being spent in swing regions with relatively high eyeball density per dollar (cities, inner and medium suburbs). Outlying/BFE areas get courted only because they're needed to win a particular STATE. Inevitably, entire non-swing states (with their blended demographics, both rich and poor/black and white/R and D) get largely ignored.

The alternative of popular-vote campaigning would mean that entire REGIONS would get ignored. Specifically, urban centers everywhere would be deluged with messages and rural areas everywhere would never hear much more than a whisper in response to their needs and demands. This would be a total disaster. Very real needs would be ignored and we all would suffer for paying even less attention to rural demographics than under the EC.

2. The President isn't elected by the people and never has been. He's elected by the states. As a voter you're really telling your state which way to vote. Given (1) above, that's a good thing.

[Teller]

Bush is the worst president that I've lived through, and I'm not 100% happy with Obama, but to say that Obama isn't cleaning up a lot of things that Bush either didn't deal with or directly caused just shows a person out of touch with reality.

Wrong. It shows he disagrees with your opinion.

[NewCliche21]

Wrong. It shows he disagrees with your opinion.

Wrong.

It shows that he's not paying attention. Presidents, like them or not, do make progress or else the nation would be where it was.

Is the country where it was when Obama took office?

No.

Have there been massive legislative changes?

Yes.

It's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact.

[SnyderShrugged]

Wrong.

It shows that he's not paying attention. Presidents, like them or not, do make progress or else the nation would be where it was.

Is the country where it was when Obama took office?

No.

Have there been massive legislative changes?

Yes.

It's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact.

"Legislative changes" dont equal "cleaning up". Please tell us what has been "cleaned up" in terms of the mess President Obama inherited, with detailed levels using before and after data.

(BTW, I certainly agree that President Bush left a mess, but I disagree with you that President Obama has done much concrete that had solved the problems, In fact, much of what he has done keeps us on the same path, or in terms of spending, even worse.

[NewCliche21]

Couple of thoughts on popular-vote Presidential elections:

1) Campaign math inevitably leads to spending money/time where the greatest bang may be had for the buck. Inevitably this leads to most money being spent in swing regions with relatively high eyeball density per dollar (cities, inner and medium suburbs). Outlying/BFE areas get courted only because they're needed to win a particular STATE. Inevitably, entire non-swing states (with their blended demographics, both rich and poor/black and white/R and D) get largely ignored.

The alternative of popular-vote campaigning would mean that entire REGIONS would get ignored. Specifically, urban centers everywhere would be deluged with messages and rural areas everywhere would never hear much more than a whisper in response to their needs and demands. This would be a total disaster. Very real needs would be ignored and we all would suffer for paying even less attention to rural demographics than under the EC.

2. The President isn't elected by the people and never has been. He's elected by the states. As a voter you're really telling your state which way to vote. Given (1) above, that's a good thing.

1) Nah, it's not a good thing. Urban centers already get the focus of attention; no big meetings are in a Kansas cornfield, anyway. Messages are still going to be tailored to each location through ads, and debates and the like are always televised. Showing that she/he's in touch with the locals is going to be heavily focused upon for the rest of time. Real needs are already ignored, but focusing just on specific states sets the stage for earmarks and appointments once an administration or politician takes over.

2) It shouldn't be this way at all.

[NewCliche21]

"Legislative changes" dont equal "cleaning up". Please tell us what has been "cleaned up" in terms of the mess President Obama inherited, with detailed levels using before and after data.

(BTW, I certainly agree that President Bush left a mess, but I disagree with you that President Obama has done much concrete that had solved the problems, In fact, much of what he has done keeps us on the same path, or in terms of spending, even worse.

I never said that Obama cleaned up what Bush did; I said that he's in the process. That distinction is very important.

Legislative changes are long-term; there's no undoing eight years of damage in barely one-and-a-half.

What keeps us on the same path? Withdrawal of troops? A strong stance with Israel? Health care reform? Wall Street reform?

And, again, spending is necessary. Go get something for free and I'll shut my mouth.

[Redskins Diehard]

I never said that Obama cleaned up what Bush did; I said that he's in the process. That distinction is very important.

Legislative changes are long-term; there's no undoing eight years of damage in barely one-and-a-half.

What keeps us on the same path? Withdrawal of troops? A strong stance with Israel? Health care reform? Wall Street reform?

And, again, spending is necessary. Go get something for free and I'll shut my mouth.

Withdrawal of troops? From where? Iraq? When was that path decided on?

Strong stance with Israel? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070604005.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

About the only change you can point to is Health Care Reform...how did they do that against those pesky Republicans?