Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has an article on the current state of the session with the Democratic House members still in exile. I’d only take issue with a couple of points. First:
The two legal responsibilities of legislators are to pass a budget every two years and redraw political boundary maps every decade with new census data.
I’m not sure that’s the case. For a long time, it got bandied about that there was a Constitutional responsibility for the General Assembly to pass a budget. There isn’t. Here, Niki Kelly says that it’s a “legal responsibility.” That covers more ground, so I can’t say she’s wrong. But, I’ve never seen that spelled out in the Indiana Code. Certainly it’s a good idea and critical to the functioning of the State. But, I don’t believe I’ve seen budget responsibilities elevated above other legislative responsibilities in the Constitution or the Code. Nevertheless, every two years, I see newspaper articles asserting that the budget is legally special in some fashion.
The other is that Democrats would bear sole responsibility for a special session if one was necessary because of their walkout. That’s not entirely true. Republicans could offer concessions that would induce the Democrats to come back. I can understand them thinking they shouldn’t have to, and certainly understand that they don’t want to. But, it is within their power. If there is a special session, one reason for that session is that the House Republicans chose not to exercise that power.
Taking Republican responsibility completely out of the equation reminds me of a post-fight interview I saw with “Merciless” Ray Mercer after he had knocked out Tommy Morrison. Mercer had beaten the hell out of Morrison, including a punch or two as Morrison was on his way to the mat. Mercer said, “Fight should’ve been stopped; man could’ve been killed.” As if he had no personal capacity to stop beating on a guy, even if the guy was going to die, until the fight was stopped.
Again, I understand why they wouldn’t want to give an inch to the Democrats and why they even feel they shouldn’t have to. Voters may well blame Democrats more. But, Republicans aren’t entirely without responsibility here.
To be fair we need to blame both sides equally?
Remember that next time you’re mugged.
I find it interesting the liberals talk much about compromise and “getting along” when Republicans are in control.
When Democrats are in the driver’s seat, they ram-rod through legislation with no consideration whatsoever for opposing views. (Obamacare is an example.)
Let’s pin the tail on the Democratic donkey. They and they alone are to blame for the stalemate at the Statehouse.
Where did you get “equally” out of this? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t appear anywhere in my post. Blame as you see fit; just be aware that where there is power to change a situation, there is some responsibility if that situation continues.
And how do you define “liberals” other than as some vague amorphous group with whom you disagree?
Labels: I believe, therefore I am right, therefore “it is the truth”; therefore those who do not believe as I do “do not know the truth”; therefore they are wrong; therefore they are an enemy to the truth; “long live the truth” and “down with the traitors”. It should be self evident that every effort must be made to make sure the “unbelievers” are banished.
Aren’t the freedoms of democracy great, sometimes, just sometimes, the difference between us and “them over there” does not seem too great except whether one party has all the power to enforce their beliefs—sometimes seem as if some here would like to impose the same rules of conduct. My way or else.
Obamacare is your example? You mean the signature piece of legislation from a President elected in a landslide and given what no doubt many semi-deluded voters considered to be an historically fillibuster-proof Senate? That same President whose first act was to meet with the opposition party in the White House, immediately after which he was handed two stunning examples–the first of many–of a Republican caucus voting 100% in opposition no matter what? That same “Obamacare” legislation which was rewritten twice to appease the largesse factories in insurance and pharmaceuticals, and still failed to get a single Republican vote? The one which was held up until an election year, rewritten again to appease public teat-sucking “Democrats” like that Sensitive Fellow from Shirkieville in order to gain passage of some watery and corporate-friendly half-step which would garner 60 Senate votes, not 51? That rammed-through “Obamacare”?
And but me not buts about principled Republican opposition to government spending or social programs; Pugs and the time were promising their own bill to address the deplorable state of American health care. What happened to that one, again?
Mitch Daniels can insist he ran on busting teachers’ unions, but he didn’t. He ran on a collection of half-truths and outright fabrications about the Indiana economy and his positive effect on it. The only thing comparable about the situations is that here you have Indiana Democrats doing what a couple of national Republican-Democrats like Bayh and Ben Nelson did in the Senate: jamming up business until they get recognition.
Look, Bart, after I’ve watched your performance here for a couple weeks, you’ll excuse my asking: someone somewhere explained to you that arguments are supposed to convince other people, right? If not convince them to agree with your point, at least to convince them that you have one worth making? Or did they just tell you that the first man who mentions Al Sharpton wins?
How to define “liberal”?
I once read a book on debate in which the author suggested a strategy for evading unanswerable questions to demand your opponent define terms.
Nonetheless . . .
Originally “liberal” identified advocates of freedom. The term was co-opted by advocates of big-government as a guise to mislead (much as today they prefer the term “progressive.”)
The old understanding of liberal is retained in the term “libertarian” and “classical liberal.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
In Australia the term “liberal” is synonymous with the American “conservative.”
http://www.liberal.org.au/
In 1988 Michael Dukakis self-identified as a “liberal.” Apparently he knew the term’s meaning.
In 2009 a Gallup poll revealed that 21 percent of Americans considered themselves “liberal.” Apparently they know what the term means.
Personally I believe liberal defines some vague amorphous group with whom I disagree.
This group include Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Adolph Hitler (deceased Socialist), Barak Obama, Harry Reid, Opie, Oprah, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Hugo Chavez, Norman Lear, Oliver Stone, Ed Asner, Jane Fonda, and Pat Bauer.
I could go on, but I want to go to Coldstone Creamery and blow my diet.
BTW, I love to debate.
Doghouse, you think Obama was elected in a *landslide*? Yes, the Electoral spread was 2-1, but the Popular vote was only a 7% spread.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
Neither is a landslide. FDR taking 523 Electoral votes to Alf Landon’s 8? Now THAT’S a landslide, where FDR also took 60.8% to 36.5% in the popular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslide_victories#Presidential
I find this is very instructive, because I’ve often heard partisan Dems call Obama’s victory a landslide, and I think it led to a gross overreach on their part (not to say Republicans aren’t doing the same right now) with their agenda, due to having misread the nature of their 2008 victory. It wasn’t a coronation of the left’s vision. It was a kicking out of the Bush Administration. The Dems were rightly energized, but to think they had pulled Republican voters over, as, say Reagan did with Reagan Democrats? Or that independents had really bought in? Oops. That’s why the pendulum swung as fast and hard as it did in just two years. Obama & the Democratic Congress misread their victory, and misunderstood the people who gave them that victory. They alienated them as sure as Bush did, only faster.
The Republicans are making the same mistakes with their social agenda- without any delusions of ‘landslide’ or ‘mandate’
There was no landslide. There was no mandate. Hasn’t been since Reagan-Mondale.
More germaine to the original post, it’s interesting to watch leaders deal with their caucuses. There’s Daniels, unable to get his caucus to follow his advice (truce on social issues); Obama unable to keep the Nelsons of his caucus from holding out for their pork; and Pat Bauer year after year keeps his together.
Uh, Mike, you’ve jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, there.
Did I say “landslide”? Yes I did. Why? Because a better-than 2-1 Electoral College is a landslide, in my book, and a 7-point popular vote spread in modern Presidential politics is one, too. “Landslide” and “mandate” are indefinite terms; they’re not defined by FDR, Reagan, or Nixon. Would I hold the same margins to be a “landslide” had John McCain won? Yes I would. That’s the only standard. Certainly not what happens after the election.
Did I say it to puff up Barack Obama? No. I’m a persistent critic of the President, although I often get lumped in with his supporters because I think he was born in Hawaii. Did I say it to make a point? Yes, as is my prerogative, especially faced with something as idiotic as the notion of national health care being suddenly rammed up the body politic with no notice.
Am I a Democrat? No. I’m less at home in the Democratic party than you are in the Republican, Mike, though that’s a distinction you’re quick to remind people about, and one I always try to respect.
BTW “Reagan Democrat” is a PR term, not a description, of the trend of male blue-collar workers voting for their bosses’ party due to domestic social concerns. It began in 1968, not 1980, but somehow “Nixon Democrat” just never caught on.