Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Dear Republican Friends
Normally I'm not a fan of creating a post that just encourages you to read some long link, but I think this is an important one because it points out how bipartisanship is crippling the country: http://hydratext.com/blog/2012/10/24/dear-republican-friends.html
Dear Republican Friends,
Look, we need to talk. We can?t keep going like this. No matter how much you dislike President Obama and no matter how much you disagree with his policies, you need to vote for him in November. I?m not saying you have to like it or that you can?t go back to voting even for extreme conservatives in the next election, but this election is different.
The problem is not that the issues involved in this cycle are THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES EVAR. No, they?re important, but many elections have involved similarly important issues. I think you?re wrong about taxes, spending, healthcare, foreign policy, the judiciary, and regulation. But I?m happy to keep disagreeing on these subjects in the normal course of our politics.
Here?s the thing: if Romney wins, it validates a strategy that, if adopted by my team too, will make America pretty much ungovernable. From the day Obama was inaugurated, the Republican strategy has been to refuse to cooperate on virtually every issue, to fight every piece of legislation, to block every nomination, and even to threaten to kill clearly needed legislation in the style of a hostage taker.
And when I say ?from the day Obama was inaugurated,? I mean it literally. That night, at a strategy dinner organized by one of the world?s most repulsive humans, Frank Luntz, and attended by House and Senate Republican leaders, including Paul Ryan, key Republicans discussed the need to ?challenge [the new administration] on every single bill.? Killing everything, running on a lack of progress to take back the House in the midterms and the White House in 2012, that was what mattered. Newt Gingrich told the assembled crowd: ?You will remember this day. You?ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown.?
One attendee, Texas rep Pete Sessions, explained shortly after this and after the House Republicans had unanimously voted against the stimulus bill:
Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person?s entire processes. And these Taliban ? I?m not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that?s not what we?re saying. I?m saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with.
In 2010, Senator Mitch McConnell famously declared that his most important priority was to ensure that President Obama would be a one-term president. Supposed fact checkers have pointed out that, in the context of that interview, McConnell perhaps showed more flexibility. But in the context of everything else we know, it could not be clearer that winning the White House in 2012 using a strategy of unyielding obstruction was precisely his top priority. That mindless, nihilistic obstruction has been a means to that end is obvious not only from the record but also from what other senators have said. We know this both from off-the-record comments and also from on-the-record statements. Here?s former Senator George Voinovich:
If he was for it, we had to be against it. ? . He wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.
Vice President Biden claims he was told by several Republican Senators, before taking office, ?For the next two years, we can?t let you succeed in anything. That?s our ticket to coming back.? You may generally disbelieve Biden, but the gist of these conversations was confirmed by Republican Senators Bob Bennett and Arlen Specter. (The source here is the same link as above, an article by Greg Sargent reporting on the contents of Michael Grunwald?s book, The New New Deal.)
And obstruct they have. I won?t recite the list of bills and appointments Republicans have blocked. Loud, obnoxious, and illogical opposition in the House is paired with efficacious holds and filibustering in the Senate. Take a look at this chart showing that the number of filibusters more than doubled when Democrats took control of the Senate. It is to the point where absolutely nothing gets through the Senate without sixty votes, which means Republicans can and, more importantly and tragically, do veto everything. The Democrats did indeed maintain a sixty-vote majority for a brief period, counting two independents who normally voted with them, but any sensible person quickly understands that?s not enough, given the way that a single Democratic vote could be easily peeled off. (Obstruction could provide the appearance of division that would be used as a bludgeon in races in vulnerable districts.)
This strategy combines toxically with a party ideology that moderates of all stripes have observed growing increasingly inflexible, increasingly unmoored from the facts and pragmatism, and ever more fond of insane litmus tests like Grover Norquist?s tax pledge (guaranteeing in advance that no matter what happens candidates will not vote for any income tax increase of any kind).
But, my fellow American, I?m not asking you to vote against your party because of its policy choices. I do find inexplicable their insistence on dramatically cutting spending in the wake of a demand-induced recession despite record low interest rates and no real inflation, their dogged determination to maintain historically low levels of taxation on the richest Americans, their obsession with eliminating regulations, their preoccupation with controlling female sexuality, and their attachment to wild-eyed, unrealistic foreign policies. I?m not giving you any arguments on those here, however. But pointing out just how extreme your party has become goes some way toward explaining why they?d be willing to engage in unprecedented levels of hypocrisy (fully aware how hyperbolic that can sound when discussing political bodies) to defeat a president:
The results can border on the absurd: In early 2009, several of the eight Republican co-sponsors of a bipartisan health-care reform plan dropped their support; by early 2010, the others had turned on their own proposal so that there would be zero GOP backing for any bill that came within a mile of Obama?s reform initiative. As one co-sponsor, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), told The Washington Post?s Ezra Klein: ?I liked it because it was bipartisan. I wouldn?t have voted for it.?
And seven Republican co-sponsors of a Senate resolution to create a debt-reduction panel voted in January 2010 against their own resolution, solely to keep it from getting to the 60-vote threshold Republicans demanded and thus denying the president a seeming victory.
Now stick with me. It?s perfectly fine for the opposition robustly to fight the President?s agenda. Especially after losing a high profile election, it?s natural to get together, to strategize about how to protect what matters most in your own agenda, even to make plans to win the next election. And normal politicking involves caricaturing your opponents, tough negotiations, and rough rhetoric. Our politics, though, have gone well past this.
The President has compromised endlessly only to attract zero Republican votes and face, again no matter how compromising, charges that he was partisan and uncompromising. If we liberals had our way, we?d have single-payer healthcare, an adequate stimulus (twice as big as what was done and as all reasonable economists indicated was necessary - and as interest rates are virtually begging us to undertake), bankruptcy cramdown, no prison in Guantanamo, much higher marginal rates on top earners, and the list goes on. But we never expected to get our way on everything. People disagree about things, especially important things. That?s fine. And it?s why the president?s healthcare plan took as its model a conservative proposal that had managed to unite the parties in the past.
The immediate and urgent problem here is not what Republicans believe but the two-fold strategy they have chosen to pursue: (1) Make sure nothing gets done. (2) Run a campaign criticizing President Obama for not getting anything done.
This can?t be allowed to work, and I think this is a point on which we both can agree. This is so important that I want to say it again: This can?t be allowed to work. Imagine your party?s candidate does win. What is my party supposed to do? If we adopt your strategy, Romney will fail. Winning an election does not mean you should be able to get your way without compromise. But at the very least everyone in our system should be accountable. You don?t get to obstruct everything and then run a campaign accusing your opponent of failing to reach across the aisle to get things done. If you think that?s an acceptable strategy, then ask yourself if you want my party to adopt it.
Wait a minute, some of my independent-minded friends may say! The problem here is the two-party system. We just need a viable third party. Nonsense, unless you?re plan is (a) to replace the winner-take-all, first-past-the-post system we have, with, say, a parliamentary system or (b) to destroy and remake one of the two parties you generally favor. Believing that a three party system is viable in the presidential context under our current election rules is like believing the moon is made out of cheese. I?m quite open to thinking about (a) ? though not at all sure how realistic such a radical change is. And on (b), well if it leads to the remaking of a more pragmatically minded conservative party, I?m all for it. But it?s a method for realigning, maybe even renaming!, the two parties, not for stably adding a third.
I understand the stakes here. The economy is likely to improve over the coming years (at least in the short term), regardless of who is elected. If Obama is re-elected, he will probably go down as a great president, for many reasons. If not, Romney will get credit for rescuing the economy. But more important than any particular policy is our continued ability to make policy at all. The model of governance and campaigning demonstrated by the Republican party over the last four years, if adopted by everyone, would be a suicide pact. Let?s not sign it.
Re: Dear Republican Friends
Explains perfectly why it is so frustrating to hear people say Obama has not done anything. The Republican party wouldn't allow it. It is truly sickening. These people risked Americans' lives getting better for their own greedy agenda.
I'm not Republican but honestly you could use this same argument the other way. ie that as long as Obama is in office this will continue yadda yadda and we'll never get anywhere. This is a really silly reason to vote for anybody.
As a practical matter, Obama had congress AND the senate the first 2 years he was in office so he had plenty of time and opportunity to get things done he wanted done and if he can't play nice with the other children maybe he needs to go for the good of the country.
The bottom line is that you shouldn't vote based on your emotions or what you want to be true. You have to decide what is Truth not emotions and what happens in the real world not what you think should happen then vote your conscience.
Very well put. Good thoughts.
I agree with snp's point. Obama didn't make a good faith effort to collaborate and listen to the opposition at all. He had snide comments like "I won," implying that they should basically shut up. He had two years to do whatever he wants, and his policies are unpopular, esp. increasingly with independents whom Romney is carrying in many swing states.
I could also argue that with Romney in charge, more things could be done with a Republican House and a near 50-50 or actual 50-50 Senate.
Why is bipartisanship defined as the GOP going along with what Obama wants? When principles are involved, there really isn't an in-between.
agreed.
No, we're saying he had two years to do whatever he wanted, and then the American people said "no" quite clearly in 2010 to the tune of 69 seats in Congress and 800-900 across the country at the state level.
The 2010 vote was obviously a block on Obama's agenda.
They'd be betraying their voters if they let him do another dumb stimulus program. or something like that.
Yes, I'm saying that. Republicans hated Clinton and even impeached him for Pete's sake and he still managed to get things done. Likewise during George Bush's presidency with the Democrats employing the same tactics. Seriously, most of us are just completely OVER the polarization because neither party is 100% right nor does either party have the lock on crazy/unethical/lying, etc. Something has to change this gridlock.
No politician is going to save any of us nor is any one single person likely to be the complete undoing of us. Demonizing either side is ridiculous because you are giving them a power and authority over you they simply do not have.
Repeating this statement does not make is magically become true. They had 6 weeks between Franken being sworn in and Kennedy passing away, with 3 of these weeks being summer recess for the senate. And approximately 4 months between Kennedy's replacement being appointed and Scott Brown being sworn in. Of those 4 months senate was in session for 72 days.
As pp pointed out, they did not have 2 years of a majority. And even if they did, you would complain that they went along party lines to get everything done.
The one goal of the GOP for the past 4 years has been to halt the administration's activities. That didn't happen with Bush. That didn't happen with Clinton. That didn't happen with Bush senior. That didn't happen with Regan.
As far as I know this is the first time that a major political party's 4-year plan was to simply *** block the other guy. The fact that you don't see that as a problem speaks volumes.
To the President's credit, by the first few months of 2009 he had already signed into law bills promoting healthcare for children, education funding, environmental conservation, and gender equality. I believe, if given the chance, he would have continued to do many great things for the country. However, the people who actually make it to the polls to vote for congress were more concerned with the 2008 recession, and wanted someone to blame. It was a big mistake.
Once we got a Republican Congress we faced the threat of some of the most wacky right-wing policies I have ever heard of, like the "Let Women Die" Act. Not only did this congress intend to trump all efforts from Democratic leaders, but it almost seems like having Obama in office made them act even more ridiculously conservative than normal-like invasion of the body snatchers or something.
I don't like bullies, like a congress who thinks it's okay to flatten even efforts with the best intentions, but I don't think you should vote for Obama because of the bi-partisan tension. I think you should vote for Obama because he is clearly the best choice of the two options. How can one conceive of voting for a man who believes that the "right" way to govern our country is to let businesses exist with little no regulation; encouraging sending jobs overseas, scamming customers with hidden derivatives, finding tax loopholes, etc, yet believes in regulating what we constituents are "allowed" to do with our every day lives? Romney is especially a threat if you are a woman who likes access to affordable birth control and doctor referrals or fair wages. No way, no sir.
the idea that simply electing him again isn't going to cause the same blocking to occur and get absolutely ZERO done in the next four years speaks volumes as well. It's a case of wanting something to be true. Considering that this president chose far left positions on the things he attempted to get done, how could you have expected anything different out of the far right? The reason Clinton got things done and even Bush, was because they compromised and took a more middle of the road approach instead of digging their heels in the sand and daring the other side to push. This administration basically had a measuring contest for the last four years and many of us are d.o.n.e. with it.
Also, since my husband is a small business owner the things that did get passed only served to hurt his business so I can't be too unhappy that there was resistance to it. There will ALWAYS be some sort of regulation (even the right agrees to that -the tried more than once to reel Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac in and were rebuffed by the left ironically) however it does not have to be stifling. You forget that in most industries there is also state regulation. My husband's business is held in a chokehold by the state nevermind the federal govt.
The real problem is that people who have never owned a small business have these pie in the sky ideas about how they work and think that owning your own business is some kind of freewheeling enterprise with as many days off as you want and unlimited profits. They have zero clue how the taxes work. For example his business is taxed at the individual rate so say he earned 100,000, he would pay $25K off the top in taxes for the business. Then if he actually took home $50k after expenses he pays ANOTHER 25% (actually this year it was closer to 27%) thanks to self employment taxes that only business owners pay so his net would be $37,500 and that is before he pays things like his health insurance of $900 a month which is NOT deductible personally or as an expense of the business because he is the owner. Most teachers earn more than that and most if not all of their benefits are paid for and even they want to go on strike. Ramp that gross figure up to $250K and apply the top tax brackets and you'll see that those business owners likely end up bringing home something closer to $65K yet the left is practically frothing at the mouth and demonizing them as rich people. Until you change the way small businesses are taxed, every time you raise taxes you strangle small businesses which employ almost half of the nation's workers.
From a selfish perspective, and not good for the country at all, I'm glad obamacare passed because my family save money. We will cancel our health insurance which for our family is around $1600 per month and includes a $3,000 deductible plus copays. It will be MUCH cheaper for us to pay the tax and pay medical expenses as we go. If something happens, thanks to the pre-existing condition rule being outlawed, we will simply sign up at that point and people like you who have maintained and paid for insurance all of this time will absorb the cost of paying for my care which will be more than what we will pay in premiums. It would be absolutely stupid for us financially not to do this.
wow , that's a lot for health insurance. we are also self employed and get insurance for a family of 3 for $336. why is it so high?
1. Holy cow, the GOP's 4-year *** block is not the only reason not to vote for Romney - it's just a great example of how extreme republicans are today.
2. I don't know what "far left" you're talking about, Obama has been more moderate than expected.
3. Being married to someone that owns a small business doesn't make you more knowledgeable than others. Obviously.
ours is $678 for up to four children. It jumped way high after having a baby. My maternity deductible is 7500 which sucks. But with all that, we do have really good coverage. Yours actually sounds low to me at 336.
Higher ded than yours, that's why its lower. we added 2 riders to it though so if a major accident or cancer happened those would pay off the deductible. Plus everything goes to the deductible which is better for our tax write offs
This election cycle has made me start hopin' & prayin' for a massive electorate revolt that will result in 3rd parties becoming viable candidates for the presidency.
A girl can dream.
So you aren't in love with Obama?
Harry Reid said that he and Democrats in the Senate would not work with Romney if he's elected president, that it would be laughable to suggest that they would.
Interesting.