Re: OT, re the Massachusetts election (whatif?)

[ Home ][ Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]

Re: OT, re the Massachusetts election

Posted on: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:32:17 +0000 (UTC)

On Jan 26, 11:36=A0pm, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:17:01 -0800 (PST), AlfredMontestruc
>
> wrote:
> >> Here in Canada, I've seen highly controversial
> >> legislation pass by a single vote majority.
>
> >Which is a really monumentally stupid and destabilizing idea as to
> >design of governmental system. =A0Stability of the legal/governmental
> >system is really kind of important.
>
> >>=A0This,
> >> to me, is how parliamentary democracy works.
>
> >In case you have not heard, the USA is not a parliamentary democracy.
> >It is a representative constitutional republic.
>
> Indeed it is though this Canuck wonders what on earth the 60 vote rule
> has to do with the Founding Fathers or the system of checks and
> balances.

Directly nothing, indirectly a lot. The senate was originally to be a
representative body for the state governments with the senator
appointed by the state government directly. On can argue that doing
it by direct election prior to the amendment requiring election was
unconstitutional. Things changed in the senate in reaction to that
sort of thing.

>
> I will add my voice to those who disagree with you that close but
> decisive votes are necessarily a bad thing.

How is that disagreeing with me? My point was that change to
fundamental law should be by something closer to consensus than
majority. A close but decisive vote is by that definition necessarily
bad.

>
> As for parliamentary democracy, I submit to you that under the
> Westminster system Richard Nixon in 1973 would probably would have not
> survived a non-confidence motion

True, and I will grant you that, but frankly parliamentary democracies
are hardly free of significant political scandals and corruption.

If anything I think we might be better off either w/o a presidency, or
with a system like that of the old romans (two leaders with veto over
each other).

>(which presumably would be settled on
> party lines - and the Democrats had a majority in both houses) though
> equally probably would have been out on his ear as party leader in a
> caucus vote.
>
> It might have been an interesting race to see if the Democrats or the
> Republicans turfed him first. That said, Watergate was one of the most
> incredible moments in US history - without Watergate I seriously doubt
> Nixon would have won much less of a landslide and I do not think Nixon
> would have done him or his party much harm (and may have actually
> gained) had he fed the burglars to the wolves rather than protecting
> them. At worst it would have had the effect of Iran-Contra to his
> presidency and Reagan survived that without difficulty. =A0I am mindful
> of Bill Clinton's speech to his supporters on election night 1996 -
> something like "thank you my friends for helping me win the last
> election I shall ever win" - which was exactly Nixon's position in
> 1972.
>
> >See the thing is on this specific issue, it might be a minority in
> >congress, but the majority of the people are violently opposed to the
> >proposed health care legislation.
>
> Catch is it was a key part of Obama's platform in 2008 - so one should
> not fault him for trying to pass it.

It was in the platform yes, but he was not elected on it. People were
really sick of Bush and both parties not doing what they wanted like
end the war and fix the economy.

I do not fault him for trying to pass it, I fault him for being this
effing obsessive about it and wasting the amount of time and political
capital he has on that issue, when clearly he cannot get something w/o
making a deal with the proverbial devil, and destroying his
credibility with the people.

He and the democrats lost that issue even if they get some BS scrap of
what they wanted passed it will be a very Pyrrhic victory. It is
time for him and the democrats to wake up smell their burning hands
and drop the lava hot potato.

>Face it - if Obama made no
> attempt at all to push it wouldn't he be damned for not trying? You
> know he would.

Yes, but that time has come and gone a long time ago. Continuing to
try to "win" now is just foolishness.

>
> I'm not a big fan of the 'Ban on Politics' but I can see its value
> here.

Then why reply to me on this?

[ Home ][ Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]