ADVERTISEMENT

Which party wants to actually compromise?

cosmickid

Hall of Famer
Oct 23, 2009
12,549
7,785
113
I haven't been eager to pile on Manchin for being so naive to believe that the GOP (McConnell in particular) actually wants to "compromise". I've never trusted McConnel in that regard, but seemingly old Joe thought that by talking reasonably he could get a leopard (or in this case KY wildcat) to change his spots...

Sure enough, McConnell has shown his true colors, on the issue of voting rights...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he believed all 50 Republicans would oppose Sen. Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) slimmed-down elections compromise, which focuses on expanding early voting and ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections.


This after "radical, progressive leftist" (you name it) Stacey Abrams said this morning that by contrast, she would have no problem accepting it...


Now, why is the majority party in favor of compromise while the minority (in terms of both Representation AND Registration) so diametrically opposed? Is anybody going to try to argue that any of these "election integrity" bills are anything other than a desperate attempt by Pubs to retain electoral relevancy?

Btw, for anyone watching the scene in Texas where the GOP was (temporarily at least) stymied in their attempts to shove thru a historically repressive bill when the Dems walked out, there are some minor victories for Dems on that front.

First, the Pubs tried to claim that the 1 pm time for the start to Sun voting which was in the final draft of the bill was actually a typo. They actually meant to list an 11 am start, which was more in line with Sun churches letting out, and thus not discourage Blacks from voting right after church...So a "typo" (where not only a 1 to read "11") was left out, but also they confused am with pm? Sounds believable... (LOL)

Then provisions which the bill's sponsor labeled as "horrendous" (despite the fact that they were in the draft) are seemingly being disowned by every single Pub.
More on these developments in this video...



So possible good news for voting rights in Texas, but questions for Manchin. When is it time to give up on "compromise" that the Pubs don't want, and add your support to the FTP act? Even if Dems have to act unilaterally? After all, isn't that basically what each of these GOP-run Legislatures is doing?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
Wish Dick Lugar was around to answer this question.
Lugar became much more of a moderate in his later years. But in 1972 when he was still Mayor of Indy he seemed to have the title of "Nixon's favorite Mayor" and participated actively in Nixon's "coronation" by giving the Keynote at the RNC...

It was about this same time, that he came to my high school for a radio interview. I was on the staff but not involved with any aspect of the interview itself. But I remember meeting Lugar (or at least seeing him up close) and being shocked by his mannequin-like appearance and all the makeup he was wearing.

At the time I considered him a young man- he was in his early 40s. But in person, he seemed "old", and I really wondered how he was able to talk thru all that makeup. I actually expected his jaw to crack underneath all that rouge...
 
I haven't been eager to pile on Manchin for being so naive to believe that the GOP (McConnell in particular) actually wants to "compromise". I've never trusted McConnel in that regard, but seemingly old Joe thought that by talking reasonably he could get a leopard (or in this case KY wildcat) to change his spots...

Sure enough, McConnell has shown his true colors, on the issue of voting rights...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he believed all 50 Republicans would oppose Sen. Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) slimmed-down elections compromise, which focuses on expanding early voting and ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections.


This after "radical, progressive leftist" (you name it) Stacey Abrams said this morning that by contrast, she would have no problem accepting it...


Now, why is the majority party in favor of compromise while the minority (in terms of both Representation AND Registration) so diametrically opposed? Is anybody going to try to argue that any of these "election integrity" bills are anything other than a desperate attempt by Pubs to retain electoral relevancy?

Btw, for anyone watching the scene in Texas where the GOP was (temporarily at least) stymied in their attempts to shove thru a historically repressive bill when the Dems walked out, there are some minor victories for Dems on that front.

First, the Pubs tried to claim that the 1 pm time for the start to Sun voting which was in the final draft of the bill was actually a typo. They actually meant to list an 11 am start, which was more in line with Sun churches letting out, and thus not discourage Blacks from voting right after church...So a "typo" (where not only a 1 to read "11") was left out, but also they confused am with pm? Sounds believable... (LOL)

Then provisions which the bill's sponsor labeled as "horrendous" (despite the fact that they were in the draft) are seemingly being disowned by every single Pub.
More on these developments in this video...



So possible good news for voting rights in Texas, but questions for Manchin. When is it time to give up on "compromise" that the Pubs don't want, and add your support to the FTP act? Even if Dems have to act unilaterally? After all, isn't that basically what each of these GOP-run Legislatures is doing?
What section of the constitution do you believe gives the federal government authority to ban partisan gerrymandering or to expand early voting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
What section of the constitution do you believe gives the federal government authority to ban partisan gerrymandering or to expand early voting?
On the subject of compromise, the founders giving the states authority over voting is a great example. The original constitution is full of compromises which do not necessarily fit into today's world. Some have been altered through amendments and court decisions while others remain to be dealt with.
 
Lugar became much more of a moderate in his later years. But in 1972 when he was still Mayor of Indy he seemed to have the title of "Nixon's favorite Mayor" and participated actively in Nixon's "coronation" by giving the Keynote at the RNC...

It was about this same time, that he came to my high school for a radio interview. I was on the staff but not involved with any aspect of the interview itself. But I remember meeting Lugar (or at least seeing him up close) and being shocked by his mannequin-like appearance and all the makeup he was wearing.

At the time I considered him a young man- he was in his early 40s. But in person, he seemed "old", and I really wondered how he was able to talk thru all that makeup. I actually expected his jaw to crack underneath all that rouge...
why would you wear make up to a radio interview?
 
On the subject of compromise, the founders giving the states authority over voting is a great example. The original constitution is full of compromises which do not necessarily fit into today's world. Some have been altered through amendments and court decisions while others remain to be dealt with.
Are you suggesting federalism doesn’t fit today’s world? The movement to consolidate and concentrate all power the federal government has been around for as long as we have been a country. i Don’t think “today’s world” makes concentration of power a better idea now. In fact, I think federalism holds us together and we need to preserve and protect it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
why would you wear make up to a radio interview?
I only reported what I personally observed as I was playing DJ at the time. BD had both a Radio and TV dept at that time, around 1972 when I was a soph/junior in high school...

I think the most likely explanation was he had been making the media rounds, and likely had visited local Indy TV stations. It was summer, not during the actual school year so it's not like the whole student body was around...

Wow the magic of google... Just found a story in the online version of the 1972 yearbook mentioning the interview. Not bad for remembering an obscure incident from at least 50 yrs ago.

"Mayor Richard Lugar is interviewed by WBDG
announcer Steve Aichinger, while visiting
the school to congratulate the radio station
for its power increase (RIGHT)"


It also mentions David Dunne who was our faculty advisor, and if I remember correctly was a bit of a GOP groupie, which might be why we landed the Lugar visit. He was a short little Scotsman, and he and I sort of had a falling out, though I can't remember why. Probably me being a smart ass...

Anyway, he was tragically killed a few years later by being decapitated by either a helicopter rotor or airplane prop. I was at IU at the time, so I can't really remember which it was. But I remember thinking it was really strange to be killed in that manner...
 
Last edited:
What section of the constitution do you believe gives the federal government authority to ban partisan gerrymandering or to expand early voting?
Well it's provided for in a proposed bill. So if the GOP wants to challenge it on Constitutional grounds, then we'll see what the judiciary might say, providing the Dems end up acting unilaterally to pass it.

I'm not sure the Constitution provides for a single judge to be able to overthrow the results of an election on nothing more than one side claiming there was fraud (and offering no actual proof). But that was in the draft version of SB7 the Pubs tried to ram thru in Texas...

Btw speaking of Constitutions. here is a pretty rare example of a video showing the Pub sponsor of the bill being grilled and embarrassed by a very impressive and knowledgeable Dem Legislator. Not only is this particular Pub the epitome of nerdiness, but he seems totally unaware of the racist history behind some of the terminology he chose to include.

I don't know for sure and I'm just speculating. But I'm thinking this incident might have been a huge inspiration for Dems in Texas to have the backbone to walk out and deny the Pubs a quorum... This is a beatdown, Texas-style...

 
Well it's provided for in a proposed bill. So if the GOP wants to challenge it on Constitutional grounds, then we'll see what the judiciary might say, providing the Dems end up acting unilaterally to pass it.

I'm not sure the Constitution provides for a single judge to be able to overthrow the results of an election on nothing more than one side claiming there was fraud (and offering no actual proof). But that was in the draft version of SB7 the Pubs tried to ram thru in Texas...

Btw speaking of Constitutions. here is a pretty rare example of a video showing the Pub sponsor of the bill being grilled and embarrassed by a very impressive and knowledgeable Dem Legislator. Not only is this particular Pub the epitome of nerdiness, but he seems totally unaware of the racist history behind some of the terminology he chose to include.

I don't know for sure and I'm just speculating. But I'm thinking this incident might have been a huge inspiration for Dems in Texas to have the backbone to walk out and deny the Pubs a quorum... This is a beatdown, Texas-style...

If you answered my question, I missed it. Try again if you want to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Are you suggesting federalism doesn’t fit today’s world? The movement to consolidate and concentrate all power the federal government has been around for as long as we have been a country. i Don’t think “today’s world” makes concentration of power a better idea now. In fact, I think federalism holds us together and we need to preserve and protect it.
Federalism in my book is alive and well. Furthermore, as i have said many times on this forum.. state and local governments are more important in our everyday lives than the federal government.

Getting back to today's world , events such as how we dealt with Covid 19 and having a sitting president declare an election null and void with many believing him does put pressure on the Potomac pundits to do something. So if we all thought the election was fair and honest, the Potomac pundits wouldn't be thinking about correcting problems with state and local elections.

A final comment is to note that if it hadn't been for the 2000 hanging chad election and the national attention on how important any one state.s handling of votes can be to the entire country, this past presidential election may not have gone off as smoothly.
 
Reports that Manchin will now support the voting rights bill. He has painted McConnell into a corner on this.
 
Manchin is going to compromise on the filibuster. This is just getting started.
I oppose all rules permitting these fake filibusters -- if McConnell wants to stall/block something by filibuster, he should have to stand at the podium for 4-5 hours reading phonebooks etc., trying not to pee his 79-year-old self.

To give him some consequences for imposing a filibuster on the country, he should be required to wear khaki pants while trying not to pee himself. CSPAN deserves the video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
I hadn't heard that. That's big. But without Sinema, it's all for naught.
I believe Sinema is actually a co-sponsor of the For the People Act, but I get your point on the fillibuster. I do think that the increased wackiness coming out of the fraudit in her home state (they've moved the ballots to a cabin in Montana) may put pressure on Sienma to grow some balls and take a stand on at least looking at the fillibuster.
 
I believe Sinema is actually a co-sponsor of the For the People Act, but I get your point on the fillibuster. I do think that the increased wackiness coming out of the fraudit in her home state (they've moved the ballots to a cabin in Montana) may put pressure on Sienma to grow some balls and take a stand on at least looking at the fillibuster.
Last I heard she had doubled down. And there very well may be some recalcitrant Democrats who have been hiding behind her and Manchin on the filibuster. I'm not confident.
 
I haven't been eager to pile on Manchin for being so naive to believe that the GOP (McConnell in particular) actually wants to "compromise". I've never trusted McConnel in that regard, but seemingly old Joe thought that by talking reasonably he could get a leopard (or in this case KY wildcat) to change his spots...

Sure enough, McConnell has shown his true colors, on the issue of voting rights...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he believed all 50 Republicans would oppose Sen. Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) slimmed-down elections compromise, which focuses on expanding early voting and ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections.


This after "radical, progressive leftist" (you name it) Stacey Abrams said this morning that by contrast, she would have no problem accepting it...


Now, why is the majority party in favor of compromise while the minority (in terms of both Representation AND Registration) so diametrically opposed? Is anybody going to try to argue that any of these "election integrity" bills are anything other than a desperate attempt by Pubs to retain electoral relevancy?

Btw, for anyone watching the scene in Texas where the GOP was (temporarily at least) stymied in their attempts to shove thru a historically repressive bill when the Dems walked out, there are some minor victories for Dems on that front.

First, the Pubs tried to claim that the 1 pm time for the start to Sun voting which was in the final draft of the bill was actually a typo. They actually meant to list an 11 am start, which was more in line with Sun churches letting out, and thus not discourage Blacks from voting right after church...So a "typo" (where not only a 1 to read "11") was left out, but also they confused am with pm? Sounds believable... (LOL)

Then provisions which the bill's sponsor labeled as "horrendous" (despite the fact that they were in the draft) are seemingly being disowned by every single Pub.
More on these developments in this video...



So possible good news for voting rights in Texas, but questions for Manchin. When is it time to give up on "compromise" that the Pubs don't want, and add your support to the FTP act? Even if Dems have to act unilaterally? After all, isn't that basically what each of these GOP-run Legislatures is doing?
 
Reports that Manchin will now support the voting rights bill. He has painted McConnell into a corner on this.


If you want to know why people on the right no longer trust major media organizations, look no further than this alleged description of HR1 which might as well have come straight from a Democrat press release
 
The Manchin compromise bill isn't nearly so bad as the original. I'd be good with debating and voting on that. Requiring voting ID and a minimum amount of early voting of about 14 days or so isn't so bad. There are other things in it I don't like so much, but they can debate and compromise like they should do.
 
Well it's provided for in a proposed bill. So if the GOP wants to challenge it on Constitutional grounds, then we'll see what the judiciary might say, providing the Dems end up acting unilaterally to pass it.

I'm not sure the Constitution provides for a single judge to be able to overthrow the results of an election on nothing more than one side claiming there was fraud (and offering no actual proof). But that was in the draft version of SB7 the Pubs tried to ram thru in Texas...

Btw speaking of Constitutions. here is a pretty rare example of a video showing the Pub sponsor of the bill being grilled and embarrassed by a very impressive and knowledgeable Dem Legislator. Not only is this particular Pub the epitome of nerdiness, but he seems totally unaware of the racist history behind some of the terminology he chose to include.

I don't know for sure and I'm just speculating. But I'm thinking this incident might have been a huge inspiration for Dems in Texas to have the backbone to walk out and deny the Pubs a quorum... This is a beatdown, Texas-style...



Imagine the tantrum that the national media would be throwing if this was Republicans fleeing a state just so Democrats couldn't pass a bill.

Telling when the same people who insist using the filibuster is somehow illegitimate are just fine with this.
 


Imagine the tantrum that the national media would be throwing if this was Republicans fleeing a state just so Democrats couldn't pass a bill.

Telling when the same people who insist using the filibuster is somehow illegitimate are just fine with this.
It’s garbage. I hate the voter restriction bills, but this is not how to counter them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
Are you suggesting federalism doesn’t fit today’s world? The movement to consolidate and concentrate all power the federal government has been around for as long as we have been a country. i Don’t think “today’s world” makes concentration of power a better idea now. In fact, I think federalism holds us together and we need to preserve and protect it.
The separation of powers of the three branches, and the separation of states rights being on par with the Federal is genius. Those Founders understood human weakness and the desire of the strong to control the weak. Therefore they have made it difficult to make laws. If you think about it making actual laws is extremely hard. You have to have all the reps of the house to come up with something and vote on it. Then you have to send it to the Senate and they have to wrestle with it and vote. Then it goes to the President and He or She has to sign it. If they veto it then it goes back and you have to figure out how to change things to get it passed. This is the greatest thing in the world. It is hard to pass laws. We should all rend in the power of executive orders and unelected officials who write policies who have the force of law.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: outside shooter
The separation of powers of the three branches, and the separation of states rights being on par with the Federal is genius. Those Founders understood human weakness and the desire of the strong to control the weak. Therefore they have made it difficult to make laws. If you think about it making actual laws is extremely hard. You have to have all the reps of the house to come up with something and vote on it. Then you have to send it to the Senate and they have to wrestle with it and vote. Then it goes to the President and He or She has to sign it. If they veto it then it goes back and you have to figure out how to change things to get it passed. This is the greatest thing in the world. It is hard to pass laws. We should all rend in the power of executive orders and unelected officials who write policies who have the force of law.
Someone just watched, "I'm Just a Bill".
 
I haven't been eager to pile on Manchin for being so naive to believe that the GOP (McConnell in particular) actually wants to "compromise". I've never trusted McConnel in that regard, but seemingly old Joe thought that by talking reasonably he could get a leopard (or in this case KY wildcat) to change his spots...

Sure enough, McConnell has shown his true colors, on the issue of voting rights...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he believed all 50 Republicans would oppose Sen. Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) slimmed-down elections compromise, which focuses on expanding early voting and ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections.


This after "radical, progressive leftist" (you name it) Stacey Abrams said this morning that by contrast, she would have no problem accepting it...


Now, why is the majority party in favor of compromise while the minority (in terms of both Representation AND Registration) so diametrically opposed? Is anybody going to try to argue that any of these "election integrity" bills are anything other than a desperate attempt by Pubs to retain electoral relevancy?

Btw, for anyone watching the scene in Texas where the GOP was (temporarily at least) stymied in their attempts to shove thru a historically repressive bill when the Dems walked out, there are some minor victories for Dems on that front.

First, the Pubs tried to claim that the 1 pm time for the start to Sun voting which was in the final draft of the bill was actually a typo. They actually meant to list an 11 am start, which was more in line with Sun churches letting out, and thus not discourage Blacks from voting right after church...So a "typo" (where not only a 1 to read "11") was left out, but also they confused am with pm? Sounds believable... (LOL)

Then provisions which the bill's sponsor labeled as "horrendous" (despite the fact that they were in the draft) are seemingly being disowned by every single Pub.
More on these developments in this video...



So possible good news for voting rights in Texas, but questions for Manchin. When is it time to give up on "compromise" that the Pubs don't want, and add your support to the FTP act? Even if Dems have to act unilaterally? After all, isn't that basically what each of these GOP-run Legislatures is doing?
You are a piece of work.

Tell me how Democrats wanted to 'compromise the last 4 years.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IU_Hickory
It’s garbage. I hate the voter restriction bills, but this is not how to counter them.
It's a shame things have gotten to this point, but after watching McConnell play hardball like he has I'm taking some smug satisfaction in seeing the Democrats playing outside the lines themselves.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: IU_Hickory and DANC
It's a shame things have gotten to this point, but after watching McConnell play hardball like he has I'm taking some smug satisfaction in seeing the Democrats playing outside the lines themselves.
LOL Yeah, because they've always played within the lines.

You think Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are the paragons of virtue?
 


Republicans should walk away. Democrats have repeatedly made it clear they are tying both bills together. No reason to provide Democrats bipartisan cover on some of what they want when they openly admit they will just pass the rest via reconciliation. Defeats the whole purpose.

With the bills tied together and evidence that moderate Democrats support both, they are basically negotiating over which parts go in which bill instead of what actually gets spent. With inflation already rising, Democrats should pay the political price for these massive bills without any cover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and mcmurtry66


Again, Democrats at every level have consistently made it clear that these bills are tied together. There is no reason for any Republican to support or give any cover to any part of this horrendous deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and mcmurtry66
the progressives need to bring back the old progressive party and go it as a third party
Yep.
Bipartisan bill is literally tied to the reconciliation bill. They are just negotiating over which portion to include in which bill. And you give Manchin cover to support the reconciliation bill without Republicans actually getting any say in final substance.
 
Bipartisan bill is literally tied to the reconciliation bill. They are just negotiating over which portion to include in which bill. And you give Manchin cover to support the reconciliation bill without Republicans actually getting any say in final substance.

It's a half-loaf for the Republicans. They'll be able to claim they voted for roads and bridges and broadband, and then claim they voted against all the namby pamby shit and any tax increases that may be included.
 
It's a half-loaf for the Republicans. They'll be able to claim they voted for roads and bridges and broadband, and then claim they voted against all the namby pamby shit and any tax increases that may be included.
So you DO admit it’s namby pamby shit at least. Good.

Useless garbage, is the phrase I would use but you’re making progress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I haven't been eager to pile on Manchin for being so naive to believe that the GOP (McConnell in particular) actually wants to "compromise". I've never trusted McConnel in that regard, but seemingly old Joe thought that by talking reasonably he could get a leopard (or in this case KY wildcat) to change his spots...

Sure enough, McConnell has shown his true colors, on the issue of voting rights...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he believed all 50 Republicans would oppose Sen. Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) slimmed-down elections compromise, which focuses on expanding early voting and ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections.


This after "radical, progressive leftist" (you name it) Stacey Abrams said this morning that by contrast, she would have no problem accepting it...


Now, why is the majority party in favor of compromise while the minority (in terms of both Representation AND Registration) so diametrically opposed? Is anybody going to try to argue that any of these "election integrity" bills are anything other than a desperate attempt by Pubs to retain electoral relevancy?

Btw, for anyone watching the scene in Texas where the GOP was (temporarily at least) stymied in their attempts to shove thru a historically repressive bill when the Dems walked out, there are some minor victories for Dems on that front.

First, the Pubs tried to claim that the 1 pm time for the start to Sun voting which was in the final draft of the bill was actually a typo. They actually meant to list an 11 am start, which was more in line with Sun churches letting out, and thus not discourage Blacks from voting right after church...So a "typo" (where not only a 1 to read "11") was left out, but also they confused am with pm? Sounds believable... (LOL)

Then provisions which the bill's sponsor labeled as "horrendous" (despite the fact that they were in the draft) are seemingly being disowned by every single Pub.
More on these developments in this video...



So possible good news for voting rights in Texas, but questions for Manchin. When is it time to give up on "compromise" that the Pubs don't want, and add your support to the FTP act? Even if Dems have to act unilaterally? After all, isn't that basically what each of these GOP-run Legislatures is doing?
Neither. And you know it. Even with your 10k word post, you know neither party want it. But you be you and write books on this forum.
 
ADVERTISEMENT