Partisan Politics Good For America?

[OE32]

I think if you are a Democrat, then Biden kicked his ass. I think if you are a Republican, you probably think Ryan kicked Biden's ass. I think if you are the normal public on that night you were probably watching reruns of Murphy Brown and didn't care what a couple of wind bag politicians had to say.

Part of the problem is most Americans don't know what politicians are talking about, so they simply distrust them. No better than simply trusting them, in my view. As a result, the politicians don't try to say anything, understanding that Americans can't distinguish fact from fiction about these sorts of things. But I don't see an easy cure for it. I'm asking an awful lot from the American public.

CBS's instant poll said Biden won, 50% to 31%. I thought the beatdown was worse than that. http://www.businessinsider.com/vp-debat ... an-2012-10

[Mori Chu]

I was hearing that Republican leadership was contacting leaders of other nations like Iran and saying that if they struck a deal with the US/Obama, it wouldn't stick, because it'd be repealed as soon as Obama left office. Did they really say that? That sounds dirty to me and it seems like totally undermining the authority of the President if that happened.

[Dan H]

Yeah, that would be awfully dirty of them, wouldn't it?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-ke ... inson.html

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

...

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

[Mori Chu]

I don't understand this kind of "two wrongs make a right" logic. You're saying that the Kennedys did something similar? What do I care about what they did? How does them doing that make it okay for current politicians to do the same? It's wrong in both cases.

The goal isn't to say that one party is above reproach and the other isn't. When either party does something wrong, it's wrong.

[Dan H]

Why hold up one side as being representative of something terrible and evil without understanding that the other side has done the exact same thing?

What Kennedy did was apparently fine as he was never charged with anything, why shouldn't the GOP get the same consideration?

[Ghost]

Why hold up one side as being representative of something terrible and evil without understanding that the other side has done the exact same thing?

What Kennedy did was apparently fine as he was never charged with anything, why shouldn't the GOP get the same consideration?

Because we don't defend Muslim extremism on the grounds that Christians slaughtered them in the Crusades.

Nodack and I had this discussion (well, a tangent discussion) a while ago. It's the same situation, though. The way to improve politics is not to defend current offenses because they were permitted in the past, but to denounce them on both sides when they happen. It's one thing to say, "Yes, what my guy did was wrong, but your guy did it before too, and they should both pay. How do we get better?" and another to say, "Well, your guy did it first, so I guess it's OK."

Negotiating with foreign powers without the authority to do so is against the Constitution. It's arguably treason, although it would never go that far. The fact that E-Kennedy did it does not, in any way, excuse current Republicans from doing it.

What Kennedy did was apparently fine as he was never charged with anything, why shouldn't the GOP get the same consideration?

How does "he was never charged" equate to "it was fine?"

Do we really think the best way to improve politics is to keep it at exactly the same low level it has always been at?

[Dan H]

I guess because I don't necessarily see the issue on either side. The Cotton letter was written to inform Iran how our laws worked, that if they reached an agreement without Senate ratification it was not likely to be worth much.

As far as Kennedy goes, while I think his personal life was pretty loathsome, I do give him the benefit of the doubt in that he was trying to do what he thought was right in pursuing peace with the Soviets. The efficacy was debatable, but you had constant press hysteria back in those days about "the senile old man with his finger on the nuclear trigger". We see now that it was nonsense (and given the '84 election results, I don't think he got much traction there) because Reagan was far more reserved at using military assets than both Bushes and Obama.

[Mori Chu]

I just don't have anything to say about Kennedy. To me that has zero bearing on this.

[Ghost]

I guess because I don't necessarily see the issue on either side. The Cotton letter was written to inform Iran how our laws worked, that if they reached an agreement without Senate ratification it was not likely to be worth much.

As far as Kennedy goes, while I think his personal life was pretty loathsome, I do give him the benefit of the doubt in that he was trying to do what he thought was right in pursuing peace with the Soviets. The efficacy was debatable, but you had constant press hysteria back in those days about "the senile old man with his finger on the nuclear trigger". We see now that it was nonsense (and given the '84 election results, I don't think he got much traction there) because Reagan was far more reserved at using military assets than both Bushes and Obama.

I agree with all of this. Although there is some irony in them lecturing Iran on US law when they were effectively breaking it. But it's very much a non-issue in my mind. Annoying, and given the current political climate it basically just comes across as another slap in the President's face, which doesn't help us regardless of your opinion of him. They basically manufactured a minor scandal for themselves that nobody will remember, but doesn't help the divide.

[Nodack]

The Cotton letter was written to inform Iran how our laws worked, that if they reached an agreement without Senate ratification it was not likely to be worth much.

Thats a nice way of putting it. It was merely a public service announcement and that was it's only intent.

[Ghost]

The Cotton letter was written to inform Iran how our laws worked, that if they reached an agreement without Senate ratification it was not likely to be worth much.

Thats a nice way of putting it. It was merely a public service announcement and that was it's only intent.

Now, that's just not true. Well, the first part was...Dan did say what happened very nicely. But there was no PSA in the Republicans telling Iran that effectively any discussion they have with Obama is null and void without their approval, and by the way, Senators have longer terms and can stay in office indefinitely, whereas Obama is only in power until January, 2017.

Have you read the letter? It was a deliberate effort to tell Iran that (a) while we think Obama is being soft on you, it won't matter, because any agreement you make with him will not pass the House vote, and (b) he isn't going to be in office for long, but we will, so you should really think about what we want more than you currently are.

There is no possible way to look at this letter that doesn't make our government look incompetent and broken. I told Dan that I think the letter is a minor issue, and it is, because our government already looks incompetent and broken. But that is precisely because of stupid crap like this letter. Like him or not, Obama is the head of the Executive Branch. Half of the Legislative Branch just told a hostile foreign state that the guy they are negotiating with has no real power.

[Dan H]

The Cotton letter was written to inform Iran how our laws worked, that if they reached an agreement without Senate ratification it was not likely to be worth much.

Thats a nice way of putting it. It was merely a public service announcement and that was it's only intent.

Now, that's just not true. Well, the first part was...Dan did say what happened very nicely. But there was no PSA in the Republicans telling Iran that effectively any discussion they have with Obama is null and void without their approval, and by the way, Senators have longer terms and can stay in office indefinitely, whereas Obama is only in power until January, 2017.

Have you read the letter? It was a deliberate effort to tell Iran that (a) while we think Obama is being soft on you, it won't matter, because any agreement you make with him will not pass the House vote, and (b) he isn't going to be in office for long, but we will, so you should really think about what we want more than you currently are.

There is no possible way to look at this letter that doesn't make our government look incompetent and broken. I told Dan that I think the letter is a minor issue, and it is, because our government already looks incompetent and broken. But that is precisely because of stupid crap like this letter. Like him or not, Obama is the head of the Executive Branch. Half of the Legislative Branch just told a hostile foreign state that the guy they are negotiating with has no real power.

I agree with you. I think it would have been sufficient to just let the admin do their negotiations in silence, then weigh in. We see from Iran's reactions how (not-so) well the negotiations went. Would they have gone better without that stigma? I doubt it because I don't think much of John Kerry's diplomatic bona fides, but it's certainly possible.

I laugh when some of y'all on here describe the Republican party as 'evil'. When I think evil I think maliciously competent. If they're evil, they're the Mr. Bean of evil.

[Ghost]

I agree with you. I think it would have been sufficient to just let the admin do their negotiations in silence, then weigh in. We see from Iran's reactions how (not-so) well the negotiations went. Would they have gone better without that stigma? I doubt it because I don't think much of John Kerry's diplomatic bona fides, but it's certainly possible.

I laugh when some of y'all on here describe the Republican party as 'evil'. When I think evil I think maliciously competent. If they're evil, they're the Mr. Bean of evil.

And the Democrats are Barney the purple dinosaur of good.

Eff this, I'm moving to Westeros.

[OE32]

Y'all are talking about the parties as if they were teams playing a sport. Never mind policy...

I like to play a game that distinguishes people who think for themselves from people who don't. I ask people where they stand on fresh topics - once that the parties have not come down on either side of yet. Then, later, once the parties have come down on the issue, I ask the person again where they stand. If their opinion is unchanged, or where it appears their thoughts have been influenced by new information that person strikes me as an independent thinker. But when people change their positions apparently as a result of how the parties have shifted, oh man, the logical cartwheels, the exploding heads.

I've known where I've stood on Iran for a few years now, but the parties have hardly shifted (remember "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?"), so that's no test.

Fwiw, Nixon sabotaged talks with the North Vietnamese during the 1968 election (allegedly promised them a better deal if they prolonged the war). But no matter what Democrats say about Johnson, that war was an atrocious disaster, a tragic catastrophe. Nothing Nixon did can compare. Of course, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Kennedy are all dead, so... moving along?

[Dan H]

I agree with you. I think it would have been sufficient to just let the admin do their negotiations in silence, then weigh in. We see from Iran's reactions how (not-so) well the negotiations went. Would they have gone better without that stigma? I doubt it because I don't think much of John Kerry's diplomatic bona fides, but it's certainly possible.

I laugh when some of y'all on here describe the Republican party as 'evil'. When I think evil I think maliciously competent. If they're evil, they're the Mr. Bean of evil.

And the Democrats are Barney the purple dinosaur of good.

Eff this, I'm moving to Westeros.

I'd look for somewhere else, anyone relatively decent dies in horribly agonizing ways. Well, unless you're a complete dumbass like Jon Snow.

[Ghost]

He knows nothing.

Spoiler: show/hide

But still might die. But I don't think he did. How did spoilers spill over into politics?

[Ghost]

Y'all are talking about the parties as if they were teams playing a sport. Never mind policy...

The parties ARE teams playing a sport, trying to win at all costs, damage to the country be damned. Policy? Hahahahaha, that's funny.

[OE32]

Y'all are talking about the parties as if they were teams playing a sport. Never mind policy...

The parties ARE teams playing a sport, trying to win at all costs, damage to the country be damned. Policy? Hahahahaha, that's funny.

Maybe this is why you didn't think I was being reasonable before. I used to think as you apparently do before I went to law school. A course in administrative law forever changed my view - sorry if that's too pro hominem for you, but I don't know what else to do. Is there something I could do to convince you that there is a meaningful difference? Nihilism doesn't help.

[OE32]

Re Kennedy - so, he offered to help the Russians with propaganda. That might be comparable to what Boehner just did with Netanyahu - if it were just Boehner, but it was the whole house. Not anywhere close to the scale of what Nixon did with regard to Vietnam - leveraging the lives of thousands of Americans. And not really comparable to the Iran letter, signed by 47 members of the Senate. Kennedy was one senator, not the party's representation in the Senate or the House.

I highly suggest you take a position on that sort of activism - either pro or against - and then hold everyone to the same standard. Foreign policy is the President's territory, but I support fervent speech by people in congress with respect to that policy. I thought the letter crossed the line. We'll see how history judges it.

Why hold up one side as being representative of something terrible and evil without understanding that the other side has done the exact same thing?

What Kennedy did was apparently fine as he was never charged with anything, why shouldn't the GOP get the same consideration?

Because we don't defend Muslim extremism on the grounds that Christians slaughtered them in the Crusades.

Nodack and I had this discussion (well, a tangent discussion) a while ago. It's the same situation, though. The way to improve politics is not to defend current offenses because they were permitted in the past, but to denounce them on both sides when they happen. It's one thing to say, "Yes, what my guy did was wrong, but your guy did it before too, and they should both pay. How do we get better?" and another to say, "Well, your guy did it first, so I guess it's OK."

Negotiating with foreign powers without the authority to do so is against the Constitution. It's arguably treason, although it would never go that far. The fact that E-Kennedy did it does not, in any way, excuse current Republicans from doing it.

What Kennedy did was apparently fine as he was never charged with anything, why shouldn't the GOP get the same consideration?

How does "he was never charged" equate to "it was fine?"

Do we really think the best way to improve politics is to keep it at exactly the same low level it has always been at?

Very well put.

[Dan H]

He knows nothing.

Spoiler: show/hide

But still might die. But I don't think he did. How did spoilers spill over into politics?

I don't know, I haven't watched it yet myself. But I've read the first half of book five . . . so I don't know if I'm spoiled or not.