The comment I intended to make on this post is that in recent history Republicans have always been better than Democrats at making their members toe the party line.

Democrats, on the other hand, tend to vote secondarily with their personal beliefs, primarily with their campaign contributors. while the former is certainly possible, the latter is much, much, much more likely.

I knew there was a reason I like you!! :D

In other words, Republicans are the "Do As I Say, Not As I Do... OR ELSE!!!" political party, whereas the Democratic Party is the political party that can be bought..

Which is why I find it easy to cast disdain upon BOTH parties... :D

Michale.....

The comment I intended to make on this post is that in recent history Republicans have always been better than Democrats at making their members toe the party line. So in this vote, who knows what any of them actually believe; they'd vote against anything obama regardless.

Democrats, on the other hand, tend to vote secondarily with their personal beliefs, primarily with their campaign contributors. while the former is certainly possible, the latter is much, much, much more likely.

What makes Fox different is that it is very conservatively biased as an institution, while the main bias within News institutions is the bottom line. Except in opinion shows for whom Liberals are the target market, the need of News institutions to appear objective generally overrides the political beliefs of individual reporters. Tadlow Windsor put it more succinctly:

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/pew-report-on-bias-among-journalists-2004-05-25.html

No one here is castigating Republicans. I have no idea where you're getting that.

We've been down the health care road before so not going to rehash that. But it's good to know we both feel reform is needed. We just disagree on the public option. I recognize your opinion and respect it and so no one is saying your decision is based purely on politics. We just disagree. That's all.

Cheers mate! Hope the launch happens soon for 'ya!
David

One cannot assume that a congress critter is being obstructionist simply for sake of an ulterior agenda.

One MUST acknowledge the possibility that there might be real and valid reasons, beyond partisan politics, to oppose DunselCare.

Let's face it. It is universally agreed that this healthcare reform is anything BUT reform.

This being the case, why is it so hard to contemplate that there might be logical and valid reasons to oppose it??

Michale.....

I agree..

I simply point out that, Democrat or Republican, they feel it is their DUTY to be obstructionist.

In other words, you can't castigate Republicans for doing the same things that Democrats do.. :D

Michale.....

"By resorting to filibustering judicial nominees who have the support of a majority of Senators, which began in 2003 by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they are throwing overboard 214 years of Senate courtesy and tradition...The Constitution of the United States does not contain a word about filibusters. The Federalist Papers do not contain the word 'filibuster.' Rather, the Constitution lays out the standards for confirming judges. It does not require a 60-vote majority for confirmation. It requires a majority vote to confirm members of the Federal judiciary."
[Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

"The United States Senate faces an unprecedented crisis brought on by the minority party. Judges who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the federal bench have been held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote. [...] I support a change in the rules of the Senate to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote." [Bunning.Senate.gov, "The Duty To Vote Up-Or-Down," 5/29/05]

And more at ... http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200905010001

So maybe Democrats should say something like "Our democracy is based on majority rule. Last time I checked 51 is a majority. What Republicans want is minority rule."

Then send bill after bill through and make them filibuster. Call their bluff!

I do believe that the GOP said the same things when it was Democrats who were being obstructionists.

Once again, it shows you can't tell Democrat from Republican without a score card... :D

Michale.....

1) Because Republicans defined it this way
2) Because Democrats are too afraid to call them on it

Why not call them on it and say things like, "we want a simple up or down vote"?

Or send some legislation through that would make a filibuster look really bad?

If they're going to be nothing but obstructionists, call them on it.

Where's Rahm Emanuel ... I'm calling him right now!

I would ask EVERYONE to consider the very real possibility that there will be SOME who will vote against DunselCare because they honestly and truly believe that it is bad for our country and bad for Americans.

Ya'all MUST allow for the possibility that our elected representatives who are going to vote against DunselCare do so based on the dictates of their conscience and their patriotism and not out of any sense of personal agendas.

In other words, if ya'all are fair and objective, you MUST consider that someone CAN disagree with you and be as fervent and as passionate about it as ya'all are...

If not, then I would respectfully submit that maybe it is THAT attitude that is part of the problem and NOT part of the solution.

There should be no positive benefit for a senator who refuses to vote for real health care reform

Let me know if you ever see "real health care reform"... Because what is being bandied about by the House and Senate is anything but...

And THAT is a bona fide fact...

Michale.....

The media also needs to do its job and ask the tough questions when a senator says they can't or won't vote for a bill which includes a public option.

There should be no positive benefit for a senator who refuses to vote for real health care reform - they should not be anyone's "darling" instead there should be real consequences such as loosing their senority and committee memberships.

Stan...