• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McCain: Don't expect GOP cooperation on legislation for the rest of this year

I assume you will have no problem after November when the Republicans use every legislative loophole to defund this POS... Right?

BTW….. Reconciliation will actually apply to de-funding this, imagine that! :lamo

As long as we can raise the same stink they did. :mrgreen:

I think you're being to optimistic. Firstly, there's very little chance they'll get an entire majority in one election. Secondly, the historical analogy is telling. In his first term, FDR passed Social Security. In 1936, Alf Landon ran against FDR on a platform of reforming Social Security. Surely you remember Landon's sweeping victory, winning all but two states, and his repeal of SS, right? Oh, wait a minute...
 
I feel certain that most voters in Arizona want their representatives in Congress to, y'know, represent them. Yet, Mr. McCain's stated plan of action is full and complete non-cooperation, fully divorcing himself from the job the taxpayers pay him to do. Wonder how that will fly with his constituents?


snip...


I am reminded when John McCain decided to quit his campaign to run to Washington and fix the economy, because "the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong." :doh Quitting seems to be a theme with Mr. McCain and his Republican colleagues.


Jesus. Can you imagine this whiny, temper-tantrum-throwing, do-nothing pinhead as POTUS? :shock:

I think he is only telling the voters what they want to hear for votes, nothing more. Considering his Rino track record that claim of no GOP cooperation is nothing more than a lie and it will be business as usually if he is reelected again.



And what about the rules of Congress? Shouldn't a member of Congress who outright refuses to engage in the business of Congress be kicked to the curb?

So all those democrats who did not cooperate with Bush should have been kicked out? I am sure that when a lib votes for a anti-war,anti-capitalist liberal democrat then I sure that lib expects the person he voted for to support the things he supports and to vote against the things he does not support. I know I did not vote for my elected officials to work with Obama on things I do not support. IF a issue of keeping jobs here in the US comes up, more transparency comes up, or something to reduce outsourcing comes up then I expect my elected officials to vote for those things assuming the bills are not infested with pork and other unrelated issues.
 
I feel certain that most voters in Arizona want their representatives in Congress to, y'know, represent them. Yet, Mr. McCain's stated plan of action is full and complete non-cooperation, fully divorcing himself from the job the taxpayers pay him to do. Wonder how that will fly with his constituents?

And what about the rules of Congress? Shouldn't a member of Congress who outright refuses to engage in the business of Congress be kicked to the curb?

I am reminded when John McCain decided to quit his campaign to run to Washington and fix the economy, because "the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong." :doh Quitting seems to be a theme with Mr. McCain and his Republican colleagues.

Jesus. Can you imagine this whiny, temper-tantrum-throwing, do-nothing pinhead as POTUS? :shock:

John McCain can suck a fatty. He is nothing but a far right busimess puppet.
 
John McCain can suck a fatty. He is nothing but a far right busimess puppet.

He's a politician trying to find a way to inspire his base. Little more. That said, he has fallen a long way the last few years, . . . .sadly. :(
 
He's a politician trying to find a way to inspire his base. Little more. That said, he has fallen a long way the last few years, . . . .sadly. :(

Yeah... there is much truth in this statement.

I believe it's time for him to retire from politics.
 
As long as we can raise the same stink they did. :mrgreen:

I think you're being to optimistic. Firstly, there's very little chance they'll get an entire majority in one election. Secondly, the historical analogy is telling. In his first term, FDR passed Social Security. In 1936, Alf Landon ran against FDR on a platform of reforming Social Security. Surely you remember Landon's sweeping victory, winning all but two states, and his repeal of SS, right? Oh, wait a minute...

There is no historical analogy for a bill this big and unpopular being passed on a slim partisan vote.

Clearly, Social Security was popular. The health care bill is not.
Social Security was passed by a huge, bipartisan majority. This bill was not.
It's hard to find a historical analogy when none exists. The closest I've seen someone get was using the Kansas-Nebraska Act, back in 1854. But even that had some Whig votes.
 
John McCain can suck a fatty. He is nothing but a far right busimess puppet.

Pretty much the business puppet part. Remember the Internet Censorship Freedom Act? The man was a self-professed computer illiterate, why is he sponsoring such legislation? It just so happened big telcoms were some of his larger contributors.
 
IMO, adoption of a scorched-earth, zero cooperation approach when policy makers don't always get what they desire at the end of a debate is a strategic error. It demonstrates that policy makers are willing to sacrifice the public good, even in areas where there are shared interests and common ground among the two major Parties, so as to settle political scores.

When it comes to a wide range of issues such as financial system reform, Republicans can make a contribution in terms of helping shape the package. To cede the playing field is to refrain from offering leadership.

In the longer-run, the politics of retribution is not a wise political strategy and it can prove damaging for the public wellbeing. Furthermore, if political retaliation in the form of near-total obstructionism supplants the pursuit of consensus as the norm, one can expect the majority party to develop and increasingly pursue mechanisms aimed at breaking the deadlock. Under the Constitution, Congress can set its own rules to govern its proceedings and various "nuclear options" could well be devised in future sessions of Congress.

As had been the case during the Republican majority Senate, I believe the pursuit of a "nuclear option" would be damaging to the Senate's well-devised procedures and shatter the kind of balance the Founders envisioned in drafting the Constitution.

Under a regular resort to "nuclear options," the minority party would effectively lose its voice and influence. The majority party would have little incentive to consider the views of the minority party. The diversity of thought would diminish in the policy realm. The resulting hollowed policy process would be detrimental to the welfare of the people as a whole.

Fortunately, at this point, it appears that Republicans are working with Democrats on the emerging financial reform legislation. Hopefully, that cooperation and the passage of time will allow passions to cool and something closer to bipartisanship to re-emerge in the Senate.
 
Pretty much the business puppet part. Remember the Internet Censorship Freedom Act? The man was a self-professed computer illiterate, why is he sponsoring such legislation? It just so happened big telcoms were some of his larger contributors.

Why am I not surprised?

The McCain needs to be thrown out of politics and his sponsers need to fined for attempting to purchase legislation.
 
Back
Top Bottom