Who ya gonna vote for?

[cariad]

Americans voted for Obama because he preached consensus, and that's what the electorate wanted.  And that's what he tried to do, which must have been difficult when the likes of Mitch McConnell (sp?  Don't care enough to look it up.) says that his mission is to make Mr. Obama a one-term President.  Our Constitution was written to make compromise the overriding mandate, yet when Obama tried to achieve that, he was viewed as "lying down" for the Republicans.  So on the one hand, Americans say they want both parties to work together, but on the other hand, they vote in people like Joe Walsh who see "compromise" as a dirty word.

I don't know that consensus is truly what was behind Obama's victory - I think it was much more that he energized young voters, people hated the train wreck that was the Bush administration, and he was a smart, eloquent candidate - perhaps opposite to Bush in every important way. When the Republicans repeatedly make it clear to Obama that they have no interest in compromise, and when they call him un-American while doing everything in their power to degrade the office of the President, and state in the midst of the worst financial crisis of our generation that all they really care about is to get him out of office, he needed to show that Democrats are perfectly capable of standing up to this nonsense. He did this, and it was brilliant, but it was not consistent enough for me. I did not "view" it as lying down, he was lying down far too often. Then, just as I was about to give up, he would appear to smack down a republican or two. In January 2009 I was really ill, my husband had an incredibly unstable job situation and we had just been forced to move cross country again. All I wanted to know was how he was going to start fixing the mess and every time a republican appeared with their cutesy cutesy chants that would be endlessly parroted by the entire party, I just wanted Obama to drive home to them that he was in charge now and that he was a champion of people like us (to borrow the key word from his final campaign speech).

[cariad]

Women can walk into the local Walmart and get inexpensive over the counter contraceptives as well as a month's supply of birth control pills for $9 or less.

Women don't take birth control just because they want to have sex. Many women have to take birth control pills for health reasons.

Yet, overall, Republicans do not believe that it is government's responsibility to pay for birth control pills--

Which was never the issue. The issue was whether or not private insurance companies would provide coverage for birth control paid for by the woman's insurance premiums, not by tax payers or government. The Republican Outrage Industry simply made up the story about Sandra Fluke wanting tax payers to subsidize her partying.

Hmmm, as a primary care doctor, I prescribed thousands of OCP's (Birth control pills) and the overwhelming majority were for birth control issues only. Only a handful were for health related reasons in those 20 years of practice. Sorry, what is the basis for your claim? The number of health related issues where the OCP's are medicinal is only a small percentage from my nearly 20 years as a primary care doctor. Sorry to disagree, but that was not my experience at all.

The basis of his claim would be that whatever the reason a woman chooses to use birth control, tax payers would not be paying for it. So what is the basis for the republican outrage? That they don't get to take control of women's reproduction? Having a baby is a major health decision - a person had better be ready for it physically and emotionally because it is a ride that has plenty of surprises in store, medical and otherwise. 

[MooseMom]

I agree with you, cariad, but Obama DID campaign on the promise that he would work to bring the two sides together, and that's what people wanted to hear along with how he was going to be different than Bush.  I think the President did try to do as he promised, but as in most things, it does take two.  John Boehner couldn't control his caucus, so whenever anyone complains about the President's supposed lack of leadership, I have to wonder why Boehner doesn't receive the same criticism.  It was after the midterms that Congressional action really stalled, and since the President is neither king nor dictator, there was only so much concensus he could create.

Even now, people are saying they want the same thing as they did 4 years ago...concensus, reaching across the aisle, working together, etc.   But we are, in the same breath, being described as more divided as ever.  Color me confused!

[cariad]

Even now, people are saying they want the same thing as they did 4 years ago...concensus, reaching across the aisle, working together, etc.   But we are, in the same breath, being described as more divided as ever.  Color me confused!

I'm with you there. And I do remember him campaigning on working with Republicans but I had absolutely no idea how doggedly he would stick to that promise, even when it was obvious that it was getting him and the country nowhere. I think I and many others expected too much of him too soon (which is remarkable considering how much he accomplished in such a short time span).

Bill Maher did a whole riff in which he said that people only care about political compromise in theory. I think he may have been on to something there.

I hope Obama wins because I do think it will be the best hope for the country, my country, our country, but if Romney wins, well, I feel a bit guilty that I'm safely over here and people I care about will have to face that future and I won't.

Anyhow, as Rerun said, may the best man win.

[MooseMom]

Bill Maher is probably right, but I am hoping that the truth is that the more moderate portion of the electorate is just quieter.

PBS's Frontline produced a documentary called "The Choice" in which the formative years of Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama were examined.  Before it was aired, one of the makers of the film was interviewed on, I think, CNN.  He was asked to describe, in one word, both men.  I can't remember which word he used for Romney, but regarding Obama, he described him as "disappointed."  I thought that was very telling.  I suspect he really did believe he could unite the country and was disappointed that he could not.  The country WANTS to be united.  The midterms showed that perhaps we do not.  We seem to like our partisan politics, so maybe Bill Maher is spot on after all.

[KarenInWA]

Since pregnancy can cause many health issues and is a condition that requires dr care, and a trip to the hospital, I see birth control  that is used primarily as contraception as a health issue. How could it not be? Take us women who are of child-bearing age who have either CKD or ESRD. Pregnancy is a very big issue for us, and is NOT to be taken lightly. So, does that mean if a woman like me is lucky enough to have a loving relationship, she should have to pay for her contraception *despite* having a comprehensive private health insurance plan because suddenly, some men in congress think her lady parts are political and their business? Seriously???

I was on the pill while on dialysis due to anemia. Dialysis did not make my periods go away, and heparin used during my HD treatments made them heavier. My PCP put me on the pill continuously so that I would have fewer periods and not have to use as much EPO. So, in that case, which is cheaper? Birth control pills or more EPO? Thankfully, I do not work for a Catholic owned business. What a load of crap.

KarenInWA

[noahvale]

*

[noahvale]

*

[Sydnee]

for tracking how the election results come in. plus in interested you can go back to 1964 on each pres. election. fun to play with at least.


http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/map/predict.html#states=000000000000000000

[noahvale]

*

[noahvale]

*
 

[YLGuy]

 If you think that the horrible atrocities you wrote about somehow negates what is happening in America you are delusional. 

[jbeany]

noah, I don't think we're heading that far, but the comments and plans the Republicans are pouring forth are NOT headed in the right direction for women.  I always thought the point was - "Lead by example."  If we want the atrocities to stop and women to be given equality - or at least we say we do - then how can we be demanding it of them when woman are truly equal here?  We're supposed to be the world's leading nation.  We need to act in a way that decent people want to follow - and going backwards on woman's rights isn't the right way.

[YLGuy]

4 MORE YEARS!

[jbeany]

 

[cariad]

Thanks for your candid responses to the questions posed for pro-choice candidates to answer.  And, SIGH...NO...they have not answered all of them over and over.  Give examples where Obama/Biden have done so.  BTW, your answers show just how out of touch you are with the mainstream on abortion issues.   You make a good surrogate for the far left.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148631/common-state-abortion-restrictions-spark-mixed-reviews.aspx

Obama's avoidiung to answer the question in the video was political speak for support.  Too bad he doesn't have the candor you so easily display.

Democratic candidates have answered these questions frequently - the phrase 'over and over' is new to this discussion and up for interpretation AND silly. A politician has only to answer something once and it's on record forever and ever. I could not care less about whether or not I am out of touch with anything or anyone but my own conscience and the sensibilities of those who matter to me, but it would seem to me that the nation has spoken and I am far more in touch with the majority of Americans than you are.

Alveda King's message is on target.  Slandering her and saying she is a tool of the republicans is just another lefty tactic at avoiding the issue.  Always attacking the messenger.  However,  it does give me credence to dismiss you and others with such extremist lefty views as nut cases as well.

Alveda King is spouting utter claptrap. White supremacists would like nothing more than to see women of all races lose control of their own bodies by being denied contraception and abortion and being forced to live by someone else's religious doctrine (in a country that used to pride itself on both freedom of religion and separation of church and state). White supremacists are also known to be hideous sexists and would love to see control of reproduction handed back to white men. I love how you both commend my candor and say I am avoiding the issue. Which is it exactly?

Ah, and attacking the messenger? You mean like referring to them as nut cases? What a relief that you're so above this behaviour!

[cariad]

I was so excited about the elections that I woke up at 3AM to check the polls on Daily Kos. Then I could not get back to sleep, only drifted off for a bit, awoke at 4:30 to see that the race had been called for Obama.

Gwyn and I both voted for Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin because of her record in the House and commitment to issues that matter to us. It was only this morning that we discovered that she will be the first openly gay US Senator in history.
*extremist lefty nut case fail*

[Simon Dog]

Bill Maher did a whole riff in which he said that people only care about political compromise in theory. I think he may have been on to something there.

The only people who care about political compromise are those on the losing side (no matter which party that happens to be).  The mantra of the winner is always "the people have spoken" or "elections have consequences".

[Bill Peckham]

I love the smell of Schadenfreude in the morning. So delicious.

[cariad]

I love the smell of Schadenfreude in the morning. So delicious.

Isn't it?

Drink it in my extremist lefty nut case comrade!

[Bill Peckham]

I love the smell of Schadenfreude in the morning. So delicious.

Isn't it?

Drink it in my extremist lefty nut case comrade!

I happened to be watching FOX last night when they called Ohio (watching was like eating potato chips, each minute led to another) and got to see Rove go through the five stages of grief live on air. If you haven't seen it you really ought to
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/rove-goes-rogue.html
watching it, it felt like there were a thousand fingers tickling me from the inside. Has a billion dollars ever been spent with less effect?


In the end math won.

[MooseMom]

The only people who care about political compromise are those on the losing side (no matter which party that happens to be). 

That's not true.  The Constitution was written based on the concept of political compromise.  That's why there is a Senate, a House of Representatives and an Executive.

[Willis]

The Constitution was written based on the concept of political compromise.  That's why there is a Senate, a House of Representatives and an Executive.

That was called the "Connecticut Compromise"! I'll take the liberty to provide a truncated history lesson and I hope you will find it worth a few minutes of your time.

From the very beginning the assembled delegates in Philadelphia had been tasked with fixing or replacing the Articles of Confederation. Two major plans were put forth: the Virginia Plan by James Madison which favored the big states and the New Jersey Plan favoring the smaller states as proposed by the unheralded William Paterson. In a nutshell, the Virginia Plan called for--among other things--scrapping the Articles of Confederation entirely and proposed a bicameral legislature based solely on proportional representation. The New Jersey Plan on the other hand called for a unicameral legislature with one member per state and otherwise keeping the Articles of Confederation with various amendments.

The convention was hopelessly split between these plans-- though Madison's Virginia Plan was slightly favored. Faced with the virtual certainty that his plan was going to be voted down, William Paterson withdrew the New Jersey Plan and resubmitted a new plan that was nothing more than amendments to the Articles of Confederation. This raised a ruckus because by this point the convention had dragged on and on behind closed doors and windows for six weeks and the hot weather had made everyone a bit snippy. The consensus of almost all was to scrap the old Articles and come up with something new and few wanted to start all over again. Paterson's amendments as well as his New Jersey Plan were formally rejected as well as all other attempts to merely amend the Articles of Confederation.

But Madison's Virginia Plan still couldn't get majority support. Thus, the convention was at a total deadlock and ready to fall apart. So as a last ditch effort to save the convention and get something done, a committee consisting of one member from each state was formed. Led by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, this committee came up with the "Connecticut Compromise" which was really not much more than a revision of the Virginia Plan but became the foundation for the final draft of the Constitution. After several more weeks of finagling over the details, North Carolina finally switched sides and adopted the new compromise plan and Massachusetts abstained--so thus the resolution was passed.

With the tentative approval of the delegates in hand, Benjamin Franklin and the "Committee of Detail" (formally chaired by John Rutledge of South Carolina) took the recommendations of Sherman's Committee and other proposals that had already been passed to create the first draft of the Constitution. Even so, the work wasn't done as many arguments ensued over many fine details. The part of the New Jersey Plan that had survived, for example, was the representation by each state by one delegate to the upper house (the Senate). This was changed to include two delegates from each state and also to allow the new Senators to vote independently. (The original compromise plan required each Senator to cast votes only as directed by the Senator's State Legislature as had been done under the Articles of Confederation.) Many, many other details were haggled out and it was more than a month later before a final draft was considered ready and agreed upon.

Ultimately, a Committee of Style and Arrangement led by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania (who among other things is credited with writing the Preamble) was assigned to assemble the final document and submit it for printing. To the later dismay of many delegates, this committee had slipped in some provisions never even addressed by the general delegates and made other changes without permission. But with the document now in printed form, most of the delegates accepted the new Constitution. However, even so, thirteen delegates left before the signing ceremony and three others with objections stayed but as a show of protest refused to sign. The most famous of these three is George Mason of Virginia who had insisted on a Bill of Individual Rights.

Signed by 39 of the original 55 delegates, the new Constitution was submitted to the States for ratification, with the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be drafted as amendments later. Many of the ratifying States included resolutions in their ratification documents that such ratifications were subject to the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. Virginia especially almost failed to ratify due to George Mason's insistence on a Bill of Rights.

On September 13, 1788 eleven of the thirteen states had ratified the new Constitution. North Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify it until after the first elections and the formation of the first government. Those two states were not represented in the new Congress until more than one year later (NC) and two years later (RI) when they finally relented and submitted their ratifications. (It should be noted that Rhode Island had not even participated in the Constitutional Convention.)

So to make a final point: the "Connecticut Compromise" wasn't really much of a "compromise" since delegates from the big states managed to take the "compromise" (via the Committee of Detail and the Committee of Style and Arrangement) and tweak it to the point that with minor exceptions it didn't look too much different than Madison's original Virginia Plan. After all was said and done it came down to Virginia and New York. Once those two states ratified the final version it was considered a fait accompli and the dominoes fell.

Compromise can be done, but it's a pretty messy business depending on the political strengths of the various parties involved.

 

[lmunchkin]

Congradulations to the Obama camp.  It was a pretty close race & I hope we can all come together for the good of the people in this country.  Yes Republicans need to reach out, and the Dems too.  Lets get some things done and make the USA something to be proud of!  We have problems in this country for years now and hopefully President Osama can get it headed in the Right direction.

Again congratulations to The Dems, they won fair & square.  Im over it and life goes on! I hope & Pray every one else will get on with the business of getting this country back on its feet.

God Bless you all & God Bless America,
lmunchkin

[cariad]

Bill Maher did a whole riff in which he said that people only care about political compromise in theory. I think he may have been on to something there.

The only people who care about political compromise are those on the losing side (no matter which party that happens to be).  The mantra of the winner is always "the people have spoken" or "elections have consequences".

I don't necessarily agree with this statement, but I don't think the history of the Constitution has anything to do with whether or not this is true. I read this as an observation on human nature, although it turned out to not be what we saw after the 2008 election. For the past four years the losing party members were the ones to say they had no interest in compromise, and their behaviour more than backed up that claim. The worst of them were so embarrassingly proud of their refusal to work with the President. I wonder how proud they felt on November 7.