Nancy Pelosi: Democrat and ex-Speaker, 83, to seek re-election
The first female House Speaker will seek a 19th term, reigniting debate about the age of US leaders.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Manchin, Sinema, Boebert, McCain, Lieberman, and many others all serve to demonstrate that you shouldn't expect party members to vote together all of the time. Even if everyone in that list voted with their party >90% of the time.
It's not a "switcharoo", it's baked into a system in which representatives are ultimately chosen by constituents, not by party leaders. If anything, Congress was originally intended not to have longstanding parties or factions. It was originally intended for everyone to be like Manchin and Sinema. So like it or not, lack of party discipline is a feature not a bug.
Yet the republican party has no trouble keeping their dogs in line.
Are you kidding?
McCarthy is constantly trying to keep Gaetz, Boebert et al from forcing him out as Speaker. He wishes his caucus was as unified as the Democrats. As their leader, Pelosi watched Republicans turn against Hastert, then Boehner, then Ryan.
Reid kept his caucus of 60 together to pass the ACA, McConnell couldn't keep 50 together to repeal it.
Trump was constantly squabbling and calling out the Republican Congressional leadership. By comparison, Biden is best friends with the Democratic leadership.
The only thing the Congressional GOP is good at is obstruction, because that doesn't require any coordination. That's why they rely on the SCOTUS to actually advance their agenda.
Party squabbles mean little when ultimately they're getting their way. If anything, those squabbles push the republican party even more to the right and gets them even more of what they want. Passing the ACA was the best that the democrats could do with a super majority and even then it was a watered down bill.
But they aren't getting the legislation they want.
They failed to privatize Social Security, failed to repeal the ACA, failed to build a southern wall, etc.
In contrast, Democrats passed the ACA, passed Dodd-Frank, passed ARPA, passed the IRA, passed CHIP, etc.
Republicans only look successful because they had to drastically lower their bar for success. They don't want to pass laws any more, so it's easy to get what they want.
It's pretty obvious where the country is heading. You can pick and choose legislation, but the trajectory is clear. Also, things like ACA and Dodd-Frank were watered down trash. CHIPS was bipartisan because it was meant to stick it to China, but you're trying to rebrand it as a democratic victory.
Politics always involves compromise. ACA and Dodd-Frank were improvements on the status quo, which is usually the best you can hope for. They do not need to be perfect to be good.
CHIPS was a typo. I meant to cite CHIP, which provides health care to children, not CHIPS.
Democrats compromise far more than republicans. ACA and Dodd-Frank are bandaids. You still see many suffer under the healthcare system in this country, meanwhile insurance companies post record profits. As for Dodd-Frank... you'll see another "once-in-a-lifetime" economic meltdown soon, which will show how effective that legislation was.
Politics is the art of the possible. It is impossible for legislation to solve every problem. The ACA and Dodd-Frank didn't solve every problem, but they did solve some. We are better off with them than without them. Even if they don't stop the next catastrophe.
Democrats do compromise more than Republicans, which is exactly why they get more legislation passed than Republicans.
Getting more legislation passed doesn't matter when that legislation does far less than the fewer pieces of legislation that the republicans can pass. Just look at the state of the country and tell me which party is winning.
Name two pieces of GOP legislation passed by Congress in the past 20 years that did more than the ACA and the IRA.