But there is still hope. State Representatives Bob Freeman and Joe Brennan last week stated that their approach is actually bipartisan.
Bob Freeman: "I don't care if it's a Republican proposal or a Democratic proposal. If it's a good piece of legislation, I want us to get that passed. ... I think we have to cut through some of the partisanship."
Joe Brennan: "Our Governor is obviously a Democrat, Ed Rendell. Our Senate is predominately Republican, it's 30 Republicans and 20 Democrats. In the House, we have 104 Democrats and 99 Republicans. So I can personally say that I've probably sponsored as many Republican bills that are introduced as I have Democrats. I generally don't look at the party of the person introducing it; I look at the idea."
28 comments:
Bernie -
I know neither candidate as I am not in their districts. However if "bipartisanship" at the state level works like it does at the federal level, I'll pass. Let me explain.
During the Bush year, "bipartisanship" was the mantra of many Republicans. They were willing to go along with many of the big-spending programs that the Democrats wanted, and the President was willing to sign on, all in the name of "bipartisanship". That didn't work out so well for the country, and only got worse once the Democrats took control of Congress.
On the flip side, the Democrats seldom seemed interested in crossing the aisle and working with Republicans. Sure, they talked about the importance of "bipartisanship", but it was very apparent that their definintion of "bipartisanship" was Republicans voting for Democrat proposals.
Now that the democrats have complete control, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid won't even allow the possibility of Republican AMENDMENTS to many bills that come up.
I think a lot of people want "bipartisanship" because they don't like conflict and just want our representatives to get along. All-in-all, I'd prefer both sides strongly advocate their positions.
If that means less "gets done" in Congress, that's fine. I think that our "partisan" representative will ultimately agreee to pass those (few) measures that are truly important and in the best interests of the country.
Bipartisanship is best illustrated at the local level where D's/R's find real solutions to community problems. Bipartisanship fades away as cameras show up in state and federal elections and we have to boil the solutions down to mindless 3 second sound bytes. Now we get statements of absolutes such as "freedom is good" or "wall street is greedy." No substance, just finger pointing at Nancy Pelosi or Tom Delay. Partisans don't realize that their interest in winning is destroying our democracy. It is pathetic.
Wow. Bob looks weathered. His appearance did little to calm fears he passed away some time ago and is continuing to seek office posthumously. The district deserves live representation in these troubling times.
There isn't any evidence that open primaries reduce partisanship.
Also, it's not true that Pat Toomey and Joe Sestak are equally extreme candidates. Sestak is on the right of the Democratic Party, and his PVI number is much closer to the center. Pat Toomey is on the far right of his party and would be the second most conservative Senator. It's lazy to say they're equally extreme. People measure this stuff, and you can go and check.
As to the cause of partisanship, it's important to recognize how far the Republican Party has moved to the right. The increase in partisanship is almost wholly attributable to the class of "Gingrich Senators" who brought the hardball tactics from the House with them to the Senate in the 90s.
If there were true partisanship, things would get done.
Is anything getting done?
Where is the real estate tax relief that the gambling profits was supposed to bring PA residents?
This was one of the few bi-partisanship pieces of legislature as everyone had their hands (both of them) in the cookie jar!
Typical politicians (rhetoric) letting the bullshit flow out of their horses ass mouths...
Two of the most invisible, impotent members of the legislature.
What better case could be made FOR partisanship and defined philosophy?
Jon Geeting said:
"Sestak is on the right of the Democratic Party"
*********************************
Geeting -
You said it all without realizing what you were saying.
If Sestak is on the right of the Democrat Party, it is only because the Democrat Party has moved so far to the left - not because Sestak is some kind of moderate.
Now I realize that the White House is full of admirers of Marx and Mao, but that is not who the American people admire.
Let's also remember that Joe Sestak is unhappy with much of the legislation passed over the last two years because it doesn't go far enough. That doesn't put him on the right of the Democrat Party, it puts him in with the rest of the radicals.
"Two of the most invisible, impotent members of the legislature."
Translation: They're Democrats.
"Is anything getting done?"
Actually, no. I view the LV delegation to the state house as something of an anomaly. The budget impasse two years ago makes very clear that partisanship is alve and well, but it is nice to see some exceptions to te general rule.
During that impasse two years ago, Craig Dally (now a judge) proposed that the House meet as a committee of the whole and stay there until they get it done. This would have taken away the leaders' role. Joe Brennan signed on to theis Republican's proposal. So there is biartisanship among some members.
Jonathan,
As for my suggestion that open primaries would reduce the partisanship, you site the Monkey Cage as a source? While they are not going to end bipartisanship, they will prevent what happened in the most recent U.S. senate primary here in Pa. Sestak defeated Specter by painting himself as a darling of the left wing, like you. Specter was treated as a DINO. Had independents been allowed to vote, the race right now would be between Specter and Toomey. Clearly, allowing independents to vote will give candidates the freedom to be more honest about themselves.
No question Toomey is an extremist who comes off as very reasonable and logical. Sestak may or may not be as far left as he pretended to be during the primary. But if he is not an extremist, and I tend to agree with you, then he is a liar.
So thanks to partisanship and closed primaries, we have a lousy choice for the U.S. Senate. Sestak's views might be closer to my own, but I question his hnesty. Toomey is a man of integrity, but his far right views tend to scare me.
Bernie O'Hare said:
"Had independents been allowed to vote (in primaries), the race right now would be between Specter and Toomey. Clearly, allowing independents to vote will give candidates the freedom to be more honest about themselves"
*********************************
Bernie -
I'm no fan of Sestak or either party establishment, but I don't think independents should be allowed to vote in either party's primary election.
If independents want to vote in the primary elections, they can join one of the parties and vote accordingly or form a third party.
It is simply unfair to those involved in the political process (through the partys) who believe in a governing philosophy to do otherwise. It wouldn't be right to allow independents - who don't believe enough in the platforms of either party - to decide who the nominee of a party should be.
I am not trying to marginalize independents and would gladly welcome them into my party to help improve it. But unless they're willing to get involved and help with the work, they shouldn't be rewarded with a vote. It's not like anyone is keeping them from joining.
I liken it to living in Pennsylvania and wanting to vote for a candidate in New Jersey. I might have an interest in the race, but I shouldn't have a vote.
All, I know Pat Toomey and he is a little too far "right" for me but I never throw the baby out with the bath water over an issue or two! I wish to point out and don't know "why" Toomey campaign doesn't that he promised only 3 terms when in Congress and kept the promise unlike many other electeds. Hence, his integrity is in tact with me and should be so with others is my opinion. I'll be voting for Pat. This Geeting guy is way too far left for me but will wake up some day same as I did years ago. Anybody care?
Here's why I don't support letting Registered Independents vote in the Primary of whichever party they're in the mood to vote for: JOHN MCCAIN.
Until he hit a bunch of states with "open primaries" his campaign was in the dumpster, because Republicans didn't support him.
It was Democrat crossover and independent votes in the REPUBLICAN primaries in those states which saddled the Republican party with such a poor candidate.
McHenry is so right about the Republicans going along with the big-spending programs the DEMS (who have controlled Congress since 2006) wanted during the Bush years and the fact that it did not work out so well for the USA, did it?
How has Obama's outrageous and obnoxious spending been working out for YOU?
Cash in your Clunker?
Meanwhile, over at the Lehigh Valley's "Independent" blog, a comment from a typical Progressive Liberal Democrat :
"Fuck You To White Power"
The Left loves to whine and moan about Bipartisanship...
...yeah, that's one way to reach out.
Don't see too many Lefties condemning the remarks of an obvious RACIST, either.
Interesting, to say the least.
Sad how many looney fringe people hang out on these blogs. You people keep typing the same things over and over that you don't even realize that the average person laughs when they hear what you are saying. The first person immediately starting pointing fingures. The most recent person starts talking about incoherent stuff.
Personally, I'll be voting for Corbett, Callahan, Sestak and Browne in their respective elections. Why? B/c I value Corbett's efforts in Harrisburg to date (though I think he's fooling nobody on his tax pledges), Callahan's management of Bethlehem over the past 6 years, Sestak's service and Browne's temperment (I would have voted for Freeman and Brennan if I lived in their districts). That doesn't mean that I think Onorato is a crook, Dent/Toomey are wall street lackys or that Orloski is a wacko. It means that I have looked at the candidates and think they are the best for the job. Sure I identify with one particular party, but there are more voters like me than there are voters like the extremists who pop on here and dominate the conversation.
so keep destroying democracy extremists. soon enough, you'll play yourselves out of power.
Anon said:
"so keep destroying democracy extremists. soon enough, you'll play yourselves out of power."
***********************************
Wow, how open-minded of you.
I can respect your right to look "at the candidates and think they are the best for the job", and voice your opinion accordingly - even though I might strongly disagree with your choice and your opinion.
Perhaps you should try doing the same for others, even those you want to label "extremists".
Somehow, you think it's ok to label those with strong political opinions "extremists". Not very tolerant of you, is it?
Doesn't everyone - including those you consider to be extremists - deserve the right to look at the candidates and decide who they think they are the best for the job, just as you claim to have done?
First, I didn't claim to be tolerant, so you can keep that point. I didn't want it.
"Doesn't everyone - including those you consider to be extremists - deserve the right to look at the candidates and decide who they think they are the best for the job, just as you claim to have done?"
Sure. Look away. But while you are looking, how about doing democracy a favor and not destroying it for those of us who are responsible voters and don't want fringe elements controlling power for their own benefit. That means:
-Spare us the obsurd ads that call Dent an enemy to soldiers and Callahan a horrible mayor
-Air only air political ads that tell us what you will do... and I want specifics (what will you cut, what will the tax rate be)
-Tell me your plans for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and military spending
-Drop language that includes "socialists, right wing extremists, conservatives, liberals, progressives"
The way the extremists talk about politics, run campaigns and launch ad wars does nothing to actually help people make informed decisions. You want to make informed decisions: go to forums like the one Bernie went to and post the videos so people can judge for themselves. that's how democracy should work.
Actually, the "right wing extremists" in the GOP are writing in Sam Rohrer and Peg Luksik. Toomey is far from the most conservative member of the GOP.
Freeman's voting record is one of a very, very partisan Democrat. He's completely full of shit when he talks about bipartisanship. Freeman's been called many things, but leader has never been one of them.
I hear him yakking. But I watch how he votes. He's one of the most disingenuous politicians in Harrisburg. A career taker who's only accomplishment is staying in office in a district that would vote for any idiot with a D next to the name.
I will agree that there is a hyper-partisanship at the national level (without being terribly different in their actual governance). I personally think the 24/7 news has contributed to this. I also think the two major parties who control state legislatures have the system largely rigged (if that's not too strong a term) to reinforce the two party system, and make it difficult for third party candidates to even get on the ballot.
That all said, however, I do believe in closed primaries. I agree with McHenry's 11:35 comment that primaries chose who will represent the party in the General and Municipal elections. Why should someone who is not a party member (which is as easy as simply checking a box on a registration form) get to vote on who will represent the party?
Bob Freeman was on the State Government Committee in July 2007 which amended Senate Bill 648 to allow the transfer of about 30 acres of Allentown State Hospital Land to the Allentown Commercial and Industrial Development Authority ... However, he did not make the motion to the amend the bill ... That was done by Youngblood of Philadelphia and Kula of Fayette County ... Rendell's hands is all over this with Pawloski being the bowl carrier ...
Anon 259. Corbett would be a disaster for PA. His artful commercials regarding taxation are at best misleading. He uses qoutations that are specific to Marcellus shale and folks are lead to believe it is taxation in general. This is a pivotal point in PAs history. It rivals the Coal Boom. The fact that Corbett would take 400K from the Gas industry and then wants the PA taxpayer to subsidize environmental and infrastructure impact from gas drilling is unacceptable.
I will be voting for Onorato as I think his approach to incremental regionalization where is makes sense is the best way to manage the way government provides basic services. He has a track record speaks for itself. He is worth a second look.
As
Anon 8:39, wy do you speak of the departed in such a matter.
"Somehow, you think it's ok to label those with strong political opinions "extremists". Not very tolerant of you, is it?"
sophistry. by definition, a person committed to tolerance can oppose extremism.
i personally am intolerant only of the intolerant.
and the dutch.
No, I do not label people with strong opinions as extremists. By that definition, I myself am an extrmist, and come to think of it, I may be something of an extremist.
I label people who are convinced that their ideology, and only their ideology, is the answer to everything, as extrmists. I label people who are unwilling to compromise their beliefs, as extremists.
In some instances, it is important not to compromoise. But when you're passing a budget, you need to listen to each other.
Patrick McHenry said... "During the Bush year, "bipartisanship" was the mantra of many Republicans. They were willing to go along with many of the big-spending programs that the Democrats wanted, and the President was willing to sign on, all in the name of "bipartisanship". That didn't work out so well for the country, and only got worse once the Democrats took control of Congress".
Really?...whatever happened to the party of individual responsibility?
So, let me get this straight...it was the Democrats' fault that Bush ridiculously increased spending, created a huge new entitlement, started two wars, cut taxes on the wealthy – all of which exploded the deficit, and all of which were financed by borrowing money from China?...dear Lord. Turn off the Limbaugh and Hannity for 5 minutes and clear your head.
Anon 12:07, you don't get it do you? Even though the Republicans controlled the Presidency the House and the Senate, every bad thing that happened was the fault of the Democrats. Today with the Democrats in control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate, it is also the Democrats fault.
Just so you get it. The massive deficit spending under President Reagan, the Democrats fault. The good times under President Clinton, due to the Republicans. The bad stuff the Democrats.
If you want to be a good tea partier you really need to brush up on your political logic.
Thanks Anon 8:32...I'm getting my mind right!
Post a Comment