Do we have a coalition government?

[Joe Steel]

Do we have a coalition government?

When we hear discussions of European governments, the term "coalition government" frequently is used. In my understanding, it refers to two or more political parties uniting to control the government when neither of them would have enough seats for outright control. In the US, we're not all that familiar with the term because of our two party system. One party or the other always has enough seats. Now I wonder if that is changing.

Tea Party Republicans are a wild and unruly bunch. They're Republicans in name but they don't really share the views of moderate Republicans. The Republican Speaker of the House seems to have to treat them almost as a separate party to get their support for legislation. He has consider their views and goals apart from those of moderate Republicans and has to find ways to accommodate them. We're seeing that in the current government funding and debt ceiling battle. Without their support the Speaker would have to turn to Democrats to pass legislation. In a general sense, this may be a good thing.

James Madison warned against parties and factions in government. Despite his warning, though, parties sprang-up and have become a part of our political world. We may never be able to escape them so the next best thing may be having so many our legislators have to compromise with each other to pass legislation. Wouldn't that be ironic. The Tea Party's extremism might be the driving force of its own marginalization.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Do we have a coalition government?

When we hear discussions of European governments, the term "coalition government" frequently is used. In my understanding, it refers to two or more political parties uniting to control the government when neither of them would have enough seats for outright control. In the US, we're not all that familiar with the term because of our two party system. One party or the other always has enough seats. Now I wonder if that is changing.

Tea Party Republicans are a wild and unruly bunch. They're Republicans in name but they don't really share the views of moderate Republicans. The Republican Speaker of the House seems to have to treat them almost as a separate party to get their support for legislation. He has consider their views and goals apart from those of moderate Republicans and has to find ways to accommodate them. We're seeing that in the current government funding and debt ceiling battle. Without their support the Speaker would have to turn to Democrats to pass legislation. In a general sense, this may be a good thing.

James Madison warned against parties and factions in government. Despite his warning, though, parties sprang-up and have become a part of our political world. We may never be able to escape them so the next best thing may be having so many our legislators have to compromise with each other to pass legislation. Wouldn't that be ironic. The Tea Party's extremism might be the driving force of its own marginalization.

A few questions:

1. How is the Tea Party unruly?
2. How is it that moderate Republicans define the conservative values? (because they don't....)
3. How is the Tea Party extreme?

Trying to understand the liberal point of view here and how they justify the accusations.

 

[Joe Steel]

A few questions:

1. How is the Tea Party unruly?
2. How is it that moderate Republicans define the conservative values? (because they don't....)
3. How is the Tea Party extreme?

Trying to understand the liberal point of view here and how they justify the accusations.

1. Ted Cruz is acting against the Republican Party's leadership and has wide support among Tea Party members.

2. Most Republicans are relatively moderate. That seems the definition of their values. Whether those are the definition of "conservative" is a matter of discussion. In either case, the values are different.

3. Holding the general welfare hostage to their narrow view of appropriate public policy seems quite extreme to me, especially when they are trying to overturn a public law outside of the regular process.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

1. Ted Cruz is acting against the Republican Party's leadership and has wide support among Tea Party members.

2. Most Republicans are relatively moderate. That seems the definition of their values. Whether those are the definition of "conservative" is a matter of discussion. In either case, the values are different.

3. Holding the general welfare hostage to their narrow view of appropriate public policy seems quite extreme to me, especially when they are trying to overturn a public law outside of the regular process.

1. The Republican Leadership is going along with it.
2. That's an opinion and in no way quantifiable.
3. Narrow view of public policy? The nation wants rid of ACA. It's also not outside the regular process, this is one of the processes available.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

1. Ted Cruz is acting against the Republican Party's leadership and has wide support among Tea Party members.

How is that "unruly?" As a "representative," isn't he "representing" the people who voted for him?

3. Holding the general welfare hostage to their narrow view of appropriate public policy seems quite extreme to me, especially when they are trying to overturn a public law outside of the regular process.

How is it holding the general welfare hostage? If anything, it's the bums of society holding the successful people hostage by stealing their money through oppressive taxation.

Oh...and that "public law" of 0bamaCare? Wasn't very public. Remember Pelousy saying: "We gotta sign the bill, to know what's in it."

 

[Joe Steel]

1. The Republican Leadership is going along with it.

That's pretty much the definition of a coalition.

2. That's an opinion and in no way quantifiable.

So? Hard numbers aren't necessary. We know the Tea Party members work together.

3. Narrow view of public policy? The nation wants rid of ACA. It's also not outside the regular process, this is one of the processes available.

Nonsense. The law was enacted by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court and validated by an election. No matter what the polling says (and whatever it says may be something else tomorrow,) PPACA reflects the constitutionally required process. Overturning the law with a mere rider to another law would be utterly inconsistent with the intentions of the Founders.

 

[Joe Steel]

How is that "unruly?" As a "representative," isn't he "representing" the people who voted for him?

His constituents' wishes do not make his behavior and that of the Tea Party any less unruly. It just makes it popular with a certain group.

How is it holding the general welfare hostage? If anything, it's the bums of society holding the successful people hostage by stealing their money through oppressive taxation.

Taxes aren't stealing.

Oh...and that "public law" of 0bamaCare? Wasn't very public. Remember Pelousy saying: "We gotta sign the bill, to know what's in it."

She was speaking figuratively.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

His constituents' wishes do not make his behavior and that of the Tea Party any less unruly. It just makes it popular with a certain group.

You're not explaining how that's "unruly" simply because one group of people do not buy into the same groupthink as you do.

Taxes aren't stealing.

It is when you prejudice one group of people with oppressive rates, while "rewarding" another group by allowing them to no pay any taxes at all.

She was speaking figuratively.

She was...but she wasn't. Honestly, I don't think that wildebeest ever read the damn law. 3/4 of congressmen haven't read the law. They just know the little bit of pork they crammed into it.

 

[fmw]

1. Ted Cruz is acting against the Republican Party's leadership and has wide support among Tea Party members.

There is no such thing as a tea party member. The tea party is not a political party. It is a group campaigning for lower government spending and lower taxes.

2. Most Republicans are relatively moderate. That seems the definition of their values. Whether those are the definition of "conservative" is a matter of discussion. In either case, the values are different.

What is immoderate about a group of people trying to save the society from another bad entitlement program?

3. Holding the general welfare hostage to their narrow view of appropriate public policy seems quite extreme to me, especially when they are trying to overturn a public law outside of the regular process.

It is the only weapon they have. They are risking their political carers by using it. I wish all members of congress would stand for something other than what might get them reelected.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

That's pretty much the definition of a coalition.



So? Hard numbers aren't necessary. We know the Tea Party members work together.



Nonsense. The law was enacted by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court and validated by an election. No matter what the polling says (and whatever it says may be something else tomorrow,) PPACA reflects the constitutionally required process. Overturning the law with a mere rider to another law would be utterly inconsistent with the intentions of the Founders.

Elections don't validate individual laws. And the polling has been consistent for over 3 years. It hasn't changed. What is inconsistent with the views of the founders is the Democrats unwillingness to negotiate and compromise, or even have a discussion.