Generic congressional vote swings heavily in favor of GOP

[Wells]

Isn't this how it always is? The American public votes one group in, blames everything on them, votes the other group in, blames everything on them, and so it goes.

I think the last couple decades could be better charactized as

1. Right wing campaigns on government not working to get elected
2. Right wing breaks government
3. Center right Democrats don't have the will or time to fix it.
4. Goto 1

[NineSpine]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...2012-forecast/

You can see in the graphs that Romney's polls took a turn down after August when he selected Ryan. With the right running mate and his Moderate appeal he could have won that election.

The Surgeon General nominee was advocating banning guns and Obama would have used that as a campaigning piece if he was affirmed. Nominate better.

The Surgeon General nominee supported assault rifle bans. He's being nominee for Surgeon General, not King of All Gun Laws. Demanding conservative ideological purity from Democratic nominees is unreasonable. Being an obstructionist douchebag who will only concede if you get your way 100% is not made a rational, reasonable position just because your opposition COULD nominate someone who agrees with you on everything. Get real.

- - - Updated - - -

"Guys, I'm not being unreasonable, because you COULD just concede to all of my demands, no matter what they are, and then we would be done here!"

[NYC17]

I highly disagree with this sentiment. I am part of the 41% of Independents that voted for Obama both times and has been thoroughly disappointed. The only reason Romney lost in 2012 is because the Republicans paired him with Paul Ryan...

Independents don't matter as much as they used to. The water is muddied with disillusioned party die-hards who just don't want the label anymore. What will matter is moderates. Romney lost for many reasons. Not the least of which is that he did shitpoor with moderate voters, especially in battleground states.

[Drsolders]

The Surgeon General nominee supported assault rifle bans. He's being nominee for Surgeon General, not King of All Gun Laws. Demanding conservative ideological purity from Democratic nominees is unreasonable. Being an obstructionist douchebag who will only concede if you get your way 100% is not made a rational, reasonable position just because your opposition COULD nominate someone who agrees with you on everything. Get real.

- - - Updated - - -

"Guys, I'm not being unreasonable, because you COULD just concede to all of my demands, no matter what they are, and then we would be done here!"

"Guys, stop obstructing, we are just trying to pass what we want. Maybe you don't actually agree with what we want to pass but if you don't like what we want you are just doing it out of spite!"

Like the ACA, you were labeled obstructing if you didn't want it. It is a terrible attempt at being like some European countries. Either actually follow it like they were or don't do it all. The middle ground won't work.

[Rizendragon]

Chance of winning and polling results aren't the same.


Citation required.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.drsforam...nal_Letter.pdf

[Crissi]

"Guys, stop obstructing, we are just trying to pass what we want. Maybe you don't actually agree with what we want to pass but if you don't like what we want you are just doing it out of spite!"

If you disallow a SG nominee purely based on his GUN stance, something is wrong with you.

If Republicans want a conservative nominee, maybe they should win the Presidency.

[NineSpine]

"Guys, stop obstructing, we are just trying to pass what we want. Maybe you don't actually agree with what we want to pass but if you don't like what we want you are just doing it out of spite!"

The purpose of the filibuster is not to block everything you disagree with, and the purpose of senate confirmations is to check whether someone is qualified, not check their ideological purity. Blocking a qualified Surgeon General nominee because he doesn't have a hardline conservative stance on guns is insanity and a violation of the purpose of those tools an checks.

[Wells]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.drsforam...nal_Letter.pdf

Haha so apparently support for the reinstatement of a ban on one type of gun that has already been banned until relatively recently is enough to block a nominee forever one.

[Raeph]

The democrats who had Republicans help write the ACA? Those democrats?

...What republicans helped them write it? I remember following that issue fairly closely and recall no significant republican involvement in crafting amendments or language for the ACA at all. I remember them near pleading with Democrats, and in some cases being laughed out of committee when suggestions are made (other bills, like Steny Hoyer laughing that representative should read bills before they vote on them), to allow the to present amendments.

If I'm wrong point it out, I however don't remember any Republican getting an amendment approved for the ACA, nor do I remember any Republican helping write the bill. I remember Republicans being in committees that rejected their ideas out of hand on party line votes every time.

[Rizendragon]

Haha so apparently support for the reinstatement of a ban on one type of gun that has already been banned until relatively recently is enough to block a nominee forever one.

He was also for limiting rounds. The type of legislation that came from this was NY's recent SAFE act. It calls any handgun with more than 10 rounds an assault weapon. This is why he was blocked.

- - - Updated - - -

...What republicans helped them write it? I remember following that issue fairly closely and recall no significant republican involvement in crafting amendments or language for the ACA at all. I remember them near pleading with Democrats, and in some cases being laughed out of committee when suggestions are made (other bills, like Steny Hoyer laughing that representative should read bills before they vote on them), to allow the to present amendments.

If I'm wrong point it out, I however don't remember any Republican getting an amendment approved for the ACA, nor do I remember any Republican helping write the bill. I remember Republicans being in committees that rejected their ideas out of hand on party line votes every time.

And then when it came time to vote "Oh it's sealed. We have to pass it to open our gift to the people." Yeah. That won't happen ever again.

[NineSpine]

He was also for limiting rounds. The type of legislation that came from this was NY's recent SAFE act. It calls any handgun with more than 10 rounds an assault weapon. This is why he was blocked.

Right, and you disagreeing with him on guns is not a reason to filibuster indefinitely his appointment to SURGEON GENERAL, just like Democrats opposing a Surgeon General nominee solely because of his support for gun rights would be equally mental and unreasonable.

You seem to think that by virtue of YOU having an ideological position, any efforts you take to reinforce that position are automatically reasonable. They aren't.

[NYC17]

He was also for limiting rounds. The type of legislation that came from this was NY's recent SAFE act. It calls any handgun with more than 10 rounds an assault weapon. This is why he was blocked.

- - - Updated - - -



And then when it came time to vote "Oh it's sealed. We have to pass it to open our gift to the people." Yeah. That won't happen ever again.

Who gives a shit? The Surgeon General does not write legislation.

[NineSpine]

...What republicans helped them write it? I remember following that issue fairly closely and recall no significant republican involvement in crafting amendments or language for the ACA at all. I remember them near pleading with Democrats, and in some cases being laughed out of committee when suggestions are made (other bills, like Steny Hoyer laughing that representative should read bills before they vote on them), to allow the to present amendments.

If I'm wrong point it out, I however don't remember any Republican getting an amendment approved for the ACA, nor do I remember any Republican helping write the bill. I remember Republicans being in committees that rejected their ideas out of hand on party line votes every time.

There were 161 Republican amendments in the bill that passed.

[NYC17]

He was also for limiting rounds. The type of legislation that came from this was NY's recent SAFE act. It calls any handgun with more than 10 rounds an assault weapon. This is why he was blocked.

- - - Updated - - -



And then when it came time to vote "Oh it's sealed. We have to pass it to open our gift to the people." Yeah. That won't happen ever again.

The willful ignorance regarding the context of Pelosi's quote is tiresome. I'm not a fan of her in the least, but seriously...grow up.

[Rizendragon]

Right, and you disagreeing with him on guns is not a reason to filibuster indefinitely his appointment to SURGEON GENERAL, just like Democrats opposing a Surgeon General nominee solely because of his support for gun rights would be equally mental and unreasonable.

You seem to think that by virtue of YOU having an ideological position, any efforts you take to reinforce that position are automatically reasonable. They aren't.

I would say it's reasonable to fight for one's ideals no matter what they are.

- - - Updated - - -

Who gives a shit? The Surgeon General does not write legislation.

No but he can be used as a "knowledgeable source" for "why this makes sense." Gun rights are not something I am willing to give up which is a big reason I moved out of NY after the SAFE act.

[Crissi]

I would say it's reasonable to fight for one's ideals no matter what they are.

Not when it impacts a position which has nothing to do with guns. Why would you not want a person thats extremely qualified for the job? ARe you ok wiht someone less qualified as long as they agree with you?

[Wells]

He was also for limiting rounds. The type of legislation that came from this was NY's recent SAFE act. It calls any handgun with more than 10 rounds an assault weapon. This is why he was blocked.

Which, as Ninspine is pointing out, is an absurd abuse of the filibuster during a confirmation process

...What republicans helped them write it? I remember following that issue fairly closely and recall no significant republican involvement in crafting amendments or language for the ACA at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Six

Multiple measures were taken out and reworked on their insistence as well.

I would say it's reasonable to fight for one's ideals no matter what they are.

Confirmations are there to make sure people are qualified. Not to make sure they're ideologically pure. The man is qualified.

[Rizendragon]

Not when it impacts a position which has nothing to do with guns. Why wopuldnt you not want a person thats extremely qualified for the job? ARe you ok wiht someone less qualified as long as they agree with you?

"Furthermore, Murthy’s views represent a consensus among medical professionals that gun violence is a major public health issue. Gun violence, including suicide, kills some 30,000 Americans every year, about the same number as car accidents. Cars are highly regulated for health and safety; guns, barely. Accordingly, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among many others, have called for stronger gun safety laws. It would be surprising if, as a doctor, Murthy did not have concerns about gun violence and the strength of current regulations."

That would be why. And you can find someone just as qualified without a history of medical activism against guns.

[NineSpine]

I would say it's reasonable to fight for one's ideals no matter what they are.

Then stop whining that Democrats are unreasonable. You can either take the position that fighting for your ideals by any petty means necessary is fine, or you can take a different opinion, but you can't apply one standard to Democrats and one standard to Republicans.

The government has a job. It has a purpose. Much of this is not ideological relevant. Republicans are preventing the government from doing it's mundane, normal work in order to advance unnecessary ideological agendas. That is destructive, dangerous, and damaging to actual human lives. The Surgeon General has a job and a purpose that is not ideologically relevant. Blocking him in order to make an ideologically irrelevant point is asinine and arrogant. If the Republican senators want to address gun issues, they should do their on their own time, not risk the efficiency of our health infrastructure, putting American lives at risk, in order to trumpet a point that isn't even relevant to the job.

[Crissi]

"Furthermore, Murthy’s views represent a consensus among medical professionals that gun violence is a major public health issue. Gun violence, including suicide, kills some 30,000 Americans every year, about the same number as car accidents. Cars are highly regulated for health and safety; guns, barely. Accordingly, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among many others, have called for stronger gun safety laws. It would be surprising if, as a doctor, Murthy did not have concerns about gun violence and the strength of current regulations."

That would be why. And you can find someone just as qualified without a history of medical activism against guns.

Again, his position would not allow him do do much of anything on guns rights, so his opinions on that are not important at all. Not to mention if you wanted to have the perfect candidate, maybe the R's should have won the Presidency?