The alternative to appointing/hiring government officials based upon their record of competence is to have a completely partisan "spoils" system.
History suggests attempting to make the day-to-day functioning of government as non-partisan as possible, however imperfect that effort may be, is preferable to a spoils system.
In the narrower sense, I think you have a point. The GOP has shown a stronger willingness to use the mechanics of government to acheive ideological ends than the Democratic party (cf. the unprecedent number of GOP Senate filibusters since 2006, the GOP threats to refuse to consider ANY HRC nomination for the Supreme Court, etc.). You'd think Democratic politicians would learn to minimize GOP members' ability to gum up the works.
"he GOP has shown a stronger willingness to use the mechanics of government to acheive ideological ends than the Democratic party"
That's bullchit. Both manipulate the system and refuse to play fair. Neither stays in their proper place and function or acknowledges their defined roles and powers. They both play the same game.
@Glis -- Yes, politics being politics, there will always be people who bend The System for political gain, regardless of their party affiliation.
However, to assert such bending is entirely symmetrical overlooks key distinctions I pointed out in my original post.
For example, it is true Senators in both major political parties try to use their influence to shape what kind of SCOTUS justices the President appoints. Sometimes (e.g. Robert Bork), Congress rejects the President's choice. HOWEVER, the GOP threat to not even CONSIDER any SCOTUS nominee by current President Obama and the hypothetical (but probable) President H.R. Clinton is NOT "politics as usual." It is an abdication of long-standing political norms for partisan purposes.
At some point, a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind. I think the GOP has passed into the difference of kind realm in many domains.
I call bullchit again. Each might have their own pet tactics they fall to more than the other but both are equally corrupt and ideological to a fault. Neither is more or less guilty of unfair practices to exert their power over the Constitution or the people. This whole "One good, other bad" is crap. Neither serves the people and they really just serve themselves and each other. There's nothing that makes one more or less corrupt than the other.
@Gils -- You can call horse puckey, but I note you provide no evidence or examples to support your claim.
In essence, your lament is a variation of "Dabgum Gubmint Can't Do Nuttin' Right Nohow!" It's emotionally satisfying, but bereft of empirical support or useful applicable princples.
So be it. I really don't feel like wasting my time and energy looking to post examples on the internet to nameless people who are entrenched in their political bubbles. I'm just not the type so obsessed with politics I rabidly save an arsenal of articles to post at a moments notice.
At least I don't use stereotypical ignorant hick jargon statements to refute others and try and imprint an air of intellectual superiority on anyone who doesn't follow my hardline support for one ideology over the other. You're using a veiled strawman to try and label me as ignorant. What does that say? But hey, whatever you gotta do to feel better than others.
You don't really provide any complete statistical evidence either. You merely quote specific examples that you personally feel are worse than the others M.O. Any criticism of your camp automatically means full support of the other according to y'all. As if being distrustful of D.C. in the face of it's numerous attacks on the people means one has to be far rightwinger.
And where's the evidence of your claims, other than your faux indignation that someone may actually be using their own gray matter to call you out?
This post was edited by Salt and Red Pepper at November 2, 2016 10:08 AM MDT
@Gils -- I provided two examples. You provided none. You are free to utter your opinions, but if you cannot provide even the most minimal factual basis for supporting them, I don't see where my "calling you out" on their lack of emprical basis is unwarranted.
I am against Special Kind of Stupid (the substitution of emotionally pleasing/socially accepted metaphors for judicious study of empirical reality) by anyone, regardless of political ideology.
@Salty Herbert --- I'm not sure at whom your comment was directed. Me, for providing at least some concrete examples of my claim (which suggests you have the typical Usual Suspect habit of NOT ACTUALLY READING content), or Gils, in which case I think his (her?) indignation is real. People don't like having their cherished beliefs questioned, no matter how contrary to empirical reality they are.
See that's just it. You take reason and logic as belonging only to you and your thoughts. And again taking any criticism of the Dems as pure defense of the GOP.
@Gils -- Then MAKE a legitimate SPECIFIC criticism of the Democratic Party. They are far from perfect. It should be relatively easy to find something you don't like about them.
But to just shout "both sides do it" when I've provided at least 2 instances where both sides DON"T do it, or at least do it in differing degrees to create a difference of kind, is petulence, not agrument.
I gave you one already and you glossed it over. Why should I continue? The Dems like to play loosy-goosy with the Constitution and Federal power.
What does any of this accomplish? Nothing, nothing at all. It's just keyboard commando BS over politics and politics is fairly silly and a waste of time to put as much energy in as you have a hard-on to do. Plus I think it's kinda funny.
Glis. That School guy? He is the best fact man on this site.
He never says my side all good. He SAYS why his side makes sense. I have yet to see where you are coming from. I know you like Bernie and I know you think Hillary is no good.
How about some FACTS to back up your side? I promise you if you keep debating this man he will fact you off the page. LOL
"He never says my side all good. He SAYS why his side makes sense. "
Kind of the same thing here.
Here's the deal with Hillary, same goes for Trump and why I think y'all are wasting your breath at this point talking about his faults to those who support him. It's ALL been said over and over and over again. All that info is out there clear as day and you, me, everyone else has seen, read, and heard it before. What is the point in posting something when you or I have already chosen to accept it as is and excuse it, deny it, or feel it doesn't matter? Anything I say you have already heard and know about but come to a different outlook on it. If the data hasn't changed anyone's mind when it was presented to them by a 1000 others, then why would me posting it to you or you posting it to me be the moment of new revelation?
Now back to SKOS's conversation with me. It's kinda similar. He's not an ignorant dummy who is ill informed. He's seen all the same info I have. I really can't show him anything new. Anything I post he will discredit, not on a factual basis. He will know it's factual and is better than to deny that. He will disagree on the gravity of it and/or the interpretation of it. Seeing as I am safely assuming we both have seen the data and have thought them through each and came to different conclusions. It's pointless for either of use to really throw it in each others faces instead of just stating the opinions we hold from it.
The thing that peeves me is his reoccurring penchant to label an ignorant hick and try to put words in my mouth. Always being on the attack. That any and all deviation from his view of the information automatically puts one in the far extremist right. I disagree with him and agree with him on issues at a pretty even split to be honest. Same goes with you. Yet you don't seem to just hold it against me or others when I don't and try and dismiss the person's ability to use their grey matter.
@Gils -- Have you EVER TRIED to present some factual data for me to consider? If not, then you have NO BASIS for assuming that I will dismiss or minimize what you present.
If you don't like me "putting words in your mouth"...well, I don't like you characterizing me as a close-minded ideologue who is immune to well-reasoned and well-sourced rebuttal.
If you say "both sides do it" and I provide evidence to the contrary, just reiterating "Both sides do it, everybody knows that!" does NOT negate my objection.
As for your assumption that everyone knows all the pertinent information about any political topic, I'd say that's a claim that's both borderline arrogant (to think that YOU have all the information you need) and hopelessly naive (to think that Joe/Jane Average American really has a balanced and in-depth understanding of issues).
You have not provided evidence to the contrary SKOS. You gave partial a example of about the GOP filibustering without any context as to what or why. That's important. I clearly stated each has pet tactics and when I describe the Dems pet tactic of 'Living Constitution" you glossed it. That's the same kind of manipulative HS.
I never called you an ideologue until you played your little hick talk game. You've done it repeatedly before and I have thrown it back that your wrong before on other things. You even acknowledged it. Yet you can't help yourself and allowing your arrogance to shine.
And really SKOS the thing I take issue with and why I really don't care to put energy in engaging you? Is the "whole stupid liberals." thang. When have you ever heard me say Stupid liberals or Stupid conservatives? When? The whole jumping to that conclusion without any warrant doesn't really make it seem like it's worth any effort or time to get very serious. It just shows you wanna piss fight. Or at least looks that way.
Also that data doesn't really have any meaning. It just quotes a number. It doesn't show each case for what it was and contrast it with the reasons for the filibusters or what they are trying to block or why. That's important. You can try and spin that into supporting the GOP and it's current BS missions, but it's not. You want an example for my claim. Okay, the Democrats insistence of a living Constitution. The idea that it's wording is open to interpretation based on the views of the time and not the original intent or wording. That's crap and makes it's framework essentially meaningless. That's their equally offensive tactic.
The idea that trying to block any and all change or that sometimes government shouldn't be stalled is absurd. Though it can be done for absurd reasons which admittedly the GOP has often done.
You provide NO facts, only political hyperbole in a vain attempt to reinforce your own misguided beliefs. If you were REALLY opposed to "that "special" kind of stupid you would realize just how much your positions use it.
@Salty Herbert -- I provided three pertinent facts
1) GOP Senators have used the filibuster to block legislation at an unprecedented rate since 2006.
2) GOP Senators have threatened to hold no confirmation hearings for ANY HRC SCOTUS nominee.
3) GOP pollster/political adviser Karl Rove was publicly dismissive of members of the "Reality-Based Community" in discussions with journalist Ron Suskind.
Those are not political hyperbole. Those are verifiable actual public facts/statements. If you cannot tell the difference...well, that doesn't say much for you, does it?
Now you're sounding more like the 98-pound weakling that had sand (accidentally) kicked in his face at the beach . . . trying to "spin" your hyperbole to look like unique, germane "facts". But let's look at what you present . . .
1) GOP Senators have used the filibuster to block legislation at an unprecedented rate since 2006.
Yeah, so what? That's what it's for, to be used. (Bet you wouldn't raise an eyebrow if the Demoncrats were using it, nd they have, along with the Whig party when they were still around.) And speaking of that (and your lack of independent data to back your claim), I have to ask what happened before 2006? I'm guessing that as far back as you can go before you find an incident of the Demoncrats using the filibuster rule.
2) GOP Senators have threatened to hold no confirmation hearings for ANY HRC SCOTUS nominee.
And again, so what? That's within the Senate's power and its happened before, on both sides of the aisle. The Senate has the Right, the obligation to "advise and consent" when it comes to Federal bench appointments They're under no obligation to "rubber stamp" the President's judicial appointees. In fact, they have an obligation to thoroughly vet any prospective appointee. That's the way the government is designed to work. I can't help it if you don't comprehend that.
3) GOP pollster/political adviser Karl Rove was publicly dismissive of members of the "Reality-Based Community" in discussions with journalist Ron Suskind.
And again, so what? Just trying to find a fragile thread to hang your hat on again? Trying to present someone's (Rove's in this case) as "fact". Rove is NOT a Republican in my opinion. He's just a Washington, DC insider, a political mercenary for sale to the highest bidder. His opinion, his political commentary, is no more valid that anyone elses, and it certainly isn't hard fact.
Those are not political hyperbole. Those are verifiable actual public facts/statements. If you cannot tell the difference...well, that doesn't say much for you, does it?
THAT'S the BEST you can come up with? Your defense sounds more like that of a spoiled child not getting their way all the time than a presentation of any facts. Your "facts" are still nothing more than hyperbole.
Benedict Arnold 