(Bullshit alert) New Congress: Fewer moderates make deals harder

[No Elephants]

New Congress: Fewer moderates make deals harder

By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) -- When the next Congress cranks up in January, there will be more women, many new faces and 11 fewer tea party-backed House Republicans from the class of 2010 who sought a second term.

Overriding those changes, though, is a thinning of pragmatic, centrist veterans in both parties. Among those leaving are some of the Senate's most pragmatic lawmakers, nearly half the House's centrist Blue Dog Democrats and several moderate House Republicans.

That could leave the parties more polarized even as President Barack Obama and congressional leaders talk up the cooperation needed to tackle complex, vexing problems such as curbing deficits, revamping tax laws and culling savings from Medicare and other costly, popular programs.

"This movement away from the center, at a time when issues have to be resolved from the middle, makes it much more difficult to find solutions to major problems," said William Hoagland, senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a private group advocating compromise.

In the Senate, moderate Scott Brown, R-Mass., lost to Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who will be one of the most liberal members. Another GOP moderate, Richard Lugar of Indiana, fell in the primary election. Two others, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Olympia Snowe of Maine, are retiring.

[formercia]

1. Republicans like to have a good Whine with Dinner

How's that Crow?

[No Elephants]

2. Forgot to mention: Scott Brown was no moderate. The number of times

he voted with Democrats when his vote would actually have made a difference was ONE. Count it, one. One in a row. ONE VOTE.

Ironically, it was to vote for Dodd Frank, which Warren had a lot to do with. However, before he voted for it, he made the bill a lot more favorable to banks.

And that was the full extent of his bipartisanship. Which is why Harry Reid correctly said that Brown's claims of moderation was a joke.

He did vote with Democrats on other occasions, but his vote was not decisive. Republicans often allow a Rep or Senator from what is considered a liberal state to vote with Democrats when his or her vote will be irrelevant. It changes absolutely nothing in the real world and has no consequences in the real world, but it does give the Republican something to run for re-election on. (And boy did Scott run on it.)

As far as this article saying that Warren "will be one of the most liberal members," this shows the extreme bias of the author of the story. Warren has never cast a single vote on anything and she used to be a registered Repubolican.

How do we know if she will be the most liberal, the least liberal or somewhere in between?

Besides, Sanders is actually the most liberal member of the caucus, but what does that matter? All he can do is vote yea or nay with his caucus, just like most Democrats. And that is the very most Warren will be able to do.