> So, you acknowledge that it's a "quagmire", not a benefit.
I don't know what this means. After seeing the amount of political capital and time spent by the Bush administration the prior years, there was no way the Obama administration was going to delve into the same "quagmire."
It seems to me that that bill was bipartisan in it's support and detractors. So I'm not sure what the poison pills were that prevented it from passing. But I remember personally being against it because it seemed to me to establish a caste system in the US.
I think you miss the largest issue with the premise that the Democrats could have forced anything. The Democratic party is not a party of fall in line, there are procedural differences between how both parties operate in congress, and those differences create partisanship on the Republican side specifically.
Perhaps the greatest error by the Democrats and Pelosi was to abandon the "Hastert Rule" and be the ones actually implementing steps to be less partisan.
I don't know what this means. After seeing the amount of political capital and time spent by the Bush administration the prior years, there was no way the Obama administration was going to delve into the same "quagmire."
It seems to me that that bill was bipartisan in it's support and detractors. So I'm not sure what the poison pills were that prevented it from passing. But I remember personally being against it because it seemed to me to establish a caste system in the US.
I think you miss the largest issue with the premise that the Democrats could have forced anything. The Democratic party is not a party of fall in line, there are procedural differences between how both parties operate in congress, and those differences create partisanship on the Republican side specifically.
Perhaps the greatest error by the Democrats and Pelosi was to abandon the "Hastert Rule" and be the ones actually implementing steps to be less partisan.