The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

The recent failure of the GOP-controlled House to pass their much-desired "Nuke Obamacare" plan - the thing they CAMPAIGNED ON for 7 straight years - is a sharp contrast to how Democrats created Obamacare in the first place.

Republicans this year brought out a plan (AHCA, or Ryancare, or trumpcare, and also DOA) that was pretty much universally reviled, failed to build consensus, rushed it through committee before their own bean-counters could report on how bad the numbers were (and they still weren't fast enough: the CBO told us the numbers were BAD), lied about the elements of the bill that would harm just about anyone who wasn't rich, and alienated major factions between the Far Right - the Freedom Caucus - and the Center Right - The Tuesday Group, and for the love of God I can't recall ever hearing of them before this week, did I ever blog about them? - to where neither side would come to the bill's rescue.

Democrats brought out their plan in 2009 (PPACA, or ACA, AKA Obamacare) that had enough defenders to make it plausible, worked for nine months or so to build consensus within their own ranks, took time to reach across the aisle to get Republicans on board (and was using a Republican model to base it on!), argued in good faith about the merits between the market-control factions of the Center Left - Blue Dog Democrats - and the Progressive Left seeking massive reforms toward universal healthcare, and only rushed the bill into law when it became clear they were losing the window of opportunity to get ANY healthcare reform passed at all.

As such, we can see a clear difference between the two major parties.

Democrats - since perhaps the FDR era - care more about competency and good governance. That even despite the arguments among their own ranks and the mistrust the Progressive and Centrists have towards each other, they still recognize the need to make things - anything, sometimes - work even if the compromise betrays a core ideal they possess (maybe not one they share, but at least they respect) as long as a majority of their constituency can gain from it. They allowed some dissent with individual Party members but made sure the overall Message was one of "getting it done." They would rather make government work than shut it down or destroy it.

Republicans - over the past 25 years maybe more - care more about winning elections and dominating the news cycle. They plaster over any dissent among the ranks, let the fringe Far Right control the messaging and campaigning to the extent that their Moderates are alienated and abused, and press for an agenda that does not reflect the majority's wants or needs. They shut down government rather than make it work.

Nancy Pelosi, once Speaker during the 2007-2011 years that the Democrats controlled the House, was able to build and maintain her coalition, whipping her party to vote. While she lost a few Dem Congresscritters with certain votes, she didn't lose those coalitions by making enough deals and compromises to placate her party, and got legislation passed during an economic crisis - the Great Recession - that required action be done.

Paul Ryan, current Speaker after his predecessor John Boehner was driven out by the Far Right factions, has done little during his tenure as Speaker. He's tried to placate the Freedom Caucus that drove Boehner to resign, but all that's done is embolden that faction at the expense of the rest of the party. Ryan pushed the AHCA vote not because he was confident it could pass, but because he was trying to force his own party's factions to wilt under the pressure of "getting this done" and concede to his will.

Ryan failed where Pelosi succeeded.

Ryan, like much of the Republican Party he ostensibly leads, does not believe that government can work. As a result, he doesn't work as a leader. Ryan is more Messenger, a wannabe Acolyte preaching the word of Ayn than taking the time to secure deals and compromises.

Republicans - this modern version - don't believe in compromises. As a Party, they make sure they can only do things as a "Majority of the Majority," meaning they cut Democrats out of the loop when it comes to input and when it comes to backing those bills. Anybody who does otherwise - such as Boehner back in 2014(15?) when he needed to break the Majority rule to get a bill passed - isn't in charge as a Republican for much longer. The Republicans' idea of compromise is "Democrats roll over and vote our way no matter what."

So, that's it. Basically, the big difference between Democrats and Republicans:

Democrats do all the work. Republicans do all the blather.

It used to be better than this, back when there were enough Republicans who cared.

Wonder where they got to, before the party died on everybody?

Good Lord, That's Tim Kaine's Music

Insert plethora of Tim Kaine/WWE Kane puns here.

So, Hillary has made her ticket selection, and decided on a person considered a "safe" or reliable choice in Virginia Senator Kaine. I know a good number of Democrats were pining for a more... risky pick, something a little more stunning or more stringently Progressive, maybe someone female for an all-woman ticket or someone ethnic for an "Up Yours White Guys" ticket, but in a world filled with Left-Centrist white guys you sometimes got to go draw from the well.

I've ranted about the need for Vice Presidents before, but we're still using that system so let's work with it.

The biggest thing people should take away from a Veep pick is how it signifies what the candidate is going to do as President to select all the other people to fill important roles in his/her administration. This is the first big decision, and the candidate has to nail it. A bad pick - say, McGovern tabbing Eagleton or Mondale tabbing Ferraro or McCain tabbing Palin - indicates bad people skills, poor decision-making, what have you.

This means evaluating Kaine's record (back to the Post):

Kaine comes from a swing state (note: in Electoral value, a popular pick can garner you a slight boost in the Veep's home state and maybe neighboring ones). He has executive and legislative experience. Before going to the Senate, Kaine was governor of Virginia from 2005 to 2009 and mayor of Richmond prior to that. He has a strong Catholic religious background: He was a missionary out of college. He speaks fluent Spanish. He had been vetted favorably by then-Sen. Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

And, most importantly, Kaine is a steady presence. He has been in the national spotlight -- both during the 2008 vetting and during his stint as Democratic National Committee chairman from 2009 to 2011. He knows how to handle the media, the scrutiny and the attacks that come with a high-profile perch. He's even-keeled amid chaos.

One word to describe Kaine favorably? Competent. He knows how politics works, he's run successful campaigns, he's been a team player, and he can work the halls of Congress and the back rooms to broker deals as needed.

And to be fair, another one word to describe him is Boring. Kaine does not attract much media attention, he's not a brilliant or charismatic orator, he's not a guy the news channels think of to invite onto their shows, he's not going to get voted Prom King any time soon. On the bright side, that also means he's scandal-proof.

His voting record shows a consistent Liberal bent. He may not be full-on Far Left but he's no Blug Dog.

By selecting Kaine, Hillary is showing that she'll value competency and a strong yet not overwhelmingly Liberal lean to her office. Kaine is essentially another Biden: someone stable and reliable for a job that demands (edit: originally had the wrong word there) stability and reliability.

Personally, I'd have gone with Perez, or searched a little harder for a younger Progressive from the Midwest or Pacific coast. I may be damning with praise here, but there's nothing wrong with Kaine as the Democratic Veep nominee.

Now, onto the Democratic convention.