Split over what? What is it that the opposing factions really want that they think they're not getting?
From my point, Republicans are a mix of the "old school GOP" who continue to retain seats they have occupied for decades and new more moderate GOP, who have more of the Progressive minded approach and they have helped create the split in the party. The old timers are not going to change and the newcomers don't believe they should either. Hence, the split. Democrats to a lesser degree have a little of this going on, but not as much. Democrats eventually agree to stick together, thus becoming stronger, GOP are not known for that.
]
And the Democrats are supposed to work with these people? Speaking of which, I believe the Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years from 1955-1995 and yet, things still got done, even when Republicans were in the White House because they were willing to work with the other side. Why do Republicans think they shouldn't have to do the same? For example, Obama nominated a perfectly moderate appeals court judge (Merrick Garland) to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court and the Republicans have obstinately refused to even give him a hearing. That's a decision they could live to regret if the Democrats regain control of the Senate and Hillary can nominate anyone she wants.
Both sides should find a way to work together. One of my greatest achievements in the Human Resource area to settle disputes between employees was to assign a project between the two employees who were squabbling and have them work together until they could resolve the issue and reach common ground. That is largely how reaching across the aisle operated in the 1950's and for a bit beyond in Congress and the end result was greater unity and better resolve to important issues. All sides gave a little,in order to get a little. That's what it took to get things done. In those days, there was greater respect for the fellow man and our government fully believed and totally embraced Capitalism. Now it's the mindset of "my way, or the highway", which you had referred to earlier in another post. Now, we have Socialists and Communists who are part of Congress and while diversity can be good, it also diminishes unity that we once took for granted. It's not only Republicans who believe they shouldn't have to work with the other side,,, it's both sides. I do believe Merrick Garland should have gotten at least a hearing even if the GOP wouldn't agree to a confirmation. A lot of that is payback for past actions. Harry Reid’s claim that the Democrats "have never held up a Supreme Court nomination is not true, as the Democrats held up Reagan's apointee, Robert Bork resulting in a failed nomination. Since the 1960's, the Senate has held a hearing for nearly every Supreme Court nominee, the exception being Harriet Miers, a 2005 George W. Bush nominee who faced opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike. In order to protect the Constitutional Rights of all American's, the Supreme Court should be properly balanced and during situations when there is a possibility where Political posturing may come in to play, it becomes a battle between parties. I feel the GOP may regret not at least give Merrick Garland a hearing because they may lose more than they bargained for.
As I recall, the Democrats had control of Congress when Obamacare was passed and the Republicans tried to filibuster its passage even after Obama tried to involve them in drafting the legislation. Therefore, the Democrats did things their way, which is what you get to do when you control both Houses of Congress and the White House. The Republicans were given an opportunity to have input and they squandered it. Also, it was passed in the Spring of 2010 so I'm not sure where you're getting the "shoved through on a Friday during the Christmas holidays" timeline.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was passed in the senate on
December 24, 2009, and passed in the house on
March 21, 2010. It was signed into law by President Obama on
March 23rd, 2010and upheld in the supreme court on June 28, 2012.
The Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act since Republican Scott Brown replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy. Therefore in order to pass the Act Senate Democrats decided to change the rules. They declared that they could use the “Reconciliation Rule (this is a different “reconciliation” than the House bill). This rule was only supposed to be used for budget item approvals so that such items could be passed with only 51 votes in the Senate, not the usual 60. Reconciliation was never intended to be used for legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare. But that didn’t stop them.
So both of the “Acts” were able to pass both houses of Congress and sent to President Obama for his signature without a single Republican vote in favor of the legislation. The American system of governance was shafted. To quote Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee during the bill process: “We’re making up the rules as we go along.”
When the ACA was scheduled to be rolled out, Katherine Sebelius made a horrible mess, further complicating the work that was doomed to fail.
If those are the best prospects Republicans can come up with for future candidates, I think it's safe to assume they can plan on losing more elections.
Well, it is what it is.
Sadly, the thing is...it's highly debatable that you and your kind are any less treacherous.
