Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Now that the R's are moving further to the Right after their losses (example, Cantor replacing Blunt) how far will the craven Dems have to go to be seen as "bipartisan".
Maybe we have to expand the GWOT to a ground war with Iran, we wouldn't want to piss off the neocons, would we? Maybe we need to outlaw abortion, we wouldn't want to annoy any social conservatives. Anything less would be "divisive".
Either way, when the two parties support the same positions and act in harmony, that is the very definition of "bipartisanship," regardless of what is motivating it.
I was thinking of "bipartisanship" more like TreeRol's definition: the two parties work together and reach a compromise that's acceptable to the majority.
But I guess "one party continually rolls over for the other party" would qualify, too. It's still bipartisanship, just a different variety. There's certainly something to be said for the idea that the Democrats are using the old Brer Rabbit - Tarbaby tactic where they bitch and moan about being forced to do what they wanted to do in the first place.
Where we didn't see "Bi-Partisanship" was from Senate Republicans after'06. Everything that came down the pike was filibustered. Well, threatened with filibuster and every time a straight party line vote, killing whatever legislation it was. Without regard to how much work had gone into crafting the legislation or how popular or neccessary.
Of course, these would be the same people out in front of the cameras having a hissy fit every time they didn't get their way.
What you described is not bi-partisanship, as I understand that idea. Yes, the Congressional Democrats have been spineless, roundheeled appeasers of the Bush Administration. But, except in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, that was NOT because they truly wanted to work together and seek common ground with Republicans. It was because the Democrats calculated -- correctly, as it turns out -- that refusing to confront Bush was the best way to achieve political market dominance. In fact, the nastiness and bickering and backstabbing proceeded apace through the Bush years. The Democrats were simply cowed because they were absolutely terrified of getting blamed for another terrorist attack (or the loss of the Iraq War; ironic, since it was lost before it began).
I've read delusional statements and then this comes along.
They have acted in a near total herd mentality afraid of their own shadow. To be so candy-ass AND assume that you have devoted fans because of it takes a lot of balls and in that regard the democrat leadership has excelled. But in that alone.
I don't think people voted for the Obama mystique because they thought he was going to be a slightly better version of Bush, I think that people clung to him and his herd out of the hope (ironic it was a campaign icon for him) that he would change (another icon) the direction of Washington DC and would right the many wrongs of the last eight years. To assume that people clung to you because you were a sellout and simpering coward and 'kept your powder dry' only to spill it in the toilet of 'bipartisanship' is both naive and dangerous...
The Obama administration is starting on a bad foot with a bad smell and some really crappy and troubling music. Instead of a ray of hope it appears that Obama will be a cruel joke in a long line of cruel jokes in which the country, it's hard working people and the surrounding world all wear the results...
Yippee for Obama winning. What was won if the victors declare the thugs 'safe'.
For god sakes people, whoever thought up the idea of keeping ANY Bushist stormtroopers in their positions had to be devoid of any sense of the magnitude of the win they pulled off and the wishes of those that voted... Such contempt for democracy is just staggering...
Oh, and hey, what good is it standing on the sidelines watching the republicans hang themselves with the rope you provided if you are willing to stick your neck in the same rope with the same people? Yeah...
Anyone who continued to drink the 'Obama = Change' koolaid after Obama bent the American people over the Constitution and dry raped them with his FISA capitulation is living in serious denial.
The desire to be a Politician does not equal a desire to represent The People.
@bamage:
did you copyright SLOTEO? There is at least 3.5 years left for him to continue to market that slogan for you. :)
I weep for what has become of my country.
This is exactly so.
The question is how to change the system so that politicians actually listen to the populous. I think the system is broken and needs replacing. I hope for a constitutional convention that would give us all a fresh start. (not that I expect it)
It was because the Democrats calculated -- correctly, as it turns out -- that refusing to confront Bush was the best way to achieve political market dominance.
Prove it.
I mean that. An incredible amount of what passes for proven wisdom among members of the Democratic power structure and their supporters is no more grounded in sound fact than the use of the phrase, "I think Americans want..." by the Republican Right. Your supposedly demonstrated correctness of "political market dominance" whatever that eloquism is supposed to mean, has no grounding in any fact other than "the Democrats believed" and subsequently "the Democrats won". Its the same pseudologic that just as frequently produces defeats. Up until three weeks ago, it was established fact that image, branding, and negative campaigning were all it took to win an election. Now they are not fact anymore.
This is exactly what I was complaining about: Martingale assumptions that have no justification whatsoever. So called facts that decompose to nothing but hot air.
That is no way to run a democracy. Put the business pseudologic back in its bottle and start believing in something beyond cynical pseudopragmatism. It's good for you.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
