Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

On Snowe-Landrieu Bipartisan Initiative: Kiss My Democratic Ass

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bob Geiger Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 11:08 AM
Original message
On Snowe-Landrieu Bipartisan Initiative: Kiss My Democratic Ass


Nausea alert: Do not read this on a full stomach if you're a Progressive, who has had it up to your eyeballs with some elected Democrats regularly accepting prison shower-room, Ned-Beatty-in-'Deliverance' treatment from Republicans and then meekly saying "Thank you, sir, may I have some more?"

Because what you're about to read is the Washington, D.C. version of just that.

Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) issued a joint press release yesterday announcing that they want to convene a group of Republicans and Democrats in the new Senate to "build on the success of 'Gang of 14'" and "forge bipartisan consensus on key issues in the 110th Congress."

“I couldn’t be more pleased to join with Senator Mary Landrieu to build upon the success of the bipartisan Gang of 14 with a group committed to bringing comity, consensus and legislative achievements back to the halls of the Senate,” said Snowe. “The American people are tired of partisan attacks and intransigence from the Congress; they are rightly demanding results. And Senator Landrieu and I believe this group will serve as a productive catalyst to bring the Senate together across party lines.”

Not to be outdone, Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) also heralded the arrival of a similar entity yesterday, also issuing a joint statement saying they are forming a "Bipartisan Members Group to create an opportunity for Senators to know one another better across party lines."

Landrieu and Lieberman have sidled right up alongside Alexander and Snowe, making grand statements about how it's time to come together and guessing -- incorrectly -- what message the American people delivered in a loud, clear voice on election day. And, like the weak-kneed centrists they are, their capitulation is very much akin to the wife who reunites with her abusive husband because he mumbles "I'm sorry, baby" after breaking her nose for the third time.

Isn't it convenient for Snowe, Alexander and other Republicans to initiate this transparent maneuver and now extend a hand across the aisle for something other than slapping Democrats? Isn't it just freakin' amazing that this change of heart comes right when they are voted out of the majority on a clear mandate of the people and now have to themselves face the legislative life Democrats have lived for years?

And true to their ongoing status as political followers and not leaders, Landrieu and Lieberman -- putting aside the fact that Holy Joe can no longer even be considered a Democrat -- lap it right up and forget who it is that over the last few years would not have pissed across the aisle if a Democrat was on fire.

These two want to snuggle up to the same people who forced the formation of the "Gang of 14" by threatening to remove the filibuster as the minority party's only vestige of procedural control -- and thus create a Senate where Republican dominance would be so non-negotiable that Democrats might as well stay home every day and watch "Judge Judy."

The best former Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) could ever do for the Democrats was to threaten the legislative equivalent of cutting their last life-line and making the confirmation of some onerous right-wing judges the only option to drowning.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said earlier this month of the Republicans' filibuster extortion that "it was so anti-Senate and it was so anti-American" and vowed he would never do something that despicable in his new role leading the Senate.

Republicans who suddenly want to make nice are the party of incoming Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) who sneered "I thought we were having global warming" right into the Congressional Record as Democrats fought earlier this year to fund the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for the elderly and disabled.

And this same Republican party behaved in an ongoing partisan fashion so extreme that they simply abandoned their Constitutional responsibility to perform oversight on the executive branch of government, in favor of rigid, party-line tribute to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and zero loyalty to the American people.

Pat Roberts (R-KS), the GOP's empty suit who warmed the lead chair in the Senate Intelligence Committee for the last two years, would not have investigated this White House if the FBI showed him video of Bush and Cheney delivering a dozen roses and a Whitman Sampler to Osama bin Laden's cave. This highly-partisan malfeasance eventually forced Reid to invoke Senate Rule 21 in November 2005 and shut down the Senate entirely, in a desperate attempt to get Republicans to act responsibly and at least begin investigating Bush's shady use of pre-war intelligence to start the Iraq war.

The Republican party's newfound bipartisan spirit didn’t seem to exist when they shoved through ultra-conservative Supreme Court nominees in lieu of forcing Bush to nominate moderates that both parties could rally around. Their consensus-filled hearts weren't apparent when they swift-boated Max Cleland and John Kerry and, most recently, did the racist "Harold, call me" number on Harold Ford Jr. in this year's Tennessee Senate contest.

Is there a thinking Democrat in the country who believes we can expect even the slightest derivation from that slimy game plan in 2008?

In addition to shooting down almost 75 percent of the few Democratic-sponsored bills that even made it to the Senate floor, the Republicans have previously duped Democrats into supporting the bogus No Child Left Behind scheme -- only to refuse full funding for the program -- questioned their patriotism when some refused to support the Patriot Act and the stupid flag-burning amendment and, of course, lied to get authorization for the Iraq war.

Famed Republican guru Grover Norquist once said that "bipartisanship is another name for date rape" and, far from being extreme invective, this is exactly the creed that the Republican party has lived at least since the old-school King of Slime, Lee Atwater, race-baited the 1988 presidential race by springing Mr. Willie Horton on Michael Dukakis. People like Lieberman and Landrieu will never understand that Republicans see true bipartisanship not as a strength, but as a weakness to be despised and exploited.

In a joint letter to their Senate colleagues, Snowe and Landrieu tried to speak for the country and said that Americans "… are tired of the extremes on both sides pulling us apart, paralyzing effective action. That was a clear message of the 2006 elections."

Nonsense.

By voting for such a colossal shift in the House of Representatives and giving Democrats control of the Senate in a massive and rare six-seat pickup, Americans said one thing and one thing only to Republicans: "We want Democratic leadership and we don't want you in charge any longer." Period.

They didn’t say we like some of what you've done the last few years -- they said we like none of what you've done. So why in the world would any Democrat interpret that landslide endorsement for complete change as such a watered-down, half-and-half order?

Harry Reid did a superb job keeping Democrats together as Minority Leader and one of his biggest challenges in the next two years will be to honor the voters' mandate and move real Democratic change through the Senate without any traces of the Republican hangover that Americans have so strongly rejected.

If Reid remembers the lessons of the last few years -- on where the GOP truly stands on bipartisanship -- and shows leadership on the ideals he fought for in vain in the last Congress, look for a lot of howling and hypocritical whining from the Republican side of the aisle.

And they can all just flat-out go to hell.

Republicans made this bile-filled, partisan stew long ago -- now they can damn well eat it.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. I thought Snowe was a moderate
and one of the Republicans most likely to still retain some common sense. If memory serves, she wasn't very much evident in the nasty GOP maneuvers in the 109th Congress. And let's face it, folks, to get some important things done (like impeachment/or resignation), it's going to take working with pragmatic Republicans who aren't rwing wackos.

If I am incorrect about Snowe, please let me know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. do you really think we can get anything done in the Senate
without bipartisanship? We only have a 51-49 edge, with some of that "edge" being people like, well, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman - and let's not even talk about Nebraska's Nelson and a few others to the right of those I've mentioned.

This recent election wasn't a mandate for the Democrats to do what the Republicans did - it was a signal that the people of this country are sick and tired of the politics of partisanship.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vektor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. "Harold, call me?"
What was that all about? Anyone know? I didn't hear about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. Not a problem.
They need 60 votes for any progressive legislation. "Compromise" is needed in some cases. That said, Collins should be defeated in 2008. Why can't George Mitchell run again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. Bipartisanship?
No! Our party has already moved so far to the right that we end up abandoning all progressive values by trying to compromise with these corporate/fascist assholes. Secondly, after having suffered six years of their extreme partisanship for 6 years, deliberately throwing bipartisanship out the window to achieve their fascist/corporatist objectives, then I would say it's time to shut them out entirely and pull out the political equivalent of a Louisville Slugger to achieve our objectives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. How do you get 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation without Bipartisanship?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. That's a good point buy it doesn't apply to everything.
After all, look at all the crap the Publicans have managed to get passed without having 60 votes. Senators often vote for cloture and then vote against the legislation in question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. they didn't need 60 votes
the point is this -

with the Republicans holding the White House, you would need 60 votes to override his veto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
26. I was replying to Freddie Stubbs' comment about filibusters in the Senate
Overriding a veto is a whole different thing. For that you need a 2/3 majority in both the Senate and the House. Thats 67 and 290 votes in the Senate and House, respectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. you need 51 votes to get anything done in the Senate. Now if the republiCANTS
want to filibuster;
and we know how deadly opposed to that they are;
you need 60 votes to move forward.

I say bring up the issues that matter to Americans. Let the voters see who votes on their side.


START WITH PAPER BALLOTS.
Next vote on raising the minimum wage.
Next vote on giving every American Health Care.
Next vote on rescinding every flat earth "FREE TRADE" NOT deal
Next vote on returning to sane environmental laws and requiring our trade partners to as well

At the same time let the hearings begin into the misconduct and malfeasance of the Bushit administration and the corrupt neoconvicts behind it

Then vote on the impeachment of the whole corrupt crew.
If the republicans want to tie themselves to the turd in the punchbowl let them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. That's not my concern. My concern is doing what is right..
and if it stalemates the senate, then it is our responsibility to frame our message, sell it to the public, and put pressure from the outside. If 'getting things done' means compromising with the corporate fascists, I'd rather lock the whole goddamned system up in gridlock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. Problem is, it isn't really bipartisan, it plays favorites with the center and tries to ignore the
left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. It is bipartisan if it also ignores the far right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Agreed, I just didn't think it was worth mentioning in a Democratic forum. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. That Gang of 14
was formed to prevent the dems from using the cloture vote/filibuster so does this mean that they will prevent the repukes from doing the same now? Does this work only one way to prevent the dems from getting anything passed or is it truly 'bipartisan'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
12. Landrieu is my senator & I share your outrage.
Edited on Fri Dec-22-06 01:26 PM by 8_year_nightmare
I've written to Landrieu numerous times, called her office numerous times, & I'm fed up to oblivion with her apathy toward Democratic concerns.

She forgets that when she ran for the Senate in 2002, both Bush & Cheney made campaign appearances against her, & the GOP made recorded calls inciting voters with the fact that, while she is Catholic, she supports abortion (actually, she supports a woman's right to choose). At that time, Landrieu campaigned against Vitter, calling him a puppet & a rubberstamper for Bush (did he not prove her correct?)

On the whole, Louisiana voters have proven to be apathetic about learning about this administration. Bobby Jindal, another enthusiastic Bush rubberstamper who came up with the idea of the purple fingers display at the SOTU address, was overwhelmingly re-elected in November.

Obviously, Landrieu is thinking it's not in her best political interest to rock the boat.

I'm so incensed about my state's lack of leadership that I took a pot shot at them when I commented in a survey that will be sent to respective congresspeople:

Thanks to all the impressive senators & congresspeople who have recognized & questioned the wrongdoing of both this presidency & those lawmakers who have rubberstamped its every illegal whim. I'm envious of those constituents whose senators & congresspeople have taken principled stands; they have every reason to be proud to be represented so admirably. I pray that they will save this country from further harm & salvage its reputation as a moral leader in the free world by impeaching both Bush & Cheney. If they aren't impeached, we might as well throw out the welcome mat for another corrupt, secretive, unethical, highly-partisan tyrant. The world is watching.


I sure didn't feel that I could ask my congresspeople for help, so I thought I'd use that opportunity to reach out to the other states' representatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
13. Typhoid Mary is at it again. Until Democratic voters wake up and
replace the "mini-me republican" corporate "Democrats" like Typhoid Mary Landrieu with genuine (of the people, for the people, By the people) democrat Democrats, our government is not going to see any significant, effective, or productive change for the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. Yea, good luck finding one in Louisiana
Landrieu is the best we can do in this state, period. And if someone can find a better person for the job that can win I'd much rather see them challenge our fascist Republican Senator David Vitter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. Ugh. and more ugh. These people do not change ....ever!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
16. "Success of the gang of 14"? What'd I miss? Success where?
Instrumental in Alito's up or down vote, precluded filibustering, doesn't sound like 'success' to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

Although strongly criticized by both Democratic and Republican partisans at the time, the compromise was successful in precluding further judicial filibusters or the use of the nuclear option during the rest of the 109th Congress. As noted before, the Gang of 14 deal was instrumental in permitting Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito an up-or-down vote, as his vote for confirmation (58 for to 42 against) would not have been adequate to overcome a party-line filibuster (i.e. did not equal or exceed 60 votes). The 2006 elections, however, saw Republican members Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island) and Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) replaced by Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Sherrod Brown, respectively. Tolerance for Bush's judicial nominees was among the criticism the Democratic winners leveled against their incumbent Republican opponents, and the elections as a whole handed control of the Senate to the Democrats. This change in the Senate membership for the 110th Congress, in combination with the agreement's expiration in December, 2006, makes the future of the group highly questionable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. Landrieu is toast.
She is trying to appeal to the overwhelming change in her state from Dems to Republicants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
20. The Gang of 14 must now be 18
The "strength" of the gang of 14 was based on the specious agreement that they would vote together as a block, either to vote down an issue (Repubs voting with Dems) or invoking cloture (Dems voting with Repubs) But now with a 51/49 split, it will require 9 Republican votes to invoke cloture. I don't see how this helps the Democrats at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
21. Such a group is good for us. We control the agenda and it'll bring moderates to our side on...
...issues like minimum wage, and other progressive issues. Strength in numbers. When we control the agenda, this is going to help us more than them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
23. Who cares? We can block judicial nominees in the judiciary committee
This "bipartisan" coalition is powerless now. They're just making a big show of what they always do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
24. Landrieu needs to be targeted
She's proven to be nothing other than a far right enabler. She and other like her hurt the Dems far more tyhan they help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
25. Recipe for disaster
trying to work with the likes of Alexander, Coleman, Chambliss, and Inhofe. These people are evil, and if you dance with the devil, you will wake up in hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC