Bipartisanship - I have to ask this question

[jillan]

Because I have been surprised by remarks on a couple of threads.

I believe you need it, or else nothing is going to get done.
But I am hearing differently.

What is the consensus of DU?

[lligrd]

1. Standing Up For What You Believe In Is Not Screwing Repugs

In fact, the majority of Republicans (and mankind) would also be better off if we truly stood up for what is right.

[jillan]

5. So we should just continue to argue and not get anything done?

I am really trying to understand.

[lligrd]

11. The Republicans Got Plenty "Done" By Digging In Their Heels

and nobody is saying you shouldn't educate and try to convince people. But that doesn't mean you negotiate when the otherside is obviously wrong.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. not so simple.

yes, we do need to work together on issues like peace, global ecological problems, clean energy, but so long as the other party is controlled by the maniac wing, we cannot do it.

[jillan]

4. So we shouldn't make an attempt to reach across the aisle - to convince

some of the more reasonable people of the other party to see things are way?
To listen to what they have to say, and use their reasoning in our argument?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. oh no, perhaps I was not clear.

your between the lines suggestion is great, and I support it.
but when you had Delay, Frist, Sanitorium, McConnel, Hatch, Saxby, Martinez, and other WH neocon clones, it feels like you are pissing upwind when you try.

[rusty quoin]

19. remember how they reached across the aisle.

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

- Grover Norquist, Republican Leader of the K-Street Project, November 4, 2004

-----

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. I recall their reaching across the aisle and

leading with a right cross, then a let upper cut.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Have to have it. It's stupid for both parties to dig their heels in--we

are effectively paralyzed as a nation, while President Godzilla keeps stomping on everything. Everything is so politicized now, especially the war--we could not be more divided, and no party wants to compromise for fear of losing political leverage. Although Dems do compromise more than R's, but that's because we're more reasonable, and want what's best for the country more than they do.

[Milo_Bloom]

6. Need a third choice....

It depends on the issue.

Different issues involve different levels of compromise.

[jillan]

8. Just in general.

The threads that this came up on was about healthcare.
But it also applies to getting out of Iraq - which as you can see is going nowhere.
Global warming.
Equal rights.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Do you mean then compromising your principles or the execution of them?

Because those are 2 completely different things.

Let me give an example of a compromise that doesn't compromise princples.

If your PRINCIPLE is that all people should be treated equally under the law. Civil Unions are a fair compromise, because the end result is that the law will recognize a gay relationship equally to a straight one.

Now lets take the same PRINCIPLE and show a different (and in my opinion unacceptable) compromise. You allow federal civil unions, but allow states the right to not recognize gay relationships. This is a compromise, but, in reality, it compromises the principle, since not all people will be treated equally under the law.


So compromise is good, but not when it compromises the underlying principle for which you are fighting.

[jillan]

23. What I would like to see - lets use gay marriage.

The majority of Dems believe in it.

The majority of Repugs are totally against it.

The dem leaders know that. We could fight about it till we are all blue in the face (no pun intended)
But the dem leaders could play it smart. In order to get reach our goal, we take baby steps.
We first take away the stupid things like "don't ask, don't tell" because we need troops - play to their mindset.
We introduce legislation so we can hire back all of those Arabic speaking interpreters that were fired for being gay, because in order to fight *their stupid war* we need to have these people back.
Next we introduce civil rights. Here we meet more resistance. Reid or Pelosi sit down with the other side and frame the discussion.
Why don't you think GLBT should not have the same rights? Would you say that if your grandchild was gay...whatever.
We reintroduce over and over until this until it gets passed.
Then we move on to our goal.

You are not going to get a bunch of rednecks to go for gay marriage unless you play it right, which includes compromise.

Same thing with attaching a timeline for withdrawal to bsh's funding bill. I completely agree with Edwards when he said we send the same bill over and over and over again. We give them what they want, and we get what we want - it's a compromise.

Same thing with replacing Gonzo. Dems made it clear that if the new Attorney General pick does not meet certain standards that bsh's nominee wouldn't make it through. bsh had to find someone acceptable.

All I am saying, is that sometimes you have to bend a little or take baby steps to get what you want.


edit for typo

[Milo_Bloom]

26. Okay.. take a look at the difference.

In the example you gave, all steps are consistent with the underlying PRINCIPLE.

"We first take away the stupid things like "don't ask, don't tell" because we need troops - play to their mindset."

-- Based upon the principle that all people should be treated as equal under the law.

"We introduce legislation so we can hire back all of those Arabic speaking interpreters that were fired for being gay, because in order to fight *their stupid war* we need to have these people back."

Again, consistent with the principle.



In the case of health care or Iraq, certain compromises cause you to abandon the underlying principle.

Health care principles:

DEM: Equal Health Care is a human right.
GOP: Better health care should go to the people who can afford it.



All of the major health care plans (Kucinich excluded) follow the GOP principle and worse, will make the problem "go away". Debate on health care will CEASE once "everyone is covered" and we end up with the "slow bleed" solution, meaning people will continue to die and suffer due to insufficient health care.

Now, you want an incremental approach consistent with the principle without trying to go all single payer in one step?

First, we have to establish a minimum acceptable level of health care (which is extremely high). One plan should not cover a procedure that another does not. Insurance companies should not have the right to say no to a doctor recommendation. Doctors should be required to accept ALL insurance and insurance companies should be bound by the patient's choice. You want some compromise in here, offer some forms of tort reform as a compromise. Maybe the government assumes some of the liability risk?

Second, work on a way to extend this equal coverage to all Americans.

This way you remain true to the underlying principle, but compromise on the DETAILS and EXECUTION and not on the underlying principle.

[jillan]

28. Exactly - we should stick to our principles but

we need to be willing to compromise to get there.

That's what was wrong with Hillary's healthcare plan in the 90's.

She went right for the end result - healthcare for all - without doing the necessary inbetween steps.
Not compromising. Not thinking ahead and preparing for the opposition. And then expected a nation that was not prepared for such a dramatic change to accept her plan.
It was stupid. Her plan was doomed.

If she would have done it correctly, today our candidates would be debating on how to make her plan better rather than who has the best plan to get us started.

When we want big changes, we have to outsmart the opposition. We have to be ready for anything they throw at us.
And if that means taking small steps - sitting down with the opposition - so be it. You cannot just present great ideas, you have to also have a plan to get what you want, to do your homework ahead of time.

Or else all you are going to get are filibusters and "the battle scars to prove it" as she always says.

[Milo_Bloom]

31. And therein lies the problem.

The current health care plans all compromise the underlying principle by allowing the basic inequity to remain a part of the system now and in the future.

The idea isn't to present a plan that will pass, but instead explain the principle, convince people that your principle is the correct one AND then fight towards that principle in incrimental steps with compromise along the way, but never abandonig the principle. In the meantime you want to try to redefine the opposition pricniple to something that meshes with your own.

Intead say that the GOP stands for "patient choice" instead of "person with the most money gets the most/best health care" and then build patient choice into your system.

Back to gay marriage... the principle is equal rights and recognition under the law for ALL.

Clinton signed the DOMA (defense of marriage act). There is no compromise that allows a bill like that to be signed by someone who believes in equal rights for all.

I think it was Mark Warner in VA who got a similar bill on his desk and would only sign it if they made exceptions for civil unions. He was willing to sign that "marriage" is between a man and a woman, so long as they didn't compromise the underlying principle (equal rights for all).

[jillan]

32. Milo - I think we agree

And are talking in parallels.

Define your goal.
Do your research.
Know your stuff to the point that you can answer questions on the spot.
Prepare for the opposition and how you are going to beat them.
Look at your goal again, and then ask yourself how are you going to get there.
Incremental steps? Meet with the opposition?
Frame the debate.
Find others that back your plan.
Go for it.
Sell it - you are ready.

But I will add, that if the opposition stops you in your tracks -
you need to step back and rethink how you are going to go forward. But,
don't give up. It's an art, a skill. Persuasion.

What I see now in DC are 2 parties so polarized, that all they do is argue.
Nothing gets done. The Dems need to be smarter. They present stuff on the floor of
Congress and they lose. They are not framing the debate. They are not prepared to
answer to the opposition. They are not taking the incremental steps.

Webb's amendment was a great example. It was about the troops, not the war.
How could it not have passed? How could we let them get away without supporting our troops?
If they are smart, they will step back. Study what went wrong, be better prepared, frame it to where
voting against it is a vote against the troops. ugh! I could give hundreds of examples. I place alot of
blame on leadership. I used to be a manager of about 25 people. I took classes on management skills, how to be more effective in my job. They should have classes like that for Reid and Pelosi!

[Milo_Bloom]

44. The Difference.

I believe the democrats, for the last several years, have been compromising their principles over and over again and continue to do so in this latest campaign.

Nearly every plan I have heard is one where they are already comrpromising the underlying prciniple in some attempt to "reach across the aisle".

[Vincardog]

7. We need Bipartisanship. The rePIGS should reach across to work with US.

Our side has bent and moved and compromised with these evil shits on the radical reich for too damn long. The compromise on our side is long past over.

[murbley40]

22. We should all meet in the middle.

[FiveGoodMen]

30. Halfway between fascism and democracy?

[Vincardog]

33. WE passed the middle a long time ago. The middle was what we had with the original FISA law.

WE should agree to roll back every illegal police state action past that point.

[FiveGoodMen]

34. We SHOULD roll back every single thing Bush signed.

[Vincardog]

39. Agreed the original FISA law predates jr by several years.

[sandnsea]

9. At some point, no, principles matter

I honestly think we are there. There's nothing left to concede.

[lligrd]

12. Exactly! nt

[polichick]

10. There can only be bipartisanship if BOTH sides play by the same rules.

That won't happen with this crop of Reps.

[Mythsaje]

14. If those in the right are supposed to be the ones to compromise

with the ones ON the right, we've got a problem. The Repugs have figured something out that's really important to understand...if you refuse to give ground and refuse to compromise, and the other side BELIEVES in compromise, you've got the advantage. The Republicans in Congress are like a two-ton sledge chained to our ankles...any forward motion we manage is done in SPITE of them, not with their assistance.

[jillan]

15. I fault the leadership on that.

A strong leader would not allow this bs...

Just like they did to us when they were in the majority.

[Mythsaje]

16. Probably a good place to assign the blame...

But a lot of it also has to go on the heads of those alleged Democrats who vote with the Repugs more than with their own party.

[polichick]

20. True...

The so-called leaders have been unwilling to actually LEAD ~ and there are those among us that are really more Rep than Democratic, and undermine us from within. Both groups should lose their seats next time 'round, and be replaced by true blue Dems with nerves to match their principles.

[stimbox]

17. You can't triangulate evil.

:freak:

[Totally Committed]

21. Quote by Grover Norquist:

"'Bi-partisanship' is another word for date-rape."

TC

[Nite Owl]

25. We've gone that route

and we are the only ones doing any of the giving up. We have moved so far to the right now that it's up to the GOP to start doing the giving in. If they do then bipartisanship is ok.

[2rth2pwr]

27. The MoveOn resolution was an example of bipartisanship. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

29. I really think we should have compromised with Hitler! (no, not really)

The pukes are soulless, monsters at this point in history. No compromise. Expose their true natures to America without apology and haul the motherfuckers away.

Bipartisan is BULLSHIT!

[Jed Dilligan]

35. When the parties of the rich agree on something,

the poor should lube up to get screwed.

Examples: Deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, war on drugs, welfare reform, NAFTA, offshoring of jobs, etc.

[LWolf]

36. Other:

I truly believe that we can work together to find common ground, and to accomplish things from that place.

I don't believe that those calling for bipartisanship, or using the words above, have any intention of doing so.

Collaboration and consensus is different than compromise. It's different than selling us out while pontificating on bipartisanship.

We can work together on common ground. We don't have to allow conservative manifest destiny to take over the uncommon territory.

[jillan]

37. That's what I want to see.

Maybe it's time to come up with a new word to use instead of bipartisanship.

I agree that Dems shouldn't sell out on their ideals, instead what they need to do is
fight smarter. And sometimes that does require listening to the other side, and framing the debate
to appeal to the other side, without giving up what we want to accomplish.

[LWolf]

43. In reality,

there is much we can agree upon, as people. It is most often the means, not the end, that create the disagreement.

If we can agree on the end result, we should be able to cooperate on the means.

[illinoisprogressive]

38. Both. total partisanship causes nothing to happen. But, you need to stand

firm for beliefs. This is done by standing for your principals but, working with others to foster good government.
i'm sure people have worked with others who they don't like or have nothing in common but, work it out without loosing your spine and get stuff done.
The dems are paralized by not knowing when to work together and when to take a stand.
you need to have principals.
obama has successfully worked with others and got stuff done without giving away his stands and beliefs here in Illinois.
many mistke working together as caving. that is not caving. it's when you sell out your core beliefs.

[ginchinchili]

40. This is an interesting poll.

The results are disturbing. Maybe this is why people have been slow in coming to support Joe Biden. They're afraid he'll be able to work in a bipartisan way, and you're right, it's a must if we want to get anything constructive done. And if we don't, this country's decline has just barely gotten underway.

The debate before the AARP will help Sen. Biden get his legs. The older folks have been around long enough to know what's necessary to really care for this country, and it's going to take the qualities that Joe Biden has to offer.

[jillan]

41. I felt the same way.

I was not expecting those results.

Altho, reading some of the responses, I think the number one thing people want is for
the dems to stand up for what they believe in, and not back down. As a party, we have
gotten pretty weak. Just look what happened in te Senate this past week.

[sampsonblk]

42. Neither

We need to work with them when they are right, and work against them when they are wrong. Nothing new there.

We've been doing the exact opposite. That's been the problem.