My Two Cents - Plain

[NanceGreggs]

My Two Cents – Plain

Let me start by saying this is strictly my personal opinion. I am not trying to preach or scold, or ignore the fact that many of you may hold equally valid opinions that are contrary to my own.

But I must admit I have been greatly disheartened of late to read posts that seem to equate reaching across the aisle, or working with the other side to “caving-in to the Republicans”.

If the past seven years have taught us anything, it is – or should be, IMHO – the fact that maintaining or contributing to the bitter divide among citizens is detrimental to moving the nation forward, or accomplishing anything of value.

When I hear either Obama or Hillary speak about working with the GOP, I take it on faith that neither of them is talking about total capitulation to the Republican agenda – nor do I believe that either candidate would countenance such action on any level.

While I realize that revenge may be sweet – and I admit to having incredibly satisfying fantasies about exactly how such revenge could be exacted – when it comes to the good of my country and my fellow citizens, I am willing to forego such fantasies and focus on the reality of what truly matters.

To say that the Democrats should, upon once again capturing the White House and securing a solid majority in the Senate and the House, invite our opposition into the discussion is not a matter of excusing their wrongs, but an invitation to make things right. And it can, and hopefully will be, done on our terms.

The cries of “let’s do to them what they did to us” look great on paper – but accomplishes nothing in terms of strengthening the economy, protecting the environment, bolstering the educational system, repairing the infrastructure, and positively addressing all of the other items that need to be dealt with before it is too late.

And the timing is perfect for reconciliation – not between two warring political factions, but between citizens – in an attempt to undo the damage created by the current administration and strive to do what is best for all of us.

The Republican Party is in trouble, and they know it. They are losing the loyalty of their voters due to the poisoned political environment they have fostered, and their insistence on focusing on stopping the Democratic agenda at all costs – even at the cost of inflicting suffering on their own constituents in order to prove that they are the bigger bully on the block.

As the economy founders, who will the average American side with: the party that invariably cuts funding to social programs that more and more citizens will have to rely on in future, or the party that has traditionally supported such programs?

As voters scramble to make ends meet, to afford healthcare for themselves and their families, to get out from under mounting debt, who will they look to for relief: the party that insists on tax-cuts for the wealthy and corporate welfare, or the party that looks out for the interests of the hard-working middle-class?

Thanks to the excesses and greed of the Republican Party, the ground is now fertile for sowing the seeds of real change and creating a climate of unity of purpose among the populace. The politicians on the other side have no choice but to recognize that their scorched-earth policies will only lead to increasing losses within their own once-reliable base, which puts them in a position of having to seek honest compromise with us for their own sake.

This is not to say that those on the other side who have sinned against this country should not be held accountable, that those who have stripped us of our rights and freedoms should not face the consequences of their actions, that those who have advanced their own political careers and personal wealth at the expense of their countrymen should not be punished.

However, I do not see that any good will come of keeping our nation in a constant state of civil war, with one party using its influence to wreak revenge on the other every time the balance of power changes hands.

The Democrats truly have something of value to offer, now more than ever: an opportunity to reach out to those who are just as weary of the corruption, the greed, and the lack of real accomplishment that has been so bitterly epitomized by the Bush administration and its minions, and make allies of our fellow citizens who are suffering as much as we are.

The battlefield has its place, and is sometimes a necessary evil when people cannot agree on even the most basic of principles and ideals. But when it becomes not a last resort but the only resort, it does not serve the needs or goals of a nation; it merely replaces them with something that will never result in victory or peace for anyone.

I, for one, welcome the idea of reaching past the extremists, the my-way-or-the-highway poseurs, the childish tantrum-throwers on the other side of the aisle, and extending the hand of friendship to our countrymen who are willing to discuss the fate of our nation like adults – and who, at this point, are probably just as anxious to do so as we are.

That's just my two cents, plain and simple. Surrender is not an option, but negotiating a peace we can all live would be an historic victory in and of itself.

[stop the bleeding]

1. great post,

summed up all the same thoughts that I have about this subject

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. And your two cents are worth so much more than that!

Ah, my dear Nance...

Right on, sweetie...

You always say it so clearly and beautifully...

Thank you...

K&R with considerable pride...

:patriot:

[Yael]

3. Well done

K&R

[K Gardner]

4. Amen, Nance. Thank you. Encouraging all who have expressed this sentiment to read this, please.

[Coexist]

5. beautiful post, Nance.

knr

[avrdream]

6. Nance, I see your point but:

we have all been disappointed with Congress since the 2006 elections. We thought things would get down now that we had a majority in both houses but have been heavily disappointed by our Dem leaders who appear to be capitulating to the Repubs all the time.

I would certainly have more hope if I had actually seen previous success. It scares me because both Hillary and Barack have worked with Repubs in the Senate but I think they will both have that same lack of success as President. This is why we need a hugely Democratic Senate as well as a Dem President.

[Recursion]

7. K&R

:kick:

[frogcycle]

8. you are right as usual, but

with one caveat:

"reaching past the extremists, the my-way-or-the-highway poseurs, the childish tantrum-throwers on the other side of the aisle" pretty much eliminates them all.

And most of the ones who are rational human beings one can have a conversation with don't believe in democracy. They are fascists.

But in principle I agree with you. Finding the ones "who are willing to discuss the fate of our nation like adults" is the tricky bit.

[saltpoint]

9. I'd say, "Very good post, Nance," but it would subtract from the

actual heft of the thing, subtract from the clear thinking and the broad scope, both characteristic of a mature writer, thinker, and citizen.

It would neglect your concision and handsome management of material we need to be considering against the backdrop of all the things the next president will have to face. Let that president, whoever it is, represent us at your level of insight, as opposed to the current model from Bush and whoever it is that comprises that 19% approval group.

We all have to support problem-solving efforts, not just because we've been left a mess by the Bush administration, but also since the Oval Office ultimately is our office, and we hold individually small but collectively gigantic stakes in its occupant and his or her success.

Reaching past the rattatat-tat partisanship is a responsibility for any president for problem-solving. I'm not always good at it. You are.

There's also the benefit of a post like yours that requires more concentration than posts I've read on many other "famous" blog sites, and I might just kick the hell out of this thread for the next several days in hopes that as many folks as possible will lend it the attention it deserves.

Excellent job, as usual, and thank you for the top-drawer brain & heart, Ms. Greggs.

Recommended.

[NanceGreggs]

12. My goal in life ...

... to be even half as good as you constantly encourage me to believe I already am.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart, my dearest friend.

[saltpoint]

13. - - - -

:thumbsup: :hi: :bluebox: :bluebox: :bluebox:

[akbacchus_BC]

64. I love reading your posts, so beautifully logical and sensible ...

This one is exceptionally awesome. I often wonder why the country has to be so divisive and like you wrote, a lot of Republicans are fed up too and I am sure they will work with a Democratic President to help solve the mega problems the US needs resolving. I agree with you that when both Senators Clinton and Obama say they will reach across the aisle, it does not mean they are caving to Republican policies. I think both are genuinely seeking to work with a majority of Americans to restore America and its place on the world stage. I would love to recommend this post but I do not think I am eligible. Keep up the good work.

[axordil]

10. Dingdingding!

We have a winner. Fighting for the sake of fighting, or for revenge, or for gloating rights, is gratifying in the short-term at best. It's as the OP says--reaching across the aisle is also reaching past the entrenched extremists.

[ben_meyers]

11. I going to assume a reference to Harry Golden here

Because it took him a decade of extremism to realize it was a fruitless endeavor.

[bridgit]

14. My .02Ct's; I continue to believe that America is best governed from within a state of balance...

It is this back/forth, up/down, in/out, right/left, wrong/right, this/that, salt/pepper game that has stabbed her with knives in the side of the dawn and dragged her down, however...

To suggest such a thing here; governance from within a state of balance, is to invite derision while being branded a tool of the DLC. DUer's just hate-hate-hate the DLC. Though they'll likely be more receptive hearing such matters from someone such as yourself. One way or the other...

I'm willing to reach across the aisle, shake a few hands, in the course of delivering a now sobered review however askance the moment requires.

[Shine]

15. Excellent post, thank you. K & R

:patriot:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. and history repeats itself...dems clean up the messes, fix the country and make nicey nice with the

repukes....and in 8 years they come back and fuck us again harder each time....sorry but I have been around for too many years and seen it happen too many times and I say NEVER FUCKING AGAIN will I make nice with repukes!!!

and that's just the way it is!

[NanceGreggs]

19. Which leads to history again repeating itself ...

... which leads to history repeating itself once again. And the country, caught in an endless circle of repeated history, eventually dies for lack of anyone daring the break the cycle.

You probably didn't intend to make my point for me - but you just did.

[NBachers]

17. Sorry

I'm still an advocate of Mme Dufarge.

[pscot]

18. Whoa! Look what reaching out has gotten us

Iran-contra was swept under the rug as were the criminal excesses of the S&L scandals of the '80's. We have government of, by, and for the corporations. We have a judiciary that the McKinley administration would have been proud of. We have an attorney general who condones torture and embraces an above-the-law, all powerful, unitary executive. We have politically motivated prosecutions and star chamber justice. We have an increasingly militarized system of governance, that spies on its citizens, marshalls them through armed check-points when they travel and insists that it is above the law, and needs to explain itself to no-one. All this is condoned by a feckless Congress, that has abrogated its responsibility in a tri-partite system and is no longer an effective player. How can we reach out to a Republican party that has in effect become a criminal conspiracy aimed at undermining the Constitution and American Democracy in service of the multi-national corporations who are the real powers behind the throne. We don't need to make nice. We need wholesale reform of a system that has lost its way.

[NanceGreggs]

21. And I am in no way disagreeing with what you've said.

I am talking about reaching out not to a party, but to a people. Thanks to BushCo, there are now more registered Democrats than Republicans - a trend which can be encouraged by adopting an attitude of "join us" rather than an agenda of "now we'll get you".

The best time to negotiate with your enemy is when he has something to lose by being unyielding, and you have everything to gain by welcoming his supporters into your fold.

[pscot]

22. When we reach out to Republicans

we invariably end up lying in the middle of the road with a broken nose. I have no desire to negotiate with them, unless we have a foot on their throats. They only understand force.

[amandabeech]

20. Twenty or thirty years ago I would have agreed with you.

However, the Republican party of that time and the Republican party of today are not the same animal.

The Republicans have forced out almost all of their reasonable members either by defeating them in the primaries or by dissing them by any means available until they resign.

What we have left are primarily scorched earth dinosaurs who are either religious nutcases or slimy corporate shills of the first water. They respect nothing but power.

I'd like to have a real consensus among citizens as well, but 30% are completely hard core and another 30% don't give a damn about anything that is more than 10 yards away from their noses.

I wish that I could be more positive about this, but my experience says otherwise.

We may make some gains against these goons this year because the shrub has screwed up completely, and Obama talks about making nicey-nicey to people who cannot tolerate conflict and don't understand the political process.

I see the coming years as extremely challenging for the nation and the world. I have been writing occasionally about my dissatisfaction with the experience and seriousness of the current two candidates for a couple of months. I liked Edwards, but, frankly, as things have developed in the economy in the past two months, I'm not sure that he has the experience to do the whole job.

We're in for a bumpy, and I think, disillusioning ride.

[durtee librul]

87. My sentiments exactly! Well said Amanda..

I too feel the 'sane repubs' are long gone from the scene and the ones who are left are too afraid (and probably too corrupt) to stand up to their handlers....regardless of the country and it's people they were elected to represent.

While Nance brings out some great points, I don't think a wholesale 'reaching across' is going to happen, muchless be tolerated by the still powerful kingpins of the repukes....to wit, who on this blog really believes Karl Rove has hung up his 'gloves?'

[davidpdx]

23. Nancy, well put

And as I said on another thread, I think there are many Republicans will reach out in this election because they see a chance to change things. The more liberal and middle of the road Republicans that have seen what Bush has done the past 7 years and are sick about how things have turned out can be encouraged to become Democrats or at the very least support them.

It is too bad that a small vocal minority yell and scream that we need to isolate and turn a cold shoulder toward Republicans.

[NanceGreggs]

24. Thanks, davidpdx ...

... and welcome to DU - where the conversation is served pipin' hot with all the fixin's!

:hi:

[NastyRiffraff]

25. I get what you're saying, Nance, and as usual you say it very well...

But (you knew the "but" was coming, right? :) ) Here's he part where I wish our candidates would be more clear about:

I, for one, welcome the idea of reaching past the extremists, the my-way-or-the-highway poseurs, the childish tantrum-throwers on the other side of the aisle, and extending the hand of friendship to our countrymen who are willing to discuss the fate of our nation like adults – and who, at this point, are probably just as anxious to do so as we are.

That's an important distinction. Every time I hear Obama (especially, since he's made it central to his campaign) talk about reaching out to Republicans I can't help thinking about those extremists, poseurs, tantrum throwers and thinking "No way to treat those idiots except to spit in their faces!"

I agree that government cannot run properly without some cooperation between the parties; we've seen what happens when one side practices scorched earth policy. I just don't want our Democratic president to reach over so far that it's not compromise but caving in, yet again.

[NanceGreggs]

63. But we agree!

And I'm certainly not advocating caving-in on any level. What I am advocating is an invitation to the other side to join in the discussion of where we go from here as a country.

Both Hill and Obama have talked about cooperation between the parties, and it's a good move - especially politically, and in the wake of the destruction the GOP have caused.

The voters aren't as stupid as some here would like to believe. They have seen important issues which should have been dealt with falling by the wayside while the GOP have chosen instead to be obstructionist - and simply for the sake of throwing their weight around.

The voters want change, and change for the better - and they want things to get done. If the Dems offer to operate in a spirit of cooperation to get those things done, it makes them look like the party of reason and accomplishment.

And if the GOP slap down the hand of friendship, so be it - they will suffer the consequences of portraying themselves as the party who would rather fight tooth-and-nail, thereby accomplishing nothing for the American people.

But we can't say the other side wouldn't come to the table, if we don't extend the invitation to do so in the first place.

[liberal_rxstudent]

26. Exceptional post indeed!!

Wow! I really must say that every post of yours that I have read so far (over the past month or so before I actually registered here) has been inspiring and written beautifully. Post like yours are the reasons why I keep coming back here daily. What you stated is (IMHO) what distinguishes us dems from everyone else- we are open-minded and value the importance of hearing all sides of an argument. Thanks for the post!! I look forward to reading more from others like you here.

[blondie58]

32. welcome to DU, liberal_rxstudent!

yeah, she was one of the main reasons that I came to this place, also-lurking a year before registering. She can get me so worked up- as I read one of her rants- I'm like- "thst's it- how can they do that? I am furious! this must be stopped!"

Watch out, though- the rest of the board is not typical at this time. There is a lot of divisiveness between Hillary lovers and
obama lovers and many ugly spats have ensued. This will pass- I think that emotions are just running high at this time.

[liberal_rxstudent]

52. Yeah...

I have noticed quite a lot of that between the supporters of Clinton and Obama. Either way, I'd take either candidate over McCain or any other repub nominee any day. I really don't understand why so many dems (not just here) are behaving so irrationally- threatening to withhold votes if "this" candidate becomes the nominee. It will be great to see this pass...it's kinda disheartening to watch this debacle continue on.

[Lochloosa]

41. Since your search capabilities are more limited than mine, here are some of her past post links

Enjoy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4770872

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4671044


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4637877

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4373945


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4329319

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4279178

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4242164

And welcome to DU

[liberal_rxstudent]

54. Thanks-

I love reading what she writes. It's poetic and insightful. I'm sooo glad that I found DU!!! :hi:

[Lochloosa]

100. Hang around. It gets better after the primary's are over.

Right now, it's a little hummm bitter in here.
:evilgrin:

[AtomicKitten]

27. K&R

I wholeheartedly agree. We're overdue for some peace.

[saltpoint]

28. A kick for the woman Ann Sexton sees out her window long after

sunset but also long before dawn.

For those acquainted with the night, as Frost put it.

For the white stones shining in the moonlight Hansel left for us to find our way home.

[FlyingSquirrel]

29. Here's what'll happen if we get our fantasy....

In another 8 years, after Democrats have been in charge of EVERYTHING and passed only their agenda while completely ignoring the other half of the country - another tidal wave in the opposite direction and another 8-12 years of Republicans being in charge.

Personally I'm getting seasick.

[ldf]

55. if I were to get MY fantasy

after we gain control of "everything", as you put it, there would be a great education campaign.

a campaign to educate ALL the citizens of america EXACTLY what has been going on over the last seven years, if not before. (the very FIRST thing would be to put the media on notice that they either present the whole truth, or they will no longer be on the air. PERIOD.)

all of the truth. everything. every last scheme, scandal, attrocity.

americans can handle it. history requires it. we need to know exactly WHAT has been done in our names, and who allowed it. who signed off on it, who gave their blessings.

name names. many of them may be democrats. so be it. we can prove that even our own must pay the price for justice.

i want every american as outraged as i am over the travesties that have been shoved upon us in the name of safety and security (as a cover for POWER and PROFIT).

i want a list of all the things we gave up, and why, with a list of actual results, and WHO actually PROFITTED.

i don't want revenge, i want justice.

the 25% who would still sing praises to hitler will never be convinced. but the remainder of americans ARE fair, decent and would be shocked at the truth, if ONLY they heard it.

they haven't. they have only heard faux news' "spin" of the truth, which has no resemblance at all to the actual truth.

there should be such a cloud of shame over washington, over our corporations, over the media..... their desires for profit and power have brought this on us.

still, it seems that the few examples of the new political reality no longer being acceptable to the players, are coming from republicans, who can no longer continue to play the game. a small hand full of republicans who will speak out.

what that does is show that the REPUBLICANS are the ones who have found their moral compass, and must speak out. not the democrats.

and as usual, democrats may manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

we are too busy "taking things off the table", whether impeachments or investigations, rather than hurt someone's feelings. through investigations comes discovery. through discovery americans will know the truth.

it is all too possible that in our reaching across the aisle what will result is that, rather than address the issues, nothing will get addressed.

we all must move along now, nothing to see here... we don't have the time. it will be too fractious. let's dwell on the future, not the past...

so, in our unwillingness to face the truth:

hundreds of thousands, if not millions, would have died for lies,

TRILLIONS that could have been spent on the health and welfare of our own citizens, not to mention a concerted effort to save the planet from extinction, end up in the pockets of the military industrial complex,

corporations continue to write their own rules, passed by our very own congresspersons,

the consitution continues to become more of "just a piece of paper", while american citizens are losing right after right,

our news media, who's very reason for existence is to inform the citizens of the truth, continues to be a rightwing propaganda machine who's sole purpose is to increase their own bottom line.

america has been bought and paid for.

this has nothing to do with revenge, but EVERYTHING to do with justice, and teaching that you DON'T FUCK WITH LADY LIBERTY. EVER!! because you WILL pay.

reaching across the aisle doesn't HAVE to be vengeful or spiteful. but it DOES have to be an honest attempt at addressing wrongs.

so, if reaching across the aisle in the spirit of of bipartisanship and compromise will help achieve that goal, i'll gladly do a reacharound.

but this reacharound MUST be mutual... then, while basking in the "afterglow", maybe we can get something accomplished.

:-)

and nance, you once again reflect the absolute best and most noble traits of what it SHOULD be, to be a big tent democrat. YOUR posts are the ones that i immediatly put into emails and pass along. you are totally TOP DRAWER!

:toast:

[KLee]

30. Nance I haven't been here that long....

but I have already come to admire your posts. Thank you so much!

~Peace

[casus belli]

31. Great read, cogent arguments. Thanks! n/t

[satireV]

33. A scorpion does what it does because it is a scorpion.

I am glad this idea was not taken to heart by the signers of the Declaration of Independence and President Lincoln. Sometimes the grievances are so numerous and so egregious that there is no rectifying it except by force. The framers understood this and realized that the king would never change.

I recently re-read the DOI and noted how many of the items listed in it are similar to the ones the people have against the GOP today. It is amazing.

I have a simple question for you. What would it take, for you to change your mind about trying to change the GOP and its leaders into something you would accept? At what point will it take to realize that the only way to change and reverse the damage done to the nation, the Constitution, and the people is the utter destruction of the source of that damage? Will it take the biting of the hand that reaches across the aisle? The black bagging of your neighbors in the middle of the night, never to be seen again? how will you know that playing nice nice hasn't worked and that the next choice is force?

The GOP will never change.

The solution is the utter destruction of the GOP. It is down, but it is not out. It will resurrect itself in a more virulent version if it is not annihilated. The GOP will pretend to cooperate while planning to rip off the hand that is extended. The GOP is like the scorpion. Like the Federalist and Whig Party, the GOP needs to be a bad memory.

Is this extreme? yes, but so was the Revolutionary War. I wonder how many of today's people who want to reach across the aisle, hoping with faith the other side will play nice nice, would have signed the Declaration of Independence, or would have continued to capitulate to the king.

As Barry said: moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

[NanceGreggs]

57. I'm not trying to change the GOP leaders into something ...

... acceptable; not at all.

When Bush stole office, registered voters were equally split between Dems and the GOP. That has now changed, and dramatically so - and that shift towards the left has been historic in its magnitude. I'm talking about using the next Democratic administration to build on that trend by governing to the advantage of the average middle-classers as opposed to corporations, etc.

By "reaching out" I merely mean inviting the other side to work with us to that end, instead of opposing us at every turn. And because they are losing their voters to our side, it is in their best interest to be more cooperative in future - especially as individuals come up for re-election - so let's play that to our own advantage.

"The GOP will never change." Of course it will, for better or worse - just as the Democratic Party will change over the years. Political parties are not a stagnant thing; they are constantly evolving. The 'face' and 'attitude' of the parties change on an ongoing basis, as old leaders leave and new ones are elected.

You talk about the utter destruction of the GOP. Just how do you propose doing that? By putting our fingers in our ears every time they speak? By shutting them out of the process when we're in power - which only serves to make us look like the unreasonable, unbending fanatics they've painted us as for years?

The best way (the only way, IMHO) to weaken the GOP into changing for the better (or extinction - their choice) is to take the high road.

Offer them a place at what will soon be OUR table - if they choose to go hungry rather than eat what we plan to serve, fuck 'em. But make the offer, and let THEM look like the unreasonable fanatics if they walk away.

[caseycoon]

34. Very well stated, Nance!

I am hoping they WILL come together for the good of the country.
:applause:

[usrbs]

35. Conservatism has brought us here.

Conservatism has brought this country to its knees, and the whole world perhaps past the brink. It should be disparaged, crushed, and totally repudiated. Anything less will just have the same cast and same horrible ideas return, just as the Reagan and Bush creeps reappeared 7 years ago, after Clinton did reach out.

[intaglio]

36. Thanks, some people think that reaching out

Means reaching out to the corrupt and the hateful within the Republican Party, it does not mean that.

You can reach out to the hopeful and patriotic amongst the Republicans, to the unemployed and the unwell, to the conservative and the reactionary. These people are humans not ogres and you need to have them support you, to have them want what you want.

[crispini]

37. K&R

:kick:

[pattmarty]

38. I agree, but if the Republicans refuse to be "reasonable" ......

...... then I say fuck em!!!!

[bigtree]

39. when it comes right down to it, we're going to eventually have to kick some republican ass

The important bills are still going to have to be muscled through against a solid wall of republican opposition. They don't care about any 'will' of the people, expressed in an election, or anywhere else. It will be a good photo op with all of the gang gathered in the White House, but the cretins aren't going to relinquish power voluntarily or without a fight. We will be able to compromise on a number of things, but on the issues which matter, and have been the subject of obstruction by the republicans in Washington, I believe we will have to resort to many partisan approaches, just in response to the intractable opposition. Unity is a wonderful photo op, but progressive change will have to be forced on the entrenched republican class which exists today.

[Guava Jelly]

40. I sure wish that I could write as well as you do

Great post

[boston bean]

42. How's that reaching across the aisle helping Pelosi and Reid?

We do not need a weakling. We need someone to fight for us. That is what I want. He has too many repugs in his campaign and he has dissed too many dems.

He dismissed the baby boomers stating they need to get over themselves. He is an ageist as well. I don't know about you, but using RW talking point on Healthcare is something I want no part of. He has done the alienation of dems so he can get republican votes in small red states. That is who he is, he doesn't care how it damages the party. He is out for himself to win the election in the Democratic Primary at all costs and nothing else matters.

So no, I want him beating up on them not us.

[ekwhite]

43. Thanks for the great post Nance, and a comment on the comments

There are some on this thread arguing that we cannot trust the Republicans enough to reach out to them, or that we should do to them what they did to us. When I read this, I am reminded of the quote from Gandhi: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."

The last great change in our country, the Civil Rights movement, was not by hatred of the opposition, who deserved hatred, but by peacefully resisting them. Quiet dignity and compassion for the opposition, even as they hate and revile us, is much more effective.

After 7 years of the Bush administration, we are all sick to death of the posturing, hatred, and bigotry of the Republican party. I have often fallen short of my own ideals, and let my temper get the better of me. But Nance is right - we need to reach out to those of good will in the opposition, and enlist their help in rebuilding our democracy. Engaging in the same type of divisive politics the Republicans have used for so many years will change nothing. Taking the high road could put us on the right track for decades to come. Our work will be just beginning when a Democrat takes the oath of office in January 2009. We need all the hands we can get to help us with it.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. What's on the table?

Negotiations mean they give and we give. Just what do you have in mind to give up to the Fundy right? They get something. What do you have in mind as areas open to compromise? What areas of our principles are open to surrender for make nice sessions? Get past the rhetoric and get specific. What areas of compromise exactly? Are the things yeilded going to be from your balance sheet or mine?
It is easy to list vauge platitudes about co-operation and compromise, harder when we get downn to brass tacks. Which items on the GOP Christmas list are you willing to deliver? Roe? Gay rights? Blackwater? Privatizing SSA? Permanant Iraq bases?
This is not imaginary. If we do what you suggest, what actual compromises are you willing to take? Speaking in generalities makes it easy to say 'let's just get along' but when we get down to specifics it is a different ballgame. I ask you to get specific.

Without specifics it is just a matter of fantasy talk. They compromised so well in the past about a woman's right to chose that they left a trail of bombed buildings and dead bodies. How do you plan on compromising with that, exactly?
This is supposed to be an honest question lacking in snark and I hope it comes off that way. But saying we will build paradise without a blue print and some suggested steps is just pretty words in a nice order. So we win, we 'reach out' and then what?

[NanceGreggs]

58. You're making my point for me ...

... in terms of equating 'reaching out' to capitulation. They're not the same thing.

Who said anything about compromising principles? "Just what do you have in mind to give up to the Fundy right? They get something.? Who says they get anything? Why should they?

Once WE are in power, we don't have to do ANY giving-in. But at the same time, we don't have to act like they've acted, especially over the past seven years - which has cost them voters, BTW.

What I'm saying here is that you invite the other side to the table. If they don't want to sit down and discuss things rationally, or cooperate with us on important issues (especially those that impact the already-downtrodden middle-class), we use their refusal to do so to our own advantage.

But by not making that offer in the first instance, we lose the advantage of saying, "We offered the olive branch, and they slapped it down. We go from here - and you can't say we didn't try."

We have everything to gain by making them look like they aren't willing to work together towards the betterment of the country, instead of making ourselves look like the same uncompromising bastards they've been in the past.

[skepticscott]

60. You yourself advocated negotiation

with the Republicans. Negotiation involves compromise, with both sides making concessions and giving up some things in order to get others. But now you're saying that we shouldn't and need not give up anything to them-how is that negotiation? As you point out, if the Democrats control the White House and Congress, they can do whatever they feel is necessary, without regard for what the Republicans or their constituents want, but in fact that is how the Republicans have been acting for the last 7 years.

[NanceGreggs]

65. Yes, negotiation ...

... which doesn't mean surrendering principles, or giving up things we value.

Negotiation is compromise to the point where both sides walk away from the table with something they can live with. It doesn't mean one side throws in the towel and gives the other side everything it wanted.

You're right that the GOP, while they were in the majority and had the WH, stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed, "La-la-la, we can't hear you, Democrats." And where did it get them? It got them a massive loss of voters (registered Democrats are now the majority of voters - seven years ago, it was an even split between the parties).

And that's why I don't want to see the Dems fall into that same pattern - because all it says to the voters is, "We are no different than they are."

As I've said, extending an invitation to join us in actually accomplishing something of value for the good of the citizenry is the smart move. And if the GOP choose to insist that it's their way or no way, they will suffer the consequences - i.e. losing more voters to the side that offered an opportunity to be reasonable for the good of the nation.

[skepticscott]

67. The question still stands

What are you suggesting that the Democrats offer to give up in a negotiation with the Republicans? If not everything, and if not something we value, then what, specifically? And what specifically are the Republicans likely to give up in return, based on their recent history?

As far as all the newly registered Democrats (who are not necessarily voters once loyal to the Republicans and now "lost", btw), isn't it just possible that the reason so many people have joined this side is to give the Democratic party the power to do exactly what they want, without negotiating at all with the Republicans? Maybe they want their elected Democratic leaders to show they are different by their policies, not their attitude.

If have a majority in Congress and a Democratic president, then good ideas, effectively promoted and implemented, are all we need (I have some doubts about how skillful the Democrats will be at that, but that's another issue). Why should we want to share credit with the Republicans for doing what we know is right and what they have opposed with every bit of their energy? If they want to assume a posture of obstructionism and never-ending filibusters, let them. They won't need our help to look bad in that case.

[NanceGreggs]

70. You keep going back to us "giving up" something ...

... we already have. That's not what I'm talking about. When I talk about 'negotiation', I mean things in future that will come to the table over the next eight years. And I am not talking about compromising core principles; I'm talking about compromising on budget items, money for education, the infra-structure, things where both sides can crunch the numbers and come to a viable agreement together. It means things get done, instead of nothing being accomplished because neither side will give an inch.

"As far as all the newly registered Democrats (who are not necessarily voters once loyal to the Republicans and now "lost", btw) .." - some of them are people who have switched, and some are new registrants. Either way, it is a loss to the GOP, because they used to register as many new Republicans as we did Dems. And yes, I do believe they are coming over to us because they AGREE with the Democratic agenda - that would seem obvious.

And I am not talking about changing that agenda one iota. I'm talking about inviting the GOP to join us in promoting that agenda - and that doesn't mean giving them a damned thing to sweeten the pot.

As for 'sharing credit', if the GOP want to back the Dems on returning the country back to the Constitution and the rule of law, and want to brag to their constituents that they 'did the right thing', I don't really care; getting the 'right thing' done is more important than who takes credit for it - not to mention the fact there is nothing positive the Democrats will do over the next eight years that won't be looked at by the voters in terms of, "Well, why didn't you Republicans do this when you had the chance"?

I don't know how many times I can say this - especially because it was the purpose of my OP: Inviting the other side to work with us, on our terms does NOT mean giving them anything. It means just that: on our terms.

If they choose not to accept those terms, fine - they can walk away. Which is a win for us in the long term, because we made the offer and they refused it.

[skepticscott]

76. Come on, Nance

your OP said: "negotiating a peace we can all live would be an historic victory in and of itself" That sounds an awful lot like you were talking about broad, sweeping principles that are currently dividing the two parties. You most certainly were not talking about just compromising over whether we spend 4 billion or 6 billion more on food stamp programs, or whether or not we fund a new weapons system here or a new bridge there, which is where you now seem to have moved the goalposts. Compromising on specific budget numbers goes on all the time, even in the kind of contentious political atmosphere we're living with now, and is hardly "historic".

[NanceGreggs]

80. Yes, and negotiating peace we can all live with ...

... does not mean sacrificing our principles - obviously that would be a peace we couldn't live with, wouldn't it?

And yes, the negotiation I was referring to was exactly about monetary expenditures, and things like mutually agreeing to not waste the taxpayers' time arguing about flag-burning, or whether "under God" should or shouldn't be part of the pledge of allegiance, while important issues get kicked to the back of the line.

If you want to debate with me about what I've said, I invite the discussion. But please don't give me your interpretation of my own words, and insist that I defend what I haven't said.

[skepticscott]

97. All right

here's what you've said:

negotiating a peace we can all live would be an historic victory in and of itself

When you wrote this, were you talking about negotiating over the broad, sweeping principles that are currently dividing the two parties or not? If not, what would be historic about any of that? if so, why did you then write this:

When I talk about 'negotiation', I mean things in future that will come to the table over the next eight years. And I am not talking about compromising core principles; I'm talking about compromising on budget items, money for education, the infra-structure, things where both sides can crunch the numbers and come to a viable agreement together.

which speaks only of nuts and bolts monetary "number-crunching" and has nothing whatsoever to do with long term "peace" between the parties on truly contentious issues like the Iraq occupation, abortion, gay marriage or universal health care.


And then when challenged on that, you wrote:

And yes, the negotiation I was referring to was exactly about monetary expenditures, and things like mutually agreeing to not waste the taxpayers' time arguing about flag-burning, or whether "under God" should or shouldn't be part of the pledge of allegiance, while important issues get kicked to the back of the line.

which makes even less sense. How much of the taxpayers' time has Congress actually spent in the last 7 years arguing about flag-burning or the Pledge? Other than very occasionally rearing their heads, these are virtual non-issues as far as compromise between the parties are concerned and add nothing meaningful to the debate. Tell us what negotiation you're calling for on the truly hot-button issues that I mentioned above.

Face it, if all you're talking about is having a Democratic president say that he wants to work with Republicans as well as his own party, what is "historic" about that? The same thing happens every time a new administration comes in or the party dynamic between the White House and Congress changes, but nobody ever expects much of it or takes it seriously after the first two weeks of January. There's nothing "historic" about it, and it never brings about "peace".

And please, what exactly would a "peace" that the Republicans could also live with but that would require NO compromise of core principles on the part of the Democrats look like? I would love to hear...

[NanceGreggs]

108. ...

"How much of the taxpayers' time has Congress actually spent in the last 7 years arguing about flag-burning or the Pledge?"

Too much - just like wasting time looking into steroid use among athletes when people are losing jobs, homes, and troops are dying in Iraq.

You're right - these are "non-issues", so why are they given ANY attention at all?

"Tell us what negotiation you're calling for on the truly hot-button issues that I mentioned above."

Simple answer: There is NO COMPROMISE on those issues. Nor did I ever suggest there should be. There are certain things we will always stand firm on, and certain things they will be equally adamant about.

The 'historic peace' I'm advocating is one where both sides sit down and determine what needs doing NOW and DO IT - things like infra-structure repairs and maintenance, refurbishing crumbling schools, road and bridge repair, etc. These are things that BOTH sides can go back to their constituents on and say, "We got this and that accomplished," which means bragging rights all around.

As I have said, OVER AND OVER, advocating "reaching out" does NOT MEAN, "Here's what we're willing to give you, GOP, to be on our side." It means, "We are willing to listen to what you have to say. We may dismiss it out-of-hand after you say it, but we're willing to listen."

In an election year, THAT attitude wins a lot more votes than saying, "Put we Democrats in the WH, and we promise to stick our fingers in our ears when anyone from the 'other side' has something to say."

As I said in my OP - and will say again - we offer them the opportunity to compromise, but ON OUR TERMS, not THEIRS.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. Then we are talking about style, not substance

If we are not giving up anything of worth, then it is not a negotiation and we are not really reaching out. If you are saying talk soft and carry a big stick, that is great. But the notion of negotiations in which our side always gets everthing is sort of the same as what Bush said. Bi-Partisanism means both Parties do as I say, right?

Pretend to include them? Sure, why not. But that is all it is if we really won't yeild meaningful ground. It is not what you said in you OP. Reach out, negotiate. These words have meanings. If we mean them, we need to be prepared as to what will be 'let go' in our deal making. If we are not going to let go of anything, then it is not deal making, it is demanding. Nicely. But it is still demanding unless we are willing to yeild.

[NanceGreggs]

73. The point of my OP ...

... was plain enough: "Reaching out" and offering a chance for the other side to cooperate does not mean giving in, giving up, capitulation or surrender. It means exactly what it means: "We're offering you a chance to work with us. Take it or leave it."

History tells us that they (the powers-that-be in the GOP) will leave it - but it's obvious by now that a lot of their constituents don't want them to continue obstructing the Dems just for the sake of doing so, thereby slowing down any real progress being made.

It is a great political strategy in this campaign to offer the other side a chance to do what's right for the citizenry - and if they slap the offer down, they expose themselves publicly as the party who is more interested in grand-standing than in improving the lives of the voters, and the state of the nation. That's a win for our side.

[Shoedogg]

45. Two things:

First:

I, for one, welcome the idea of reaching past the extremists, the my-way-or-the-highway poseurs, the childish tantrum-throwers on the other side of the aisle, and extending the hand of friendship to our countrymen who are willing to discuss the fate of our nation like adults – and who, at this point, are probably just as anxious to do so as we are.

The extremists, the my-way-or-the-highway poseurs, the childish tantrum-throwers on the other side of the aisle...they're all that's left, Nance. If you reach beyond them, you'll find no one else left. It's my belief that anyone, after all that we have seen happen at the hands of the right wing, who still refers to themselves as a Republican is beyond Obama's/Clinton's/Edward's/Kucinich's/your/my reach. They'll never be convinced that there's a better way because they don't want to be convinced - they want to be right (as in "correct") and they want to win at any cost. You just can't keep playing the same game by the same rules with someone who has proven that they simply will not, under any circumstances, abide by those rules unless they are "winning". There will never stop being people who want to destroy our vision of the way the world ought to be - and they will never stop trying. Reaching out to them will only be seen (by them) as another chance to try again.

And secondly (courtesy of Aesop via Tarantino):

Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, b*tch, you knew I was a snake."

...and I think that says more than any of my words ever could.

Shoe.

(BTW, to my recollection, this may be the ONLY time I have ever disagreed even slightly with you. I love reading your work and hope to keep reading it for a long time. We just differ on this.)

[pollo poco]

56. I'm afraid I must agree w/Shoedogg

These people are enemies, and they are dangerous. Do we reach out with innocence and hope to the Mafia? The Nazis? Ted Bundy? No. We understand that such people seek only the destruction of others. They are criminals and sociopaths. There is such a thing as evil. This current manifestation of evil has nearly destroyed our country. And they are war criminals. If we had prosecuted the traitorous Prescot and Bush families for their collusion with Nazis during WWII, we would not have a Bush Crime Family today. If we had gone after all of the members of the Nixon gang, they could not have risen again as the neo-cons to complete their work during the Bush presidency.

We need a party and a president who will protect us. These people are dangerous. Not a shred of love for our country and people. Not decent. Not reasonable. Not able to compromise. Emotionally and cognitively flawed. Like the snake in the story, they are poisonous and dangerous.

I am tired of living in fear and dread. I want my elected officials to put a stop to this reign of terror.

[rasputin1952]

59. However...if people work together, they can rid us all of those

that are so far to the Right, as to be damn near insane, that we don't have to wirry about them anymore.

The past few cuacuses and primary elections have had recorsd D turnout...if the momentum stays where it's at, or grows....this will be the greates defeat the R's have ever suffered...and that's fine by me!

The future is in our hands.

[rasputin1952]

46. The very basis of politics is the art of compromise, the ability to

work things out, preferably for the betterment of the nation as a whole, and specifically the citizens.

The neo-con agenda has tossed this to the side of the road, beat the ideology to near death, and left it to be picked clean in a plutocracy. But like any good story, the hero has been bloodied, but is not dead; has been beaten, but rises to the occasion when the necessity demands it.

Here we are, at a crossroad that is no less historic than that which brought us to the Civil War, the last period of "no compromise". While I do not see the country being torn into secession, I see an opportunity to bring this nation together for the betterment of all. D's R's, Progressives, Conservatives, Centerliner's, you name it, we have the chance to do something that will ensure a democratic republic survives in this nation. But it all comes down to compromise. and the thought of wreaking vengeance upon the few who have come close to destroying this nation will do little more than shove all sides further apart. This is not the object of any election or gain of power...the object is to get things back on track with a minimum of trouble, this is not capitulation, it is an act based on wisdom, not on emotion.

We all know, first hand what the neo-cons have done, it should not be the objective to emulate them by mirroring them, but exposing their ideology for what it is, the attempted destruction of a Constitutional Democratic Republic, replaced by a combined form of "royalty"/plutocracy/theocracy. God...that sounds like medieval Europe.

We have a lot to do in the near and distant future, and nothing will get done if do not realize we do not have all of the answers, if we go into the future like the Gingrich "revolution', we, as a nation will fare no better than we are now...in fact, if retribution is the driving force, we will actually be doing far worse.

A short list of almost immediate necessities for us to remain as a nation that we can be proud of:

the war must end

the Patriot Act must be rescinded

strict accountability of all that has been done and money spent over the past 7+ years

serious discussion about threats to this nation

shore up the economy, (a lot of that can be done by extracting ourselves from the Middle East)

rebuild agencies like the FDA, USDA, EPA, etc...those that protect us, not aid in our demise

repair the infrastructure

OK...this is a short list, and just about everyone here has their priorities...but if we don't take care of these things, we won't have a country left to take care of what are really secondary issues. Without a foundation, we cannot build to higher ideals. In the secondary zone, we need to address equality, human rights, our role in international affairs, energy, "terror", how the law enforcement aspect has gained immense unrestricted power, taking care of our vets....the list goes on, but at this point in time, these are secondary, not primary objectives. If we cannot take on the Primary Objectives, we can never get to the secondary. Action is required to get the WH and Congress into hands that will reach across and work with all facets of government, not give in to them, nor capitulate, but work with them, to get this country back to where it belongs.

If we can keep to our principles, work together w/the opposition, (bring them to our side, at least somewhat), we will be doing this nation a great service. Or, we can act like those we despise, and destroy this nation.

We hold the future in our hands.

[bluerum]

47. It's not simply a question of "doing to them what they did to us". The fundamental

issues IMO, are:

1. Creating and securing a government that is responsive to the needs of it's CITIZENS, not corporate interests.
2. Marginalizing republican or democratic leadership that impedes the agenda's required for item 1.

[LWolf]

48. My response: plain and simple.

I believe that those of us who are offended by the "working with the other side" rhetoric are offended because we've had 7 years of complicity already. The opposition to the Bush administration has been miniscule. We wanted Democrats in Congress to make them fight for every inch they gained, and that didn't happen.

Democrats did not oppose the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, NCLB, and most of the garbage thrown at us since.

Since '06, Democratic opposition has been effectively taken "off the table" by Pelosi and others.

Many of us want OPPOSITION to the right-wing corporate agenda. We don't want complicity or enabling, and that's what "working with the other side" has come to mean to us.

Moreover, it's more than offensive to know that a candidate values "the other side," the right, more than he values the natural allies on the LEFT. Who is reaching across the centrist divide to work with us? No one in the party leadership, that's who. As a matter of fact, when Democrat dares to do so, he may be targeted by party leadership and influence to unseat him in his own primary election.

When party leadership, and a mainstream candidate, so effectively shuns the left wing of the party, and the natural independent and 3rd party allies on the left, to reach across to the right, what conclusion am I supposed to reach about just who the party wants to represent?

[skepticscott]

49. Many questions remain

While everyone might, in theory, be enraptured with the notion of the Democrats and Republicans working together for the betterment of the country and the mending of the damage done by the current (and previous) Republican administrations, the most pressing question is, what specifically does the Republican party have to offer that will aid in achieving these goals? In what policy areas are the Republican's ideas of potentially greater benefit to the average American citizen than the Democrat's? What will the Republican party (or any individual Republicans in Congress) be willing and eager to do in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation? And I mean truly willing to do, not just cowed into doing by the knee-jerk political survival instincts of those who suddenly find themselves in the minority and without presidential backing.

You speak of reaching past the extremists on the other side of the aisle, but how many times have destructive and even illegal policies of the Bush administration been supported by all, or virtually all of the Republicans in Congress? How many times have we seen an unwavering voting block of Republicans joined by Democrats motivated by cowardice and self-serving political calculation? And how many times have the Democrats voted together against truly misguided legislation and been joined by Republicans with the moral courage to defy their party? The former much more often than the latter, if my memory serves. Who are the specific Republicans in Congress who have consistently gone against the Bush administration and who could be counted on to defy their party under a Democratic president and a Democratically controlled House and Senate? What specific Republicans will support holding those of their party who have violated the law accountable, as you advocate? Who will work with the Democrats to initiate the necessary and appropriate proceedings against the criminals who have been running the country for the last 7 years?

Cooperation and bipartisanship are lovely ideas in the abstract, but as always, the devil is in specifics and details. Negotiation is all well and good, but it implies that both sides give up something important. What are the Republicans as a party willing to give up, and what can the Democrats give up that they haven't already?

[MichiganVote]

50. "Faith" and political parties....interesting concept...usually not realistic...

highly subjective...prone to stereotypes...costly...hardly mistake proof...not a guarantee of collaboration...questionable ethics...

If the only argument for supporting one party over another or the most important argument for partisanship is "faith", it seems to me we have replaced one form of worship with another. In a manner of speaking we have replaced religion with dubious political parties, policies and candidates.

The 'citizen' ethic is neither blue or red. It is gasping for air amidst corporate power, greed and influence. We've been here before....

Every time our economy base has changed, citizens have had to scrape, crawl, bite, kick and chew their way into some part of this equation called life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our economy has changed and is changing still, from manufacturing to consumerism to service. Can economic slavery be far behind? I think not.

The Republican party is a tool for corporations. Corporations do not negotiate peace. They play hard ball and they will exist to control us. The Democratic party is barely partisan within itself. How it will manage to do what you propose in any substantive manner is questionable to me and I believe to millions and millions of Americans.

[The Wizard]

51. Who will reach first:

Assuming the Republicans won't have polling numbers that makes elections close enough to steal and they are in a distinct minority, will they reach across the aisle to help, or will they do what they've become comfortable doing, stopping progress and every democratic initiative? Their formula for political abuse has worked for years, why should they change?
Whenever Democrats reach across the aisle all they ever pull back are stumps.
The question is, which Republicans can be trusted to bargain in good faith? Their past behavior indicates anything but good faith.
Conceding the fact that the Bush cartel has to restore the looted treasury would be a good start.
As long as the Democratic leadership acts like a minority when the opposite is true, don't expect Republicans to suddenly become civilized.
All Republicans have to do to restore civil discourse is to admit their support for all things Bush were wrong for America. Admitting that their strident support for dictatorial rule is in fact a violation of America's core principles will go a long way to helping close the divide brought on us by the Machiavellian Rasputin, Karl Rove.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. Who can you work with on this list (excepting Snowe)?

Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)

Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)

Barrasso, John- (R - WY)

Bennett, Robert F.- (R - UT)

Bond, Christopher S.- (R - MO)

Brownback, Sam- (R - KS)

Bunning, Jim- (R - KY)

Burr, Richard- (R - NC)

Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)

Coburn, Tom- (R - OK)

Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)

Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)

Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)

Corker, Bob- (R - TN)

Cornyn, John- (R - TX)

Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)

Crapo, Mike- (R - ID)

DeMint, Jim- (R - SC)

Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)

Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM)

Ensign, John- (R - NV)

Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)

Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)

Grassley, Chuck- (R - IA)

Gregg, Judd- (R - NH)

Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)

Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT)

Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX)

Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)

Isakson, Johnny- (R - GA)

Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ)

Lieberman, Joseph I.- (ID - CT) :evilgrin:

Lugar, Richard G.- (R - IN)

Martinez, Mel- (R - FL)

McCain, John- (R - AZ)

McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)

Murkowski, Lisa- (R - AK)

Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)

Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)

Shelby, Richard C.- (R - AL)

Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)

Snowe, Olympia J.- (R - ME)

Specter, Arlen- (R - PA)

Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)

Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)

Thune, John- (R - SD)

Vitter, David- (R - LA)

Voinovich, George V.- (R - OH)

Warner, John- (R - VA)

Wicker, Roger F.- (R - MS)



While some of the names will be different next year, the ilk most likely will not.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

103. There's your answer.

Maybe Collins? :shrug:

[skepticscott]

61. An additional point

Lest we forget, if the Republicans can hold the White House by any manner of voter suppression or electoral fraud in November, they will do so without hesitation or remorse. Anyone who doubts that hasn't been paying attention for the last 7 years. Let's keep that firmly in mind before we advocate any type of cooperation or conciliation with them.

[classof56]

82. Your point is one I keep laying on people only to have them dismiss it out of hand.

I have watched the Rs and the Bush minions and I know full well they are capable of anything, no matter how reprehensible, to stay in power. I am sad to say I fully expect Bush to initiate some sort of act that will cause him to suspend the November election and attempt to stay in office. Didn't Congress give him that "executive authority" to do whatever he wants? I truly am fearful that this is going to happen and it will be something horrible enough to prevent citizens from taking to the streets in protest. Our country as we know it will end. All the squabbling among Dems we've been engaging in will be moot. Maybe we should redirect our attention toward preserving the republic.

Just my thoughts. I prayer to god I'm wrong.

Tired Old Cynic

[Fearless]

62. K&R

I've been trying to say this for weeks, thank you for saying it far more succinctly and eloquently than I ever could. Maybe someone will listen to you as they haven't to me. Thank you, thank you for seeing the big picture.

[Seabiscuit]

66. Haven't read the entire OP. Just the beginning.

But I would say, on the contrary, that if the past 7 years have tought us anything, it's that the Republicans do NOT compromise because they declared war against us decades ago, and since they took over all three branches of government have arrogantly made it clear that they are at war not just with Democrats, but with the rule of law, the Constitution, the middle class, the poor, women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, and the American people as a whole. They are the most decrepit and despicable gang of criminal thugs in power this country has ever seen. You do not and can not "compromise" with them. Today reaching beyond partisanship is neither possible nor desirable. If you want to survive at all, you recognize it's a war we're losing, and you pick up your weapons and fight, or you die and seal the fate of the progressive cause forever.

"Bipartisanship", "reaching across the aisle" and "compromise" are dead, dead, dead as a doornail. I cannot for the life of me begin to comprehend how anyone who hasn't had their head in the sand for 8 years can't see this. Look at Ms. Nancy "bipartisanchip" Pelosi. She's betrayed not just the party's core, she's betrayed the trust placed on her by virtue of her position, sold us down the river, and allowed the Repukes to walk all over her. She's not just a fraud, she's a complete disgrace. Same with Harry Reid. This is a war, folks. Wake up and smell the coffee.

John Edwards was right. You're not going to get them to give you anything by sitting down at the table and making nice with talk of "compromise". You need to fight them every step of the way. He should know. He's had to fight these kinds of bastards his entire career.

This is the first Greggs OP I can't K&R.

[NanceGreggs]

68. What Pelosi and Reid have done ...

... is not what I'm talking about. Time and again, they've allowed themselves to be rolled over and left for dead. That is not bipartisanship, compromise, or cooperation by any stretch - THAT is throwing in the towel.

We're in the midst of a campaign, probably one of the most important in our nation's history. How many votes do you think our nominee would get by saying, "We're going to be just as stubborn, obstructionist and uncooperative as the other side was - in other words, forget anything being accomplished; we're just going to fight endlessly with our opponents for the next eight years."

It's the politically smart move to offer the other side a chance to cooperate with us, on our terms. If they choose not to do so, so be it. But it's a choice that won't sit well with the citizens who are constantly relegated to the sidelines watching their lives (and their country) go down the toilet while the two parties engage in an endless pissing contest.

Yes, we're at war with the Republicans. But you don't win this kind of war by becoming the enemy - you win it by gaining the trust of your enemy's supporters and turning them into your supporters before the next battle is engaged.

I am not advocating giving in or giving up anything - I am advocating putting them in the position of having to say, and publicly so, "No, we will not work with you for the betterment of the American people." And then let the chips (or votes) fall where they may.

[pollo poco]

71. But it's not just Pelosi and Reid

Bill Clinton did it. Why didn't he pursue Iran Contra? If he had, many of the current cast of characters would have gone to jail, instead of getting cabinet posts.

John Kerry did it. Why? He took my money and he didn't fight for me.

How about the Blue Dogs? Who owns them?
That's the real question for me. I want to hear the candidates swear to defend the constitution and to vanquish traitors. Why wouldn't they? Why don't they? Who owns Barack Obama? Who owns Hillary Clinton? In who's interest is "bipartisanism" working?

Nance, you say: " I am advocating putting them in the position of having to say, and publicly so, "No, we will not work with you for the betterment of the American people." And then let the chips (or votes) fall where they may."

But will they say that? IMHO no. Such a reasonable outcome can only be the result if we are dealing with reasonable people, who are constrained by reason. The enemies of our country are not constrained in any way. We have already caught them in many acts. Reasonable people would have resigned by now. Even Nixon resigned.

Today, he wouldn't have to, because today he would know that the Democrats would not come after him. They are owned as surely as the Republicans.
The powers that be just laugh at our quaint delusions of democracy. They laugh out loud at our attempts to be reasonable.

They will laugh up their sleeves and bide their time.

[skepticscott]

72. The point this misses is

that if we have a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, the terms "stubborn", obstructionist" and "uncooperative" have no meaning. They only apply to the party opposing a majority in Congress.

And again, if you're advocating not giving up anything, then you cannot also claim to be an advocate of negotiation with the Republicans, as you have in earlier posts. The two are mutually exclusive, so which is it? We don't need to "reach out" to the Republicans in order to put them in the position you suggest. We simply do what is right when we have the power to do it, and they can join us or not.

[NanceGreggs]

75. The point is the political strategy of making the offer ...

... and the fact that making the offer to cooperate with us is not the same as caving-in to the other side.

And negotiation is possible, especially in terms of budgetary expenditures - NOT negotiation on core principles or values.

[NanceGreggs]

84. Here's my idea of 'negotiating' ...

The Dems announce they want to spend $10 Billion on education over the next two years. The Republicans say that's too much, we'll fight you tooth-and-nail. They counter with $3 Billion, and the Dems counter with $7.5. The Republicans say, "Make it $6.5 Billion and spread it out over five years instead of two, and we won't fight it - we'll support it." The Dems didn't 'give up' $4.5 Billion, because they never had it in the first place. And our educational system now has $6.5 Billion to spend.

The reason I advocate offering to "reach out" to the GOP instead of just doing what we want anyway is the impact it has on voters in an election year. Extending the hand of friendship and having it publicly slapped down has much more impact than never having made the gesture - and in the current vitriolic climate, taking the high road and extending the olive branch makes you look reasonable, and makes your opponent look the fool for having refused it.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. That's funny! 'the betterment of the American people."

What they will say is:
" No, we will not surrender our core principles to the Culture of Death promoted by the far left wing agenda of the blame America fist Democrats."

That is how they will put it. Funny you think they'd put it any other way. They will say:
"We will not fund your murder mills, we love your children even if you want to kill them."
They will say:
"Sometimes doing the right thing has a price to pay in political power, and the Republican Party will gladly pay that price rather than surrender our Great country to the terrorists, at home and abroad, who wish to see America fail. We will never agree with those who say America is to blame. If we must go down, we will go down signing God Bless America!"
That sort of thing.

[NanceGreggs]

77. You're right, they will say all of those things.

But they're rhetoric is not holding the same sway over their base as it used to, and the fact that the Democrats are now the majority of registered voters (something that happened in the last five years) proves the point.

The GOP's policies have caused incredible financial hardship for their own constituents, and it hasn't gone unnoticed by the populace. Methinks the average Republican voter is a lot more concerned these days with which party is more likely to protect his job, his home, lower his healthcare costs, and the cost of sending his kid to college than he is worrying about who's wrapping themselves in the flag and singing "God Bless America".

[Seabiscuit]

131. I remember how confident we all felt back in 2003 and 2004 that

since Bush's policies had caused such death and destruction to no apparent purpose that it was barely conceivable that anyone in this country could deny he was eating a shit sandwich in Iraq. And we were exceedingly confident that Bush's policies had caused such "incredible financial hardship for (his) constituents" that the average Republican voter would be a lot more concerned with "which party (was) likely to protect his job, his home, lower his healthcare costs, and the cost of sending his kids to college than he (was) worrying about who's wrapping themselves in the flag and singing 'God Bless America'". Then the voters spoke and we were all shocked at how many millions of middle class Americans voted the way their pastors told them to and against their own social and economic interests.

Ever since that debacle I've never allowed myself to underestimate the stupidity of American voters as a whole, and how easily most voters are swayed by the rhetoric of fear, greed, and bumper-sticker patriotism ("God Bless America", "Annoy A Liberal", etc.). Here it is 4 miserable years later, 2008, and I no longer drag my jaw in utter amazement at the distant relatives in Escondido (Freeperville, California) who continue to spout mindless regurgitations of Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, O'Lielly, etc., etc., ad nauseum, and who still think Bush is the best thing since sliced bread was invented. They are rabid football fanatics, Nascar fans, camo-wearing, flag waving social morons who think anyone who isn't like them is a "goddamned hippie". And they attend their church religiously every Sunday, and even spend time volunteering their time there. They wear their Kristianity on their sleeves. They live in an delusional bubble insulated by Faux News and hate radio. They reinforce their imprisonment inside that bubble by having lots of family get-togethers where they all compete to see who can most accurately regurgitate the latest Rovian talking points they heard in their media. It's their sport, their past-time, their reason-for-being, and if someone suggested they're delusional they'd be scorned and ignored.

So I'm not betting the back-40 that since things have gotten so much worse economically that these people won't suddenly ignore their pastors' advice and vote their interests instead of their Kristian-fascist ideology.

The GOP could still steal another presidential election.

I would like to hope I'm wrong, but unlike the bulk of Obama supporters, I've all but lost my "hope" for Amerika.

You may say we shouldn't worry about this lunatic fringe, the people like my distant relatives in Escondido, that the polls show their numbers are shrinking. I don't know. That would assume some of them have emerged from their delusional bubbles and joined hands with the sane. Perhaps only their proportion of the total electorate (which is growing) is shrinking slightly, but if that's the case, perhaps their actual numbers are actually increasing somewhat as well. If the fact that the people in that extended Escondido family are no less rabid in their insane delusions than they were 5 years ago and haven't changed one bit means anything, then I for one don't think they ever will, and that any increase in registered Dems must be coming from some other sector of the voting population - the youth vote?

Remember, it took a world war and utter defeat to awaken most Germans from their Nazi-induced mental haze. The "Good Germans" in Amerika are still drinking the kool-aid.

[ekwhite]

89. Nance is right

As Gandhi said, The best way to destroy an enemy is to turn him into your friend.

I believe we have to reach out to persons of good will on the Republican side. There are Republicans who support the rule of law. There are Republicans who believe in the Constitution. There are Republicans who believe that torture and extraordinary rendition are wrong. We can and must reach out to these people to preserve our democracy.

Reaching out to Republicans doesn't mean compromising our principles, ideals, or objectives. It means that getting as many hands as possible to help rebuild our democracy. It means appealing to the "better angels" in Republican voters.

Let's prove we are better than Republicans by showing generosity and compassion. The alternative is an endless cycle of retribution. I'll end with another quote from Gandhi - An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

[Seabiscuit]

98. You missed my point entirely.

I have never advocated using Repuke talking points ("We're going to be just as stubborn, obstructionist and uncooperative as the other side was"). Nor did I imply anything of the kind. I'm talking about standing on principle. E.g., where the Repukes have been anti-science, pretending, for instance that global warming is a hoax, we should *stand on principle*. You don't compromise science away. It's not about opinions. It's about hard scientific fact that is universally accepted in the scientific community. You follow the science all the way, not just half-assedly. You fight to make absolutely certain that the science of global warming becomes incorporated in our laws and government policies, without giving an inch. Period. Global warming is just one of countless issues: absolutely NO to signing statements which circumscribe adherance to duly passed laws of Congress; NO to warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens; NO to waterboarding and sexual humiliation of prisoners; NO to flase claims of executive privilege to shield executive wrong-doers from Congressional subpoena and oversight; NO to legalized discrimination against gays and other minorities; NO to violations of the UN Charter; NO to lying the country into war; NO to tax breaks for the rich at the expense of balancing the budget and unfairly burdening the middle class; NO to tax breaks for corporations sending our jobs to China and India; NO to borrowing trillions of dollars from China to pay for a multi-trillion dollar immoral and illegal and criminal war enterprise in Iraq or anywhere else; NO to the countless other messes the Repukes have created for us, and NO to "compromising" with the Repukes who only want to defeat us utterly and completely on EVERY ONE of these countless issues. NO! NO! NO! PERIOD!

If the Repukes could begin to understand that it's smart to cooperate with us on our terms they'd no longer be Repukes. But since they are, and will remain Repukes, they will never, never, never do so. They adhere to absolute lock-step ideologies which are smokescreens for greed, corruption, a free pass for the lawlessness for their own actions, and thirst for their own absolute power, and because of that they will never, never, never compromise so long as they remain Repukes. They have towed the party line for decades, in lock-step, and the current administration for over 7 years in lock-step, never giving an inch to the opposition. You know this, Nance. I can't for the life of me comprehend how you could fall for all the fakery and pipe dreams contained in the empty Obama rhetoric. The endless pissing contest, as you put it, is an illusion: The Repukes have been pissing and dumping on us every minute of every day for the past 7 years (and longer, if you count all the years they didn't control the White House and the courts). An occasional speech with no action/no teeth in it by a dem here or there hardly constistutes pissing back, or engaging in a pissing contest. The real problem is that there has really been absolutely NO pissing contest at all for all this time - nothing but empty words followed by caving in by the dems. Again, you know this. Sucking up to Republican voters by praising Ronald Reagan for some empty-headed vacuous crap like "trajectory" isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

We win this war not by "becoming the enemy" (whatever that's supposed to mean) but by standing unflinchingly on principle and beating them over the head with it every step of the way, all the way through the legislative processes, and all the way through the court system. That's not "becoming the enemy". That's taking the war back to them and winning it. To imagine that in the process you are "gaining the trust of your enemy's supporters" is delusional in my opinion. Remember, the "enemy's supporters" include the Limbaughs, Tweetys, etc., etc., ad nauseum in the media, and all their dumbed-down followers who will NEVER listen to you, me or any other progressive, much less become "your supporters". I say fuck 'em all. They're worthless. And I also say take back the media and can all those bobble head asses, and turn the "news" into real, factual, diligently researched news for a change.

In case you haven't noticed for the past 7 years, the Repukes and every last one of their followers HAVE been very publicly and in-you-face saying "No, we will not work with you for the betterment of the American people", and treating such sayings as if they were bragging rights. That's the problem. We have to eliminate it by sending them and their bullshit to the trashbin of history forever, because they have made it known for far too long that they are only there to obstruct, never to cooperate. Because they ARE the "enemy". And will always remain so. They always have been, and always will be. It's incorporated in their agendas and ideology.

Sometimes I get so damned angry about them all that I wish there were some really righteous God floating around up there who could and would toss down millions of thunderbolts and strike every last one of them dead, dead, dead forever because it gets so damned depressing at times that it seems that maybe that's the only conceivable "salvation" from all the evil shit flying around. But that would go against my religion (or lack of religion), among other things. :)

[NanceGreggs]

105. Oh, Jeeze ...

Where did I even come close to suggesting that we could win over all Republicans, including the Rushes and the Tweetys? We'll never win over all of them - we just need to win over enough of them to make us the kind of permanent majority that Rove predicted the Republicans would be (and we now see how that worked out).

When I talk about winning over GOPers, I AM talking about the voters - not the pundits, the RW radio hosts, or the types that will always vote Republican because their daddy did, and their grandaddy did.

"In case you haven't noticed for the past 7 years, the Repukes and every last one of their followers HAVE been very publicly and in-you-face saying "No, we will not work with you for the betterment of the American people."

In case you haven't noticed, we have already won over many Repubs (those who have quit their own party in disgust, and the new voters registering for the first time are registering as Dems in greater numbers than those registering as GOPers). And the 'we stand behind our president no matter what crowd' are now 19% - quite a come-down from the previous numbers. So it looks like the 'every last one of their followers' doesn't apply.

If you honestly believe that all Republicans are anti-choice, pro-torture, war-mongering idiots who are too dumb to come in out of the rain, I won't change your mind. But that, IMHO, is just as delusional as saying all Democrats are alike.

But of course I see where you're really headed: "You know this, Nance. I can't for the life of me comprehend how you could fall for all the fakery contained in the empty Obama rhetoric." I don't see it as 'fakery' - so I MUST be delusional, because only your opinion is valid and we should all just 'follow in lockstep' behind your superior judgment.

[Seabiscuit]

107. The problem is...

you're not going to "change" or "convert" anyone by talking nice to them. The Republican voters who are sick and tired of the Bush policies have already crossed over and are voting for various Dem candidates; they're not the problem, because they're really not Republicans any more. They're voting as Dems now (e.g. - my elderly neighbors across the street - he's an international law professor who's always been a Democrat; she's a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush in 2000 and has voted Democrat ever since, because she woke up fairly early in the Bush administration to how ugly the Republican party had become). The problem is what's left: the hard core followers of the hard core GOP ideologues, their representatives in Congress, the courts, and the executive branch, and of course, the media pundits and their hate-filled dumbed-down followers. Those are the ones who will NEVER "change". THEY are the "enemy". And you're not going to get them to "cooperate" or "negotiate" or "reach across the aisle" for you. Not ever.

You may be talking only about "the voters" but Obama hasn't made that clear. All his "reach across the aisle" talk is a metaphor for compromise with Republican representatives in Congress, and he's made that clear by talking about reaching across the aisle to Republicans in the Illinois legislature. And I'm saying that strategy is a completely fraudulent delusion where the U.S. Congress is concerned.

The numbers you cite, unfortunately, are primarily made up of Republican voters who are playing the game the Hannities and Limbaughs on hate-radio are telling them to play - they're participating in an orchestrated attempt by the right-wing to disrupt our Dem primaries by voting in "open" states as Republicans for Obama (and registering in time as Democrats to vote for Obama in "closed" primary states), because they want him to win, because they think Obama's the only one McCain has a chance of defeating in the GE. As much as they hate everything Clinton, they are scared shitless that she'll run circles around McCain with her experience and fierce determination.

I never said "all Republicans" are anything. There are some that have grown sick of Bush, and they're voting Democrat (see my first pragraph). Most are switching parties already. I'm talking about the core Republicans - the "Repukes" - the elected Republicans in Congress, the entire Bush administration, the judges he's appointed, the media bobbleheads whoring for them, and the dumbed-down Repuke voters who continue to follow their every instruction and regurgitate their every phrase.

As for the rest of what you've written, I think you know better than that, Nance.

[NanceGreggs]

110. No ...

"The numbers you cite, unfortunately, are primarily made up of Republican voters who are playing the game the Hannities and Limbaughs on hate-radio are telling them to play ..."

I am not talking about primary voters. I am talking about the fact that when Bush took office, registered voters were a 50-50 split between Dems and GOP - a situation which had existed for years. As of last spring, that number had changed dramatically - registered Dems are now the majority, and by a substantial margin.

And yes, there will always be "core Republicans" who won't be moved no matter what. As long as keep working to make them a smaller and smaller minority, I don't give a flying fuck that they're still standing on the street corner mumbling to themselves.

"All (Obama's) 'reach across the aisle' talk is a metaphor for compromise with Republican representatives." Sorry, ain't buying. I believe his 'reach across the aisle' talk has to do with getting elected. And it's a very smart move. Whether they choose to take the hand that's offered (which they probably won't) is not the point; the point is that it was offered. Again, smart move in an election year by any Dem.

I really didn't intend for this thread to become an Obama/Hillary dispute (don't we have enough of those ongoing already?) But at this point in time, you'll never convince me that the GOP are watching Obama drawing record crowds, raising millions, winning supporters daily, and are sitting back and saying, "Geez, we're REALLY AFRAID of the gal whose LOSING to this guy."

And I think you know better than that.

[Seabiscuit]

124. Well,

we've all witnessed a growing trend for years - that the number of registered Dems is going up and the number of registered Repubs are going down. This was even true in the 50th Congressional District where Francine Busby competed for Duke Cunningham's vacated seat - a district so gerrymandered to favor Republicans that she was the only serious Dem candidate to raise a serious challenge in many years.

And that's a good thing, and something we can agree about.

But unfortunately, where our primaries are concerned, the Republicans playing the Hannity type game are indeed distorting the numbers in our favor, and we should be a bit cautious about too much optimism regarding the primary numbers.

I have no quarrel with you if you want to believe that all Obama is talking about w/r/t "reaching across the aisle" is getting elected. But it's nothing more IMHO than the old DLC-style "trianulation" strategy of trying to appeal across the board to everyone in order to get elected. It has met with failure election after election going back to 1994. The only time it really worked was for Bill Clinton in 1992. Times have changed. In today's world, trying to be everything for everyone is a doomed strategy, because ultimately, it must sacrifice principles. Thus all the empty talk. You will undoubtedly forgive me if I don't see Obama as merely talking about getting elected - he's spoken in numerous debates about "compromise" and "reaching across the aisle" in numerous contexts, including the notion of working with Republicans in Washington to improve our health care system. John Edwards at the time took him to task repeatedly about how the special interests in Washington behind the health insurance industry will *never* compromise a thing when it comes to defending the status quo they (and their Republican representatives in Congress) represent, and that no one is going to change anything in the health care system without a gargantuan fight on their hands, and a preparedness to do battle across the board. Needless to say, as an attorney like Edwards who spent many years battling those insurance bastards, I know that Edwards knows what he's talking about, and that Obama doesn't have a clue or he wouldn't say the naive things he's said.

I'm not representing Hillary in this discussion, so I don't want to see this thread become another Obama/Hillary dispute either. I'm representing myself as an Edwards supporter who lost his champion, but who refuses to put down the torch Edwards lit.

I think the GOP and their media cohorts think that *they* are winning with their strategies when they see Obama drawing record crowds. Just watch as the Repuke pundits on the airwaves convince themselves that they've won by destroying Hillary while giving Obama a pass throughout the primaries. Then and only then will they turn their venom on Obama, and you'll witness a constant right-wing feeding frenzy in the media at Obama's expense. They congratulate themselves daily in what they see as their own success story in building Obama up for the fall they have waiting for him.

Beyond all this, I will apologize for being a bit rough on you in this thread. I admire you and always look forward to reading your "rants" or whatever you want to call the brilliant pieces of writing you put up here on DU. This OP, sadly, is the first one I couldn't recommend.

[NanceGreggs]

125. We have to agree to disagree ...

... on certain points. Sure, the RW will have a feeding-frenzy when it comes to trying to tear down Obama - just as they would have with Hillary as the nominee. But I don't think it's going to win them the election.

Please don't apologize for playing rough - no apology necessary at all! I'm not in this for the 'recs' - I'm in it for the discussion, and the debate.

I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed this thread today - sparring with people who disagree with us (in a civil manner as this thread has, for the most part, been) is what this site should be all about. And we all have something to learn from each other.

In the end, we all want to sit down to a delicious meal - and arguing over how best to prepare it is part of what makes the end product so satisfying.

:hi:

[Seabiscuit]

130. It's all OK...

in fact, if I were to sit down for a delicious meal with my top dozen favorite DU'ers, when it's all over, you'd certainly be on the guest list.

[LiberalLovinLug]

78. High Hopes

I absolutely love all your posts Nancy, and this is the first I take issue with. I have to side with many here that say at this point in history, it is not only an impossible ideal, to think there are any Rethugs left in the House or Senate that can simply shrug off the shrub and start to open their minds and hearts to progressive goals, which would involve you know, a scenario where they and their big donor pals have to give back some of that tax cut, and tighten up on pollution standards, and help pay for a national health plan, etc..To them anything that smells of cuts into their obscene profit line is something to be fought viscously, and when Democrats, with the power to clean up their crimes, instead reach out and proclaim let bygones be bygones, sure they'll press the flesh and smile. But it will not stop their relentless attack machine. Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill Kristol will not be going anywhere.

What you are promoting is more of the same since 2006. Take everything to do with addressing justice "off the table". Because that will be the first hissy-fit they will have you know, if a Democratic administration actually DOES do the right thing and begins to investigate past crimes of the last seven years, the GOP will walk out en mass and play the prosecuting good Christian families card. So that will be the first condition they will lay down before even coming to the table, drop ALL investigations.

So then you finally have them sitting at the same table, now what??? They will demand a ban on gay marriage, the continuation of the Iraq war, no tax on the rich etc..and then if they don't get all they want, they'll take it to FAUX or any of the MSM nowadays and cry about it. They view an extended hand as a sign of weakness. It gives them courage and only re-enforces their view of liberals being soft and vulnerable.

As one other poster said, the Republicans of yore perhaps would have been open to true bi-bipartisanship, but this is a new breed of Rethugs, weened from the arrogance of getting away with murder in the Nixon admin. It is scorched earth every day from now on for these guys. Democrats can pretend no one is shooting at them and walk forward with the white flag, or they can take them out (in 10 months).

You can look at the Iraq war as an analogy. WE didn't want to invade, but THEY did it anyways. As one general was quoted right after they took Bahgdad, "We're here now".
In other words the solution is not as easy as simply dropping all weapons and extending a hand to the enemy. As progressives we don't want to fight if at all possible. But there are times where the enemy is pounding our head in and we have to fight back. And when we are finally in a position of advantage, that is when we have to hit the hardest. Maybe at some future point in history, as of yore, when the criminal traitorous element has been weeded out of the Republican party, THEN we can all sit down and honestly discuss and compromise. But first there MUST be the ugly messy business of digging out the tumor.

[NanceGreggs]

81. The fact that I am having to explain myself ...

... over and over probably means that I didn't make myself as clear in the OP as I thought I did.

My original premise was this notion that if Obama or Hillary talk about reaching out to the other side, it automatically means, "That's it, folks! They're talking about caving in to the GOP and giving them everything they want."

I am not promoting the idea of inviting the Republicans to the table so they can make their demands known. I'm applauding the idea of both of candidates saying, "You're invited to the table to hear our agenda, and offer your comments - which, of course, we can take or leave as we see fit."

Once we have the WH and a solid majority, we call the tune. Inviting the other side to sing along with it doesn't mean we will change our tune if it is not to their liking.

I think it is good political strategy for the Dems to take the high road and say, "We're willing to listen to you, in spite of the fact that when you were in power, you refused to listen to us." That makes points with voters - and whether it makes points with the GOPers in office is of no consequence.

And there is a very good reason for the more moderate Repubs in office to support some or our plans - AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE LOSING VOTERS TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, (those who have switched out of disgust, and those new voters who are registering as Dems in greater numbers than GOP). If that isn't a motivation to be cooperative, I don't know what is. You can't even hope to win future elections (especially your own re-election when it is at-hand), if you keep staying the course that is eroding your own base of support.

[whoopingcrone]

83. why should dems go first?

while I agree that "they" should be allowed to opt-in, if they so wish,
I see no reason to allow them to believe that they can do so
without changing their nefarious ways.
"Inviting" suggests too great a readiness to forgive and forget.
I say "Apologize first."

[NanceGreggs]

90. Why should Dems go first?

Because we're better people than they are, that's why. And here's a chance to make a public display of exactly that.

I don't think there are any Democrats who have lived through the last seven years who are willing to forgive or forget - and I think the Republicans are well aware of that fact.

Inviting someone to join you in doing the right thing doesn't equate to ignoring the wrong they've done in the past. It is simply an offer of a chance to rehabilitate themselves - or suffer the consequences if they are too stubborn to do so.

[LiberalLovinLug]

85. thanks Nancy

For clarifying your position. I too did not make clear that I agree that politically it is only expedient to invite them to the table, that way they cannot say we didn't try.

I can understand your central premise is that the GOP's mistake is that they are "losing voters" because of their sleezy low road behavior. But you are presuming that this bothers them. They now do not rely on working towards a squeeky clean image. They don't strive to be great or even good, they strive to be right, that is a perceived right as defined by MSM or the rightwing spinsters they have on as 'guests'.

Their base is now three groups: the Fundie Christo-fascists who worship any candidate that can quote a Bible verse, and the greed whores on Wall Street that actually WANT a dirty corrupt war-mongering schister like them in there. And the last group are the ones now acceptant of living in the "land of wiretapped and home of the fearful".

How they handle these three groups is so easy. And it does not involve "compromising" with the Democrats. The first group they scream about Liberals slicing apart live babies or allowing Paul and Peter to destroy the 50% of hetro marriages that are working. The second group they handle by throwing around the "tax, tax, tax!" mantra.
The third group are a new phenomena since 9/11. For them its as simple as "do you want to side with the party that wants to fight terrorists or the one that wants to run away from them and weaken our ability to intercept their communications, and wants to allow the terrorists to KILL you?"

I would like to believe that there are enough Republicans left that actually care about honest to goodness intelligent support from voters, but this last seven years have not indicated that they care about winning fair and square at all.

I don't mean snubbing them. By all means invite them to the table. But I'm just cynical after 7 years, about ANY Rethugs putting the country ahead of their own greed and power. So its gonna be a stand-off whether you go through that nice gesture or not. But that said I hope I am wrong and your hopeful message is closer to the truth.

[NanceGreggs]

88. But the fact of the matter remains ...

"I can understand your central premise is that the GOP's mistake is that they are "losing voters" because of their sleezy low road behavior. But you are presuming that this bothers them." OF COURSE it bothers them - because you can't win elections when the other side has far more voters than you do!

A lot of Fundies have finally woken up to the fact that they've been used by the GOP. Remember that promise of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? The only time that ever got dragged out was in an election year - and the entire topic got dropped the minute the votes were counted. And Rowe v Wade still stands - so much for promises.

The scare tactics aren't working anymore either - people are now a lot more afraid of not being able to put food on their family (heh, heh), or not being able to afford the next gas-price hike, to be thinking about whether Al Qeada is going to strike at the local mall.

Despite the fact that the Republicans wanted this upcoming election to be about immigration (be scared of those Mexicans, damn it!), and getting the populace back-on-board with "winning" in Iraq, the biggest issue has become the economy, the last issue the GOP wanted to come to the forefront. They can sing 'til the cows come home about how "deficits don't matter", and how the billions of taxpayers' dollars being spent in Iraq aren't affecting the economy, but that song is now falling on deaf ears.

They've over-played every hand - from Bin Laden's latest video production to "we're the party of fiscal responsibility".

[puebloknot]

94. I have had my ear solidly to the ground, and I have not heard either...

...Obama or Hillary address the question of holding Bushco to account in any meaningful, specific way.

Obama has publicly declared himself to be against impeachment. Hillary is not on record as supporting it, either.

You're suggesting that Republicans who have, almost to a man (or woman), walked in lockstep with Bush, et al., will now be willing to "mea culpa" and sit at the table with us, while we outline our agenda. That's naive, I think. There are a few moderates in the Republican camp, but they have been extremely quiet over the last eight years in terms of demonstrating the bipartisan harmony you describe here. The vast majority will still be "sieg heiling" Bush and Company to their dying breath.

There is a standard we can use to measure the intentions of those who would be President: The Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

79. Great post as usuall and very accurate i think

Its the perfect time for reaching out to the people i think and convince them to come over to the democratic side of things using empathy and understanding rather then being rude and aggressive.

Reading some of the posts who don't want peace with the republicans at any cost actually reminds me of a quote by Friedrich Nietzsche "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one" another good one in my eyes is "But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!"

:loveya: :hug:

[leftofthedial]

86. repukes should all be disenfranchised (those who aren't executed or imprisoned)

We should not have this pendulum or retribution whenever power changes hands. Instead, we should end it here by utterly destroying for all time the treasonous war criminals who have brought our country to the brink of destruction. Other than Democratic undertakers, there should be no need ever again to "work with the other side."



that's not too harsh is it? No.

[NanceGreggs]

92. And exactly how do you propose ...

... utterly destroying the GOP for all time?

Hey, it's not like I don't like the idea. It's just that it's one thing to say it, and another to accomplish it. And I'm certainly open to any reasonable suggestions on how to do so.

[leftofthedial]

118. well, we can unleash my dog on them

he has gas and it's frigging killing me



war crimes tribunals, re-education camps, the usual.

[NanceGreggs]

120. From the sounds of it ...

... unleashing your dog on 'em could land us all in the hoosegow for inflicting "cruel and inhuman punishment" ...

... but I'm willing to risk it.

[leftofthedial]

126. I don't know what he ate today

he never has this problem



until tonight ... and it's the gaseous equivalent of waterboarding

[puebloknot]

91. Pretty on paper, but this feels like a page from the Iran Contra playbook...

...in which there was a show trial or two, and we all *moved on*!

Reaching out to the American people is hard to argue against; however, it's the corporate interests who currently hold the reins, and the American people have had little to do with it for some time now. The last ten years should be enough to show us what the Republican Party has to offer -- a few moderates notwithstanding. The time since January 2007 should give us a strong intimation of what to expect from Democrats, unless there really is a Great Democratic Turning. We can hope!

Justice is not revenge; it is an honest holding of *criminals* to account. We have had the experience now of reaping the whirlwind from the failure to hold Reagan, et al. to account. We *moved on* from that travesty, and it has returned to bite us right in the ass! The "New Day in America" that occurs every four to eight years has brought a great darkness to the country. And now we look forward to another, while attempting to ignore the foundation on which it is based.

It is one thing to invite the opposition to engage, with us, in democratic governance of the nation. It is another to talk of some sort of holding to account, *after* we've created this new coalition of the willing within the country, and continue to do *absolutely* nothing about the crimes of Bushco. Unfortunately, the lines are not so clearly drawn. Democrats have proven, since January 2007, that they have no will to stand up for Democratic principles. So, in a sense, a "reaching across the aisle" has already occurred -- in spades.

To borrow from Vincent Bugliosi, on behalf of the millions who have died and been permanently damaged from this illegal war: "From their graves, they cry out for justice." A peace we can all live with, if "we" includes those who cannot countenance an alliance with those who have already clearly shown their hand, be they Democrats or Republicans, must first attend to justice.

If not impeachment, what? If not now, when?

[NanceGreggs]

95. I agree ...

... that "justice is not revenge" - nor is revenge, wrought only by the idea of 'getting even', a substitute for true justice.

Hold the criminals of this administration to account, yes. Investigate wrongdoing, corruption, greed, and treat the guilty accordingly - a resounding yes!

... unless there really is a Great Democratic Turning. That is exactly what I am hoping for, and encouraging by saying we take the high road. Offer the other side a hand-up in doing what's right for the country. If they slap that hand down, it can't be said that we didn't try.

But the offering of an opportunity to cooperate should ever be taken to mean all is forgiven. Because it's NOT. Not now, not ever.

You've quoted Bugliosi (who I adore!), the kind of guy who knows the difference between justice and revenge ...

[puebloknot]

99. Snarky but important edit: "should ever be taken to mean all is forgiven."

Here: I'll let you borrow one of my "nevers." :)

[NanceGreggs]

101. Thanks for ther never!

(Can never have enough of those handy!)

:hi:

[puebloknot]

119. More later. I took time after editing you to watch "Rendition." nt

[puebloknot]

128. Bugliosi said in 2001, "History will show we should have been in the streets."

We Dems may have a big tent, but our table is pared down by the rule of law. Christian forgiveness, Buddhist detachment, psychotherapeutic analysis/understanding are individual, personal ethics. All require integrity, but it is the Constitution that we must turn to for recovering the rule of law in this country.

No individual or group has a right to apply their personal philosophical/religious tenets to our governmental structure -- even though some of the principles involved in such stances may have underwritten the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutuion in the past, but with specific admonition to keep them separate from government.

"Growing up" as a country requires that we not do what the Catholic Church has done with pedophile priests; what Protestant churches do with rogue ministers; what too many families do to their members who have been abused by a family member.

This country has suffered criminal abuse, and forgiveness does not apply without first applying principles of law and prescribed retribution -- "revenge," if you choose to see it that way (the general "you" here).

[kentuck]

93. What idealism! What sympathy for your fellow man!

Yes, you are right, Nance.

[Lance31]

96. Heck with Reaching out

I want to see the GOP up in front of a bullet-ridden wall.

[TooBigaTent]

102. A nickel's response -

1) Given the republic history of dishonesty, I would like to see them first make a gesture of good will by helping to impeach and remove and then indict and prosecute those in the administration who have committed the crimes we are all familiar with. Prove to us they can be worked with and maybe we can start to trust them.

2) I have not seen either HC or BO state explicitly what you suggest they mean - that the conservative people they are trying to attract are invited to support the "liberal" agenda.

3) Revenge is not a goal that we are pursuing, but it is a nice bonus that would come with justice.

4) So, you really think that the conservatives coming in, particularly into Obama's camp, will not demand that THEIR views deserve attention and representation in his administration?

5) The hope that politics can go back to the behavior of long ago just does not recognize that everything changes. The way the public learns about the world of politics and what happens there has changed a great deal from years ago. It only makes sense that the execution of the governmental processes will change as well. Rather than a compromise (however you want to define that) process, could it also evolve to become one where those in power do their best to fully articulate and produce the system they want. If it does not meet the desires of the populace, they are replaced with a group with differing views. Why throw away a chance for real progress (and change) by watering down the policies?

[Bjorn Against]

104. Nance, you know I respect your opinion but I think you may be being a bit too optimistic here

It sounds really nice to be able to reach across the aisle and bring people to our side, but the only way to bring people to our side is to fight for what is right and the Republicans have been consistently wrong on everything.

I say this as a person who was once on the other side, I used to hold some views that are the polar opposite of the views I hold now and I did not change because someone reached out to me. I changed because I had people challenging me and showing me where I was wrong.

The way to get our goals accomplished is not to work with the people who have consistently gotten in the way of our goals, the way to get our goals accomplished is to stand firm and fight for what is right. Once we can clearly articulate why we believe we are right and why we are not able to comprise on issues like social justice, health care for all, putting an end to torture, bringing the troops home from Iraq, and the whole host of other issues we are concerned with we can bring other people to our side. But we will have brought them to our side by standing up for what is right, not by reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans.

I have seen far too many bi-partisan disasters in the past several years to believe bipartisanship is going to work now. The Iraq war had bipartisan support, Roberts and Alito had bipartisan support, NAFTA had bipartisan support, the Patriot Act had bipartisan support, when was the last really good piece of bipartisan legislation?

I have had enough of seeing people reach across the aisle and putting forth legislation that makes our situation even worse, I want people who will stand up for what is right no matter what their opponents think.

[parkeradison]

106. Regarding, "My Two Cents"

Well said! It's time for all of us to grow up and get to work for the sake of our country.

[1620rock]

109. What universe do you live in? This country is infected with a

malignant festering rotting putrid cancer. It's a no holds barred, pull out all the stops fight to the death struggle to save us from this disease. Cancer eats and feeds and grows. It does not have the capacity to negotiate or respond to reason.

[NanceGreggs]

111. Amen.

And welcome to the DU family!

:hi:

[ladywnch]

112. Nance, while I agree with you

I don't have to give up my sinfully delecious fantasies do I.....you know, roasting republicans on an open spit in the Rose Garden.....republican purp walks.....watching republicans meet their new roommate - Bubba, etc.......

:evilgrin: :dilemma:

[NanceGreggs]

113. I have NO intentions of giving up such fantasies ...

... so why should you?

As for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al, seeing justice done where they're concerned would be the sweetest revenge of all - and I would savour every minute of it!

[NanceGreggs]

114. Okay, let's get down to it ...

My favourite fantasy: Bush, Cheney et al locked in "the stocks" on the DC Mall for eight hours every day, for the rest of their lives.

Bonus revenge: Citizens can buy rotten vegetables to throw at them. All proceeds of rotten vegetable sales go to Dem causes.

A girl can still dream ...

[puebloknot]

127. It isn't fantasies that we need to consider; it's the rule of law, as outlined...

...in the Constitution: Removal from office for high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is a serious issue, and whether we end up with a woman or a black man as a President, neither inspires confidence that they have any intention of holding the past administration to account. Of course, such holding to account must start in the House. Unless we see a "housecleaning" and new blood in the House and Senate, we're right back where we are now with nothing being done to take back the country.

I *am* quite aware that the very idea of impeachment has become something of a fantasy over the last seven years, but it remains the practical and ethical means of demanding accountability, which in itself demands punishment but is not merely political revenge.

[ulysses]

115. two problems with this, Nance.

One, most every elected official in the party has lost my faith that they will stand fast against the GOP. I'll believe it when I see it, and that goes for Obama (who got my vote) as much as it does for Clinton.

Two, the fact that I don't much want to make nice has less to do with revenge than it does with repairing the damage that's been done. I'm not interested in keeping things as they are. I want them to be better.

[NanceGreggs]

116. I'm not talking about "making nice" ...

... and never was. I'm talking about saying, "This is what we plan to do. Now, do you want to work with us, or against us? We'll wait to hear back from you on that."

Repairing the damage should be priority one, absolutely agreed.

As for losing faith in Democrats standing tall, I've lost faith in a lot of them - but not in all of them. That's why I'm still in the fight.

[Life Long Dem]

117. Great post!

I just want to add a bit. Within all this there is the law, and enforcing the law would be just that - the law is the law - and wouldn't be revenge. I don't think you were referring to the law as revenge but just wanted to point something out.

[NanceGreggs]

121. I'm all for enforcing the law ...

... to its fullest extent.

When I referred in the OP to revenge, my only meaning was: let's not get into that crap where we say, "When we're in the majority and have the WH, we're going to treat the Repubs the same as they treated us -- neener, neener."

I think we're better than that - and I think an election year is a great time to demonstrate the fact that we're better than that.

The voters are obviously sick to death of the petty bickering and childishness - so let's act like the adults. THAT gets votes; vowing to deliver our own brand of temper-tantrums doesn't.

But the law is the law - there should NEVER be any talk of compromise on that point.

[tomreedtoon]

122. But what about our....VENGEANCE!!!

What happened to the glorious dream of grabbing George Bush, throwing him a prison cell with Bubba, humiliating him before the nation, and (thanks for the wonderful graphic image, Mr. Mel Brooks) shoving a live snake up his ass?

What about making Dick Cheney our nation's personal slave and making him clean up all of New Orleans...with his tongue?

What about all those people who are so disdainful of Christianity, after the last few decades, that they wish to end all Christian virtues...especially forgiveness, even though that's the furthest thing from most Christian minds?

Besides, we've already dug two graves. That's a prerequisite for revenge. Not to seek revenge, no matter what that would do to the nation, would be a waste.

[NanceGreggs]

123. Well, you certainly know how to charm a girl ...

... with your promises.

Seriously, though - if justice is done re BushCo et al, THAT is as much sweet revenge as I need to be satisfied.

(But I have to admit ... Cheney cleaning up NOLA with his tongue is a visual I will treasure forever.)

[trusty elf]

129. I would be in a more conciliatory mood

if I could see some indication that the Republicans were willing to acknowledge what a disaster their policies have been.

[mmonk]

132. Who said pennies are worthless? A very good 2 cents.