I see this new call for "bipartisanship" from Democrats as nothing more than good ole' triangulation

[redstate_democrat]

But now they're using the cover of the need to be "bipartisan" as an excuse for said triangulation.

[Lilith Velkor]

1. New?

I guess you haven't been paying attention for the past year.

Don't feel bad, you got lots and lots of company.

[redstate_democrat]

5. Maybe I should have said "renewed"

Some Democrats and the Republicans are trying to "Clintonize" Obama before he even gets sworn in. I see all of these "warnings" and "call outs" to Obama as nothing more than trying to force Obama to compromise on key and core positions he might hold for political reasons. I think they have a lot of nerve seeing as though we just came off of 8 years of hard right governance.

You have a lot of Republicans now publicly saying that Obama ran as a conservative. On some points, he did. On others, he was more progressive. They are trying to wring every last bit of progressive out of Obama before he even steps in the Oval office.

Dick Morris successfully guided Clinton on how to out Republican the Republicans. I don't want to see some jerk use Obama's natural desire for unity as a way to 'Clintonize" him under the guise of bipartisanship.

[Lilith Velkor]

20. Ah yes, the old "bipartisanship is good when Obama does it and evil when Clinton does it" meme

'Natural desire for unity' and 'triangulation' are one and the same thing, and always have been. The only difference is the spin.

There's no reason to keep regurgitating it, you know. The primaries have been over for quite some time. President Obama has some Clinton people advising him, which is good because they've run a country before without driving it off a cliff.

And it's the best we can hope for, considering the circumstances. Hell, the Prez-Elect wants to let Lieberman skate. What does that tell you?

[LowerManhattanite]

25. Primaries are done, kiddo...

Give it a rest.

[wyldwolf]

26. the reference was to Bill Clinton, and the poster is corect

[Lilith Velkor]

31. Wow somebody actually bothered to read my post

Thanks, kiddo! ;)

[KakistocracyHater]

2. I think you're correct

& it would be self-destructive, to repeat the mistakes of 1993, like www.consortiumnews.com says, Clinton pardoned the Iran-Contra crooks & the righties NEVER showed him any goodwill, tried to get him impeached, so I heard....

Bi-partisan is what pnac & dlc want & it would continue the self-destructive path instead of helping us. It would place the president above the law & would destroy the authority to try dictators-forevermore.

[MadMaddie]

3. Screw pnac & dlc

They are useless.

[political_Dem]

4. I agree with you there.

That's why reaching a hand out to the Republicans doesn't work. It is only a chance for the Republicans to take over the policy of government while trashing Obama in return. What is even worse is that they don't see this as reconciliation or an opportunity to make things better. The Right only views this attempt as an opportunity to stay right in the thick of things so they can manipulate the 2010 and 2012 elections. Therefore, the Republicans cannot be trusted. Eight years of Bush/neocon policy demonstrates that they are not in it for the American people. And I think by imposing their ideas on the new Administration shows their narcissicism, hubris and inflated superiority.

Someone has to put their foot down. The Democrats need to clean their own house as well.

[redstate_democrat]

7. I agree. He can have a "bipartisan ear", meaning he can LISTEN

But when it comes to compromises on key political and core beliefs, he should kick them to the curb. It's time for a real progressive Democrat in the Oval office so that we can undue 40 years of disastrous policies.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Ah. So that answers it. You thought that "bipartisanship" meant

"kicking anything that was not utterly liberal to the curb." No wonder you're disappointed.

[redstate_democrat]

16. LOL

No. I'm talking about listening to all points of view, but on the issues he ran on, those core beliefs he stands for, why would he compromise them just so we can say it had bipartisan support? This is the kind of thing that brought us some of the disastrous policies we are now paying for.

Should he compromise on health care for all just so we can say we had bipartisan support? Republicans mostly oppose things from Democrats based on politics. We KNOW they don't have any core principles that they follow because they followed Bush's policies that were antithetical to what so-called "fiscal conservatives" believe. So when they talk about Health Care reform costing billions, why shouldn't we ignore them due to the billions they wasted for the last 8 years?

[Occam Bandage]

19. It isn't about whether "we can say it had bipartisan support."

Bipartisanship isn't a matter of listening to and then unilaterally discarding opinions, and it isn't a label you can throw on bills to lessen the political backlash. It's a matter of accepting input from people you disagree with to ensure that:

A. There are internal checks preventing hubris from destroying your coalition. Reflexive failure to listen to the opposition was a major reason why the Permanent Republican Majority collapsed so quickly.

B. The best possible bill passes. If we ignore Republicans entirely, Congress will be deadlocked, as nothing will pass that does not have 60 votes.

C. Americans who are not progressives still feel as if they have a voice in their government. If only three percent of the electorate decides that the Democrats aren't representing them any more, we lose power. The worst thing we could do would be to blow off moderates as impure.

Simply declaring Republicans to be "opposed to us on politics" and deciding to wage war against them is exactly what DeLay and Rove decided to do with the Democrats, and is exactly why they lost power two years after they hit their peak.

[KakistocracyHater]

35. the best possible DOESN'T pass

some won't let it purely because THEY didn't think of it, there's no personal gain in it for others so they too strike it down. Republicans who saw Dems as being ON THE SAME TEAM have QUIT the gop-did you miss that? What is remaining of the Right is a crowd that has already damned Obama, listen to Rush blame the economy on Clinton & now on Obama-never mind reality. The urge to purge loyal Bushies is not = to Rove, these people are not concerned with facts & oppose Dems just because, they have already decided to try to gridlock-yet they WILL run to the cameras & say that it is THEY who are fighting for working Americans, all the while behind-the-scenes they work for their destruction.

You are thinking the remaining gop is lucid & awake, that they can be persuaded with facts-they cannot-they WILL not; they see that as being weak, they're winner-take-all, did you see OReilly on Colbert? They are locked in on a pre-determined 'script', I know because I grew up with one, & it helped me understand. What remains of the gop party is delusional power-mad people who don't let reality interfere with their decisions; if you can come up with a way to pack an 'emotional wallup' that would change how they FEEL, then you will truly have found a way to lead America with Dems & gop on the same team. Right now they do not see the left as being on their team & they specialize in offense & the left won't defend US much less themselves(until recently).

[Radical Activist]

21. What a bunch of negative nillies.

When Bush talked about bi-partisanship was he becoming more moderate? I don't think so.

The first step in a community organizing campaign is to get people together, find their common interests, and then unite people to work for change against the established powers. So is calling for unity a compromise or a first step to dramatic action?

[KakistocracyHater]

37. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) recently promised to aggressively filibuster judicial candidates proposed by

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/527
"I will lead a filibuster if the nominee is the kind of radical leftist who decides cases based on empathy rather than the Constitution or the law. And if that's what intends to do, then I'll try to get my colleagues to join in that as well," Kyl said in a speech at a Federalist Society meeting last week.

But that's not what he was saying when his man was in the Oval Office.

Back in 2005, Kyl was anti-filibuster as a result of being frustrated with Democrats, who were in the minority, using filibusters to block President George W. Bush's judicial appointments.

In an interview at the time with PBS's Gwen Ifill, Kyl said, "This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case, until the last two years, that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do."

Need any more evidence?

[AtomicKitten]

6. Obama calls it a working majority to get BIG things done.

[Occam Bandage]

8. I swear to God, it's like nobody actually paid any attention to anything

that anyone in the party said over the last two years, and simply inserted their own mad fantasies of rabid left-wing governance--and only now are beginning to come to the realization that the fantasy comic-book version of Washington that they've been happily holding in their brains actually bears little to no resemblance to anything that exists in the real world.

[redstate_democrat]

10. No one is talking about "rabid left-wing governance"

If you think progressive means "rabid left-wing" then that's on you. Obama calls himself a progressive. That's not some "mad fantasy" his base has pulled out of thin air. Obama does have core beliefs. Those beliefs are closer to progress than anything we've seen in a long time.

[Occam Bandage]

11. Yes. Obama is a progressive. Obama has beliefs. One of those beliefs

is in the absolute necessity of respecting, listening to, accepting the input of, and working with people that you disagree. Bipartisanship does not mean "listening to, then summarily ignoring and bludgeoning others," either. Working together with people who aren't themselves progressive in order to accomplish things is not just consistent with Obama's beliefs, it is at the core of Obama's beliefs.

I cannot imagine why, after having listened to Obama talk for the last two years, you would only now be outraged at the concept of compromise. Did you think that "bipartisanship" was some sort of secret code word for "ultrapartisanship?" Like, the "bi" meant that he would be twice as partisan as the average Democrat?

[Uzybone]

9. Has he done anything he didn't say he would?

I mean Obama once praised Reagan. Yet he is the most liberal member of the senate. What does that tell you about how he will govern?

[damonm]

17. Sorry but with...

Obama once praised Reagan

You massively FAIL the reality check.
He said reagan was a transformative figure, as was FDR. This is not praise - it is historical fact.

[Uzybone]

18. OK sorry not praise

praise is about too strong, how about spoke in an elevated fashion of Reagan. Reagan who everyone but the hardcore conservatives know was a joke. He will work to bring the republicans into our camp. But he will not change his values and goals.

[Political Heretic]

24. He was a "joke" - he also changed the American political landscape in ways we STILL feel.

Probably the most transformational president since FDR. The fact that the transformation was negative instead of positive notwithstanding.

EDIT to add - in the same way, Bush may be seen historically as a similar transformational president, or more like "administration" -- think of the unbelievably and dramatic changes to American democracy that have occured via this administration over eight years. And of course we all understand that Bush is a clown.

[PBS Poll-435]

12. Is this a flameout?

:shrug:

[redstate_democrat]

14. Yeah right.

I'm talking about the hard core DLC'ers and Republicans trying to push Obama to the right on certain issues. It's mostly really going under the radar right now, but I sense that is what's going on.

[PBS Poll-435]

15. Umm... "That one" is his own man.

Things are going extremely well in the transition.

I just don't understand the concern.

[Radical Activist]

22. The same reason people were convinced Obama was conservative in the primary

even before they knew much about him. There's a deeply ingrained cynicism among many on the left. They expect and seek out disappointment.

[KakistocracyHater]

38. you are correct again

I sense and see it too.

[Political Heretic]

23. You have nothing to base that on yet.

Bipartisan can be good or it can be bad.

It's good if what it means is attempting persuasion and dialoge and a genuine strategic effort to move the GOP party toward the center, and on board with your agenda. That's the only way lasting change happens - otherwise, eveything you accomplish is immediately undone the next time the opposite party gets in power, and it will happen.

It's bad if it means sacrificing your values and agenda or establishing "winning" as your ultimate priorty (though I dispute that becoming more conservative is required to "win" especially in this climate - and thus try to out-Republican Republicans, which is what we saw during the Clinton years.

We don't have policy yet by which to determine which it will be. Nothing about Obama's rhetoric, platform or style indicates it will be the latter, however so far nothing about his administration appointments indicates that it will be the former.

So there's certainly cause to be somewhat apprehensive, but not enough info to form conclusions.

[acmavm]

27. The country has suffered too long and too hard to allow these jackals

back into power in any way, shape, or form. We're paying trillions, the money being handed out by a republican crook, with no explanation of where it went because of thes people. We're fighting a way based on the lies of their boys in the White House. And while we're on the subject of the White House, THIS IS THE PARTY THAT STOLE TWO ELECTIONS!

Why should we share anything with this bunch???

[quaker bill]

28. Because

So far, based on the results in hand, we will need 3 or 4 of them to block filibusters in the senate to get things done. It is not all that complicated.

[acmavm]

29. Bullshit. The repubics didn't need anything but the threat of going

'nuclear' when they had the majority.

And they DON'T fillibuster. They threaten. And fucking let 'em. It's not like the American people are too damn fond of the fuckers anyway right now.

This is just like the whiney fucking 'let that liar traitor blackmailing Liebermann stay in the party, we NEEEEEEEEED him' whine.

[acmavm]

30. Educate yourself...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x401229

[quaker bill]

34. I am adequately educated thankyou

but 60 votes is 60 votes. No one is saying you have to approve. Did you happen to listen to any of Barack's speeches? He promised this approach over and over again. I find it completely unsurprising, but then perhaps, because I was listening.

Yes the republicans promised and threatened a great many stupid things, some of them were even accomplished. So, I guess you suggest we return stupidity for stupidity. You seem to have missed alot, so what about this campaign did you get?

The paradigm shift is not right to left, the paradigm shift is from stupid and rash (Bush) to intelligent and thoughtful (Obama). It is fortunate that most things we deem "progressive" happen to also be intelligent and well considered.

Obama did not fight these guys in the usual way, rather than returning stupidity for stupidity, he returned humor, insight, and sensitivity, for their stupidity (Joe the Plumber). We won and he did not ever have to question Palin's intellect or McCain's patriotism. In fact, this is a big part of why he won. The paradigm has changed, grow accustomed to it.

[Doremus]

32. Yes. And I hope Obama doesn't fall for it. n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[TheKentuckian]

36. I think if people trusted Obama for being mentally tough

and his own guy they'd be less concerned. The velvet glove covers an iron fist. Who I fear he will capitulate to is the people, not the Republicans. Will he negotiate? Sure, but he's not seeking their permission but their cooperation and input.