Compromise with conservatives?

[Deere_John]

When Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, no one suggested George McGovern as a replacement, although you could, technically, say he was the moral front-runner. If the only alternative to Nixon had been McGovern, conservatives would have stifled their gag reflexes and supported Nixon, resulting in who knows what?

Right now, we all want to wake up and find some stunning reversal of fortune makes John Kerry the official winner of Election '04, but that's not too likely to happen.

I happen to believe that the one issue that transcends all is the ability of this country to have actual elections in '06 and '08. If George W. Bush and friends can install anyone they want at the click of a mouse, then the rest of the issues are pretty moot.

I also happen to believe that if George Bush is in power there will be no more actual honest elections, ever. It's far more important to the future of this country that Bush/Cheney not be in the White House than for Kerry/Edwards to be in it.

To this end, maybe we liberals should consider extending an olive branch to those conservatives who happen to think that you shouldn't have a thief as president, even if he does often say things you agree with. There must be some. Perhaps the idea of a moderately conservative caretaker president in the mold of Gerald Ford as an alternative to the deranged kleptomaniac we seem to be stuck with now is something that enough red-staters could get behind to actually make it happen.

This may be a spectacularly dumb idea but it isn't a troll. Flame away accordingly.

DJ

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. whoosh!

Now we have been doing this for the last 20 eyars and it is a failed policy

Sorry...

Oh and if you think Kerry is a true to the mold liberal, not really

Now what you said bout them cute machines is the real problem, until we get rid of them forget about clean elections

[ewagner]

2. Either Gingrich or Grover Norquist

referred to bipartisanship as date rape!

Can't remember which one, but the truth is, they are NOT interested in bipartisanship. They have only one goal: destroy all the opposition and install a neocon theocracy.

That's why, in my opinion, Congressional Dems shouldn't try to "make nice" with the repubs. Remember that Ted Kennedy cooperated with Bush* on the No Child Left Behind act and Bush* SCREWED HIM!

You can't trust these guys. They have neither interest nor incentive to compromise with us.

[shaolinmonkey]

4. You're right. Always expect the worst.

They are rabid, savage, wicked and uncompromising. It's time to stand up for what we believe in. No compromise. Nothing half-way. The right has given no quarter and we've been sucked to the right (Joementum). Take a stand now.

[Deere_John]

5. If every non-liberal pol is a Gingrich or a Norquist.....

...then we're done here.

[ewagner]

8. I'm hearing rumblings

and I am sorry that I can't quote the source, that there is a split in the Republican Party in the House of Representatives. There ARE some moderates and some old-time repubs there who hate the neocons with a passion, but, like the dems, they are outvoted.

The problem is the neocons are in control. AFTER they are defeated and driven from office, we can go back to working with traditional conservatives......

[DieboldMustDie]

10. Norquist says it was Dick Armey who said that...

FWIW. :shrug:

[ewagner]

12. Yeah?

He also denied he that he was the one who said that the Conservative goal was to shrink government down so samll that we can drown it in a bath tub

I wouldn't trust Grover any farther than I could throw him.

[Shoeempress]

3. Since they won't compromise with us ever, why should we be

so noble. Stop the voting madness and this there will be no need for us to compromise.

[davidinalameda]

possibly

maybe a coalition but how long would that last if and when the goal was accomplished

I've seen too many movies and TV shows that show one side getting a big ass knife stuck in the back of one of the sides by other

and who's to say that the alternative would even be better

[Dora]

6. No compromising. Never. Why grant favors never given?

Your post was just waste of server memory.

[AlCzervik]

7. The only compromise the GOP will accept is total

and complete surrender. They are of the camp-"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated." No thanks, i dont want to be a part of a one party system and thats exactly what we'd end up as.

[robbedvoter]

9. Compromise with grover if you dare - read his latest:

Democrats are like castrated animals
As soon as they get used to their permanent minority status they'll start behaving themselves and not go around peeing on the furniture and acting up.
Grover Norquist -NOW, Nov 5 2004

[Indiana_Dem]

11. No. The 2004 Democratic party platform is great.

I would change nothing. After the election, I immediately thought the same thing. The thing is, when you start to compomise on your principles, it isn't long until you've become what they want you to become and most of the right sees through this and rather than vote "Republican-lite" they will opt for the real right. We just ran a conservative pro-life, pro-gun rights Dem for Congress in my district and he still lost to Chocola who received $30,000 from the Tom DeLay PAC. The Republicans don't compromise, they stand firm and people respect that. We must do the same. The present platform covers the left to the middle. We can't please everybody. I would rather lose than give up on my principles. What we must do is reframe the issues and change leadership because obviously these variables didn't work. Our principles are much more "moral" than the Republican party platform, the Republican party just framed their issues better. You're going to have to "dumb-down" the message to something extremely simple that anyone can relate to. Get what I'm saying?

The other issue is the black box voting. If we don't fix this problem, we'll never win another election. It's up to the Democratic leadership to help bring about justice.

[dbonds]

13. bipartisanship

Translation, do it their way or the highway.

[Deere_John]

14. Couple of clarifications....

I agree we shouldn't compromise with Bush Republicans, since most everyone who has tried it in the past has ended up as roadkill.

I'm not suggesting the Democratic Party become "Republican Light" in the next election. Not in favor of that either.

I'm saying that if we want to win the absolutely crucial Battle of Black Box Voting, we may have to recruit some troops from what used to be the other side. Any moderate Republicans with a brain (insert your own joke here) should realize that their political future sucks just as bad as the Dems if Bush can steal elections at will.

FDR didn't reject Stalin as an ally against Nazi Germany because he was a stinkin' commie.

Thanks for all responses.

DJ