An Argument for Dem/GOP Bridge-Building

[CorpGovActivist]

From the time of George Washington, able, thinking, devoted public servants have been appointed to high office from the opposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._political_appointments_that_crossed_party_lines

One of the things I admired most about President Clinton was his dedication to the idea of working across party lines to mint sound public policy.

If someone as erudite and thoughtful as David Gergen says, "The nation's interests trump partisan interests," then more thinking Republicans should feel free to say, "We'll work to restore the GOP to its root principles, and wrest it away from the Moronic Mastadon Wing of the party."

So, no, Mom: I'm not ready to play Red Rover with my party registration. But my vote this year? I plan to "come on over" in most races.

: )

- Dave

[C_U_L8R]

1. I'd prefer a gangplank

actually.
these republican pigs are an affront to our Constitution

[CorpGovActivist]

2. Choose the Right Size Brush to Tar...

... and feather with, because there really are thinking, moderate, independent-minded, progressive Republicans who are every bit as disgusted by what passes for leadership in our party these days as many (most?) Dems are.

- Dave

[tavalon]

3. I suspect that the brush needs to be pretty big

We're talking the likes of Denny Hastert here, ya know? The only way I would cross the aisle for him would be to spit on him. But yes, there are some reasonable ones.

[CorpGovActivist]

6. You'd Need a Power Washer for Him!

LOL. Or maybe one of those spray-on tanning booths, retrofitted with tar!

Nicely put.

- Dave

[C_U_L8R]

4. I hear ya... but I've yet to meet one

[CorpGovActivist]

8. Howdy, Nice to Meetcha

Now you have.

: )

- Dave

[C_U_L8R]

75. Nice to meet you too !!!!

And welcome !!

Hope you didn't take my big
fat brush of indignation personally...
I'm just fed up with Republicans in general.

Frankly I'd be SO happy if Republicans acted
more like ... Republicans
(meaning representing fiscal responsiblity, individual
liberties, and certainly not "nation-building")

Anyway.. glad to make your acquaintance CorpGovActivist,

[CorpGovActivist]

78. Likewise, I'm Sure!

On all counts!

: )

- Dave

[Irreverend IX]

76. They can be found here and there around the US...

But I haven't seen many holding elected office lately.

[CorpGovActivist]

79. Jeffords' Iraq Vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffords#From_Republican_to_Independent

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

152. Jeffords was NO LONGER A REPUBLICAN during his Iraq vote. So

if Jeffords is all you got, to show Republican "bipartisanship", you got nothing.

In fact, I'd say Jeffords is brighter than you because he had enough sense to LEAVE the Republican Party when he realized it wasn't consistent with his beliefs.

You see, when someone LEAVES your party, you don't get to claim them anymore, see how that works?

YOUR party is not the party of Jeffords. It's the party of Ney, Hastert, George Allen, McCain, Bush, Cheney, Blackwell, Foley.

Why did you say you were still a Republican again?

[CorpGovActivist]

169. One of Only 23 Senators to Vote Against Authorizing Force...

... in Iraq.

The vote came on October 11, 2002.

From May 2001 to January 2003, the Democrats controlled the Senate gavels:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

How did the Iraq vote even come to the floor on that date?

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

All these Democratic Senators who are now having to explain their pro-Bush Iraq vote needn't be in this position. Had they wielded those gavels in the summer of '02 to conduct real oversight hearings in the appropriate committees (e.g., http://intelligence.senate.gov/), and forced the Administration to lay out an Adlai Stevenson case, then maybe they would have avoided losing the Senate in November '02.

Instead, they allowed themselves to be routed with the Rovian "soft on terror" argument, and tripped over their own two feet to cast a vote that looked "tough on terror".

And Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, sadly, was the only member of my party to stand with Jeffords and the 21 Democrats who voted "Nay": http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

As you may have noticed, Senator Chafee is one of a small handful of GOP Senators I copied on my letter to Senators Byrd and Rockefeller about my Halliburton allegations: http://www.shareholdersonline.org/pdf/092006senateinvestigationrequest.pdf

My sincere hope is that the Dems regain those gavels in both houses this year.

My utmost hope is that they remember how to use them, since they seemed to have forgotten how to wield them from May 2001 to January 2003. We went to war in Iraq in March 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Occupation_by_Coalition_Forces

I left Halliburton in April 2003.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

170. That Would Be Like My Saying that Your Party...

... is the party that dug in its heels to obstruct passage of the Civil Rights Act:

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

Just as many Democrats then remained in the party despite the repugnant and outdated views on civil rights held by a powerful, vocal faction within their party, many Republicans today will remain in the GOP despite the repugnant and outdated paleocon views held by a powerful, vocal faction within ours.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

202. That's a bad argument because I'm talking about TODAY's Republicans,

and you would be talking about Democrats of 2 generations ago, before you were born.

[CorpGovActivist]

208. The Dynamic Is the Same

Apply history to today's problems.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

214. You dodge but are still unable to produce names other than the FORMER

Republican Jeffords.

[CorpGovActivist]

216. You're Absolutely Right

You're absolutely right. I'm "dodging" by drawing the historical comparison between the dynamic in my party today to the dynamic in the Democratic Party in the 60's, when the Civil Rights Act hung in the balance.

You have implied that any "good" Republican only has one option: leave the party. I have argued that that is a false choice, citing the historical example that "good" Democrats didn't leave their party in the 60s, but rather, fought to overcome the obstructionist tactics of the Southern Dems.

- Dave

[sendero]

289. Where.

..... certainly not in Congress where they have rubber stamped everything Bush wanted with a couple small exceptions.

There was a time when I was for bipartisanship, that was before THIS Congress where the Republicans went way overboard in excluding Democrats from any and every part of the process.

What goes around comes around. The Republicans deserve no consideration whatsoever, in that they offered us none even though they had only a slim majority.

As for the "rank and file" American Republican, well I'm not feeling very charitable towards them either. Sue me.

[CorpGovActivist]

291. If This Attitude Prevails...

... among the Democratic leadership - or if they allow themselves to fall prey to this payback strain - it will end in another repeat of the cycle.

The Democrats of 2006 now understand what permitted the Republicans of 1994 to sweep into power. The "reasonable" Republicans made a Faustian bargain with the wingnuts, after such a long stretch of Democratic rule.

If the "reasonable" Democrats make a similar Faustian bargain it'll end in tears for the American people all over again.

- Dave

[sendero]

294. I'm sick of this argument..

.... we're always the ones who are supposed to turn the other cheek. Look where it got us.

Screw that bullshit. We put up with an 8 year witch hunt against Bill Clinton who has done NOTHING compared to most of these guys. Fuck the pansy-ass "lets make nice now" bullshit.

You really cannot be serious. These stupid lame and self-defeating ideas always come up when Republicans are finally on the ropes. Really, if you are serious you are just wrong. There are other interpretations I'll leave to the reader to make.

[CorpGovActivist]

295. Your First Amendment Rights...

... permit you to freely associate (or disassociate) with the argument as you choose, and to make your own counterarguments in the free marketplace of ideas.

It allows you to express your disgust with it.

But before you dismiss it out of hand, you may wish to go back and re-read some of the exasperation and frustration coming from Republican back-benchers leading up to 1994's watershed election.

It sounds an awful lot like the same frustration we're hearing from out-of-power extremists in the Democratic Party now.

Learn from your own mistakes.
Learn from others' mistakes.

The Democrats excluded the GOP minority, and created many of the conditions that led directly to 1994. Stupidly, the GOP rode into town, and began meting out payback. Now, here those "leaders" are, staring at the business end of another watershed election.

It seems to me that the Democratic leadership would have learned the lesson here: yes, by all means, conduct oversight hearings that probe deep and hard (so to speak). But also govern in the interest of the common good.

As an added bonus, force Shrubya to dust off his veto pen, so he is aptly painted as the true obstructionist.

- Dave

P.S. Keep a watchful eye out for new "Executive Orders," a staple of second-term lame ducks.

[sendero]

296. I understand history just fine...

... I understand the the right wing went on a mission to make "liberal" a dirty word and they succeeded.

I understand they have largely taken control of the MSM and we're supposed to just get over it.

I understand that these folks have:

1) led us into an illegal, immoral, costly, counterproductive war based on lies.

2) left our economy teetering on the brink, with 3 trillion $ of added debt.

3) gutted our constitution and civil liberties.

4) replaced science with their own wacky ideas.

5) appointed numerous unqualified partisans to run our crucial agencies

I could go on and on. Exactly why should we listen to these losers? What can they bring to the table? Nothing, that's what.

These folks have thoroughly self-destructed. Nothing the Democrats ever did at the APEX of their power is even in the same league.

There is no reason for them to have ANY say in ANYTHING.

[tavalon]

5. Come on over?

Um, this isn't the year to vote for Republicans. Of all years, this isn't the year.

[CorpGovActivist]

7. No, I Mean I Plan to "Come on Over"...

... to voting Democratic in most races.

- Dave

[TankLV]

9. No fucking way!

Now that the repukes are set to lose and lose BIGTIME, we get a poster who wants to see "bipartisanship" or an end to "partisanship".

This post is suspect.

I call BULLSHIT!

I want the DEMOCRATS to regain CONTROL - and institute PAYBACK to SAVE THIS COUNTRY from the misrable rule of the repukes!

I want the OPPOSITION PARTY to REGAIN CONTROL and treat the repuke EXACTLY like the repuke treated the Democrats.

Only until WE have had a chance to give them a taste of their own medicine, will I even be willing to consider "bridge-building" crap.

Just join up at the end of September to tell us all how WE should behave.

I doubt YOU are a WE - BIGTIME!

[CorpGovActivist]

13. I Agree with You, up to a Point...

I, too, think divided government is needed, given the current occupant of the Oval.

But if the Democrats whip themselves up into a Robespierrean zeal, the pendulum will swing back again in (12-16?) years, if that long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robespierre

Remember, it was stuff like this that enabled Gingrich to make the leap from bomb-lobbing backbencher to Speaker of the House: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Post_Office_Scandal

- Dave

[tavalon]

18. It's not suspect

It's a different point of view. I'm not in the mood for bipartisanship right now and neither are many, if not most DUers. But that doesn't mean that anybody who posts a different opinion needs to be attacked in this way.

[CorpGovActivist]

20. Thanks, and ...

... I voted for:

1992: Bush 41 (I thought Baker had a decent shot at a comprehensive Middle East deal; I plead youthful indiscretion)

1996: Clinton
2000: McCain (primaries); Gore (general)
2004: Kerry

- Dave

[tavalon]

24. So what your saying

is that you made thoughtful decisions that were somewhat different than mine? How dare you! ;)

[CorpGovActivist]

29. And If Could Turn Back Time...

... I'd like a mulligan on my 92 vote!

: )

- Dave

[Raksha]

70. This guy is not a troll. Maybe you haven't seen his earlier posts

when he first joined DU, but he's a major Halliburton whistleblower and should be treated with courtesy, even if you disagree with him.

[CorpGovActivist]

71. If My Party Had a Flag...

... it, too, would be hung in the SOS position.

Thank you.

- Dave

[Subdivisions]

10. I would prefer to see the Republican Party disappear. Some

will argue that there are good Reeps and conservatives and I agree, there are, but it was up to them the keep the neocons in check and they stood by and watched them ruin our country. They are ALL guilty by association. Period.

Be gone with them before they get another chance to finish us off as a country. Pah!

[CorpGovActivist]

15. One-Party Rule Works Well Where?

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

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

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

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

- Dave

[Subdivisions]

27. Where did I advocate one-party rule? Ok, I'll be more precise:

I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DISAPPEAR.

Hmmm..no mention of one-party rule there. Since you like Wikipedia so much, here ya go:

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

Take your pick.

[CorpGovActivist]

30. Are You Advocating the Creation...

... of a brand new party, then, to counterbalance the Dems?

- Dave

[Subdivisions]

34. I don't want any counterbalance. There is no law that says there

must be counterbalance. I would rather see a situation where perhaps Dems become the conservatives. At least that way, the people will determine our fate as a nation, and not corporations.

I have to say that I'm fairly new to politics, having spent my 20s partying and my 30s trying to make up for the transgressions of my 20s while trying to get to know the world and politics a bit more intimately.

[CorpGovActivist]

39. Fair Enough!

LOL.

I had a subscription to TIME and Newsweek by the time I was 8.

: )

For my 9th birthday, I asked for a journal. My first entry was on January 20, 1981, at 9:30 p.m.

"Today Ronald Wilson Reagan became the 40th President of the United States ... the hostages in Iran were freed, and landed in Algiers at 8:10 P.M."

My degree is in Government, and I love nothing more than sitting around with good food and sharp minds, hammering out good public policy that takes into account a wide variety of viewpoints.

- Dave

[Subdivisions]

55. LOL...ok, let me clarify. I have never been totally clueless

when it comes to current events. When I was five, my favorite show was CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. I was very concerned about the Vietnam war and I was just as excited as the rest of the world when Neil Armstrong first set foot on the Moon.

I watched then Watergate hearings with my mother and witnessed with awe the impeachment and subsequent resignation of Nixon. I watched Ford play golf and trip over his own feet. I hung on every moment of news regarding the American hostages and was endlessly fascinated by the swearing in of Reagan at the height of the Iran hostage crisis and their subsequent release that same day. I remember the policy of supply-side economics and how that affected me as a young adult.

My major was physics (which is a long way from politics!) and I attended Hendrix in Arkansas during Bill Clinton's first term as Governor there. I was very politically active at that time and was honored to have dinner with Bill and Hillary at a Young Democrats function.

But eventually, I became burned-out and decided to take some time off from academia and just have some fun for once. Hence, my apathetic 20s. But I was not totally clueless as to what was going on, I just wasn't as interested as I had previously been.

Then, as I was beginning to settle down and think about going back to school, along came a new wife and then children...and drug addiction that nearly ruined my life. Fortunately, I was able to beat the addiction and began to act like a normal citizen again.

Then along came my old friend Bill Clinton running for the presidency. I was elated because, even though our time together was short, I admired what this man had stood for so many years before and I was excited that he would be bringing his vision and philosophy to the nation's attention. I was even more elated when he was elected. This brought my attention back to politics. And I've even gotten quite bulldoggish on environment issues and through activism here in Texas. In fact, I have a "hibernating" (meanin BROKE!) environmental org called ECHOE, or Environmentalist Concerned for the Habitats of Earth that was formed to protect a local song bird's habitat on Texas ranchlands. If we had any funds, we'd be working towards protecting ANWR and other habitats.

I've spent the past 15 years making up for that decade of indifference. But nowhere along the way did I ever analyze and scrutinize the mechanics of party politics as a matter of course. I've always voted Democratic and I suppose I always will. But as to what entity would fill the gap left by my desire to see the Republican Party's demise, I have no idea. Learning the solution from people like you is just one of the reasons why I am here.

And, I know enough about politics to know this: I firmly believe that this mid-term election is probably the most important election in our country's history.

[CorpGovActivist]

58. What an Incredibly Generous...

... gift, sharing your personal and political evolution like that. It's always a thrill to learn how other people became imprinted with their political stripes.

: )

I missed the moon landing, the live Watergate hearings (though I've practically got the collector's edition DVDs), and one of my earliest political memories is probably the gasoline lines (asking my parents why people just didn't come to where we lived to fill up).

As for Billary: Senator Clinton's staff have been nothing short of amazing, as alluded to in the footnotes: http://www.shareholdersonline.org/pdf/092006senateinvestigationrequest.pdf

- Dave

[Subdivisions]

32. HOLY SHIT! I just realized who you are. You're that Haliburton

whistleblower guy who just recently joined.

You know, your response came across as snarky to me so I responded snarkily. And I won't take it back.

However, let me add that I support your efforts to expose Haliburton and KBR. My Dad used to build power plants for KBR and worked himself all the way up to Nuclear certified welding inspector. He was working on Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant when he x-rayed a series of steam pipe welds that turned out to be pitted and he failed the welds. KBR told him to doctor the report or lose his job. He refused and shortly thereafter he was terminated after 22 years with the company. That damn near ruined our lives.

Keep up the good fight against those criminals. By the way, Dad has no reason to believe that those welds were ever fixed. If one breaks, the site could go into meltdown.

[CorpGovActivist]

41. I Sincerely Apologize...

... for coming across as snarky. It wasn't my intent. My bad.

Thanks for the info, and if your dad wants to provide info, he'd be adding his voice to many, many more.

- Dave

[Subdivisions]

57. Apology accepted and extended in kind! :) Peace!

[CorpGovActivist]

59. Thanks to My Grandmother...

... for teaching me how to give a proper apology.

"Apologize for what you did, without the words, 'if I' anywhere in it."

: )

- Dave

[KharmaTrain]

11. First We Take Inventory

Politics make strange bedfellows. DKOS has a post up about how the '94 GOOP "revolution" (and revolting it was) led to several Democrats switching parties and a change in the dynamic of how power flowed and how business was done. Clinton's successes were limited and his biggest "bi-partisan" deal were some of his worst...NAFTA, Dereg '96, signing the Iraq resolution in '98 that turned into the blueprint for this ugly invasion. He tried to accomodate and see what it got us.


Right now there are few Repugnicans I trust to put the best interest of the country and their constituents above their own power and ego. Arlen Spector? Chuck Hagel? Susan Collins? Well hear their names as "people we can work with", but where were they on ScAlito, the Iraq war and holding this regime accountable. I don't mean empty rhetoric, I mean deeds. And if we get in the majority, these are people we can trust?

The game here should be clear...if the Democrats win on Nov. 7th it's because people want two things...change and accountability. They don't want Democrats to roll over...they want the new class of Reprsentatives and Senators to bring change and they want those who have been re-elected to hold this regime more accountable. There are precious few Repugnicans who we can rely on as we start to inventory all the damage that's occured on so many different levels.

I'd love for a day where the acid political discourse of the past decade would be a bit more civil and that crossing the aisle showed strength of character. But with the radical Repugnicans...and they're be plenty left after this election...they deserve back bench status.

Democrats may win the vote in '06...the challenge (as we see in several recent posts) is to earn it and hold it in '08. That won't happen by constantly trying to make nice to the same people who screwed things up so badly.

[CorpGovActivist]

16. The Dems Don't Give Due Credit to...

Jim Jeffords, whose supreme act of patriotism over partisanship gave the Democrats the Senate back in May 2001 - four months into the first term:

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

- Dave

[KharmaTrain]

61. I Have...Also Walter Jones

The "Freedom Fries" guy who was the first across the aisle to see what a mistake Iraq was and came out two years ago about re-evaluating things.

Jeffords act in '01 limited the damage of what boooosh has done. Chaffee could have done the same thing but needed the RNC money.

I see no interest in retribution...that only prolongs problems. I like to think Progressives act to solve problems and put common good ahead of self interest as when you accomplish that good you benefit as well. Call me a dreamer.

Kudos, thanks for your reply and welcome to DU.

Cheers...

[CorpGovActivist]

64. Thanks, Dreamer, and I Didn't Mean to Be a ...

Bull Moose in a china shop!

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

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

; )

- Dave

[mmonk]

204. I give credit to any that put conscience and country before politics.

[CorpGovActivist]

45. Holding/Expanding the Majorities in 08

You wrote: "Democrats may win the vote in '06...the challenge (as we see in several recent posts) is to earn it and hold it in '08. That won't happen by constantly trying to make nice to the same people who screwed things up so badly."

Democrats likely will win majorities in both houses this year. Despite my party affiliation, I think that is a good thing for the long-term health of the Republic.

But to hold and expand upon those majorities, Dems should realize that the electorate is fickle - and constantly demonizing all registered Republicans (including the many who plan to vote "mostly Democratic" this year) may turn off independents (and independents registered as Republicans).

In short, the purple voters expect the Dems to use this majority for the common good, not for partisan retribution. Hold oversight hearings into the GOP leaderships' cover-ups? Absolutely!

But also enact good ***systemic fixes*** like those the nation saw in 1974 (e.g., Freedom of Information Act, sunshine laws, open government laws), so that - no matter who is in control in the future - We the People have better tools, updated for the Internet Age, to hold the leaders to account for their conduct.

- Dave

[NewJeffCT]

12. we can work with traditional Republics - but -

But, are there any left in today's Republican Party? The extremists have taken over their party, and if you "triangulate" to get a "moderate position", it's really just Republicanism from the 50s & 60s... I used to think Chris Shays here in CT was reasonable and not an extremist until his bizarro comments on Ted Kennedy & Abu Graib this week.

[CorpGovActivist]

19. We Still Exist

For example, MA Governor Bill Weld - whom Clinton tapped to be Ambassador to Mexico (only to have Jesse Helms throw a fit) - has been an ardent supporter of many progressive policy issues:

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

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bill+weld+kevin+smith+gay

At the 1992 GOP convention, Bush 41 stunned many of us by squelching Weld, and giving such a prominent platform to Pat "Mastadon" Buchanan (see the quote that got Weld booed off the stage in the Wiki entry for Weld above, versus): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_buchanan

If I were in NY, I'd vote for Spitzer over Weld. But Weld is a good example of a progressive-minded GOP leader who's still around.

- Dave

[ComerPerro]

14. You talk as though Conservatism were something noble and pure

don't you get it?

Conservatism cannot be put into practice.

It is a lie.

[CorpGovActivist]

22. That Stems from a Fundamental...

... misunderstanding of what "small c conservatism" is about.

I don't mean Conservative, as in British Tories.

I mean conservative, as in:

1. Government out of people's bedrooms (e.g., reproductive choice issues, partnerships, etc.).

2. Government there to provide a safety net for those who need it (e.g., the disabled, the elderly, the sick, the poverty-stricken).

3. Government that respects the Constitution as the supreme embodiment of the People's will, and which recognizes that mere statutes must conform to this over-riding document.

- Dave

[tavalon]

25. That's a conservative

that is so different from the current neocon version as to be unrecognizable. By that definition, I'm conservative. Of course, I'm not, I'm a stark, raving liberal, as bleeding heart as they come.

[CorpGovActivist]

31. A True Spectrum...

... color, or otherwise, wraps around to become a wheel!

: )

- Dave

[ComerPerro]

26. sounds like you might not be as conservative as you think, lol

Traditionally, Conservatives like to leave the second item to private industry, becasue some of them sincerely believe that private enterprise can do a better job (and some know it can't, but are just sick).

Government taking care of those who can't care for themselves in generally considered to be big government, a liberal idea.

And its usually the first thing that those who are "fiscally responsible" cut, to reduce spending.


As you may have guessed, its the most important issue for me.


Welcome aboard.

I do wonder, though, in what areas do you consider yourself "conservative"?

[CorpGovActivist]

37. Oh, I Definitely Got a Liberal Dose...

... of liberalism in my diet, too.

How can one not, growing up in a UMWA family?

; )

My dad lost his SSDI under Reagan I.

"June 20, 1982

We had been planning a trip to Disney but Dad lost his Social Security."

I was 10 when I wrote that.

Under Reagan I, those who'd been on SSDI for a certain period of time were pretty much automatically kicked off the program, and required to "re-prove" their continued eligibility.

My dad has two ruptured discs from a coal mining accident. The stress placed on our family by this mis-guided program left an indelible mark: real conservatives realize that there are those among us in our society who need society's support, and we realize that the private sector cannot do everything.

"Government taking care of those who can't care for themselves in generally considered to be big government, a liberal idea."

Actually, many true conservatives fully recognize the need for a social safety net, run by the government, and also realize that the foibles of human nature are such that you cannot ever fully eliminate fraud, abuse, or waste - though vigilant efforts should be made to try.

"I do wonder, though, in what areas do you consider yourself 'conservative'?"

Strong national defense (not defined as pre-emptive wars of choice, by a long stretch) is just one example of many I'd cite.

And I'd never dream of trying to portray all Dems as "soft on terror," because it's idiotic to even try to make that claim (and yet Rove hasn't gotten the memo).

; )

- Dave

[ComerPerro]

38. Have you seen Why We Fight, the documentary?

Talks about the differences between a strong national defense, and keeping standing armies, and talks about the Military Industrial Complex in great length.

Essentially, it's thesis is: Ike was right.

[CorpGovActivist]

42. IKE WAS RIGHT!!!

Absolutely he was right!!!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=eisenhower+military+industrial+complex+influence+whether+sought+or+unsought

- Dave

P.S. He also suffered from Crohn's, and would likely have supported scientific research into new treatments for this and other auto-immune disorders: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=eisenhower+crohn%27s

[blm]

65. There was a virtuous brand of conservatism practiced by some Republicans

throughout American history.

I think too many mistakenly point to conservatism as the cause of the chaos the country is in, when the real problems are the direct result of the fascists and totalitarians who infiltrated and USED the Repblican party and the conservative movement steadily since the end of WW2.

[CorpGovActivist]

67. Amen!

... and pass the impeachment petition!

: )

- Dave

[twilight_sailing]

17. In the past 6 years

how many times has the GOP co-operated with the Democratic point of view?

Bi-partisan seems to mean doing things the GOP way.

[CorpGovActivist]

23. I Used to Be a McCain Supporter, but No Longer...

... in large part, for the very reason you cite.

McCain had (past tense) the stature to stand up to the President. He squandered his "political capital" by carrying one too many pails of water for the Moron-in-Chief.

Real Republicans should always remember: it took guts for some Republicans to "do the right thing" and help bring Nixon down.

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

- Dave

[fujiyama]

303. The problem is

that the Bush, et al. are the "real republicans" you speak of. The others have left the party at this point. The few others that remain are idiots and cowards like Lincoln Chafee, who I view as nothing more than enablers for the corrupt thugs in power.

That's all there is at this point. They have become the party of fascism in the US. They have come to the point of recognizing torture as a legitimate action against suspected criminals. They want the government to interfere in all aspects of your private life. They want to institute a Christian theocracy. They will let cities and people go to waste as they shower billions on defense contractors and other corporate parasites. They will go to any length to protect their own and defend them of the most disgusting actions like pedophilia. And after doing that, they then blame the other party - the party NOT in power.

These are people that have accused us of being "soft on terrorists", of being traitors and worse.

I'd like for you to tell us on WHAT we can work with them on, and WHO specifically we can work with.

There aren't many left.

And I'm not talking about ordinary, non whacko people you and I meet and work with on a daily basis (who for the most part are decent people - some of whom are just deluded and brainwashed), but those repukes in power that simply are greedy, cold hearted ass holes.

[CorpGovActivist]

306. Chafee Voted against Authorizing Force in Iraq...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Had the Democrats all hung together, they wouldn't have all hung separately.

Benjamin Franklin, still fresh and cheeky after all these years: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=we+must+all+hang+together+or+assuredly+we+shall+separately+franklin

Let's not get historical amnesia. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the Daschle Dems had the gavels; they just didn't use them.

- Dave

[fujiyama]

309. True

And there is little excuse for Daschle and the senate leadership, which basically gave Bush a blank check.

But since then, Chafee should have realized that as a republican he was no longer appreciated or wanted in the party. He should have switched and for that reason I'm glad he's almost gone. He really deserves to be defeated. He had a great opportunity to switch after the '02 elections. Granted, he wouldn't have changed the balance of power just yet, but it would have helped.

Unlike Jeffords, he put party membership (with respect to his father, who wouldn't really have recognized this party), above principal and country.

[CorpGovActivist]

311. Chafee's Memoir...

... could make for an interesting read.

- Dave

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

21. I'm glad you plan to vote Democratic, because

as DU rules state:

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

"You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office."

"Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates."

The full rules:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Please understand that I quote the rules not to chide but to caution you on the degree to which you can state your support of your chosen affiliation. It appears that you are in a unique position to aid Democrats and Republicans alike, and I would regret seeing you banned because of a misstep.

I too admire Bill Clinton's coalition-building wisdom, but many regard bipartisan effort to be evidence of defection to the other side - as a quick glance through the responses will attest. Please remember that DU is a haven for progressives, not a place for debate with our political opponents, and mind how you step.

[CorpGovActivist]

28. I Respect the Right of Free Association...

... embodied in the First Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment

I'm decidedly a progressive, and - if your party affiliation automatically changed based on your predominant voting pattern - I'd be registered as a Democrat.

But I can tell you from firsthand experience: I've seen the dangers of voting a straight ticket, and we've all seen how the pendulum swings back and forth over time.

Orthodoxy of all types, flavors, and stripes is suspect to me. Whether the views of a Pentecostal pastor teaching his gay parishoners that they're going to hell because they're an abominiation in God's eyes, or a partisan orthodoxy that says that members of the other party should never be trusted, I look askance.

The organizers of the St. Patrick's Day parade in South Boston wielded their First Amendment right to free association to exclude LGBTQ marchers: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=free+association+south+boston+parade+gays

As repugnant as that stance was to me personally, I respect the Constitional principle involved enough to say: if DU has no room for progressive-minded Republicans, I'll respect the will of the community.

- Dave

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

68. The will of the community is a flexible thing, innit

;)

But for six years we have felt bunkered against an unbelievable assault. Older DUers thought it would never get worse than Nixon. Then we thought it would never get worse than Reagan. Now the tactics used against us have been so jaw-droppingly blatant - and, even more galling, so mind-bogglingly effective - that many of us regard a moderate Republican as nothing more than a Trojan horse. And with good reason, as evidenced by the craptacular John McCain.

During the 2004 campaign we had at least one Republican DUer who supported Kerry. IIRC he said he was working with a group of like-minded GOPers who detested Bush. He indicated that many of them were very wealthy and/or old-money types who were alarmed by Bush's economic policies. I don't remember whether he was eventually banned or simply left because of the vitriol directed against him. In either case, some here felt vindicated when he stopped posting.

I see some very short-sighted thinking on DU about winning voters to our side. For some it's just not good enough when people come around to our way of thinking but make the unforgivable error of not doing it on our timetable. "Where were you (two, four, six) years ago?!?" "You mean you only just figured that out? Idiot!" These posters do not know How to Win Friends and Influence People. Or maybe they don't remember the impact of the Reagan Democrats. The GOP sure didn't spit on them. They took them...for everything they had.

But I digress. The bit of history I'd like to share with you is that here on DU we have seen a succession of posters who have promised amazing revelations that were guaranteed to topple the House of Bush. They assured us they had inside information, high-level tipsters and realms of iron-clad documentation. All we needed to do was wait and see. Wait and see. Wait...wait..........

Some of these posters have been disruptors. Some were not deliberate disruptors but the very nature of their claims have caused massive, bitter flamewars as members debate their veracity and the reasons why they have not come to fruition. Hopes have been dashed, tears have been shed, and our opponents have laughed their asses off at the gullible moonbats.

The owners of DU turn a dim eye on such shenanigans, so you can understand if your professed moderate Republicanism adds fuel to the fire of natural skepticism. I would like to see you and Ides continue posting here. I hope this background helps explains my initial words of caution.

[CorpGovActivist]

72. Funny How Often Nixon Is Cited...

... and how few seem to recall the names of the GOP Attorney General and Deputy AG who flatly refused to do Nixon's bidding:

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

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

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

There are many - MANY - Republicans who embrace the Constitution, and who view their GOP wallet cards as being much less valuable than their Constitutional birthright.

I am working on the final edits of an FAQ for the HALwhistleblowers site. Any suggestions on how to establish my bona fides with hyper-suspicious Dems?

- Dave

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

82. Before there were the whistle-blowers there were the whistle-blown

As one from an actively Democratic and union household, I closely watched Watergate unfold from beginning to end. Wiki can't tell me much I didn't see in real time. My "worse than Nixon" statement refers to his entire Presidency, not just the last two years. Hell, it includes his entire political career.

By contrast my bit of DU history refers only to DU, and is meant only to illuminate your DU experience. I can't speak for all Democrats. I think I may not be communicating clearly so I'll say no more.

[CorpGovActivist]

83. Understandings Are Reached...

... by more discourse, not less.

: )

This medium doesn't convey the twinkle in the eye, or the smile, or the body language that helps to inform our understanding of one another.

I took no offense, and hope I gave none.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

154. You name people from over 3 decades ago, around the time you were born,

and claim there are many Republicans who embrace the Constitution and hold it more dear than their party.

Who, among the current Republican officeholders, have ya got?

[CorpGovActivist]

171. No, When Met with the Nixon / Watergate Comparison...

... I remind my Democratic friends that the story was not one of "Democrats riding in on white horses to save the Republic from the evil clutches of the GOP," but rather, was one in which members of both parties worked together effectively to bring down Agnew, then Nixon.

Then, I point out that a similar dynamic is emerging today.

"Who, among the current Republican officeholders, have ya got?"

There are a number of sources that analyze the votes of Members of Congress and Senators.

Too many - way too many - in my party are like George Allen, the bungling buffoon who marches in goosestep with the Moron-in-Chief.

But those same sources show that there is truly a small corps of moderate/progressive GOP mavericks who stand on principle and oppose the President.

One of them might even be persuaded to "pull a Jeffords" - if necessary - to deprive Cheney of the tie-breaking vote in the Senate in January, when the new Congress comes into session.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

203. Name the moderate/progressive GOP mavericks who "stand on

principle and oppose the President".

Name SOME.

We've already agreed McCain can't count among this number since he reverses himself so often.

You can't claim Jeffords as he left the Republican Party years ago (that'd be like Dems claiming Reagan, while he was alive).

I'll give you Walter Jones since he sounds a pretty consistent note now that the Iraq War is a disastrous mistake.

Only Lincoln Chafee among Senate Republicans voted against the Military Comissions bill. Olympia Snowe abstained.

You make the claim that these people are there and sounding a concilitary note with Democrats.

Where? Who?

[CorpGovActivist]

209. My Mom Has a Scottish Terrier

I'm beginning to understand your avatar.

; )

- Dave

[calimary]

163. Can't answer that one, but you cite the AG and D-AG "who flatly

refused to do Nixon's bidding" and, well, that was quite a revelation back then. I'm old enough to remember that era - though, funny enough, the names of these two don't immediately come to this aging mind :D - Eliot Richardson is one of 'em, I think. The only problem, and perhaps it explains why there IS such hyper-suspicion here, is that there aren't any prominent republi-CONS around bush who flatly refuse to do his bidding these days. Find me one. Colin Powell? HAH! Okay, maybe Jim Jeffords, but he stopped with an "I" and failed to come all the way across the bridge to full-on "D", and he still stands alone in even going that far. These schmucks have rolled us again and again, and kicked us in the teeth, and shoved in our faces and down our throats again and again (from the highest points atop the party ziggurat to this bush-loving mom one street over from me) that we should all be "working together" - which, to them, means Democrats should all be on our knees working it their way - it never broadens to their seeing or trying OUR way. I, for one, have had it with them. If indeed you are not one of them, you stand virtually alone. If there are any moderate republi-CONS dismayed about how their party's been hijacked, whether they're in government or outside it - in civilian-land, I have yet to see any of them stand up and do something about it, and come over to add to OUR numbers. When push comes to shove, they step back in line like good little robots.

I'm afraid I've been kicked in the teeth once too often to want to reach for any olive branches yet. Reading through this thread, I'm edging toward thinking perhaps you ARE different. I'm one of those who advocates the kerosene enema treatment - taste of their own medicine; see how they like it. I'd need to see a lot more in terms of mea culpas, true conversions (since I somehow still believe that at least a few souls, like yours, can be saved), and a willingness to rectify wrongs. Instead, they're mostly still blaming us, still setting up straw men and assigning us thoughts and statements we've never made, lying about everything we stand for, and doing everything they can think of to smear us with shit. When they're not blaming Clinton for everything else.

There was one DUer here a long time ago, apologies for not remembering who it was, who said that - before we can really start healing this country and fixing everything that's been broken and restoring our Constitution and stopping the war and stopping the march toward theocracy and the trampling all over the little guy and the middle class and the total hosing of the poor - that these bad guys have to get the snot beaten out of them. I'm ABSOLUTELY there. When kkkarl, mehlman, bartlett, karen, contradicta, rummy, and the rest of these lying, cheating ghouls are on their knees admitting to their sins and begging forgiveness (while wearing orange jumpsuits, preferably - ESPECIALLY bush and cheney), and the rest of 'em have seen the light and joined the IMPEACHMENT proceedings, then I'll happily get out the sterile bandages and ointment and administer to their wounds, and even donate a pint of my rare blood type for their recovery, and help them learn to walk again. But as long as they hold their noses in view of all that's happened and keep pulling the lever for "R's," I have no use for 'em. They have to show true contrition and a genuine, confirmed, verifiable conversion into the light before I'll retire my flame-thrower.

Good to hear the enlightenment coming from you, but you are not enough. Not by a LONG shot. As one of your own once said - "Trust BUT VERIFY." And I need to see a lot more before I can even flirt with the "trust" part, much less the verification. Once burned... as they say...

Sorry to be so harsh. Your posts seem sincere. But I haven't seen anywhere near enough to start being forgiving and generous and magnanimous to the enemy, since most of 'em have yet to publicly renounce their enemy status. Burned is burned. And scar tissue is scar tissue. And as with most progressives and liberals, I'm unfortunately covered in it.

[CorpGovActivist]

172. Ascribing Power to KKKarl Rove

It never fails to amaze me how fearful people have become of KKKarl Rove. Let's review:

1. He's a college dropout, who has no business holding the clearances he holds.

2. He was raised by a gay man he thought was his biological father. His real father bailed (which I think explains many of Karl's "daddy issues" with the Bushes). Yet he brazenly used gay marriage as the wedge issue in 2004, along with:

3. God: Karl is a self-described agnostic. Plus:

4. Guns: Karl used his aborted college career to string out a number of draft deferments, to avoid picking up a gun in service to his country.

If the Democrats cannot figure out how to take all that, rip the curtain back, and expose the "Wizard" for what he really is to heartland, "values" voters (a man who turned on the man who raised him, who doesn't believe in God, and who dodged the draft) - then God, Guns, and Gays deserved to work.

You guys could have Karl turning in his White House badges in about 2 weeks flat, if you'd run with that (and many on my side of the aisle would be whooping and cheering his departure every bit as rambunctiously as you would).

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

173. P.S. I Agree with You about Colin Powell

Too little, too late.

- Dave

[tavalon]

108. No, actually, we do have room for such

Those rules are meant to cover those who subvert the goals of the Democrats. I don't see you doing that in this thread. And you aren't the only registered Republican we have here, so I promise you, that's not enough to get you kicked off.

[CorpGovActivist]

112. All I Have to Do to Remember That Open Minds Are Important...

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

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

Those two fought together when they could, and against each other when they felt they must - but they kept the lines of communication open, and they influenced each other's thinking in profoundly important ways.

- Dave

[tavalon]

116. Exactly!

We need some of that. And I think the reason McCain had such a groundswell of support was because he seemed to be a true bipartisan politico. But, yes, I also got sick of his Bush suck up maneuvers.

[CorpGovActivist]

122. Agreed...McCain Is an Also-Ran

No self-respecting GOP moderate or maverick can support McCain in 08 now.

- Dave

[elocs]

33. I would guess that here there are more who are interested

in revenge or payback than trying to work with them. If that is the case then they had better enjoy their reign because is will be short. Democrats cannot win without getting the independent swing voters and once those voters figure out that the Dems are in it for revenge and payback against the Republicans rather than working for what is best for the country, then the Republicans will be back and payback then will be a real bitch.

We, as Democrats, cannot understand how the Republican rank and file cannot see how bad their leaders and representatives, who control everything in the Federal government can be so bad. The trouble is that with a one party Democrat rule that will not work with the other side, we will be as bad and as blind. We will be convinced that we know what is noble and what is pure and what is best for all Americans at all times. And measuring ourselves by ourselves we will declare ourselves to be wise. Our vision and dream of our benevolent one party rule in turning America into a nirvana-like utopia will become a nightmare. We will become as corrupt as the Republicans and the Neocons we not profess to loathe.

So if you want to simply further polarize the country, then go for the revenge and payback because it will make you feel good for awhile. But if you love this country and want to see the Democrats have a long and prosperous reign, then we will need to learn to work with the other side. The Democrats are totally out of power now, but we do work to keep the Republicans in check. If Democrats take total control will we totally shut out the Republicans as we are absolutely convinced of our infallibility in all things? Who will keep us in check?

[CorpGovActivist]

47. Amen to an Eloquent Reminder ...

... that http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=power+corrupts+absolute+absolutely+lord+acton

- Dave

[mandyky]

35. Unfortunately, the bridge building will have to wait til Dems win

The GOP and most of the congresspeople from that party won't build a bridge until they have to.
Hopefully, the leaders in our party will be big enough people to build bridges if we win. Hopefully, we will not see our folks mimic what the GOP has done the past 6 years.

[CorpGovActivist]

48. I Beg to Differ...

... there are dismayed GOPers who began quietly reaching out to the out-of-power Dems years ago.

Congressmen Waxman and Conyers have much of the data they have because many put their patriotism ahead of their party affiliation.

- Dave

[mandyky]

50. Not that many in Congress

I know many GOP regular people have helped. (not elected folks)
John McCain does reach out occassionally.

[CorpGovActivist]

51. John McCain is the Jill of the GOP...

He has gone "up that Hill" one too many times to "fetch a pail of water" for W.

I voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries. W's Waterboy can count me - and many others like me - out for any quixotic run he might make in 08.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

155. You make the statement, but what proof have you?

[Cameron27]

160. What proof are you asking for?

Whether his statement that he won't support McCain in the next election is true? If that's your request for proof, none of us can prove anything that we say on a public message board.

Otherwise, I don't understand what proof you're asking of him.

:shrug:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

161. If you look at the post I was responding to, he makes the statement

that there are all these Republicans secretly reaching out to Democrats.

Could have fooled me.

[Cameron27]

164. Oh, ok ...yes you're right, I definately agree with you on that.

[calimary]

165. Yeah, me too.

The only hand they seem to reach out with, in our direction, tends to have a joy buzzer hidden in it. At best. If we're lucky. Sometimes it's more like a scorpion.

[CorpGovActivist]

175. I Appreciate and Respect Your Skepticism

... up to the point where you disrespect and malign the patriotism of those registered Republicans who HAVE reached out to Waxman and others, across party lines.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

245. I didn't malign them, I just doubt their existence. Who are they? What

are their names?

[CorpGovActivist]

249. You Have Got to Be Joking

Once Waxman has the gavel in hand, he can call them as witnesses. When he does, I hope that some of the vitriolic posters on here will be grown-up enough to say, "Wow. I was wrong. There really were decent Republicans who reached out to the Dems while they were in the minority."

But am I going to put those whistleblowers at risk by naming their names? Not without their express permission, no I am not.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

252. What kind of information are you even talking about, that was provided

to Waxman? Can you provide a link to what you are even talking about? Are you talking about Halliburton or some other issue?

Please be more clear?

How is it that you have inside information about any of this unless it relates to the Halliburton issue which you are involved in?

[CorpGovActivist]

257. Here's How

"Can you provide a link to what you are even talking about?"

Yes, I've done so. You've not read those links, clearly.

"How is it that you have inside information about any of this unless it relates to the Halliburton issue which you are involved in?"

Well, you see, when you're called in to provide information up on The Hill, you glean a few things.

For instance:

1. You might learn from the Hill staffers that many other whistleblowers are cooperating.

2. You might be shown one of (yes, one of) the rooms where the evidence is being stored for use, once the gavels pass back.

3. You might bump into other whistleblowers, exchange notes, become friends, swap war stories, and share a beer.

4. You might get regular updates from the law enforcement officials who are continuing to pursue plea deals with those whom your evidence has implicated.

Or have you not been keeping up with the media's post-mortems on who knew what when in the Valerie Plame affair? That's a great intro to how those involved get regular updates.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

260. Hey dude there's no need to be nasty, I have read this whole thread.

You talk about Waxman and the people who've come up to him secretly. Waxman has been involved in a lot of things not all involving Halliburton. So a request for clarification, especially when all these conciliatory Republicans with conscience apparently must remain anonymous, is not unreasonable.

You could be a bit conciliatory yourself, and perhaps not so superior in tone, if you wanted to win more friends here or among Democrats.

You know what they say, "you can tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much."

[CorpGovActivist]

264. duplicate

duplicate

[CorpGovActivist]

265. Stop for One Second...

... and think what you asked me to do.

To name the names of those who have gone up to Capitol Hill, of their own free will - often at great personal risk - to share with Dems like Waxman their evidence?
**********************************************************************

"You know what they say, 'you can tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much'."


That reminds me of my favorite Harvard joke. My dad and both grandfathers were disabled in the coal mines, and I grew up in West Virginia before heading off to Cambridge.

It goes something like this:

Rural Harvard Frosh approaches three polished upperclassmen (possibly Porcellians).

"Excuse me, can you tell me where the library's at?"

The private school chums snicker amongst themselves, and the leader of the pack, composing himself, snickers, "Well, here at HAH-VAHD, we don't end our sentences with prepositions."

Unruffled, the rural Harvard frosh replies politely, "I'm sorry. My mistake. Can you fine gentlemen tell me where the library's at, a**hole?"

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

268. But you didn't make it clear what context the "conciliatory Republicans

who must remain anonymous" were talking to Waxman. In a thread of over 200 posts, you assume that one is to know EXACTLY of which you speak. You just mentioned people being conciliatory and approaching Waxman and Conyers. It was not 100 percent clear this was in a protected whistleblowing capacity unless you made it clear what hearings it involved.

Then you are snippy when people ask what and who you are talking about.

My comment about your air of superiority remains. If you actually care to read over the whole thread, your posts and responses to others, you are the clever guy who knows everything and has George Washington on your side, everyone else is making false assumptions and arguments and are angry bitter partisan Democrats who mysteriously have no reason to feel this way.

It's really not the best way to win over people.

[CorpGovActivist]

272. Which of the Links I Provided

Did you read?

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

278. You STILL don't "get" my point about coming across as smug and superior.

I have read the thread, I didn't say I read every damn link within it. 90 percent or more of your links are wiki links to bios of various people.

I have read the shareholdersonline link.

If you read through the whole thread in sequence, and read your post 48 which is what I was responding to, it is NOT 100 percent clear what you were referring to re: Conyers and Waxman.

Yet you continue to smugly say "what part of it did you read/ didn't read?" It's quite annoying really.

You are free to have the last word on this thread as you no doubt will. Others can beat their head against the wall.

I understand you are making a plea for bipartisanship from Democrats and feel it to be for the best. I disagree on the merits and usefulness of Democrats unilaterally pursuing bipartisanship at this time and in the absence of OVERT moves from Republicans in this direction, and don't feel you place enough burden on Republicans to be bipartisan as you seem to be satisfied with Jeffords' defection from 5 years ago and the anonymous testimony of some Republican whistleblowers.

You are long on argument but short on data. Apparently Jeffords died for the sins of the Republican party 5 years ago so we must take that to be good enough. We have to take your word that there are all these whistleblowers who will reveal themselves when the time comes, who will form the nucleus of a bipartisan group that will lead us into the next age. I will be GLAD if such people reveal themselves in the future, but I cannot infer their existence just because you post it to be so, just as I did not infer the existence of WMD in Iraq from the shaky "evidence" put forth by the Bush administration.

Part of what I am saying here, and you are not responding to, is that your air of superiority over others on this thread, as manifest in many of your posts, is, in my opinion, unlikely to be persuasive to your audience.

You may have the last word, and welcome to it. :eyes:

[CorpGovActivist]

279. When My Mom's Scottish Terrier...

... yips and yaps at my ankles from the moment I walk in the front door, I patiently put her out until she calms down.

From the word go, your posts questioned my integrity, my motives, my facts, my participation in providing information to Dems on the Hill, and my patriotism.

That, plus the "haven't done the reading" parlour trick - well-known to TFs at Harvard - of twisting the other person's premise, rather than arguing it based on the reading, leads me to suggest that you:

1. Do the reading.

2. Come back when you're prepared.

If you had any idea what those of us who have cooperated with the Dems on the Hill have suffered, you'd be more apt, perhaps, to back off, do the reading, and then come back and ask questions based on the reading.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

174. I Have the E-Mails, Call Logs, and Visit Logs ...

... supporting my outreach on the Halliburton issues.

During that time, I met and learned of others, like me, who were reaching out to the Dems to supply them with information about Halliburton and other issues.

- Dave

[DoYouEverWonder]

36. I don't care what party someone belongs to

as long as they are reasonable and rational to deal with.

There are many Republicans who are not extreme right ideologues and I welcome anyone who 'sees the light' has they say.

I've worked on a local level with many Republicans and Democrats and when everyone is working for a common goal you can actually accomplish a lot.

BTW: Good to have you on DU.

[CorpGovActivist]

49. Thanks, and I Agree Wholeheartedly...

... that true bi-partisanship often produces amazing results that advance the commonweal.

: )

- Dave

[guinivere]

40. Right now, I'm just too fried with what is going on to extend

the olive branch. However, I do realize that eventually for the good of all, EVERYONE will have to reach across the aisle. Without some give and take, nothing will get done.

[BootinUp]

43. I second this

same feelings here.

[Malikshah]

44. Wow-- the ship starts sinking and all of a sudden folks begin talking

about lifeboats and togetherness...

Accountability is the watchword. End of story.

[CorpGovActivist]

46. No All of a Sudden to It...

... I have the records to prove that I - and others - reached out to the out-of-power Dems years ago on many of these issues.

- Dave

[DoYouEverWonder]

183. Better late then never

I think some of us around here need to work on being a little more forgiving to people, who are willing to try to go in a different direction.

Save your anger for the ones who will never believe that they did anything wrong and only show remorse/self pity when they're on their way to jail.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

52. Don't mean to rain on your parade, Dave, but

just a reminder. Nothing has been won or lost yet. The election is still 3 weeks away.

If the Democrats win, and that is IMHO still a very big if, then will be time to talk about building a bridge, not before.

Welcome to DU...

[CorpGovActivist]

54. I'll Handicap It Now...

Dems control the House with a minimum of 8 seats (I expect this to be closer to 15).

Dems control the Senate with a minimum of 1 seat.*

* may require a Jeffords-like defection from someone like Lincoln Chafee or Susan Collins to achieve

- Dave

P.S. Yes, but as you suggest, three weeks is a long time. All I can say is that Waxman's staff has the goods.

[DoYouEverWonder]

184. Do you not want Republicans

to vote for Democrats?

We need all the votes we can get in order to beat the machines.

[CorpGovActivist]

190. Abso-friggin-lutely!

This is my point, in a nutshell:

1. If the Democratic leadership would stop playing it safe, they could turn a "sure thing" in November into a rout.

2. If the Democratic leadership would start talking like confident, poised winners, they could entice registered independents and "soft affiliation" Republicans to vote Democratic, sweeping tight House races - and securing a *very solid* working majority (instead of a razor thin one).

3. If the Democratic leadership would focus group an ad thanking the brave patriotism of Jim Jeffords, they would remind "soft affiliation" and progressive GOP voters that it is patriotic (and sometimes prescient) to vote for the national interest, rather than loyalty to the party and the President. The audience for that ad is NOT the Democratic faithful, who intend to vote Democratic come hell or high water. The audience for that ad is the PERSUADABLE independent and soft affiliation GOP voters, who can be enticed to join forces with the Democratic faithful.

For all this talk about how the GOP reached out to the Reagan Democrats, you'd think this would be a no-brainer. Lee Atwater crafted ads reaching out to those persuadable Democrats.

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

Learn from what he did, and put the core of that plan to work in the few weeks you have left to turn a "sure thing" into a rout that will have Russert breaking out his whiteboard on Election Night - but in a good way this time.

; )

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

53. Late Entry by Mark Warner?

I was crestfallen this week to hear that Mark Warner bowed out of the 08 race. He did an incredible job here in Virginia, even with both houses of the legislature in GOP hands.

My Democratic friends in Alexandria tell me that there is hope that one of the following scenarios will unfold:

1. Warner takes the Veep slot (pick your favorite Democratic nominee for the top of the ticket).

2. Warner makes a late-breaking about-face, waiting for the "front runners" to stall out during the primaries. With his personal wealth, he could pull off a last-minute entrance like few others could.

- Dave

[Marr]

56. I have never once heard anyone suggest that the Republicans should

cooperate with Democrats. I've never once heard anyone on TV suggest that big business should cooperate with labor interests. Never. I'm sure there are lone voices here and there that have suggested such, but it has not been part of the overall tone whatsoever.

Bipartisanship has been "date rape" (to quote an influential Republican activist) for the last 6 years, but all of a sudden it's something to embrace? No, I don't think so- thank you very much. After six years of corporate America raping the middle class with the government's help, it seems they've finally pissed enough people off that we don't NEED to cooperate.

The Republicans have advocated a "winner take all" system for the last 6 years, and they're about to lose. Too late to change the rules.

[CorpGovActivist]

60. Explain Jeffords

Explain the act of patriotism that Jim Jeffords showed.

He handed the Senate back to the Dems on a silver platter in May 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffords

Had the Dems held the Senate in '02, then would we have Alito and Roberts?

We didn't go to war in Iraq until March 03 - two months after the GOP retook the Senate. So, where were the Daschle Democrats from May 2001 to January 2003?

- Dave

[Marr]

63. I'm not sure I understand your point.

Are you saying that Democrats were ineffective in that period that they had control of the Senate, or that Jefford's conversion was an example of the wonders of bipartisanship? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't understand.

If you're offering Jeffords as a voice that has called for cooperation, then really, his conversion was so freakishly rare as to prove the point. And he's pretty much reviled by Republicans now, as well. His is not the prevailing attitude, is what I mean to say.

[CorpGovActivist]

66. You Said You Had Yet to See a Republican Suggest...

... bipartisanship as a necessary approach to solving the nation's public policy problems during this Administration.

So, I offered up the one example that Daschle Democrats really prefer to forget: Jim Jeffords, who didn't just merely suggest this approach, but took the actions necessary to try to bring it to fruition.

"If you're offering Jeffords as a voice that has called for cooperation, then really, his conversion was so freakishly rare as to prove the point. And he's pretty much reviled by Republicans now, as well. His is not the prevailing attitude, is what I mean to say."

And given the short shrift he's been given by the Daschle Dems, I'd predict few will be motivated to follow his lead.

However, there are many more Jeffords and Weld Republicans than many seem to realize.

- Dave

[Buttercup McToots]

69. Welcome Dave

Nice tae meetcha...
Interesting conversation...

[CorpGovActivist]

73. Thanks

*shrug*

Scotch-Irish stubborn streak here, I guess.

LOL.

- Dave

[Marr]

80. Well, I'm not a "Daschle Dem".

So I don't know what they prefer to ignore.

What do you mean by that, by the way? Daschle seemed representative of nothing more than the "go along to get along", constantly "compromising" wing of the Democratic Party.

Jefford's position does not seem representative of the overall tone of the Republican Party at all.

[CorpGovActivist]

81. Daschle Dems

You wrote: "Daschle seemed representative of nothing more than the 'go along to get along', constantly 'compromising' wing of the Democratic Party."

I might also call it the Backbonectomied Branch of the Democratic Party.

: )

No joke: Daschle Dems had the gavels with which to force the Administration to lay out its case. Instead, they fell right into the trap of handwringing over being perceived as "soft on terror," and they had the friggin' exclusive footage to completely obliterate that charge right at their fingertips:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/

Running ads reminding Americans of the case that Adlai Stevenson laid out during the Cuban Missile Crisis - with exclusive new, never-before-heard-or-seen material - would have been a very effective way to say, "Before we take provocative military action (e.g., the embargo that President Kennedy wisely used as the middle option), we need to be able to look ourselves in the eye as a country. Because once we unleash this genie from the bottle, you can bet on one thing, America: war is hell!"

- Dave

[Marr]

84. That's a big part of it. I think another is that

a large part of the Democratic Party- at least, the entrenched leadership- is just as loyal to big business interests as are the Republicans. For their owners, the Iraq invasion was a major pay day, in terms of both looting the treasury, and controlling resources. They weren't about to fight against the big pay day, especially since they could just blame it on Republicans if it all went wrong.

I agree that we need alot more people who put their country before their party, their career, and their stock portfolio.

[CorpGovActivist]

85. We the People Need to Start ...

... having the courage to ask our public officials the "impolite" questions, and demand answers, in the union halls, American Legion halls, and other "retail politics" venues where their handlers choreograph photo opps.

For instance:

1. Who are your top 10 corporate contributors, and how many times in the last year have you agreed to meet with a lobbyist representing their interests?

2. Do you take money from companies or PACs representing companies that do business before the committees on which you sit?

3. Do you automatically return campaign contributions that don't list a person's employer?

Those are just a few of the "impolite" questions that Dems and GOPers alike need to start fielding on a regular basis.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

156. Wow, using phrases like the "Dascle Dems" seems to raise the aroma of this

thread somewhat.

And given the short shrift he's been given by the Daschle Dems, I'd predict few will be motivated to follow his lead.

However, there are many more Jeffords and Weld Republicans than many seem to realize.

Who are the other Jeffords and Weld? BTW Jeffords has no longer been a Republican as of the last several years so you can not claim him.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

144. Jeffords LEFT the Republican Party. He didn't become a "bipartisan Repub".

Why don't you do like Jeffords and leave that corrupt party?

[CorpGovActivist]

176. For the Exact Same Reason

That all pro-civil rights Democrats didn't leave the party when the powerful Southern Democrats blocked passage of the Civil Rights Act:

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

- Dave

[IdesOfOctober]

62. Assuming Cheney doesn't arrange for an...

... unmarked grave, David's headstone really should read either:

"Progressive Prometheus" or

"conservative (with a little c) Casandra"

LOL.

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

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

Poor bastard.

Ides

[Alacrat]

74. We definitely need investigations,

and hold the criminals accountable in due time, but we don't need to get tunnel vision, and focus solely on payback, we should be above that, and I think we are. While we are holding those accountable, (the list is long it will take time) we should also be working fast to fix their wrong doings,and work to better our standing in the world, and take care of our people at home.
The independent and cross over voters will be quick to change sides againin 08 IMO, if we spend all our time and energy dishing out payback now. Are we the party of the people, or the party of "paybacks a bitch"? I will be disappointed with our leaders if that is all we get, or it's their single goal over the next 2 years.
The repug treatment of President Clinton toward the end of his presidency was disgusting and irresponsible, they wasted a lot of his and our country's time, when they should have been supporting him and his efforts to combat the rising threats from terrorist.
With the situation in NK(which may have just escalated, UN vote), along with all the other threats we face, we need keep our eyes on the bigger picture, which may mean some across the aisle cooperation.IMO we should focus on the best way to keep our country secure over the next 2 years, get our own President in office, then we can afford the time and focus to fire up the court rooms.

[CorpGovActivist]

77. Amen!

Having seen the reams of evidence that the House and Senate minority offices have to work with, there will be plenty of hearings. No doubt about that.

But undoing the domestic and foreign policy blunders of this Administration should also be pursued:

1. Repeal No Child Left Uneducated.

2. Repeal the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (passed over Clinton's veto by the Gingrichites as a pro-corporate giveaway; note how it was wielded by Kenny Boy Lay, Bernie Boy Ebbers, and other high-profile corrupt CEOs): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Securities_Litigation_Reform_Act

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pslra+enron

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=pslra+ebbers

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=pslra+kozlowski

3. Appoint CAREER ambassadors to key posts, and recall that inept BLUNDERbuss, Karen Hughes: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=karen+hughes+appointed+ambassador

There are many more, but those are my top votes, off the top of my head.

- Dave

[mmonk]

86. Bridge building is up to the GOP. They burned them.

There have been plenty of go along democrats to all this rightwing garbage and they still aren't treated any better by the majority party. Time to sack the castle. No quarter.

[CorpGovActivist]

87. Richard and Saladin...

... showed respect for one another, and gave "quarter" to each other's warriors.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=richard+saladin+personal+physician

A multilateral solution to the "Jerusalem Question" was almost achieved in their lifetimes. Extremists on both sides scuttled it.

If the power-starved Democrats do not learn from their history (both ancient, and their own more recent), they are doomed to repeat it:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=those+who+do+not+learn+history+doomed+to+repeat+it

- Dave

[mmonk]

88. When this ship is righted (if ever), I can talk about it.

[CorpGovActivist]

89. Moderate Dems with a Long View Had Better Grab the Rudder, Then...

... and steer a prudent, long-term course.

Because if the only plan is to:

1. Regain majorities; and

2. Mete out payback; without

3. Governing effectively (i.e., pursuing a dual track of long overdue oversight AND enacting good public policy, including repealing bad public policy enacted under "Bush 1.5 terms"), then

4. The pendulum will swing back again, as the fickle electorate grows disgusted with the short-sighted tit for tat.

- Dave

[mmonk]

96. War in Iraq, spying on Americans, torture camps,

detention centers, free speech zones, eliminating social security, massive debt, ending habeas corpus. What's the "moderate" position?

[CorpGovActivist]

101. Speaking as a Moderate...

... with a "c"onservative bent:

1. Detention centers: violate the bedrock principles of the Constitution, and endanger our military and civilian support personnel (as well as journalists) overseas.

2. Free speech zones: last time I checked, the entire United States was still declared one, by the First Amendment.

3. Social Security privatization: no way should this be on the table, until meaningful reform has been applied to the industry that stands to reap windfall profits.

4. National debt: several ways to address this one, all of which can be implemented in tandem for an additive effect: (1) raise the top tax bracket (as many billionaires themselves support); (2) create Osama Yo Mama Bonds, available ONLY to American citizens, then use the proceeds generated by these new bonds to "call" the Chinese-held bonds early, and pay them off, which has the added bonus of diminishing Chinese influence over our foreign policy; (3) in-source military support functions back to the military personnel, and stop outsourcing these functions to over-priced Beltway Bandit contractors; (4) call up Al Gore and ask him to dust off the lockbox.

5. Habeas corpus: Mount aggressive challenges to this in court, and simultaneously mount a full-court press in Congress to repeal the provisions. And - oh, by the way, the last time I checked, the Dems have enough Senators to fillibuster.

6. Bonus: seek out Byrd if the Senate changes hands, and figure out how to lock away the "nuclear option" on destroying the fillibuster. The Senate rules can be changed to remove this tool from either side's arsenal. After all, it is conceivable that - someday in the future - it may be the Dems seeking to use the "nuclear option" to destroy the fillibuster. Systemic fixes are needed, to protect all Americans from the corrupting influences of power:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=if+men+were+angels+no+government+would+be+necessary

- Dave

[mmonk]

198. Isn't the nuclear option a hypothetical one? After all isn't it

simply breaking Senate rules? It's a coup attempt. It's not listed as a Senate procedure.

[CorpGovActivist]

205. I Became a Parliamentarian...

... in 5th grade (4-H Club). My classmates thought I'd want to run for President.

But when I read the office descriptions, Parliamentarian appealed to me. The idea of fairly administering the rules, so that all could have their say, was enthralling.

Besides, I had already heard Senator Byrd described as a parliamentarian, and I'd already written him several letters by then.

: )

At Harvard, I was Parliamentarian of the Undergraduate Council (student government) my senior year. There were three distinct factions on the Council. Traditionally, the Parliamentarian had served as a sort of rubber stamp for the UC Chair. With a new constitution and by-laws taking effect that year, we made a radical departure from that mold, and meaningful changes began to take place. It was incredible watching the rules work, to ensure that all had their say.

A surprising dynamic began to emerge.

Faction A would introduce a proposal.

Because the rules were enforced, Factions B and C got to have their say - the gavel was no longer used to silence or strongarm the minority parties.

Amazingly, Faction A's basic idea ended up being improved upon, by the contributions of Factions B and C.

We ended up doing things like organizing subsidized chartered buses for the out-of-town Harvard-Yale game for those who could not otherwise afford to go. For $5, anyone could jump on one of the buses and enjoy "The Game". The grants-making process to student groups was de-politicized (e.g., no more withholding the student activities fee, to protest progressive groups' funding), and it was streamlined to ensure that the grants were made early enough in the semester to provide meaningful support to those groups.

The nuclear option is real. The current Senate rules include a loophole that needs to be closed.

- Dave

[mmonk]

227. Maybe it's real since the threat makes the opposition cave.

My protestations that in real terms, it's not a real Senate parliamentation move is since in this case, it would grant the executive branch a way to "interpret" Senate rules. This runs contrary to checks and balances built into the system and the loophole a violation of the intent of checks and balances.

[CorpGovActivist]

228. Each House Governs Itself: Article I, Section 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_5:_Procedure

http://rules.senate.gov/

- Dave

[TygrBright]

162. I *think* you can trust cooler heads to prevail, eventually...

...although things may be a bit wild at first.

Not all Dems hate all GOPpies. Many of us know that we need each other, in order to govern effectively and Constitutionally. Rove and his one-party fascisti have done their best to derail the system that the Founders created, and for all the damage they've done, they have failed. It is now up to Dems to give real conservatives a combination of breathing space and quiet help to retake their Party and clean their own stables. If we provide too much of a wall to push against, we'll impede that process and re-empower the nutjob wing.

I very much hope that you're right about there being enough real conservatives left in the GOP to accomplish this. My perception is that a great many of them have left the GOP altogether and are trying to remake the Democratic Party in their image, which is understandable but counter-productive. We may need to let some of the most ::ahem:: enthusiastic elements of the Democratic Party's ultra-progressive wing out to play in order to flush some of the ex-GOPpies out and back to their own Party. It will be a messy process... "interesting times" and no mistake.

I'm curious about the perceptions of "conservative" revealed in this thread so far. It seems as though few remember the basic dichotomy that I grew up with, back when the dinosaurs frolicked. Aside from the basic ideological tension between the liberal embrace of change and the conservative embrace of status quo, which provides the necessary winnowing process to ensure that change is necessary and feasible, our perceptions of what "conservative" means politically seem to have, uh, wandered a bit.

When I was much younger, conservatives were somewhat isolationist, opposed to any kind of military "adventurism," and rather inclined to "starve the beast" by opposing increases in military spending. They tended to be opposed, too, to any kind of action that would make credit easier to obtain and more available to the middle- and working classes, as a way of encouraging savings and thrift (and, incidentally, retaining a high degree of control over the nation's store of capital, but I'm sure that was only an incidental side effect.) They were certainly opposed to any variety of restraint or regulation on business, especially big business, but would often make exceptions when it came to matters relating to what essentially amounted to a "public patrimony" of infrastructure, land, resources, etc. IOW, they would often come down on the side of prudence and (!) conservation even if it meant some restraint on (for example) extractive industries.

Conservatives back then had a legacy of credibility in the area of government reform, dating back to Teddy Roosevelt and the struggle to suppress the increasingly corrupt "machine" politics of growing urban constituencies. They almost reflexively opted for "King Log" style governance, not necessarily favoring "state's rights" over federalism, but throwing their weight behind whichever approach seemed least likely to rock the boat, change the rules of the game, or disrupt the cast of characters. Social and "moral" issues meant very little to them and they tended to regard such issues as belonging to the sphere of church and family.

In the end, it would be safe to say that Conservatives saw government in terms of risk and cost, and Liberals saw government in terms of opportunity and benefit. And BOTH viewpoints are needed in order to respond effectively to a fast-evolving geopolitical, technical, and economic environment.

I did not appreciate the conservative unwillingness to change, especially when the status quo institutionalized injustice, but as I grew older I began to appreciate the necessity of having effective "reality checking" during the change process, as a way of heading off too many damaging unintended consequences. Conservatives were always too slow and cautious for me, even when they grudgingly conceded the necessity for change. I have no doubt that I and others of my generation of liberals were too fast and too willing to assume and distribute risk for them, even when we paid lip service to the necessity of incremental change. Between us, we muddled through some terrifyingly dangerous challenges to America's existence.

In short, I have never seen "conservative" OR "liberal" as necessarily tied to any one policy position or even any specific platform of policy provisions. A policy that represents change may be embraced by liberals in one generation, and having become institutionalized, represent the status quo and be embraced by conservatives in another generation. A specific legislative measure, posed for one reason in one era, may be seen in a different era as advancing another agenda altogether.

I would be happy if we could regain that equilibrium between the classic conservative and the classic liberal impulses. I would hope that our Democratic leaders will triangulate effectively on becoming constructive change agents to meet the challenges of an increasingly dangerous and inequitable world. I'd like to see them prioritize a few key changes and show some real leadership in pulling together a coalition within the Party to make those changes possible. I'd be equally happy in a meta-sense if the GOP, having purged itself of the nutjobs and fascists, resumed its perennially irritating role of brake, nay-sayer, tester, arguer against change, defender of what's too valuable to put at risk or throw away, etc. Although of course I'd oppose them as they opposed us. The dynamic tension could potentially revitalize our government.

For what it's worth (I've said this elsewhere,) I predict that the Democratic leadership will indeed make some immediate, strong gestures at housecleaning, including re-instituting an ethics committee with teeth, and initiating some searching enquiries into the extent of war profiteering and corruption. But the other thing we can do to hang onto the momentum and keep the tide turning is to go to work immediately on a POSITIVE agenda, not just investigations and housecleaning. Make some POSITIVE changes that will have real effects for average folks. Repealing the godawful bankruptcy bill would be a start, and/or raising the minimum wage, and/or eliminating a largish chunk of corporate welfare expenses from the public budget and using the money to pay down principal on the national debt.

We will have to move slowly and generate some real gains in order to grow a consensus for the deeper structural changes necessary to counter environmental degradation and economic polarization. Right now too many of the votes that will be cast in the "D" column are not so much votes FOR Democrats as they are AGAINST GOPpies. That is NOT a mandate for Democrats to take vigorous action, but it does give us a space to demonstrate just how much better we can do than the sleazebags who've been pulling the strings for the last 6 years. Once people are used to the idea that Dems can actually accomplish stuff that will make their lives better, we'll gain the maneuvering room we need.

Of course, none of this "go slow and be prudent" stuff should apply in cases where the Constitution is at stake. On that we act fast, we strike hard, and we settle for nothing less than full restoration of Constitutional government.

It's nice to have thoughtful folks who view themselves as conservative here on DU, Dave, and I'm glad you're willing to enter the steel cage (as it were) and join in the give and take. Although from what you've said of your views in this thread I think you're less "conservative" in the classic sense than you may realize, I recognize the differences you value. I hope you and other thoughtful GOPpies can form sort of a "soft landing" welcoming committee in your own Party as the moderate conservative refugees start to flee the Democratic Party in the wake of our post-victory excesses (they're inevitable, but they won't last long and they'll even out without doing too much harm.) I can't help you turf the looneytoons from your own Party (indeed, the very suggestion would be a hindrance, not a help,) but I wish you well in accomplishing it eventually.

amiably,
Bright

[CorpGovActivist]

177. An Incredibly Thoughtful Response

Where to begin?

: )

That is a truly thoughtful response, informed by a long view of things. I bet we could spend many hours in civil discourse, and might even change each other's minds about a thing or two!

I truly believe there are still enough "c"onservatives around. Many of us are extremely progressive on social issues, and see natural partnerships with our friends on the other side of the aisle on these issues. Having seen the incredible power of education in my own family, I support programs that empower people to get the higher education that allows them to unleash their natural talents and abilities. For some, that may mean something other than a traditional 4-year college. One of my classmates from high school was one of the biggest cut-ups in class. Many teahers assumed he'd amount to nothing.

Those of us who knew him knew that he loved to cook, though. Today's he's a chef at the Greenbrier Resort.

The isolationist strain of the GOP (working with the isolationist Dems) worked to restrain FDR from full-scale participation in WW II, from 1939 to 1941. Pearl Harbor marked a watershed moment in our history in more ways than one: the isolationists (and those who merely urged restraint in foreign misadventures) were decimated.

"I hope you and other thoughtful GOPpies can form sort of a 'soft landing' welcoming committee in your own Party as the moderate conservative refugees start to flee the Democratic Party in the wake of our post-victory excesses ..."

Here's to hoping that cooler heads prevail within the Democratic Party, making it not only easy - but once again a patriotic joy - to openly work across the aisle with one another.

- Dave

[mmonk]

207. Also, this becomes purely an assumption

based on a normally functioning system, not a broken system.

4. The pendulum will swing back again, as the fickle electorate grows disgusted with the short-sighted tit for tat.

[CorpGovActivist]

210. Then Substitute

"fickle independents and soft affiliation voters - whether registered as Dems or Repubs"

- Dave

Exhibit A - Soccer Moms: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=soccer+moms+gop

[Raksha]

158. I agree - NO QUARTER!!!

Re >>There have been plenty of go along democrats to all this rightwing garbage and they still aren't treated any better by the majority party. Time to sack the castle. No quarter.<<

It's time to hold the bastards accountable, not only (or primarily) for the sake of revenge, but because we do our party and our country no favors if we don't fully investigate ALL of them. One of the worst things Clinton did was to put an end to the Iran-Contra and BCCI investigations. Someone has mentioned more than once on DU that Clinton never even mentioned BCCI in his autobiography. And it's these SAME criminals who are responsible for the mess we're in right now, along with a few recycled Watergate crooks who managed to live long enough.

It's time to clean out this nest of cockroaches once and for all.

[CorpGovActivist]

178. When the Cry of "No Quarter!" Goes Up in Battle

Alexander the Great did not build an empire by crying, "No quarter!"

The Romans did not build an empire by crying, "No quarter!"

George Washington and his generals did not build an incredible new nation by crying, "No quarter!"

When the cry of "No quarter!" goes up in battle, this means that the ensuing indiscriminate slaughter kills doctors, nurses, professors, mechanics, bakers, and other people with useful skills.

Shame on those Democrats who have let KKKarl Rove fill them with so much hatred, that Republicans are no longer viewed as fellow Americans.

For all the hyperbole about this being the worst crisis our nation has ever faced, it isn't.

For four years, the very existence of the Republic hung in the balance. And a Republican that more of my party should emulate said it best during his Second Inaugural Address: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=abraham+lincoln+second+inaugural+address+with+malice+toward+none+charity+for+all+bind+up+the+nation%27s+wounds

Not only did he give "quarter" to those who'd literally fought his troops, his plan called for the quick reintegration of those former adversaries back into the national fabric.

Today, we call it Reconstruction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction

In fact, Radical Republicans even tried to impeach Johnson for carrying out Lincoln's vision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans

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

For the sake of the country, I hope that the Democratic leadership has brushed up on their post-Civil War history, to avoid an unnecessary repeat.

- Dave

[DoYouEverWonder]

187. When the DEMS take back control of Congress

we need to put an end to the politics of hate.

The criminals in the Bush administration need to be brought to justice and prosecuted. However, life goes on and BushCo has left his country in a mess. The rest of us are going to need to drop the labels and roll up our sleeves and start making the world a better place again. There'll be no room for hate.

[CorpGovActivist]

191. Amen to That, and Read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lincoln%27s+second+inaugural+address

- Dave

[AspenRose]

90. "Sleeping on the Democratic Couch"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1857274

[CorpGovActivist]

91. Not All "Houseguests" Fail to Pay Rent...

... and some have paid dearly for the information they've shared, willingly, with the out-of-power Dems.

- Dave

[AspenRose]

94. Present company excluded, of course.

You've paid pretty dearly.

[CorpGovActivist]

95. So Have Many Others...

... as will become apparent, once Waxman gets that gavel in January.

I sincerely hope, for the sake of the Republic, that the Senate doesn't split 50-50. Because with the churlish and uncharitable rhetoric coming from most of the Democrats, I doubt any single GOP Senator will be much inclined to follow in the brave footsteps of Jim Jeffords - who has been all but forgotten by the DNC.

Would it kill Howard Dean to run an ad thanking Jim Jeffords for having the courage and the foresight to stand up to his President and his party? It would remind many on-the-fence independents and GOP voters that Jeffords was damn near prescient, and remind them that sometimes the most sincere way to show your loyalty to your party's principles is to oppose its current leadership.

- Dave

[AspenRose]

98. "churlish and uncharitable rhetoric"

Jim Jeffords did what he did out of principle, not because of democratic rhetoric.

If anyone from the GOP chooses to follow in his footsteps, it's because they possess the courage and strength of their inner convictions, and with that, they don't need 'approval' from the democrats or from anyone else on the outside to do the right thing.

Besides, I wouldn't consider Pelosi or Reid 'churlish and uncharitable.' If anything, they've bent over backwards and have shown incredible restraint in the face of downright ugliness.

What you may consider 'churlish and uncharitable' HERE, at the DU, is the result of folks here getting (beyond) tired of being lied about and kicked in the teeth without hardly anyone in government truly standing up and fighting back. Feingold, Boxer, Conyers are a few exceptions. I guess they would be considered 'churlish and uncharitable,' though.

With all due respect, accusations of 'churlish and uncharitable' aren't going to help you build your bridge.

[CorpGovActivist]

102. Jim Jeffords Was Actively Courted and Welcomed...

... the timeline on this story is pretty clear.

Jeffords was wooed. His personal misgivings may never have translated into concrete action, had it not been for the diplomacy and bridge building of several key Dems (including, I readily acknowledge, Daschle).

Yes, there is a world of difference between the tone and tenor of a message board such as this, and the tone and tenor of the United States Senate. Given that difference, you may be right about the likelihood of a Chafee, Collins, Snowe, or Specter defection.

But for ordinary would-be crossover voters who routinely read such terms as "repukes," they may choose to stay home, rather than turn out to make a patriotic crossover vote - in tight House races.

- Dave

[tavalon]

114. Are there really that many middle of the road voters

who hang out here? Because, as it has been mentioned before, people here use such vitriolic phrasing because we are damned tired of being screwed over by the folk on the other side of the aisle. Hell, we'd just be grateful if they would use lube once in a while.

[CorpGovActivist]

119. Well, That's an Argument for a Moderate Underground

LOL.

: )

- Dave

[fujiyama]

304. Collins, Snowe, and Specter

are worthless. They are cowards at best. On almost all occassions of criticism, they have eventually backtracked and capitulated to the Bush regime. They have voted for almost all of Bush's insanely pro corporate agenda. They have voted for most judges (including Alito and Roberts for SC justices). And in the end I believe they all went along with the "compromise" torture bill.

They won't switch.

What Jeffords did was a matter of consciense and was indeed admirable, but as you said, it was a matter of politics as well. His own agenda was special ed. As expected, this administration and repukes in power didn't give a shit about that. Daschle, Reid and others eventually told him to switch and get a chairmanship on the commitee that deals with education. Granted, there's more to that. After all, he'd been treated badly for sometime during those 5 months Bush was in power.

The remaining simply are too far gone. We can't rely on any republicans for anything at this point.

[CorpGovActivist]

307. A Bridge Too Far...

"We can't rely on any republicans for anything at this point."

None? Not a single one?

Should we just round them all up?

This sort of hyperbole will scare off would-be crossover voters.

I stronly urge my Democratic friends to start distinguishing between the "current GOP leadership" and the "many patriotic Republicans who are just as distressed as we are," because the failure to make that distinction has a real cost: crossover voters on November 7th, that could be the crucial voting bloc that delivers "iffy" House races, and maybe even one extra surprise Senate seat.

- Dave

[fujiyama]

308. I should have stated

republican politicians, although many of their "true believers" are pretty deluded as well. A frighteningly stupid bunch they are.

I agree though that it's nearly impossible to get anywhere without atleast trying to win over moderate republican voters (well the few that exist and still think anyways).

[CorpGovActivist]

310. For All My Teasing about...

"Tofu Dems" and other types of Dems, it's never with malice, or in the belief that they aren't every bit as patriotic as any Republican I know.

There are a lot more "independents raised as Republicans" and "soft affiliation Republicans" out there than one might think.

Hearing themselves lumped in with the cabal in charge of the party might convince them to stay home in disgust, shame, and self-loathing - but wouldn't you rather provide a path to "redemption" for them, by making them feel welcome to join the good fight at the ballot box this year?

To win WW II, we allied with the Soviets - even though they started out with the non-aggression pact with the Third Reich.

Politics and bedfellows...

; )

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

147. So, there's been no "churlish & uncharitable" rhetoric from Cheney, Bush,

or the Republicans in Congress?

Huh?

[CorpGovActivist]

180. I Didn't Say That

I think Cheney is an ******* - "big time".

I think Bush is a Moron - "big time".

But if you review the sub-thread, you'll find that I was talking about the prospects of a Chafee, Collins, Snowe, or Specter defection (a la Jeffords), in the event of a 50-50 split in the Senate seats after November 7th.

So the concern with churlish and uncharitable rhetoric coming from many quarters of the Democratic Party touches upon how that might play into the decision-making of a would-be defector. S/he might look at how Jeffords was taken for granted, and barely credited, and say, "It's not worth it. Just look at how they treated Jim."

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

199. Chafee looks like he's going to lose his seat, so I guess you can work

with the Democrat there.

[CorpGovActivist]

211. Or, Chafee Might Use His Lame Duck Period

... to commit a last, supreme act of patriotism, before he officially ceases to be a Senator.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

221. Well, we'll be watching for it!

[CorpGovActivist]

222. The Day Before Jeffords Defected

... did you see that one coming?

- Dave

[Raksha]

286. "Churlish and uncharitable"????

Now you've completely lost me! Talk to the OTHER side if you want to talk about "churlish and uncharitable"! I said earlier in this thread that you are not a troll and deserve to be treated with respect even if a person disagrees with you, but I never said for one minute that *I* agree with you! "Bipartisan" is still very much a dirty word to me, and in order to convince me otherwise you will have to prove to me there is something in it FOR THE DEMOCRATS. Don't bother trying to appeal to my higher instincts, because to me that signifies only one thing: Capitulation. Capitulation and "sit down and shut up" when we're in the minority, and pulling our punches if we regain the majority. To me that's the absolute worst thing we can do, for the country as well as the Democratic Party. The Republican culture of corruption needs to be uprooted once and for all, not just cut down where it can "sprout and grow again" in the future.

Someone asked you a very good question yesterday and I'd like to see how you answered it. They asked if you're posting on conservative boards and talking to THEM about "bipartisanship." If so, which boards are they? What approach are you taking? Are you getting anywhere with them?

I'm sure you've already found that there are many people like me on DU, who are getting sick and tired of always being the ones who are expected to be "reasonable," who are constantly being told to put aside our anger for the greater good. Anger and revulsion at what the neocons have done to our country are what is driving the coming Democratic victory (assuming the election isn't stolen again), so don't tell us to stifle it.

Our anger is precisely what must be addressed and validated.

[CorpGovActivist]

287. How About...

"What's in it for America?"

- Dave

[Raksha]

290. As far as I'm concerned, they are one and the same.

The neocon mafia that has hijacked the Republican party not only doesn't represent America, they are actively working against it. As I told a Freeper on another forum: "We OWN the Constitution now. You handed it to us on a silver platter." I think I was referring to the Military Tribunals Act aka the War Crimes Protection Act, but I may have been talking about the warrantless wiretaps. I don't remember now what the context was.

Even if there are moderate Republicans who are also appalled at what the neocons are doing, you would never know it by the way they vote in Congress. How could they vote to weaken (or abolish?) the right of habeas corpus and still call themselves Americans? There were some Democrats who crossed over on that one for "political" reasons, and they will be dealt with down the line. I have a list of their names on my hard drive (both House and Senate) and I consider every last one of them traitors.

The Republicans who voted for that abomination are no less traitors, of course, and that's precisely my point. If they were going to stand up for America and against the neocons, THAT was the time to do it! That was the litmus test and there is no going back on it. No do-overs. How many crossed over and voted in opposition to the military tribunals act? There were a few, but mostly the Republicans voted in lockstep with the Bush mafia. No matter what they say, the so-called "moderate Republicans" revealed themselves for exactly what they are with that vote.

[CorpGovActivist]

292. While You're at List Making...

... be sure to add those Daschle Dems who acted out of expedience - rather than principle - in the Summer of 02, when they still had the gavels.

- Dave

[samsingh]

92. except the gop bombs our side of the bridge while building their own.

[CorpGovActivist]

93. Jeffords Crossed Over, and Brought His Tools with Him...

... and the Daschle Dems squandered the Senate majority.

- Dave

[DaveJ]

97. Better idea -- eliminate the Republican party

There are a lot of other great parties out there. Republicans personify the greed and hypocrisy of the 20th century. I realize this may result in another swing of the pendulum but it's definitely worth a try.

[WinkyDink]

99. Repubs first, okay?

[CorpGovActivist]

103. Still Waiting for Someone, Anyone, to Acknowledge Jeffords' First Step...

... and Daschle's squandering thereof.

- Dave

[WinkyDink]

146. Becoming an Independent isn't something Democrats have to

praise.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

157. Good Lord, Jeffords is the only fig leaf dud'es got. He LEFT their party.

If he'd stayed a Republican and done a lot of bipartisan things as a Republican there might be a leg to stand on there.

[CorpGovActivist]

182. If the Daschle Dems Had Used Their Gavels as Something ...

... other than paperweights from May 2001 to January 2003, they might have kept the Senate Democratic - as a real check and balance on the Moron-in-Chief.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

181. When It Gives You Back the Gavels...

... I'd argue otherwise.

- Dave

[mmonk]

100. This has been the biggest threat to our system of

government since I can remember (especially the all out assault on the constitution and checks and balances). There has to be good reason to heed a mercy call. Anyone from the dem side that went along with the most egregious acts isn't moderate, but scared or greedy for the same unchecked power. What are you looking for exactly?

[CorpGovActivist]

105. For Once, Just Once, for the Dems Not to Miss...

... an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

All those disaffected Reagan Democrats? They'd probably like to come home.

All those disaffected Roosevelt Republicans? They'd probably like to cross over, knowing that a period in the wilderness may be just what the doctor ordered to regain control of the party from the likes of Pat Buchanan. We watched in dismay in 1992, as our party got hijacked, and we'd like it back.

For once, for the love of Pete, will the DNC please stop playing it safe, and go for a landslide and a solid working majority?

There are dozens of House races that are now in play. Why? Because independents (whether registered as such, or registered with one of the major parties) are really kicking the tires on the message.

If the Dems create a safe haven - telling it like it is (i.e., we're going to hold long overdue oversight hearings, but we're also going to solve the long-ignored and self-inflicted problems created by this Administration) - those independents will turn out, and turn a "sure thing" into a solid working majority.

- Dave

P.S. I really do think that a Jeffords "thank you" ad - run nationally, and explaining why Jeffords' stance was both courageous and prescient - would "focus group" quite well with self-identified independents and "soft affiliation" Republicans. Hell, what does Howard Dean have to lose by at least focus grouping it?

[mmonk]

140. What do Reagan "democrats" stand for?

In my opinion, it's a matter of framing the issues correctly. That's how the repukes did things to get their support.

[CorpGovActivist]

186. Then Do a Better Job of Communicating Your Message

Instead of saying, "those tricky Dick operatives in the GOP fooled those Reagan Democrats into voting Republican," take a good hard look at how the Democratic Party leadership packages and sells its policies.

Instead of rolling over and letting the likes of KKKarl Rove define you, define yourself.

There comes a point where all this talk about how helpless the Dems are to fight back plays right into the GOP-engineered perception that Dems lack a backbone.

I know plenty of good, solid, patriotic Democrats who don't even come close to resembling KKKarl's KKKaricature of what Dems stand for; and there are still plenty of good, solid, patriotic Republicans who despise what KKKarl has tried to do to the Republic, every bit as much as the Dems do.

- Dave, the "repuke" who has turned over information to out-of-power Dems about Halliburton

[mmonk]

213. Contrived caricatures of democrats

preceded this administration and Rove's politics.

[CorpGovActivist]

217. I Agree

But I think KKKarl's KKKrew has taken it to its absurd extreme.

- Dave

[calimary]

167. I'm just guessing that perhaps you've not yet seen this -

"Pelosi's Moment"

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20061030&s=greider

- as you express a wish to see "Dems create a save haven - telling it like it is."

Seems like a bunch of the leading lights on our side HAVE been speaking, but nobody's listening.

[CorpGovActivist]

192. Working with The Nation on Halliburton...

... I have been working with a reporter from The Nation on the Halliburton matters.

- Dave

P.S. As Benjamin Franklin said: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=benjamin+franklin+forgotten+dead+and+rotten+write+things+do+worth

; )

[mmonk]

218. Yes and you should be commended.

However this: "The nation's interests trump partisan interests," trivializes much of the dangerous behavior that has occurred and paints those who seek proper address of this behavior unreasonable. "Partisan interests" was the reason Clinton was impeached. This situation is in no way the same thing.

[CorpGovActivist]

220. I Advocate Full-Blown Oversight Hearings...

... as evidenced by my cooperation with the minority staffs on The Hill.

I believe Cheney should be the first to be impeached.

- Dave

[mmonk]

230. Then we really have no argument.

By the way, I was considered to be a moderate before this administration. Now I'm called a liberal. I haven't changed, it's just that the language, country, and labeling has.

[CorpGovActivist]

232. Love Your RFK Quote

Ever been to his very simple gravesite?

- Dave

[mmonk]

298. Thanks. It's one of my favorite quotes.

Not that I recall, but I remember John's flame.

[CorpGovActivist]

300. JFKs, RFK, and WV

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2401396&mesg_id=2402835

JFK and RFK spent a lot of time there, and connected. All three of my grandfathers (step included) voted for JFK in 1960, after hearing him speak.

RFK came back through, and both supported the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Kerry could connect better in these areas next time, should he choose to run.

- Dave

"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope." -- RFK

[mmonk]

302. Speaking of WV,

who was it in that state that said if Kerry were elected, he would burn their bibles? I heard something to that effect during the campaign. Do you know or have any idea or did I dream it?

[CorpGovActivist]

305. When My Mom Got One of Those Pamphlets...

... delivered to her door, she was fit to be tied.

I think they were distributed widely in areas with a high percentage of weekly church-goers, not just WV.

- Dave

[Justice Is Comin]

104. I wouldn't even give those bastards the key to the washrooms.

But nobody going to see this anyway so it's just typing practice.

[CorpGovActivist]

106. The Language of "The Other" - Historiography, Or Seeing the Other POV

The study of "historiography" is concerned with how worldview influences historical narratives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography

One of the most interesting college courses I ever took required us to read accounts of The Crusades - often of the exact same battles - from the two sides' points of view, from the original narratives.

One striking speech pattern is that of "the other": "they" stand for thus and so, "we" stand for something better.

"They" commit unspeakable atrocities. "We" fight honorably.

"They" are savage. "We" are civilized.
************************************************************

"I (meaning, a noble and good Democrat) wouldn't give those bastards (meaning, any Republican alive; bonus points for use of an expletive that dehumanizes) the keys to the washroom."

************************************************************

"WE the People..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_united_states#Preamble

Somewhere, the fascists are laughing at turning Americans against each other to this extent.

- Dave

[Justice Is Comin]

107. You know we held the hearings with the leading generals

who testified how they were ignored and how bad things were going in Iraq. Only 1 republican--Walter Jones cared enough to participate.

Do you know what Lott did? He said he was outraged and that we should be reprimanded because we used one of the hearing rooms and weren't allowed to.

I wouldn't give them shit when we take control. Emphasis on shit. They're scum.

[CorpGovActivist]

110. Date and Transcript of Those Hearings?

Thanks!

- Dave

[DemReadingDU]

115. I remember those hearings

Walter Jones was quite shook up about Iraq.

edit to add: the hearing was about a month ago.

[Justice Is Comin]

120. Boy you're making me work to show why they're scum,

but I think this site has everything you need.

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-hearing.cfm?A=38..... And the thing Lott was fuming about was that we used a hearing room. Pure scum.

[DemReadingDU]

124. Thanks for the link!

[CorpGovActivist]

126. Is That a Typo?

Is that September 25, 2006, or September 25, 2002?

Because, I'd expect it to be the latter, when - thanks to a Republican, Jim Jeffords - the Democrats still had this many gavels with which to call hearings to order: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/d_three_sections_with_teasers/committees_home.htm

- Dave

P.S. This spring, when I walked into the DPC offices to share my information about Halliburton, I was pleased to be greeted by the picture of a certain past DPC Chair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Democratic_Policy_Committee_Chairman

; )

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

150. It's no typo. Read the transcript, linked below, it makes reference to

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/hearings/hearing38/transcript.pdf

the 3 years plus of the Iraq war etc.

So, no, you don't have that argument. It's no typo.

[CorpGovActivist]

194. September 2002 Predated the War

... and the Dems had the gavels then.

So, yes, I do.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

200. No I meant you don't have the argument that the hearings cited by

the other poster was a "typo" which was your only response to it. It just happened.

[CorpGovActivist]

212. And My Point Was...

... it should have happened in September 2002, not September 2006.

Remember? Back when the Dems had the Senate gavels?

- Dave

[AspenRose]

111. Didn't Conyers have to hold a meeting in a basement once?

I remember something about that.

And wasn't bipartisan use of congressional facilities discouraged by the GOP, because it would facilitate 'making deals' and 'compromising' with 'the other side?' You know, no deal-making at the gym or cafeteria....that sort of thing....

I thought I read something about that too.

[DemReadingDU]

117. I remember Conyers hearings in the basement

It had to do with the oddities in the 2004 election, especially in Ohio.

[CorpGovActivist]

118. How Many Times Did the Democratic Majorities ...

... use similar tactics, pre-1994, to keep back-benchers like Gingrich marginalized, and their committee staff under-resourced?

If the Dems fall prey to their baser instincts, and focus too much energy on "payback," American independents won't give them 12 years.

In 1994, when Gingrich and his cronies swept to power, the Internet was in its infancy. Today, it's alive, well, and in its prime.

If the story emerges that the focus is too much on payback, and not enough on attending to the swift undoing of the attempted encroachments on our freedoms (and attending to enacting legislation for the common good, such as affordable education), the fickle electorate - especially independents - will yank sharply on the choke collar.

If there is a mandate in '06, it's going to come with a short leash.

JMHO.

- Dave

[AspenRose]

127. Some of us CAN differentiate between Republicans and

Neo-Cons. My husband is a Republican.

So when someone on a DEMOCRATIC message board says they don't trust "those bastards" with washroom keys, that could mean Republican, or that could mean Neo-Con. I'm not going to assume what they may or may not have meant. Neither should anyone else. That's their opinion, and they should not be reprimanded for it just because you disagree with it. We do not walk in lock step here and we disagree often.

I personally would not call anyone a 'repuke' to their face, but this IS the "Democratic Underground," and this is where some Democrats come to vent with other Democrats. A lot of us are harrassed day in and day out by rather obnoxious Republicans. I know one person here has had his vehicle shot at. I am sorry if you somehow find that counterproductive or offensive, but please consider where you are. I can say with some certainty we are called things as bad, if not worse, at Free Republic.

There are plenty of brilliant people on this message board and a lecture about language and how it can be used to demonize is rather patronizing. We are well aware of that premise because we've been on the receiving end of it for at least 12 years. I can, however, respect an honest appeal and plea for cooperation. So if building a bridge is your goal, my suggestion is that you may want to respectfully consider not lecturing or being condescending to those of us in our 'home and habitat.'

[CorpGovActivist]

131. A Place to Vent, But Also a Place to Brainstorm, No?

I am equally disgusted with the "terms of art" used to describe Democrats - and I speak up when I hear them uttered by fellow Republicans.

My Democratic friends are thoughtful and thought-provoking. So are my Republican ones.

If DU is a place to vent, surely it is also a place to brainstorm?

So, I invite you to imagine what *might* happen if the DNC ran nation-wide ads that rejected the "us" versus "them" language. What *might* happen if the DNC focus grouped an ad that cited the brave, heroic stances of a few key GOP lawmakers (e.g., Jeffords) - to plant (or nurture) the seed of thought in independent voters' and "soft affiliation GOP" voters' minds that it is OK (indeed, patriotic) to put country before party?

- Dave

[AspenRose]

133. My opinion: It would be seen as pandering

for political gain and wouldn't be taken seriously.

Though you may have a point in that the RNC has bent over backwards to help Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

[CorpGovActivist]

136. Jeffords is a Gimmee

He's not running for re-election. He's the perfect way to say:

"See?!? At least one GOP Senator had the courage and the principles to say, 'Caligula has no clothes!'"

: )

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

109. Only Three Votes for the Position Taken by George Washington...

... in his Farewell Address, on the issue of how partisan factions threaten the Republic's vitality and future:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address

Given all the ado about Ike's Farewell Address to the Nation (military-industrial complex) in the indie film festivals, maybe it's time someone dramatized George Washington's, too, to remind us that there are those who would keep us continually at one another's throats, to keep us distracted while they devise schemes for their private gain - rather than the common good.

On the words of the First President, I'll stake my stand. And I think it's a damn shame that there are only three votes for the idea of bi-partisan efforts to repeal and undo the Bush Administration's attempts at weakening our time-tested system.

- Dave

[BootinUp]

123. Only 3?

Naaah theres more than that, but most of us want to concentrate on the important task currently at hand.

[CorpGovActivist]

129. Now There's 4

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. I appreciate the effort, but throughout my lifetime, "bipartisanship"

has always translated to "Republicans make a proposition, er, proposal, and the Democrats let themselves be screwed."

The Bushies have damaged this country so badly that only a 180 degree course correction will save it.

[CorpGovActivist]

128. Short Memories

My, what short memories:

May 2001 - January 2003: Dems had the Senate

For crying out loud, during the lame duck session of Congress (November 2002 to January 2003), the Dems could have held hearings.

- Dave

[Lydia Leftcoast]

130. That's exactly my point

:shrug:

[Justice Is Comin]

132. Yeah look at the concern for needless dead bodies.

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/092606/lott.html :grr:

[DoYouEverWonder]

193. Post 9-11, Bush & Co had a tight grip on Congress and the media

The media was portraying Bush has next to god and no one should even dare to question their motives and actions. Anyone who did was quickly swiftboated.

Of course, sending anthrax to the Hart Office Building a few weeks after 9-11 sure put a crimp on things even if the DEMS still held a slim majority in the Senate. Heck, it was a battle just to get a 9-11 Commission approved and only after the WH dragged their feet and put one of their gatekeepers in charge.

Let's get real. There was nothing a DEM Senate could do that would have stopped BushCo from implementing their PNAC wetdream.

[CorpGovActivist]

195. So What Have the Dems Learned in the Wilderness?

Why should Americans believe that this time with the gavels will be different?

"An ounce of prevention..."

- Dave

[DoYouEverWonder]

197. This time we've got 1000's of people

on the Internet who will raise hell.

Plus BushCo no longer has the cloak of invincibility that they had 5 years ago. Now everyone knows the Emperor has no clothes.

[CorpGovActivist]

215. The Gavels Won't Be in the Hands of the 1000s...

... they'll be in the hands of only this many:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/d_three_sections_with_teasers/committees_home.htm

http://www.house.gov/house/CommitteeWWW.shtml

(Not counting sub-committees...)

- Dave

[DoYouEverWonder]

Well unlike the Republicans

the Democrats usually listen to 'we the people' and are paying attention to sites like DU and DailyKos. When we raise hell, they usually respond.

[CorpGovActivist]

226. Finger to the Wind is Not Leadership

The Daschle Democrats put their finger to the wind in the summer of 02, gave up, and whined, "Nothing we can possibly say or do can change the mood of the country. Karl will paint us as soft on terror if we dare to hold even the scantest of oversight hearings while we still hold the gavels."

We are a representative democracy, a Republic: in practical terms, that means that the elected officials are not there to put their fingers to the wind, and get out in front of the mob.

Rather, it means that sometimes, those gavels have to be wielded as something other than paperweights, in order to persuade the mob to disband, and give more thoughtful reflection to the issue at hand (e.g., whether or not to go to war in Iraq on the pretext that it had something to do with 9/11).

- Dave

[Name removed]

224. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

121. Here's my problem with what you suggest.

I'm not inherently opposed as a matter of principle, but, a few things:

Bush and his gang effectively "represent" all Republicans to the nation right now, for better or worse. They have completely seized control of the whole Magilla, and even those who would seem more centrist oriented among the Republicans dance to the tune that Bush and Rove play on their fascist banjos, so they are complicit. That goes for people like Ahnuld who publicly try to distance themselves, but have both given and received considerable support back and forth with the Repub Mafia.

This modern Republican Party has been more venomous and partisan than any I can remember in my lifetime, including the Reagan years, although I was only a wee lad during Nixon so I can't speak to those times, but he had a Dem congress so I can't imagine that even he could have been this bitterly partisan. Aside from all the vicious demonizing of Democrats from Cheney, Rove, and Bush himself and all their assorted flying monkeys, the goal appears to be complete destruction of the Democratic Party and establishment of one party Machine Republican rule for at least a generation.

Given this unprecedented, uncompromising and completely destructive partisanship that comes from the REPUBLICAN Party, (show me how any similar demonization of Republicans by the Clinton administration happened and I'll owe you a cookie), and there seem to be no signs of abatement or any contrition by any of its members, why the hell should the olive branch of partisanship be extended from the Democrats' side only?

I guess what I would want to see as a precondition of sincerity on the part of any Republicans seeking bipartisanship from Democrats, should Democrats seize Congress/Senate, is some evidence of a faction splitting from Bush, whether it be voting against the Bush position on a critical bill like the torture bill or whatever. Those Republicans would have to basically stick their necks out and prove the existence of any dissent from shrubco fascism within the party. They would have to announce, either explicitly, or implicitly by their deeds, that a significant proportion of Republicans are unhappy with the direction that Bush and Rove have led your party.

Failing any such demonstration, I'd see no evidence of sincerity, and would assume the Democrats would have to go it alone trying to clean out the cesspool in Washington. Without such a demonstration of breaking from Bush, the assumption would be that any "bipartisan" gesture from Democrats would simply be rewarded by treachery.

[CorpGovActivist]

134. Courting Soft Affiliation Republicans and Independents

"Bush and his gang effectively 'represent' all Republicans to the nation right now, for better or worse."

And - with one bold ad campaign - Howard Dean and the DNC could change that perception, making it "OK" for soft affiliation GOP voters to march proudly into the voting booth and - *gasp* - vote against the party.

How?

By running a thank-you ad to Jim Jeffords (and a few other retiring GOP lawmakers) for their courage.

Can't you just hear the narrator sadly saying, "Sadly, these true patriots have had enough of fighting the extremists in their own party. We salute their lonely, uphill fight. We know that there are many independents and patriotic Republicans who have misgivings this election. We welcome you to come out on Election Day, and follow in the brave footsteps of Senator Jeffords by putting country ahead of party. We are all Americans. Together, we can restore America's greatness at home, and her prestige around the world."

The narrator should be a professional (not a recognizable pol), so as not to turn off anyone who recognizes the voice (e.g., those who have a negative connotation to Dean's or whoever's voice).

Think this is nitpicky and detailed?

Welcome to how the GOP packages its message. The Democrats have a great product to sell this year.

So, sell it.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

139. I'm not sure you are getting my point, it has more to do with actual

elected officeholders in the Republican Party than voters.

No one has done anything like Jeffords recently, or even made any gestures suggesting anything like this.

If what you are saying is the whole bunch of Republican officeholders is rotten to the core and we need to start from scratch with them (I'd agree), then I guess "bipartisanship" SHOULD be directed only at Republican voters and not the officeholders since they would be a lost cause... But then it's not really "bipartisanship", it's just trying to get Republican voters to leave a sinking ship and join Democrats, or some other party. If all the officeholders are rotten, then the whole party is nonviable except as the corrupt political machine it's become.

[CorpGovActivist]

201. You Present a False Choice

1. As I've pointed out, pro-civil rights Dems didn't leave the party because the powerful Southern Democrat faction of their party obstructed the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

2. Rather, those Dems fought within the party to wrest control.

3. The same dynamic will play out within the GOP now, to wrest control back from the Pat Buchanan branch, which hijacked the party before our very eyes at the 1992 convention.

Finally, answer this one simple question: if on Wednesday, November 8, 2006, the Senate seats split 50-50, would you hope that someone like Lincoln Chafee would "pull a Jeffords," and caucus with the Democrats for the purposes of organizing the Senate? If so, then maybe it's time to acknowledge that there really *is* a core corps of moderate mavericks who have NOT marched in goosestep with this President. In other words, give credit where credit is due.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

281. Since This Was the First Ankle Bite...

"I'm not inherently opposed as a matter of principle, but, a few things:"

Every Harvard TF can smell a "haven't done the reading" intro, and this is one of them.

"Bush and his gang effectively 'represent' all Republicans to the nation right now, for better or worse."

Then, I would argue, it is up to the wise "gray hairs" at the DNC to make a finer distinction than that, and realize that there is a bumper crop of potential GOP crossover voters this year, who could help turn a "safe win" into an outright rout (especially in tight House races).

Harvard students (even legacies) should make finer distinctions than that sort of broad over-generalization.

"They have completely seized control of the whole Magilla, and even those who would seem more centrist oriented among the Republicans dance to the tune that Bush and Rove play on their fascist banjos, so they are complicit."

A soft-hearted TF might give 1 participation point to the "didn't do the reading student," for sheer entertainment value.

"That goes for people like Ahnuld who publicly try to distance themselves, but have both given and received considerable support back and forth with the Repub Mafia."

If your impression of Ah-nuld is weak, the TF might take back the participation point.

"This modern Republican Party has been more venomous and partisan than any I can remember in my lifetime, including the Reagan years, although I was only a wee lad during Nixon so I can't speak to those times, but he had a Dem congress so I can't imagine that even he could have been this bitterly partisan."

The TF does a double-check of the syllabus. Yup, there was assigned reading on the Nixon Administration for today's session. Yet, the "hasn't done the reading student" just proclaimed to the entire session that s/he is winging his/her impression of the Nixon years. Some of the students who *have* done the reading for today's session are beginning to break into slight smiles, and are exchanging knowing glances with the TF and each other.

"Aside from all the vicious demonizing of Democrats from Cheney, Rove, and Bush himself and all their assorted flying monkeys, the goal appears to be complete destruction of the Democratic Party and establishment of one party Machine Republican rule for at least a generation."

The TF momentarily lapses into Wizard of Oz imagery, picturing the Wicked Witch at her cauldron, surrounded by those flying monkeys. He tunes back in:

"Given this unprecedented, uncompromising and completely destructive partisanship"

That's like the three-adjective rule in the old Freshman Union, one of my TFs once joked with me: if it's "savory," "be-tofued," and "hearty," skip it. When the "hasn't done the reading student" is aiming for class participation points, filler adjectives help fill the space.

"that comes from the REPUBLICAN Party, (show me how any similar demonization of Republicans by the Clinton administration happened and I'll owe you a cookie),"

The TF chortles to himself as he remembers the late, great Ann Richards, and her unforgettable quip: "Poor George. He cain't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth," and then looks at the silver-footed, chrome-tongued "hasn't done the reading legacy student," who is still holding forth:

"and there seem to be no signs of abatement or any contrition by any of its members, why the hell should the olive branch of partisanship be extended from the Democrats' side only?"

The TF wonders: "Should I interrupt him here, and make clear that the bridge-building should be from the Democratic Party leadership to the persuadable 'soft affiliation' GOP voters, or just let him keep going? After all, the easy answer to that question is 'To pick up as many crossover votes at the ballot box on November 7th as possible,' but this is shaping up to be the one speech to tell the other TFs about." The TF bites his tongue, and pinches his leg (hard), to produce a serious, "Go on, I'm listening," look to keep the student going.

"I guess what I would want to see as a precondition of sincerity on the part of any Republicans seeking bipartisanship from Democrats, should Democrats seize Congress/Senate, is some evidence of a faction splitting from Bush, whether it be voting against the Bush position on a critical bill like the torture bill or whatever."

The TF wonders if this Doubting Thomas will also want to be able to stick his hand in the wounds, before believing that any Republican has actually reached out, proactively, to Hill Dems.

"Those Republicans would have to basically stick their necks out and prove the existence of any dissent from shrubco fascism within the party."

Once again, the TF checks the syllabus. Yup, sure enough, there it is: today's reading included material on the whistleblowers who have reached out to Waxman. That reading is heavily bibliographed with other reading to lead the better students to additional resources.

"They would have to announce, either explicitly, or implicitly by their deeds, that a significant proportion of Republicans are unhappy with the direction that Bush and Rove have led your party."

The TF wonders if it's worth mentioning, at this point, that the American Revolution started with a hardcore group of true believers, who had to work very hard to persuade others to join the cause. Nah. The "hasn't done the reading student" seems to draw a line at any American History older than the Clinton years.

"Failing any such demonstration, I'd see no evidence of sincerity, and would assume the Democrats would have to go it alone trying to clean out the cesspool in Washington."

The TF, maintaining a look of interest, jots down a note to himself: "Next year, distribute a sheet that includes debating and logic terms like 'non sequitur' for the non-humanities students," and goes back to listening.

"Without such a demonstration of breaking from Bush, the assumption would be that any 'bipartisan' gesture from Democrats would simply be rewarded by treachery."

The TF thinks, "When this one comes to me at the end of the semester for some form of extra credit, I already know the assignment. The Democratic double-cross and skullduggery on the 'No New Taxes' 180. Bush 41 agreed with Congressional Dems to go back on his pledge - despite having an unassailable veto power at the time - in return for which the Congressional Dems were supposed to make spending cuts. This peace dividend was supposed to help the country right itself financially, after spending the Soviets into the ground."

It's not an air of superiority. But when you walked into your TFs' or profs' weekly discussion sessions, didn't you "assume" that they knew more about the subject than you did?

- Dave

[tavalon]

125. Hey guys

Whether you agree with this poster or not, he is willing to engage in honest discussion and this is clearly a popular thread and yet, it only has 4 recommends. I would recommend that someone give it the fifth recommend, not necessarily because you agree but because you and I know that some people only read the Greatest Page.

CorpGovActivist - I just used your OP as my jumping off point for this comment.

[Cameron27]

135. I'll happily comply and offer a fifth rec.

I have great respect for the work CGA is doing regarding Halliburton and offer my thanks to this cause.

I do wish we could convince him to change party affiliation, but his discussion is reasonable and courteous and I'm very happy that he's a member of DU.

Thanks CorpGovActivist :toast:

[CorpGovActivist]

138. Courtesy Rocks!

: )

How else to figure out that I'm dead wrong about something, and quit making a total a** of myself on a given topic? My Democratic friends and family members and I have great fun, and we open each others' eyes to many important matters.

; )

If I ain't family, please at least treat me as an in-law.

LOL.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

137. Hey, If I Learned Nothing Else...

... dealing with all those PITA egos on Student Government at Harvard, it's how to stand up for what you believe in (and how to move beyond labels to work together).

: )

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

142. What House did you live in? I was in the Quad...

Another question: Why are you a Republican, now, if you disagree with the direction and actions of the party?

Serious question.

[CorpGovActivist]

143. Short Answer, Gotta Bolt, Longer Answer Tomorrow...

... I should have been Quaded - my year was partial randomization. I chose Cabot, Currier, North, and Winthrop - and I'll be damned if I didn't get Winthrop.

Junior year, my roommate and I lived three flights up, directly over JFK's rooms (preserved).

The other question requires a longer answer, and I have to get moving to get to the showing of An Inconvenient Truth.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

219. What Was Your Concentration?

"Another question: Why are you a Republican, now, if you disagree with the direction and actions of the party?"

That's like asking you: "Why are you an American, now, if you disagree with the direction and actions of the United States of America?"

What was your concentration up there in the Quad? I lived in the Jordan Co-op my final semester, while recovering from surgery for my Crohn's. Dean Dingman (Housing) kindly let me stay there over the summer after my senior year, to recuperate.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

234. I was Chemistry.. looked you up on the alumni site and saw that you were

Government.

I think for someone posting on a Democratic website, giving instructions on what Democrats ought to be doing, but who is a Republican with no intention of leaving their party, it's a pretty reasonable question to ask.

I do not mean it in a nasty way.

[CorpGovActivist]

236. Did You Also See the "Other" David A. Smith My Class Year?

I swear, the Admissions Office was perverse.

We got each other's COOP bills, term bills, grades...

I still get his mailings from student groups he belonged too (most laughably, the singing ones - I cannot carry a tune in a bucket).

Who knew that the common name would play such a role in the Halliburton/KBR thing?

; )

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

239. Chemistry, Huh? Remember Serendipity's Role...

OK. Now I get it. You're looking at this as a chemistry sorta thing.

Oil and water don't mix.

Don't drop Na or K into H2O.

; )

Just remember, some of the most useful compounds known to humankind were arrived at through serendipity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity#Chemistry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity#Medicine_and_Biology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity#Pharmacology

"You got your chocolate in my peanut butter..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reese's_Peanut_Butter_Cup

; )

- Dave

[DaveJ]

145. To give more recommends implies...

...the post is going to continue so let me add another personal opinion on the matter.

There is something seriously wrong with the U.S. today.

And the Republicans are on the watch:

People are obsessed with accumulating SUVs', we are dependent on foreign oil, we are outsourcing like crazy, we are being infested with "big box stores" which treat people like automatons, liberal education is given no respect, people with high level degrees are working low level jobs, health care costs are through the roof and unaffordable to most, young people see no hope of a simple retirement, there is no job security whatsoever for anyone, there has been no raise in minimum wage, unions are becoming extinct, hundreds of thousands are dead in Iraq, we are being frightened left and right by our President (most currently with NK just in time for elections), world poverty is as bad as it has ever been, the Republican congress takes hush money from a child molester, the President giggles when he talks about death and destruction, environmental safeguards have been weakenned, we lost buildings in 9/11 that have not been replaced, we lost an iconic city that has been ignored, and your typical Republican does not care.

Now that I think about it, the OP may have a valid point that there may be a few Repukes with a conscience who may someday help turn the party around. But to trust any of them right now would be very difficult to say the least.

[CorpGovActivist]

141. Off to See a Screening of An Inconvenient Truth...

... at the house of a Dem friend. Hope to convince a few that Teddy Roosevelt was a true conservationist, and that they should start parrying neo-con thrusts by citing TR.

Sure I'lll have the bejeezus scared out of me by the flick. Good night to all, and thanks for a spirited discussion.

George Washington's Farewell Address: as salient today as it was then, especially the part about the dangers of internal factions...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=george+washington+farewell+address&spell=1

- Dave

[w4rma]

148. I like these types of debates. (nt)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

149. Why are you putting all the burden on Democrats? Bush will still have

the White House after November either way. Is there no burden on his administration to be bipartisan?

Or are you assuming that is a lost cause? Because the Bush administration is so small minded and intransigent that there's no way they'd consider it?

All of the moral burden of bipartisanship you are placing on a presumed (not proven) Dem majority in November. Clearly during this era of one party Republican rule, Republicans, YOUR party, have made LESS than ZERO effort at bipartisanship. In fact, they've been nothing but venomous to Democrats. So why do you place no burden on them?

Are you posting on Republican/"conservative" boards advocating bipartisanship from Bush and the congressional Republicans?

If not, why not?

You seem to be trying to come off as a thoughtful guy, yet you are a Republican.

Are you telling me you voted for Bush in 2004? If so, why?

[DemReadingDU]

151. see post #20

CGA actually voted for Kerry in 2004

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

153. OK but his votes still don't explain why he doesn't seem to place any

burden of bipartisanship on Republicans.

[CorpGovActivist]

225. I Think You'd Be Well-Advised to Read Some More...

... before you post.

I supported and voted for Kerry in 2004. I've already posted that.

I supported McCain in the 2000 primaries, and voted for Gore in the general election.

I voted for Clinton in 96.

So maybe you might want to read first, then come back once you've actually read.

- Dave

[The Count]

159. Deal. Just give back those stolen elections: 2000, 2002, 2004

We take back all positions we were duly elected for and then we talk.

[calimary]

168. Bingo!

I'll be glad to talk, too, when I don't have a knife at my neck and an ice pick pricking me in the spine.

[EFerrari]

166. Why on Earth would I want to build to bridge to a party

whose core value is the inequality of human beings and the sundering of community?

Can't follow you there, Dave. I know too many poor people, too many colorful people, too many working people, too many disabled people, too many children, too many untreated sick people. Too many Americans.

And for me, this isn't about party politics because I am not a Democrat.

[philosophie_en_rose]

185. Exactly! Why would we buy a bridge from those people?

If they want to join us, more power to them. But they need to come to our side.

There is plenty of room on the left to debate about issues. But there's only so far that one can compromise before losing one's identity.

When the Democrats succeed in November, I've no doubt that the Republicans will whimper and claim that the big old Democrats are playing mean for not compromising with hateful, spendthrift Republicans. Too bad.

[CorpGovActivist]

235. Nope, Some of Us...

... will rejoice that the Paleocons are booted, and we'll fight to regain control of our party - and then we'll see you on the playing field, suited up to play loyal opposition (as your fellow Americans).

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

233. If You Had an Eyesore Property on Your Street...

... would you sit back and tut-tut with your neighbors about the weeds, the litter, the broken glass?

Or would you organize a neighborhood clean-up, raise funds to make the vacant lot into a playground, and turn it into a source of community pride?

Some of us in the GOP see the problems within our party, and are eager to fix them. We know that the 1992 Republican Convention was the point that marked the "neighborhood's decline," and we're eager to roll up our sleeves and turn it around.

Political parties, just like neighborhoods, can experience periods of decline and renewal.

- Dave

[EFerrari]

242. Well, what I'd do is buy it. Lol!

I understand that this late crop of criminals is just litter. You can clean that up, of course.

What you can't do is change the property itself. You can't change its location along the continuum of fundamental values. You can overimprove it, but finally, you can't change what defines it as itself.

(And, here we'd get into ideology.)

[CorpGovActivist]

247. You Mean the Ideology...

... that stood for preserving the Union?

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

... that stood for taking on all-powerful corporate scofflaws?

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

... that warned us against the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex?

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

Just because the party has strayed from its roots, doesn't mean the roots aren't still there, still active, still ready to produce a new offshoot.

- Dave

[EFerrari]

258. It's the corporations, which is why what you're doing is so valuable.

Maybe both parties would have instant makeovers if we decided that corporations were shakedowns and not people and actually taxed them. Nafta, Cafta, multi-national corporations own our fake free market.

There is no philosophy in DC right now except getting yours and it's so easy at the moment. Being elected is like winning the lottery.

I honestly believe that the bridge we need to build is regional more than political. Among tax payers who sweat to pay up while your former employers and their peers papers their offices with our dollars.

[CorpGovActivist]

261. The Halliburton Tax Bill Coming Due

We agree on the need to revamp corporate taxation, and I'm happy to report that Halliburton is likely to become the poster child for this movement.

: )

Why do you think David R. Smith - VP of Tax at Halliburton - was the intended recipient of those mis-directed e-mails I received?

Because the dirty bribes being paid to foreign government officials are being paid with hidden, offshore accounts - and the tax evasion schemes at Halliburton were central to the emerging DOJ/SEC/FBI investigation into the TSKJ matter: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tskj+halliburton+nigeria+bribes

If you really want to see a sad corporate sop, check out this Orwellian piece of GOP legislation: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=american+jobs+creation+act+repatriate+earnings

Don't you just love how they give those Orwellian names to their legislation?

; )

The repatriation of earnings essentially gave "amnesty" to corporations who had hidden earnings offshore. The new Democratic Congress could raise a LOT of money, by revising this law.

- Dave

[EFerrari]

280. Truth Or Consequences In The Repatriation Act (Forbes)

(I managed to miss this. :wow: )

Truth Or Consequences In The Repatriation Act
Ken Bezozo, 02.25.05, 1:25 PM ET

The recent change in how U.S. companies are taxed on foreign profits is a two-sided coin. Either it's an exquisite engine for expansion of our domestic economy, or it's one of the biggest boondoggles in U.S. government history.

On Oct. 22, Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act, which includes a provision that allows U.S. corporations to repatriate earnings attributable to foreign business operations at a greatly reduced tax rate.

Under the new law, a U.S. corporation with a stake in certain foreign corporations may make a one-time election this year to deduct 85% of the qualifying cash dividends that it receives from the foreign corporations. Companies can shift foreign earnings to their U.S. headquarters at an effective 5.25% rate, instead of the typical 35% corporate rate.

From Merck (nyse: MRK - news - people ) to Dell (nasdaq: DELL - news - people ) to Coca-Cola (nyse: KO - news - people ), the law has set off a flurry of additional comments in earnings reports. Many companies with foreign profit--even those that don't come close to Pfizer's (nyse: PFE - news - people ) reported $38 billion in overseas earnings--have mentioned they will take an extra tax hit this year as they repatriate earnings.

http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/02/25/cx_kb_0225earnings.html

[CorpGovActivist]

282. Scary, huh?

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

283. The Rule of Thumb for Frist-Sponsored Bills...

... the more benign-sounding the Orwellian name of the bill is, the more closely we should all be looking at it.

: )

- Dave

[EFerrari]

284. I knew we were in trouble when they rolled out

"Restore the Constitution".

lol

[CorpGovActivist]

285. Yeah, That Ain't Egg Wash They're Restoring the Frescoes with...

... it's WhiteOut!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=restore+frescoes+egg+sistine+chapel

; )

- Dave

P.S. Before any "Operation" gets named, is there a contest in the West Wing? "Operation Name *THIS* Operation with a Misleading Name"?

[LostinVA]

179. Oh brother

[dailykoff]

188. The GOP is drowning in slime and you want us to build them a bridge?

You've got to be kidding. Let them pay the piper on their own dime. They can afford it.

[CorpGovActivist]

237. No, Build a Bridge for All of America

If you don't accept the premise that there are "good" Republicans who are working with "good" Democrats, then you've fallen prey to KKKarl's master plan: to permanently pit red and blue against each other, in a perpetual war for the purple voters.

- Dave

[philosophie_en_rose]

255. Let's cut the bullshit. "Joementum" feeds into Rove's plans.

Placing the burden on democrats feeds into Rove's plan.

Republicans are losing. If they can't see the light, no amount of bridge-building will work.

And frankly, there are too many republican messes to fix to waste time holding their cold dead hands.

[CorpGovActivist]

259. So, You Don't Want Those Persuadable GOP Votes on November 7th?

Just to be clear, are you talking about the current GOP leaders, or are you talking about prospective GOP crossover voters, or both?

- Dave

[philosophie_en_rose]

297. I'm saying that Democrats need to be themselves to earn votes.

Pandering to some imaginary Republican base is the worse possible move.

[Hubert Flottz]

189. Bill Clinton and Al Gore, once built a fine bridge to the 21st. century.

But they should have done something to protect their bridge from the parasitic, unpatriotic, self serving, GOP/PNAC trolls, who now live under his bridge and who attack and bully everyone who tries to move across the great divide! The GOP/PNAC trolls have even rerouted all the on-coming traffic back to 1500 AD.

The GOP/PNAC Trolls have hijacked, dominated and controlled, every lane on that bridge, that Clinton and Gore built, so there is nobody else to blame, but the GOP/PNAC, for all of this major bloody wreckage, that we ALL see now, in every direction we look! The GOP/PNAC has wrecked almost everything that was American and they have wrecked things everywhere else in the world, that they have turned. They have probably even totally wrecked the future, for generations of Americans yet unborn. Should we forgive those who would destroy America and everything American, for their own selfish gain?

[dailykoff]

196. Play with fire and you get burned.

Bill, Hill, and Joe-is-my-veep Al were fools to play ball with the PNACers in the first place, and they're still playing on the same team, sorry to be blunt.

[Hubert Flottz]

263. Blunt...or just plain dull?

Still can't tell the difference between a democrat and a republican?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

206. What burden do you place on the Republican Party to seek bipartisanship?

Do you urge your fellow Republicans to be bipartisan in their approach to Democrats?

After all, your party has WAY more power than the Democrats at this point, both real, legal power as well as significantly more influence with the media IMHO.

If the Democrats win both houses, representing a repudiation of the last few to several years of Republican rule, would there not be more burden on Republicans to seek conciliation, since your party would have been the ones repudiated at the ballot box?

[CorpGovActivist]

223. Asked and Answered

Halliburton Shareholder Calls for House and Senate Investigations into
Alleged Halliburton Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Tax Evasion Violations;
Plans to Attend Halliburton's 2007 Annual Meeting to Question Lesar/Directors

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/000126947606000004/taleoftwodavidsmiths.htm

Halliburton Shareholder Calls for Independent Federal Scrutiny of KBR Spinoff

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/000126947606000008/kryptoniteforbushandrove.htm

Halliburton Shareholder Calls on Senate Republicans to Hold Hearings

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/000126947606000009/conconsandcarnacfrist.htm

Halliburton Shareholder Questions Regulatory Investigations' Pace,
Cites SEC Chairman Cox's Pro-Corporate Stance While in Congress;
"One More Set of E-Mails the GOP Leadership Has Ignored," Says Smith

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/000126947606000010/foureagleburgersfivesmiths.htm

Halliburton Shareholder Says DCAA Auditors Duped by KBR Officials,
Cites Experiences in KBR's Arlington, Virginia Offices;
Armitage Associates LC, Other "Neo-Con/Mastadon" Groups Shared Arlington Address

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/000126947606000011/shameonvirginiasenators.htm

Halliburton Shareholder: Will File Suit Over KBR Spin-off
Halliburton Should Not "Cut and Run" from Its KBR Operations, Says Smith

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/000126947606000012/seekinganinjunctionkbr.htm

Halliburton Shareholder: Dresser Dirty Dealings Instructive for KBR Spin-Off;
Smith to File Suit Against Halliburton Directors and Officers

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/000126947606000013/elaineandeugeneweremia.htm

Halliburton Shareholder Asks: Where is Republican SEC Chairman Chris Cox?
Smith Says Relief in the Nature of Mandamus Shouldn't Be Necessary to Obtain Action

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/000126947606000015/whereischriscox.htm

For more information: http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=smith+david+allen&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&action=getcompany

Besides posting on DU, what are you doing to help pressure the GOP or the Dems to hold these hearings?

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

229. The topic is not about Halliburton hearings, it's about bipartisanship.

What I was getting at, is, do you urge your fellow Republicans to be bipartisan towards Democrats?

That is a separate issue than calling for hearings on the Halliburton issue.

I don't urge Democrats to be bipartisan towards Republicans because, at the moment, I don't feel it to be in their or the country's best interests, regardless of who has majority. And I'm not at all convinced that it will necessarily by the Democrats in NOV, although I hope that it will.

As I posted above, if I feel that there is good faith effort, VISIBLE effort on the part of more than just one or two Republicans to be bipartisan IN SPITE of Bush, then that recommendation will change.

[CorpGovActivist]

231. Please Read Before Engaging Further

"What I was getting at, is, do you urge your fellow Republicans to be bipartisan towards Democrats?"

Yes. For instance, by urging them - quite publicly - to vote to authorize real oversight hearings into the lawbreaking at Halliburton.

"That is a separate issue than calling for hearings on the Halliburton issue."

That is the most bizarre thing I've read on here. Holding real oversight hearings into the Halliburton issues - plural - will unleash a tidal wave of related hearings into public corruption that goes right to the heart of the Bush Administration's Executive Office of the President.

"As I posted above, if I feel that there is good faith effort, VISIBLE effort on the part of more than just one or two Republicans to be bipartisan IN SPITE of Bush, then that recommendation will change."

Why don't you call up Congressman Waxman's office, and ask him how many patriotic Republicans have put their livelihoods and their families' well-being on the line, to do the patriotic thing?

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

238. Remember How Orwell's "Animal Farm" Unfolds?

1. All the animals unite, setting aside their differences, to drive out the corrupt and abusive farmer.

2. In the immediate euphoria of the victory's aftermath, the animals - regardless of feather, spot, or stripe - work harmoniously, to make improvements to the farm. For a while, things are going well.

3. Slowly but surely, the pigs assert their role as the "natural leaders" of the animals.

4. Slowly but surely, the pigs' private interests begin to take precedence over the animals' common interests.

5. Slowly but surely, these encroachments yield a new bumper crop of problems on the farm.

6. Finally, the cherished rules of the new farm got transmogrified into: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

In 1994, the Dems were turned out of Congress, because the pigs - the Democratic leadership at the time - put their own private interests ahead of the public interest.

We've seen how the Republican Revolution devolved through the 6 steps above. In 2006, I suspect we'll see the pendulum swing the other way.

But DUers should be mindful that their "natural leaders" in Congress are - well, piggish by nature.

There are some very decent and good-hearted pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm (e.g., Snowball). These moderate, rational sorts are silenced by the extremists (led by Napoleon).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_farm#Pigs

Here's to hoping that the rationals in the Democratic Party prevail in the aftermath of the coming revolution. With the Internet primed and ready, the "lesser animals" within the party have everything they need to keep the pigs in check.

: )

- Dave

[stepnw1f]

240. Welcome Aboard... Now Let's get Those Bastards! (nt)

[CorpGovActivist]

243. Hey, at Least with a GOP Voter Registration, Diebold...

... should let my Democratic vote this year be recorded, right?

; )

- Dave

[mmonk]

299. You probably have a better chance than mine.

;-)

[CorpGovActivist]

301. Nah, I'm Probably on the Diebold...

... watchlist.

: )

- Dave

[dailykoff]

246. Better buy new Cliffs notes.

1) Dems didn't get turned out in '94 because they were pigs, they got slimed by phony Atwater-Gingrich swiftboat crap and it was 100% pure bullshit.

2) If you want to make comparisons to Orwell, your GOP pals are the pigs ruining the farm as we speak.

[CorpGovActivist]

251. On #1, We Disagree; On #2, I Have Made It Clear I Agree

1. Sorry, but the voters turned the Congressional Dems out of office in '94 over stuff like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Post_Office_Scandal

2. I wholeheartedly agree that the swine sitting in the house, in the last chapter of Animal Farm, are the "leaders" of my party.

The point I'm trying to make is that we'll see this cycle play out, yet again, with the Democratic leaders - unless the "lesser animals" use the tools at their disposal to keep 'em honest after the upcoming revolution at the ballot box.

- Dave

[Cameron27]

250. Thanks Dave,

I agree with you, Halliburton is the key to the current republican kingdom. The greed for power and money has led to the unholy courtship and pandering of the right wing Evangelical Christian vote, that in turn has led to the debasement of rational scientific thought in everything from environmental policy to the teaching of evolution.

And of course the lust for power & money has brought us the tyranny of George Bush vs the Constitution, and the immoral loss of lives in a war that was started with lies.

I applaud and respect the courage of all the Halliburton whistleblowers and in that instance it makes perfect sense to work together.

However, it does seem that as far as the party itself, the republicans are going to have to do their own housecleaning; that’s something that’s seems inappropriate to ask of the democrats and quite frankly until it's done, I don’t see any value in the our building bridges into a morally bankrupt institution.

These few weeks before the congressional elections are nail biting times for us, and our focus right now has got to be getting democrats back into power, but I must admit that it's a pleasure to have a conversation with you even though I have a very different point of view on many issues. Until this motley bunch took over the Republican Party, I've always been able to strongly disagree with those in your party, while still maintaining a healthy respect. For all of our sakes, I hope we can return to saner times.

[CorpGovActivist]

254. If You Don't Build Bridges to the Officeholders...

... then at least, for the love of Pete, take a page out of Lee Atwater's old playbook, and reach out to the "soft affiliation" voters who are persuadable.

Build a bridge to the GOP and independent voters. Despise and revile the current GOP "leadership" (for lack of a better term). But don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Welcome, with open arms, the would-be crossover voters - just as Lee Atwater did with the so-called "Reagan Democrats".

The DNC should be splitting its ad expenditures between: (1) keeping the party faithful energized; and (2) creating a message for soft affiliation GOP voters and independents, whose help at the ballot box could turn this into a rout of the Paleocons this year.

- Dave

[Cameron27]

256. See my avatar..

I couldn't agree more.

[CorpGovActivist]

266. Fuzzy...

... is that General Clark?

- Dave

[Cameron27]

269. sure is.

[CorpGovActivist]

274. With Mark Warner (Supposedly) out of the Race...

... Wesley Clark is looking better and better to me: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wesley+clark+gays+military

: )

- Dave

P.S. Some of my Democratic friends here in Virginia swear to me that Warner is planning to jump back in later, after the "front runners" have slugged it out a bit.

[CorpGovActivist]

241. Only 10 People Agree with George Washington's Call for Non-partisanship?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=george+washington+farewell+address+beware+of+faction

Given all the privations he personally suffered to help bring the Republic forth, who among us is qualified to contradict him?

Assuming that - on the cusp of retirement from public life - he wished to impart his soul-felt advice to every generation of Americans, why isn't this speech taught in schools?

Why isn't it hanging in the conference rooms of the RNC and the DNC headquarters?

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

244. Please don't beg for votes. It's unseemly.

[dailykoff]

248. Guy's gotta eat.

nm

[CorpGovActivist]

267. As a Barometer...

... of the mood, I'd say 10 votes for non-partisanship in 24 hours bodes ill for a long-lasting Democratic majority in Congress.

- Dave

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

270. So the fate of the Democrats in Congress is tied to the DU response to

your thread eh?

[CorpGovActivist]

275. I Think We're About Done

[CorpGovActivist]

277. Nobody Asked...

... that you accept the premise of the sub-thread.

Either:

1. Agree.

2. Partially agree, and stake out your own intellectual ground for a divergent strand.

3. Disagree.

But don't:

1. Twist my premise into something it's not.

2. Ignore the facts presented.

That's like those Harvard undergrads who clearly haven't done the reading, and who try to pontificate in session with the TF.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

312. What's Unseemly...

... is the Robespierrean whiff of a coming Reign of Terror, and only 10 votes for non-partisan good governance.

The only litmus test anyone should pass after November '06 is: are you willing to work to undo the damage done by BushCo.?

- Dave

[Cameron27]

253. self delete

thought the better of it :-)

[dollydew]

262. Bi-partisanship

My only quibble is this same meme is now showing up in the MSM. Where were the calls for republican bi-partisanship as they controlled all three branches of government? I have yet to hear apologizes for calling for the deaths of liberals. It is liberals that have been labeled as traitors. It is those that do the harm that are required to reach out to those they harmed. Where is the call for the neocons to be bi-partisan? This is why democrats are often perceived as weak. As soon as we try to compromise we're labeled "cut and run" democrats. We're offered one way trips to Gitmo. We're "supporting the terrorists" if we dare disagree. Let those who have brought us to this point reach out. That is THEIR responsibility. That's how healing begins. It's not the victims of destructive and vicious policies/politics that need to reach out. Those who implemented those policies need to admit their wrongdoing. THEN we can move on.

[CorpGovActivist]

271. A Democratic Reign of Terror Will Do Nobody Any Good...

... least of all the Democratic Party.

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

I recently heard about the "knitting for democracy" movement, and all I could think about was Madame Defarge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Defarge

: p

Gone are the days of "hard" party affiliation. If you look at recent polls of Gen X and Gen Y voters, a sizable segment reports that party affiliation isn't as important as enacting good, sound public policy.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the mandate the Dems are being given in 2006 comes with a choke collar, and the "purple electorate" will yank yard on it in 08 if they detect that payback has eclipsed good governance.

You wrote: "My only quibble is this same meme is now showing up in the MSM."

This meme is the zeitgeist of the purple electorate.

"Where were the calls for republican bi-partisanship as they controlled all three branches of government?"

Where were the Daschle Dems from May 2001 to January 2003, when they controlled the Senate gavels?

"I have yet to hear apologizes for calling for the deaths of liberals. It is liberals that have been labeled as traitors."

Where can I find the DNC's bankruptcy filing? Which bankruptcy court did the DNC file in? I was unaware that the DNC had gone bankrupt, and no longer could hire speechwriters, ad agencies, and other tools to rip the label off, tear it up, and define themselves.

"This is why democrats are often perceived as weak."

No, you're perceived as weak because - too often - the DNC "leaders" have not fought the perception.

Remember the rapid response team of the Clinton Campaign? That worked.

Whining to persuadable voters that, "we were mislabeled by KKKarl's KKKrew" begs the question, "Um, why did you wear the label then?"

"As soon as we try to compromise we're labeled 'cut and run' democrats."

Don't wear the label. Good God, all you needed to do - while still holding those Senate gavels in the summer of 02 - was to quote Reagan back to KKKaligula: "Trust, but verify. These hearings are nothing more than us engaging in the time-honored tradition of being the loyal opposition. If the Administration comes up to The Hill, lays out its case in closed committee hearings, and satisfies us that the case here is at least as strong as the case Adlai Stevenson had during the Cuban Missile Crisis, then we'll greenlight it."

"We're 'supporting the terrorists' if we dare disagree."

Don't wear the label. "No, KKKaligula and KKKarl, we're supporting the Constitution, and acting like true Constitutional Conservatives by upholding such quaint notions as habeas corpus."

"It's not the victims of destructive and vicious policies/politics that need to reach out."

Said such luminaries as Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.

"Those who implemented those policies need to admit their wrongdoing. THEN we can move on."

When apartheid ended, there were many white South Africans who had worked tirelessly to bring an end to its abuses. Leaders like Nelson Mandela understood this, and distinguished between the leaders of the National Party, and those who were as disgusted by apartheid as those who suffered from it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_%28South_Africa%29

- Dave

[Hubert Flottz]

273. The GOP has gotten too big for their Bridges!

A bridge to the GOP, is like the Alaskan "Bridge To Nowhere"!

[CorpGovActivist]

276. If I Could Revise the OP Title...

... it would make clear that I'm urging the Democratic leadership to build bridges to GOP voters, just as Lee Atwater built bridges to "Reagan Democrat" voters.

It seems that the sheer - and understandable - hatred for the current GOP "leadership" has blinded many to the fact that many "rank and file" GOP voters would like to cross over this year at the ballot box, to help put things right, and to turn out the current so-called "leaders" of the party.

- Dave

[dailykoff]

288. How about if we build them a gibbet?

Or a couple of hundred? They'll be getting a lot of business.

[CorpGovActivist]

293. Define "them"

By "them" do you mean the GOP voters who intend to vote with the Democrats this election, to turn out the Paleocons?

Or by "them" do you mean the current "leaders" of the GOP?

Or both?

- Dave

[WinkyDink]

313. The FLAW in the PLAN: Republicans will NOT BUDGE.

Find a Republican willing to compromise on HIS position first, and we'll talk.

[CorpGovActivist]

314. Again, Are You Talking about...

... GOP officeholders, or potential crossover GOP voters?

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

315. Found One...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2417183&mesg_id=2417183

- Dave