I Cannot Get this "bipartisanship" thing...

[baby_mouse]

Please help me. I am deeply confused. I just can't get it. Even laying aside whether or not it's what anyone wants...

*What* exactly is the advantage for the Democrats in being bipartisan?

How ON EARTH are they going to sustain even an *image* of bipartisanship when they've essentially trashed the republican vote and are about to start ripping the layers of slime off the pubs in oversight hearings?

What *possible* advantage is there to the Republicans in being bipartisan? They hitched their wagon to the Neocons and have been severely burned for it, yes, but what have they got in their war chest that they can share? NA. DA. Everything thing they've done is stinky. The Patriot Act?

"We shall have that repealed, now, please."
"You're being partisan!"
"You're shouting at me, sir. It seems a little extreme, and, considering the newfound sharing of political will in our beloved country after a long and unwelcome period of polarisation and bad manners, I think it's a bit of a poor show."
"(checks polls) You know what, repealing the Patriot Act is a CONSERVATIVE move."
"That's right. Thank you. (ticks box) Now. Kyoto. *Ratify* it."

It's the only conceivable route the Dems can take that makes any sense. That's not "bipartisanship". So, what the Dems are going repeal BITs of the Patriot Act? Ratify BITs of Kyoto, etc? WHY? I simply can't believe that they would pass up the opportunity to get something *done* after the last 6 years, I *can* believe that they will let the RW slink away without loss of face by helping to organise a *rebranding* of strongly held Dem moral positions as "conservative..." but that's not bipartisanship. That's SPIN, and ultimately it loses for the RW as sure as shit stinks. So how can we believe that they're going to stick it?

They've spent the last 6 years (and a good deal of time before *then*) purging their ranks and policies of *anything* that can be.... bipartisanated... Their moderates have walked away and all they have left is the screaming lunatics, are they, or we, to suppose that the wingnuts will approve of bipartisanship? What are we to believe now, that after 6 years of blatant, disgusting propaganda the right wing has woken up, rubbed it's eyes and said, "oh it was all a HORRIBLE dream?" Nothing offered by the pubs under the guise of bipartisanship can be possibly be trusted after their sickening behaviour, everything's going to have to be gone over with sniffer dogs. I don't know what they're thinking about with this bipartisan stuff, the RW, it's pretty much as bad for them as "staying the course". It's just damage control, yes, but it's naked, craven, cowardly publically visible *power hungry* damage control and NOBODY is going to get fooled. Except the screaming lunatics, who will rapidly become a spent force politically. Hands up who thinks the "moderate" right wing will EVER hitch their wagon to the screaming lunatics again? Yeah, tumbleweed, or it would be in a universe that makes sense...

Actually, the more I think about it, the worse their position appears.

:)

I'm sorry, but, *laying aside* the question of whether or not it's desirable morally, I'm not at all convinced that genuine bipartisanship is, politically, even POSSIBLE. The minute a pub kicks off with attitude, on anything, all the Dems have to do is look at them, one little scrap, and, after all that mess of the last 6 years, (morally *and* politically, actually), the Dems will have *no choice* BUT to push back. And the pubs have been sticking RW attitudinaloids up the asses of Real America for 6 years! Are we really to believe that they're all going to sit tight and shut up?

And the moral of the story is...:

The electorate and the elected got drunk and then threw up and now they want RID of the taste of the puke. I do not think they are going to enjoy being told by Nanny that they have to swill around and swallow just a little bit more of that puke mixed with that nasty medicine to make it all go down better. We might suppose that the electorate will be smart enough to recognise a happy, playful Republican party that likes the sensible politics of compromises, but this ignores the propensity to conflation and, right now, the pubs *stink*.

I cannot see how the Dems could *risk* bipartisanship and bipartisanship screws the pubs with a big screwdriver.

I realise all this is a bit stream of consciousness...

/2 cents.

[nytemare]

1. If dems are partisan by repealing, enacting the laws was partisan to begin with.

[Mythsaje]

2. Speak softly and carry a big stick...

Democrats to Republicans: "Oh, we'll be nice. And you're going to be nice right back. We've got the power to make you VERY, VERY miserable. Don't make us use it."

[Ress1]

3. We shouldn't become

what we and most of America hate about them.

[mmonk]

4. Too.......

Clintonesque for you?

[baby_mouse]

6. Ummmm...Clinton?

I think his position was different.

Were the pubs as bad then as they are now? I can't remember...

[lapfog_1]

5. You are bi-partisan so long as you keep saying your bi-partisan. n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Well, this might help a little

This morning on CSPAN, well-known Conservative hack Hugh Hewitt said, "Oh, bi-partisan. That's just an excuse to move to the Left."

So, by that definition, his expectation is that bi-partisan is an excuse of Liberals to move to the Right.

From everything I've seen from Bush (vs. "heard" from his words), Bush has absolutely no intention of working with Democrats in any way shape or form. For example, he just re-nominated the very same judges for appointments that have been stalled so far. By the third week in January, we'll be hearing the word "obstructionist" screamed at every opportunity.

[baby_mouse]

8. Yes, I expected as much...

(This thread's a little old, I was replying to someone after an absence)

Bipartisan = BOLLOCKS. The pubs CAN'T be bipartisan, even they wanted to, they've gone too far and they know it. The only way they can save face is to go down fighting. Except it won't be fighting, it'll be petulant screeching.