We don't have to like it, but the balance of power in Congress means we still need to compromise

[bigtree]

. . . if we expect ANY of the major problems that we all agree need immediate attention to advance into action or law.

President-Elect Obama promised to get to work, immediately, on concerns like energy, the economy, and Iraq and Afghanistan. None of those will be advanced with a partisan approach from the new administration. Many of the issues will require support from 'moderate' republicans and conservative Democrats to get legislation out of Congress.

That effort, which Obama has pledged (vowed) to pursue in a bipartisan fashion, will require a reaching out to many of those conservative elements that we abhor in our Democratic advocacy. That effort will be a strain on both sides of the aisle, if there is to be a sincere outreach from the Obama White House.

Our challenge is to remember and keep sight of the pledge from the man we elected that he would put confrontational politics aside to accomplish these goals he's highlighted as essential to our economic survival and our well-being. If we believe Obama is sincere about these, we should be prepared to assume the same suspension of partisanship wherever we are able to do that and still preserve our principles and values.

That's not going to be easy, but if we are truly dedicated to supporting the man we just elected, we'll have to challenge ourselves to understand and appreciate the obstacles the new president faces as he works to enact and advance the agenda he campaigned on - even as we continue to work to direct his efforts according to our own contradicting views and concerns.

Barack Obama promised from the start to be conciliatory and accommodating of the republican opposition. The majority of Democratic voters opted for that stance over the more confrontational attitude of the Clinton, Edwards, and others' campaigns. We're going to get what he promised. The new president deserves our support in that.

[zorahopkins]

1. Nonsense!

If the forces that oppose change and hope want to obstruct the changes, then they will simply be left behind in the dust.

We WON the election -- BIG TIME.

We can be nice, but on issues that matter, those who don't support change and hope will not receive conciliation.

They will be defeated.

[bigtree]

3. Some of the problems we face can't wait until we get a perfect Congress

That may never happen.

Mind the balance of power in Congress. We can either argue or compromise. Our political system provides for both. President-Elect Obama has pledged to compromise.

[ColbertWatcher]

2. Meh. We've never had problems compromising.

Hell, people on DU have been after Nancy Pelosi's head for not going after impeachment!

The GOP is going to have to learn how to compromise.

[bigtree]

4. or else, what?

inaction?

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. Or else an Executive Order. For the good of the country. These are critical times. Because of the

Republicans. Once the crisis is over, well then Obama should formally renounce them.

If the people know that the Republicans are deliberately hampering recovery from the mess, it will bode ill for the Republican Senators.

How long can they filibuster for?

Don't the Democrats have levers? Things the Republicans would want from them?

[bigtree]

7. So much of that Executive heavy-handedness smacked of an autocracy

. . . when Bush exercised it. I wonder if we could find ourselves regretting such an embrace of the opportunistic use of that Executive power.

With regard to Iraq, I think the White House has as much of an ability to reduce and dissolve the forces there as Bush employed to inflate their numbers and keep them in place. So, that agrees with you.

With regard to issues like the economy, energy, education and health care, I don't believe that the Executive would be adequate to advancing the goals Obama promised to pursue and solve.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. It wasn't just heavy-handed. It was outrageously despotic. But now they

have created real crises, and major crises at that, across a whole slew of major national issues

You're saying filibustering - assuming it's not proved that several senators' seats were won fraudulently - can for all practical purposes obstruct Democratic bills indefinitely?

What about those levers, those "goodies" I mentioned, which the Republicans will want from the Dems? They are a very venal crowd and have constituents to pork-feed.

[bigtree]

11. ah

now you're talking horse-trading . . . compromising.

The upper hand may well come from Obama's pledge to 'go through the budget, line-by-line.' That may be where he'll find that leverage you're expecting him to exercise.

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. ...and the filibustering? Sound like a broken record, don't I? And utterly

unrepentant about it, too! On one level, sorry to hold your feet to the fire. But it has to be done.

[bigtree]

14. I dunno what posture the republicans will assume in Jan.

But, they've certainly not shown any regard for public scorn over their obstruction. We'll see.

[ColbertWatcher]

10. Are you asking me "or what?" n/t

[bigtree]

12. sure, CW

What leverage do you contemplate he'll be able to advantage himself of, outside of compromise?

[stillcool]

6. It's amazing. It's Thursday!

Who are all these posters coming out of the woodwork to bash Obama over his choice of Chief of Staff? He chooses Rahm Emanuel and he's now what..shit on their shoe? WTF? Is there something being said on the tv screen that I'm missing, or are people that shallow? There seems to be a battle being fought but for the life of me I can't figure out who is fighting. I don't get it.

[bigtree]

8. well

I've also begun to consider how to advocate for those issues and concerns where I have differences with the president-elect. I think that these can be effectively advocated for through my Senators and Representatives, as well as advocating directly at the WH.

I 'get it.' We're as serious about our concerns as we were pragmatic in our support of our Democratic nominee over McCain.

[stillcool]

16. I don't get the kerfuffle...

before there is an issue on the table, or before he is even sworn in. I would like the war in Iraq to be ended. I'd like that to be his first thing he acts on, but I'm not ready to start calling him names because he hasn't done it yet, or because he chose Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.

[bigtree]

17. yeah, I'm not big on kerfuffle either

and there is still the balance of power to consider - it's way inadequate to wage a partisan revolution

[bigtree]

15. kick

:kick:

[Greyhound]

18. Please explain to me how it is that Republiks, with smaller majorities,

are able to move their agendas through with no compromise, and the Democrats always start every "negotiation" with surrender?

[bigtree]

19. it's a simple formula, really, improbably based on their own deficiencies and shortcomings

Republicans have no liberal (or moderate) fraction of their party large enough to make a difference in support of Democratic initiatives. Democrats, on the other hand, have an accommodating number of moderates and conservatives to bend to republican 'alternative' legislation which emerges when important bills are successfully blocked by 'filibuster.'

There hasn't yet emerged a solid enough number of Democrats (the 41 or so needed) to stand firm against these objectionable republican alternatives and knock them down and keep them there.

[Greyhound]

22. So you're saying that the "big tent" makes us helpless?

I rather think that it's more a case of pretending to stand for something while they do stand for something, wrong though it may be.

I guess Eisenhower was right.

[bigtree]

27. It is a paradox of sorts

The republicans march in lock-step because they have no center purpose greater than the preservation of their power.

Most of our Democrats have integrity. It's just that some of our legislators were elected by a decidedly more conservative electorate than others. And, yes, we tolerate and balance all of that for the sake of maintaining a large enough presence in Congress to have enough seats at the table to set priorities and block the initiative of the republican opposition.

The coalition of disparate Democrats works to our disadvantage, sometimes. But, it's the best we've been able to manage, so far.

[MissMarple]

20. Compromise...it's at the heart of our system. It's politics.

That other stuff....bullies, dictators, and conquerors do that. George was all three. Totally un American.

[bigtree]

21. right. It's what we do

. . . and it's how Obama said he'd work to accomplish his goals.

[RichardRay]

23. Even with a super majority it would still be better to recognize

the value of negotiation.

What we've seen happen in this election is the fruit the Republicans have harvested from their belief in their own righteousness and trying to cram it down the country's throat when they had the power to do it. If we do it, we'll get the same treatment.

Power is a funny thing...

[Mari333]

24. There are kids on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan about to have their guts blown out

no compromise with the republicans or the dinos. Its a matter of life and death for those soldiers.

[bigtree]

28. I think the military deployments can be taken care of by Executive fiat

. . . as effectively as Bush was able to deploy our troops and keep them out there.

But, there will be aspects of the management of those deployments which are rightly Congress' providence, not the unilateral province of the Executive. While I fully advocate Obama taking the same unilateral route as Bush to dismantle the illegal occupation of Iraq, I don't believe he'd be correct or prudent in taking some autocratic control over the Afghanistan deployment and working to keep Congress out of that decision-making process.

[GreenTea]

25. FUCK THAT! When the republicans controlled all 3 branches, they went out of their way

to compromise with the Democrats? Bullshit...GET REAL!

I'm tired of this play nice-nice, sweet democrats let's not be like them, as the fucking republicans are plotting every moment to stick a knife in the workers & progressives backs...

Ram it down the republicans fucking throats!! Universal Health Care, regulations for corporations, environmental restrictions & pollution controls, higher Minimum Wage, Social Security untouchable, rebuild our infrastructure, free higher education, cut the military budget, Get back our 4th amendment rights, tax the rich, tax cuts for workers, tax breaks for renewable alternative energy - STOP THE WARS!!

NO FUCKING COMPROMISING!

[bigtree]

29. You can 'ram' stuff through the House

Not everything, but most things.

But, with the present balance of power in the Senate, and the reality of missing and dubious members in the make-up of that group, there isn't likely going to be any 'ramming' of important legislation through, no matter how much we holler.

[OwnedByFerrets]

26. THAT IS BS!!!!!

[bigtree]

30. I hear you

but, it's the reality . . . and, it's the stated ambition of President-elect Obama.