If Dems behaved like Repubs, this country wouldn't be governable

[maxrandb]

…and we are almost there. Imagine for a minute that Democrats actually did what a lot of us on the left wanted them to do? How many of us have looked at the 58-2-40 numbers in the Senate, and the 256-178 numbers in the House and dreamed that “this time, the Democrats will behave like Republicans and Step on their Throat.”? How many of us dreamed of the complete destruction of the Republican Party.

I know I did. I dreamed that Democrats would stomp such a festering hole through the Repub Party that they would have no choice but to crawl, bleeding and moaning to the margins of power where they belong.

Think about that for a minute. Does that sound familiar? Imagine that I had said “destruction of the Democratic Party” instead. Isn’t that what you hear 24/7 on hate radio throughout this country?

People have asked why we don’t have a similar “hate fest” on the left 24/7. I believe that you can’t find a similar “hate fest” on the left because Democrats actually care more about the country than they do about party. Democrats just aren’t made that way. We don’t “hate”, because you can’t get shit done with hate. Sure you may win a few elections, and feel that your hatred is validated, but you’re not going to get shit done with hate. And you know what? People are going to hate you anyway, simply because you get shit done. I say; “it must suck to be them”.

Fortunately, Democrats care more about the country and doing the right thing than they do about party. I guess that’s why I have a “love/hate” relationship with the Democratic Party. Democrats actually look for pragmatic and sensible solutions to the country’s ills. It’s why you never see Democrats marching in lockstep to simply say “No” because they despise the opposing party. Without a willingness to do what is best for the country, despite party affiliation…WE BECOME UNGOVERNABLE!

President Obama is President of the United States. Not President of the United States of Progressive and Liberal Ideology. I know that a lot of Progressives feel that Obama has compromised too much, but without compromise, we become ungovernable.

This country has made progress, but let’s not kid ourselves, that progress has taken blood, sweat, tears, and most importantly…TIME. It’s why every major advance that has been made is described as a “struggle”. The “struggle” for Women’s Rights. The “struggle” for Worker’s Rights. The “struggle” for Civil Rights. The “struggle” to end slavery. The “struggle” to provide Public Education. The “struggle” for Medicare/Medicaid. Folks, there’s a reason they are called “struggles”.

If the Teabaggers throw their little temper tantrums and take a few seats back in the next election, fuck ‘em. If 8 years from now, the country elects a Republican President, the temptation will be to do the childish things Repubs have done, and simply say “no” to everything, and block the President at every point. The problem with that is the country then becomes ungovernable, and that truly would mark the end of our little experiment in Democracy.

Thank God we have the Democratic Party to behave like adults, despite how much we wish they wouldn’t.

[villager]

1. The country's governable? It seems like the right has absconded with it...

And no one's willing to take it back...

[timeforpeace]

2. Saw a while back that ungovernable was going to be the new catch phrase, blaming it all on us.

[maxrandb]

8. Well

That would be in keeping with the "mantra" of blaming everything on the Democrats.

But you know what...we actually get shit done. That's the point of my post.

Could someone please tell me one advance this country has made that was a Republican idea? Please just one?????

- Slavery? Sure, if you realize that the party of Lincoln wouldn't have him today

- Civil Rights? Nope. They can argue that Southern Dixiecrats were the one's that fought that the hardest, but then you just point out; "oh you mean those "Democrats" like Strom Thurmond???

Repubs haven't stood strongly for social progress on anything for over 150 years. They haven't shown any political courage in just as long.

Democrats may piss us off while they are doing it, but THEY GET SHIT DONE!

[DJ13]

3. Its not so much the way the GOP governs thats bad

Its the policies they pursue when they're in power thats bad.

The current climate is one of bullies on one side (GOP) and wimps on the other side (Dems).

Yes of course our party acts more responsibly in power, but if no progressive policies get enacted because our side is afraid of the GOP and is incapable of ruffling their feathers we end up with the GOP always calling the shots.

At this point I wouldnt mind the Democrats taking some lessons from the GOP if it meant we wouldnt always end up compromising on issues of greatest importance to our party.

[treestar]

20. The republicans are bullies, but that does not make us wimps

The GOP is the party of no. They say no. It's not a matter of being afraid of them. They do what they are entitled to do once elected. Obstruct everything. That's what they do. Why is that our fault?

If simply sounds like you want us to be bullies when it's our turn.

[burning rain]

4. Yeah, thank God Dems didn't obstruct Bush more,....

because his program was so good for the US.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Oh, yeah, it's so much better to have a functioning government half the time -

of course, that half is when the fucking REPUBLICANS are in power, because they always get what they want when WE cooperate with them, and we never get anything we want because they don't cooperate with us.

Funny how the republicans can get their agenda across with a 4 seat majority, but we can't do the same with a 19 seat majority.

I call BULLSHIT.

[maxrandb]

9. What did they get?

Except for politically expedient tax cuts???

I guess I'm looking long term. Say what you will, but we are within a gnats ass of passing the first major overhaul to the way we provide Health Care in this country in over 70 years. Do you really think we'd be there if the Repubs were in charge???

We can't get everything that we want all at once. Not to mention, I'm a "liberal", and what I want, may not be what you want. In that case, I'd think that even you and I would have to compromise.

Again, can someone give me any example of political courage, or social progress that the GOP has been able to enact, or shown in the past 150 years?? You can't do it, because they think small, and have no political courage.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Who ever said the GOP was about social progress?

They accomplished their agenda just fine - deregulation, expanding imperialistic monetary theories, devaluing American labor in favor of corporate profits, NAFTA, welfare 'reform', and now health care 'reform' - what did they NOT get? How have we done anything to stand in their way since 1965?

BTW, this POS HRC bill IS a gnat's ass of reform. There is not a single watered down, bastardized provision in it that could not have been passed more easily as separate legislation, and it will NOT control costs, it will NOT expand healthcare (though it DOES expand health insurance which must be paid to private companies making them humungous profits).

This HCR bill is the insurance industry's DREAM bill.

[treestar]

21. They didn't get Robert Bork on the court

NAFTA was something Clinton signed.

HCR is something the Dems want and the Republcans don't.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. You have to reach back to the 80s to find something the republican

agenda failed at?

And NAFTA was a REPUBLICAN initiative, and had been destructive to all Democratic principles, which is why I have declared unending war against the DLC and all its minions. EDIT: it is, in fact, the perfect example of Dems doing Republican bidding while gaining nothing in return, and calling it 'compromise'.

And HCR is something none of us is getting.

[treestar]

26. I'm not the most educated

person on this, maybe someone else can add things.

They didn't get much of what they want.

Several that I know vote on only one thing: abortion. That's no closer to being a crime again than it was in 1973, yet they still keep voting only on that issue. I know some of them voted for McPuke for that only - they didn't care about the wars or any other thing.

They don't have prayer in the schools. Damned Libruls keep trying to make the government stop putting out Christian creches and the 10 Commandments. The SCOTUS rules it is OK to burn the flag.

There are still all those "unfair" anti-discrimination laws and special rights for various minorities.

There is still government involvement in social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare and all those horrid programs that take money from hard working Americans to give it to lazy people who could just go out and get a job.

There are too many illegal aliens here. Hollywood keeps making movies based on destroying the family. People persecute them for their Christianity.

You have to never talk to them to think they are getting near what they want.

And realizing how many of them there are, it's downright putting one's head in the sand to think one has the luxury of slamming Democrats and claiming they aren't doing enough. If they keep our heads above water, they are doing great.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. You do realize, don't you, that they CANNOT win on those social

issues, and they don't WANT to - if they ever did, they'd stop being issues for them to campaign and raise money on.

You are conflating the in single-issue sheeple with the Republican party - which is not surprising as they do so themselves. The repubs are NOT about the tea-bagger issues - they are about MONEY. Corporate control of the government. That is their ONLY concern. All the rest is just blather to bring in the bucks.

So long as they have their 5% who are single-issue anti-abortion, and their 5% who are single-issue prayer in school, and their 5% who are single-issue anti-immigrant, and their 5% who are single-issue anti-tax, they can keep cobbling together coalitions that will enact their corporate agenda without EVER having to address those single-issues.

The problem is, you actually believe their propaganda.

[treestar]

32. I don't believe any of their propaganda, I just believe them when they tell me

they vote repuke, and they still do though the repukes have failed to:

1. Make this a Christian nation like it was intended to be
2. Make flag burning illegal
3. Stop all welfare programs and other soshalist, marxist, commie stuff
4. Make abortion illegal
5. Give them their "freedom" from all government interference and regulation in their economic lives (interfering in people's bedrooms is fine)
6. give the government "freedom" to investigate enemies, like muslins and other traitors
7. fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here and quit surrendering to terrorists
8. quit taxing them - it is stealing from them the fruit of their labors, which they deserve to keep forever
9. stop making them obey laws against discrimination - they should get to hire who they want
10. stop all brown people from coming to live in the United States

and many more they are nowhere near getting even after 8 years of Cheney

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. Re-read post #30. Then read it again.

Maybe, just maybe, it will sink in.

[treestar]

37. I guess you're saying their voters are just puppets

Voting for them over and over again though they don't get their one issue through.

There are an awful lot of them who believe the whole shebang, too. Look at the Rushbots. They believe all the social and economic conservatism. They are far from happy and far from having all they want.

I suppose both parties need money to get their message across, and the Repukes do have access to more of it. But the issues do matter - we aren't mindless drones who vote for whoever has the most money. Yet a candidate who could not raise money could not get elected - TV ads are expensive. And yet the Repukes don't have most of what they want.

Another issue is that they want the government to do nothing. Do nothing does not take 60 votes - it's much easier to "accomplish."

[JVS]

29. We stopped Bork! Take the half loaf!!!

:eyes:

[treestar]

33. You think that's a small thing?

He might have upheld all sorts of shit! Leaving Padilla locked up without access to counsel, establishing the precedent that the POTUS' say so alone could make you an unlawful combatant with no rights. The SCOTUS we had did not allow for that.

[tabbycat31]

31. privatizing social security failed in 2005

[T Wolf]

6. An incorrect assumption in your argument is that the goals (policies) of both sides

are equally valid and worthwhile.

We on the left did not want to crush the throat of the pukes for pure revenge (OK - there was a little of that) but, rather, because we wanted the change that we thought a real liberal in charge would bring about. Destruction of the enemy was just a bonus.

The reason to have power is not for fancy balls and police-escorted motorcades - it is to effect policies that you want. After not having any real power for so long, we thought we might be able to advance the cause a (great) bit more. If it took stepping on some rethug toes, so be it.

Thou shalt not kill. Right? But, to save your child's life, would you?

[maxrandb]

11. I'm not assuming any such thing

There is no way I think the goals and the policies of Democrats and Republicans are "equally valid".

What I'm saying is that Democrats actually get shit done, because they realize that to get shit done you have to compromise and work at it. I'm also pointing out that EVERY SINGLE MAJOR SOCIAL ADVANCE THAT'S BEEN MADE IN THIS COUNTRY WAS A LONG HARD SLOG. Not a years worth of votes and speaches.

Hell, I'm not even willing to admit that you and I have goals and policies that are "equally valid", and we're both posting on Democratic Underground. Even you and I may have to "give and take" to get anything close to what we want.

When JFK said; "Let's go to the moon", we didn't just get in a rocket ship the next day and take off!

[T Wolf]

14. To me, you seemed to be saying that compromise with the enemy is the way in which things

have to be done and that we Dems, honoring the process, will not run roughshod over the pukes to achieve those ends.

I agree that the pukes have never done anything positive for the country.

But they have been very successful in implementing their (destructive) policies (e.g., tax breaks for millionaires) by playing the political game so much better than our side does.

I am willing to "dirty" the process to achieve positive goals. The ends DO justify the means. Not every time and not every method - but certainly more than the lose-before-trying method so favored by our side.

[maxrandb]

17. Except I'm not calling 30-35% of my fellow Americans "the enemy"

The 10-15% that constitute the "teabaggers" sure, I'll buy that they are the enemy, the rest I'd like to see if we could build some consensus with.

It's pretty rare in this world to get 100% of everything you want. We need to stop looking at our fellow Americans as the "enemy", or we end up with Repub like numbers.

[T Wolf]

18. Pukes may live in this country, but they are not my "fellows" by any stretch of the

sell-out imagination.

It is exactly that willingness to give them any legitimacy that has produced the Fuck Nuze "fair and balanced" fallacy that all views are equally valid and worthwhile.

100% of what you want!?! We are not even getting the spare change from the trillions given to the banksters and Wall Street cretins.

[treestar]

22. Obama always claimed he would try bipartisanship

the repukes have proven that they won't.

But Obama never said he was going to crush them, etc.

[vi5]

7. Wait, it's governable now?

The fact is that they rammed through their agenda like a steamroller and that agenda is going to have an impact (a negative one) for years if not decades to come because they did this.

The fact is that if we did this it would have a positive impact on the country that would hopefully be as long lasting.

I know the argument is that governing that way caused people to vote them out of power, but the fact is that the same thing is going to happen to the dems. So whether we push through our agenda or not we're going to lose power. We might as well push through that agenda and have it impact the country in a positive way.

[timeforpeace]

13. I think The White House or Obama said it's not, in response to having trouble getting HCR or

something. Implication being, well you can guess the implication.

[NeeDeep]

10. What do the Rebubs do when they are in power

they mislead the American people, give us wars to gain politically, restrict freedom and undermine the constitution (patriot act), put regulations up for sale, corporate/cronie legislation, waste tax dollars massively and on and on. If Dems loose the majority and still stopped this or at least debated it thats not bad or "ungovernable". Right now the problem is still repubs mangling and undermining and blocking health and other reform. The only thing that is "ungovernable" is republicans.

[maxrandb]

12. So what would you have the Dems do

cut off funding to the military in Iraq? I'm progressive and in the military, and wouldn't have liked that move very much, so they do what they can do. They demand more accountability, they demand oversight, which they did. Not to mention, how are the Repubs doing in popularity or actual numbers in the House and Senate right now?

There is a myth that Bush/Cheney got whatever they wanted. That is not the case. Even the "infamous" John Kerry campaign miscue where he voted against the defense bill, and then voted for it, was a result of Democrats standing strong for accountability of the funds.

We want instant gratification and "my way or the highway" stuff, but that's how you end up with only 40 seats in the Senate.

[T Wolf]

15. ..."only 40 seats in the Senate" (actually 38 plus the traitors on our side) seems to give them

power to decide quite a lot.

[JVS]

28. I agree with your point, but your math is wrong. They have 40 + the two traitors

and if by chance they get reduced to 37, I'd wager that they'd find 3 more traitors on our side.

[JVS]

27. We could stop the wars.

[treestar]

23. True but it's on the American people that they go for these wars; they don't

have to.

The American people went for it and put * back in in 2004. That's on them.

[grahamhgreen]

19. "Ungovernable"? It is the other way around - the representatives REFUSE TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE!

You sound like a right wing authoritarian, just a little bit, IMHO.

[JVS]

25. It's called "enabling" and it isn't the way to go.

[depakid]

34. What a bizarre rationalization for the country currently being ungovernable

and completely incapable of meeting its challenges or coming close to solving its problems in the 21st Century.

You're headed on a rather steep trajectory toward 3rd world status and yet, you're defending paralysis in the one party that MIGHT if it had some pine and cojones, manage to slow the descent (if not reverse the decline).

:crazy:

[damntexdem]

36. True, but the big question is: when the Dems act like Dems, is the country governable?

And I guess I would thank God were the Dem Party to behave like adults.