Why the Democrats should not work with the Republicans?

[kentuck]

....if the Repubs should win the House.

It has nothing to do with revenge. It is common sense. Everything the Republicans have on their agenda is harmful to America and our citizens. Whether it be extending the war to Iran, extending the Bush taxcuts, privatizing Social Security, cutting unemployment benefits, more taxbreaks for overseas corporations, more defense spending, cuts in education, cuts and new charges for Medicare, you name it. It will be harmful for America and our citizens.

It is for that reasons that Democrats should oppose everything the Republicans put forth. If they were to compromise on anything proposed by the Repubs, it would be a bad decision. Mitch McConnell says that he does not want to compromise with the Democrats. Well, we got news for him. We don't want to compromise with him either.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Because they purportedly* don't stand for the same thing?

:think:







*purportedly

[OHdem10]

2. Could it be that the two world views have become so hardened

that we need to resolve that first.

Those who believe in working for the common good versus
the Rugged Individualists?

If you believe in any part of I am my brother's keeper,
it is incomprehensible to a Rugged Individualist and if
you are believer in No one is owed anything, or each
person is responsible for himself and his family, this
talk about looking out for the more vulnerable is not
to be trusted.

The Perfect Example: I do not know if all Democrats
even understand to this day why the other side consider
Obama a socialist.

It had not one iota to do with what the HCR contains
or what is in the bill.

The very fact that we passed a National HCR Bill is
in their view socialistic. Never you mind it is Business
based. It is similar to Romney and Bob Dole's plan(GOP).
No we should not have any form of Health Care on National
Level.

Thus we talk past each other. The Democrats have to get
a large group of people behind them to prove that more
people want HCR and as they try to get anything passed.


Somehow they are going have to find a way to communicate
otherwise--stalemate.

[kentuck]

3. I'm reminded of all those electric scooters for the elderly...

down in KY... on their way to an anti-government rally by Rand Paul or some other Tea Partier. All of them on Medicare or dependent on government help of some sort.

[dgibby]

9. Unfortunately,

message control has never been a strength for the Dems.

[denimgirly]

4. With 2 years Majority we still Compromised on Everything. Says A lot.

History shows repubs have no reason to compromise with democrats seeing as how democrats are already more than happy to. It still baffles me.
Here is hoping they grow a spine this time around.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. If they win the house, it isn't necessary.

Simple majority rules.

[Clio the Leo]

6. If Congress goes AGAINST Obama trying to invade Iran...

.... we'll have bigger problems than invading Iran. (They could impeach him for it.)

Sorry ... but "party of no" is wrong no matter who's doing it. The GOP (with their one little chamber) will inevitably offer something that will help the American people ... they'll HAVE to ... in those instances, the Democrats should join with them and so WILL the President.

He gets the blame when Congress gets grid locked ... but he'll get the praise when they aren't.

That's the beauty of it.

[TheKentuckian]

7. The mere fact you view articles of impeachment as a bigger problem than invading Iran

says an awful lot about your priorities, loyalty to your nation and her people, commitment to peace and prosperity, and your absolute focus.

You'd throw the nation, our collective future, and thousands and perhaps millions of lives away over a politician is a blood curdling thought.

Barack Obama is a man not a god.

[AndrewP]

8. Personally, I think the Democrats should be willing to do everything to block

Republican efforts to turn back the positive advances made the past 2 years.

But they are so weak kneed at times I'm not sure that they will.

[dgibby]

10. When all is said and done,

it will be up to Obama. He has the ultimate power either to sign off on repub. legislation or veto it. Since he's already on record as looking for ways to work with the republicans after the elections, I would expect him to continue his bi-partisian approach.

I sincerely hope he rethinks this position, considering that Mitch McConnell is on record saying the only goal the repubs have is to make Obama a one term prez.

[Joanne98]

11. I agree and the Dems who work with them should be blanched in 2012.

[kentuck]

12. Did you just invent a new word ??

"blanched"?

I take that is in reference to Blanche Lincoln?

[Joanne98]

21. Yep. Blanched= Primary challege and even if you win you lose in the end.

100% certainty of political DEATH!

[polichick]

13. Fat chance getting the president to see it this way. nt

[kentuck]

14. Then he will be on his way to a one-term Presidency...

in my opinion.

[polichick]

15. Seems he trusts his own instincts - I don't see that changing now. nt

[kentuck]

16. He will be pressured to do the Clinton strategy of 1994.

But that would be a mistake. These are different times.

He can not "triangulate" the middle against both sides and keep his support. It will not work.

[polichick]

17. Well, we can hope he's learned something from his lost opportunities...

At least he has said that he knows he gave up too much too soon in bill negotiations. No duh! Still, it's something.

[great white snark]

18. "Everything the Republicans have on their agenda is harmful to America"

On their agenda is repealing HCR, something many DUers would agree with. Also paying off the defecit might be something both parties could agree on.

Anyhoo, let's hope all this is moot.

[kentuck]

19. I doubt it.

Paying off the deficit is not something I have seen at the top of discussions here. The HCR was unpopular because of the way it was passed, not that we did not need it. We do not dislike it in the same way as tea baggers or for the same reasons.

[niceypoo]

20. Many DUers want to repeal healthcare?

I think your confusing 'repeal' with 'fix'.

'Paying off the deficit is something both parties could agree on'? Are you joking? The republicans want to EXTEND the Bush tax cuts PERMANENTLY which will add $4 trillion to the national debt over the next 8 years while proposing $19 billion in reduced spending. The republicans want to collapse the economy. They see economic collapse as a way to seize absolute power.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. The Republicans could easily turn that around and say the same about US as well

Of course, in the fevered delusions of their most vocal supporters (and even among themselves to some extent), President Obama is ALREADY a dangerous illigitimate-Kenyan- Muslim-anti-colonialist-Socialist-tyrant, so maybe there really is nothing to really work with in terms of bipartisanship and/or compromise let alone talking people out of their delusions. :eyes:

Personally, I believe that we should be willing to "work" with the Republicans IF and ONLY IF they are genuinely interested in working with US as well, IF they are willing to put actual substantive ideas on the table for discussion (not just call for "starting over with blank sheet of paper" on everything :eyes:), and appear to be sincerely motivated to address REAL problems and moving us forward together as a country.

If, on the other hand, all the Republicans want to do with their new power is to attempt to cram their *agenda* down our throats, shut Democrats out of the legislative process ("majority of the majority rule") and refuse to incorporate Democratic ideas and amendments in legislation, try to shut down the government, and/or spend time and money (we don't have) dogging President Obama to try to find "scandals" with which to bring him down and "make him a one-term President," then, yes, Democrats should definitely refuse to go along with them and obstruct them any way they can- and the Republicans during this past Congress have shown us exactly what we can/need to do in order to derail their efforts- and we shouldn't hesitate to use every single method that we can possibly employ.

Unfortunately, I fear that, should the Republicans regain control of the House and/or Senate in next week's election, we will likely see more of the latter instead of the former during at least the next two years (hopefully), however I would not mind being proven wrong every once in a while. :shrug:

[ieoeja]

23. "IF and ONLY IF they are genuinely interested in working with US as well."

Given that they last had power only 4 years ago, and at that time wouldn't even give Democrats a meeting room for meetings that did not fit their agenda, I think it is safe to say that you can drop the "IF".


"If" ... "spend time and money (we don't have) dogging President Obama to try to find "scandals" with which to bring him down"

Given that the Republican slated to head up the committee that would be responsible for that has already made this a campaign promise, I see another unnecessary "if".

:)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. Well I tend to agree with you about getting rid of the "ifs"

One can hope, however.............:shrug:

Republicans are going to the be the ones tossed out on their butts if they don't actually try to DO something (it won't be enough for them to simply say "no" to everything) and I think that it's a fair bet that most people won't actually like whatever it is they're going to try to do and remember the past two years more fondly than they apparently do now. However, I guess some people have REALLY short attention spans and need to be reminded (and to get this whole "Tea Party" $#%*&#$# out of their "system").

Also, Issa DID recently seem to "walk back" his intention to aggressively pursue multiple *investigations* of President Obama- though we should trust him only as far as we can throw him IMHO.