Bipartisanship may have been a sensible strategy for a 50-50 nation, but...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Let's say a bright young politician from Illinois watching the 2000 election coming on the heels of the divisive 1990s made all sorts of shrewd observations to himself about how he would run things if he were ever President.

And let's say he then fell into a time-warp and somehow missed some key events... like the full exposure of the RW as a straight-up ultra-nationalist fascist movement and the subsequent failure of that fascist movement, losing an agressive war against a third world nation, total economic collapse and its dear-leader becoming the most unpopular president ever.

In that scenario this stuff might have made sense.

Bipartisanship on the heels of the Bush presidency was a call for cooperation with a proto-fascist movement that had all-but destroyed the nation and had lost almost all popular support.

If this had been a 50-50 nation such cooperation would, however odious, be somewhat necessary to practical governance.

But the pugs were down for the count!

When you have a big numerical advantage you polarize because when you force the question people will flock to the winning side. Ben Nelson probably wouldn't want to vote (publicly) with the American Nazi Party but there's no real downside to him voting with the respectable opposition, is there?

These conservadems are following their perceived political self-interest in a political environment created by the utterly perplexing failure to demonize and demagogue a failed political movement that was, and is, in fact wicked and despicable.

Demonizing the pugs would not have been sleazy politics beneath our noble sensibilities. It would have been a fair and morally correct response to a genuinely demonic movement.


This is not Monday-morning quarterbacking. I have been beating this anti-bipartisanship drum like the proverbial rented mule since before Iowa.

Bipartisanship was, in 2007-2008, merely a call to nurture a dying fascist movement back to relevance.

And the too-clever idea that Americans would go weak in the knees for the public appearance of bipartisanship was conventional-wisdom foolishness.

Americans go weak in the knees for being on the winning side.

Americans say they like bipartisanship the same way they say they don't watch trash-TV. It is some shit you tell a pollster.

Review: When the other side is at 28% and the butt of all jokes you want to force choices and sharpen differences. When you are at 28% you want to call for bipartisanship.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Yes. Not only that, but also Yes. n/t

[rudy23]

2. Nailed it. Also---triangulation doesn't work in 2010 like it did in 1994 w/ no internet, blogs,

google, or Stewart & Colbert playing your contradicting statements right next to each other. These guys are all stuck in a time warp. The country was ready for REAL CHANGE, and they blew it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Yes, and also you cannot triangulate when you control everything

Triangulation involves setting groups against each other while you, in the middle, come out smelling like a rose.

Obama cannot sensibly run against the Democratic congress and cannot productively run against his own base (which hasn't stopped him, but it's not sensible)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. .

[Vincardog]

3. Yes, no , HELL YES

[readmoreoften]

4. Nailed it!

Bipartisanship is a tail between the legs strategy. When you have a mandate, you move people towards a party's political goals. What this little fandango has revealed is that--perhaps the Democratic Party (not the constituents, but the politicians) have no goals or principles beyond "team re-election."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. The RW has always been more idealogical

For a variety of reasons the US spectrum includes main-streamed RW extremism but the left ends with conventional liberal democracy.

The fact that we harbor the remnants of a defeated and resentful nation within our borders accounts for some of that. (The Confederacy)

The fact that we never had a king to over-throw probably accounts for even more of it. By starting out kind of progressive, in relative terms, the most anti-power sentiment has always been on the right.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. Brilliant!

I cannot believe that President Obama is dumb and he has to know what you posted as well as you. Very puzzling.


But then someone finally posted something that explained it all to me, here:

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17981

[TheKentuckian]

6. You're probably right on

Might even be that the principle works in a 50/50 because that other 49.9999% or whatever aren't about to change their minds or give an iota.

Hell, I think we are actually pretty much 50/50 still and just rearranged a few deck chairs with a couple of smoke and mirrors tricks to make it look significantly different. We threw up some Republicans with a (D) by their name that allowed just enough disgruntled conservatives to have a tolerable choice and got a moderate in over the worst candidate in modern history following a generation of mismanagement by a count of like 53 to 47 percent, which is still damn close to 50/50 especially considering the circumstances in play.

A poll the other day had like 44% that would like arguably the worst President in history back, that says that there are some serious lines here. Probably both parties bottom completely out at about there when push comes to shove.

The point is in our current clusterfuck you might as well do what your going to do and let the chips fall where they may, because the people that actually are the swing voters are fucking fickle and/or go with whoever they find most likable. Everyone else is basically locked in however they party ID or talk tough about shaking shit up.

[Zenlitened]

9. K&R. - n/t

[grantcart]

11. All great but with the Senate filibuster rules you actually have to

have representation of 83% of the people in agreement to pass legislation.

Also it would be impossible for an African American to run an administration that is highly partisan.

He comes off with better manners than Santa and 35% of the population doesn't accept that he is a complete citizen let alone President.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Since this piece is about my long-standing analysis...

"Also it would be impossible for an African American to run an administration that is highly partisan."

I agree. I argued precisely that point and was called a racist for arguing it, in the way almost all supporters of candidates other than Obama were called racists by a tiny group of about 300 posters.

My analysis way back then, which has aged pretty well, was that we needed a president prepared to kill the republican party. If any aspect of a candidate precluded that politically then that's just what it is.

My argument for a certain candidate was limited to the factors I considered most compelling: 1) best odds of winning the election, 2) most brand-name credibility on the economy since it was going to collapse by election day (and would be the ONLY issue, with Iraq being a net negative for Obama in the GE, which it was) and 3) most likely to destroy the republican party.

I wanted the "food-fights" of the 1990s re-fought to a conclusion from our (then) unassailable position.

ON EDIT: I fixed the graph about the two... no three reasons. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! I was going to leave out the economic thing as being to back-patty, but if you read my posts back then it would be a glaring omission.

[grantcart]

14. Ok but

We still live in a system where Senators of 20 states with 40 votes represent less people than the 2 Senators from California.

Unless the filibuster is reduced or removed you have to always start with the hope of finding some bipartisan solution and then getting rough if you have to.

If you start with pure partisan strategy then every fight will be reduced to getting all 60 votes. If you can start with bipartisan then you will find that sometimes you can find an agreement - as appears to be the case with climate change legislation.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. All True

But the question isn't whether my approach would have been perfect, merely whether it would have been better.

We'll never know, I reckon.

But I would have been naming names, ascribing motives and attributing bad outcomes. Real nasty politics.

(If I had to run as Obama-nice and then do a 180 in office, so be it.)


My comment about Nelson isn't to say that life in the senate would have been easy in any scenario. The senate is crazy and the electoral college just as bad. I'm sure you have calculated what percentage can elect a president in a two-man race. IIRC, it's in the 20s%

[TheWraith]

12. You're assuming facts not in evidence.

That the Republicans are unpopular does not constitute a mandate to run things according to the Democratic base. Even if we could, THAT'S HOW THE REPUBLICANS BECAME UNPOPULAR.

[Armstead]

15. Yopu are assunming that the Demoicratic "base" is some weird tiny cult

Many of us would be happy if the Democratic Party did its job as the party of moderate but clear mainstream liberalism. You remember that. The interests of the general population over those of the wealthy and corporate interests. The beliegf that government does have a role ion filling basic social needs that can not (or will not) be served by the private sector.

That is not some fringe Marxist cult.


Why Democrats like yourself are so scornful of that is very puzzling.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Dang. I hate when someone zings 'ignored'

It's like coming in half-way through a movie.

[Armstead]

21. Here's the ignored message -- I'll let you guess which ignored wrote it

You're assuming facts not in evidence.

That the Republicans are unpopular does not constitute a mandate to run things according to the Democratic base. Even if we could, THAT'S HOW THE REPUBLICANS BECAME UNPOPULAR.

[Armstead]

16. Makes emminent sense

[ruggerson]

19. I've been yelling this for two years

no one wants to hear it.

[ruggerson]

20. btw k and r