which bipartisanship is worse?

[Enrique]

A blogger with no power and little support among her peers teaming with a notorious right winger calling for an investigation of a democratic official.

Or, a sitting Secretary of Education, a cabinet member, a man who actually runs the Department of Education, teaming up with Newt Gingrich to promote the reforming of our nation's schools?

Which example of bipartisanship is likely to have the most impact on us?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enrique]

2. Lanny?

is that you?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snagglepuss]

5. Why not answer the question since you are so critical Hamsher?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. Here's what the real question all those Naderite-Hamsherite GOP f*ckheads are asking....

"WHY CAN'T OBAMA FIX EVERYTHING FROM THE PAST FEW DECADES AND FIX IT IMMEDIATELY?

WE WANT IT FIXED RIGHT NOW!

WE DIDN'T DO A DAMNED THING TO FIX ANYTHING, BUT WE DON'T FUCKING CARE AND WE DON'T CARE THAT IT TOOK THE REPUKES DECADES TO FUCK UP OUR COUNTRY, WE WANT OBAMA TO FIX IT IMMEDIATELY IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR!

AND WE WANT TO CONTROL EVERYTHING HE DOES, BECAUSE, WE FUCKING WANT TO!

AND WE WANT HIM TO HAVE THE FIRST ADMINISTRATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE U.S. TO HAVE NO DEFENSE INDUSTRY

AND WE WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT BECAUSE WE ARE A BUNCH OF MESSED UP, SICKO WHACKJOBS, THAT'S WHY!

AND IF WE CAN'T GET THAT, WELL, FUCK IT, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THE REPUBLICANS OUR BEST FUCKING FRIENDS, SO THERE! WHY CAN'T HE DO EVERY FUCKING THING WE'RE ORDERING HIM TO DO AND DO IT IMMEDIATELY?"


Came pretty damned close, didn't I?

[snagglepuss]

11. Not close at all. The question is which bi-partisanship is worse?

And I'll throw in another question. If Obama's bi-partisanship is so good for the US, why is Hamsher's?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. And come to think of it, I just saw your profile....

If you are FROM Canada, why am I even TALKING to you, if you are affected by all of this not at all?

NOT ONE IOTA of this affects you.

What a waste of my time.

[snagglepuss]

17. Figures that you can extrapolate my life history from one item in my profile.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. Again, you're a waste of my time nt

[pmorlan1]

15. Not Much to Say

I always thought when people wanted to rant or call other people names they posted their own threads instead of trying to hijack someone else's thread. I'm afraid your posts in this thread say much more about you than they do about the subject of this thread. Most of us recognize when you have to immediately resort to name calling it's a pretty good indication that you don't have much to say.

[tekisui]

3. Yuck. Newt.

:puke:

His hands shouldn't be anywhere near policy.

[snagglepuss]

6. Excellent question. K and R. nt

[rwheeler31]

8. Neither

[Forkboy]

9. They both suck.

[ProSense]

10. The first isn't bipartisanship. It's vindictiveness aimed at disruption.

Why not ask the birthers?

You assume that Norquist doesn't lend power to Hamsher and that she in turn (as you can see from some reactions here) can't create a distraction.

It's completely naive to thing that intentional distractions of this type aren't potentially disruptive.

[paulk]

16. most of the "distraction" is coming from

the Obama folks trashing Hamsher. It's a good diversion from actually discussing the healthcare bill.

For instance - how many threads have you started that specifically attack Hamsher? I can think of four or five in the last few days.

What was your "intent" in starting those threads?

[BeFree]

12. That's nothing

The bipartisanship among democrats is the real problem.

Or so it seems.

[jenmito]

19. Simple-the bipartisanship working to harm the administration is bad.

The bipartisanship working to help and implement the president's agenda is good.

[jefferson_dem]

21. It's really not hard to understand.

What's the goal of the effort at "bipartisanship"? Is it to promote the agenda or torpedo it? Former = Good. Latter = Not Good.

[jenmito]

22. Exactly.

There's nothing wrong with getting as many people as possible to work with you to promote your agenda. Maybe some "choose" not to understand. :shrug:

[jefferson_dem]

20. If Obama teamed up with Newt to kill the Democratic-led education reforms

that were currently being considered and voted on by Congress...and all the Dems were for and all the Repugs against...you might have a point.

Right now, Sharpton and Newt are just traveling around promoting quality schools and some general ideas about reforms, none of which are very extreme or offensive.

Nice try though. A for effort.