View Story | 476 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Taking the bi-partisanship out of politics for right now.
The American people are in no mood for anymore Republican silliness. You know it, I know it and those that don't really pay attention to politics continue to tell us that via polls.
Finalize the Konservative movement by making the right choice for President of the United States. We have great candidates. All will move us left of BushCo. One will move us forward by kicking Republic ass and not bothering to take names.
Let's take our country back. Let's become the leaders of freedom in the world, once again.
Let's make John Edwards our President.
Another day, another devalued Dollar. -6.00, -6.21
by funluvn1 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:23:01 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
...(and i think it is) then wouldn't the best candidate be the one who invites disgruntled GOP voters to cross party lines, rather than the one who vows to "kick their ass"?
it's a question i don't quite have the answer to myself - do you form the most effective governing coalition by going take-no-prisoners or by inviting people to defect?
of course, given the undemocratic way the senate is constituted and the option of filibuster, i'm not convinced that what "mandate" our new president comes in with will make a whole lot of difference when it comes to actually enacting a progressive agenda.
but at this point i think a cajoler will have more success than a fighter, which explains why i lean towards BHO.
John McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy.
by jethropalerobber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:39:34 AM PDT
Not when it means selling out principles.
by johnnygunn on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:42:20 AM PDT
The solution to excessive partisanship is NOT unilateral disarmament by Democrats (or even by progressives).
Gordon Smith must go.
by vard on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:49:55 AM PDT
by jethropalerobber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:54:22 AM PDT
I don't see any evidence that Obama is disarming in terms of his ability to hit back, if need be, to get elected. I don't see him giving up on policy issues or moving into Republican territory in terms of his actual platform or proposed actions or governance. He's not all that different in policy than the other Democrats.
Now if you are refering to "disarm" as in disarm opponents, well Obama seems to be pretty good at this. He is disarming when he talks to Iowa residents who often vote Republican. Remember, we relish the red meat rhetoric because of who we are and what we have been through. The general public may not, and probably does not. I would guess that many bloggers here on DailyKos would alienate or piss off many less politicized, more mainstream voters out there. For example, would the passionate and argumentative author of this diary resonate with a farmer in Iowa, or just piss him off? I wonder sometimes. If Obama speaks to people in a different tone and in a different way - if he disarms them, in other words - then that may be all for the best.
None of it really matters that much. I think the netroots have an inflated perspective of their role and importance when it comes to the primaries - we've been more successful in Congressional races, where a smaller group of dedicated partisans and a little seed money have more impact. There's plenty of other ways to organize communities and supporters than via the internet, and many of those will come into play in the primaries. I see the current Edwards Obama Clinton fight as a little experiment to gauge the current strength of labor, of independents, of women, and of alternative social networks in influencing a primary. We're simply not that relevant, no matter what we like to think.
God, who gave man scabies, also gave him hands to scratch them.
by ivorybill on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:00:27 AM PDT
by jethropalerobber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:08:58 AM PDT
Communication is a two-way street. Obama hardly needs to convince the choir. He needs to show the many skeptics. And in that, he has come up way short.
by johnnygunn on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:14:19 AM PDT
Primary season is convincing the chancel and choir; then the preacher has to turn around in the general election and speak to those in the nave and those peeking in from the narthex. Obama is doing it a bit different, speaking with his back to the choir during primary season. Some in the choir are grumbling, others of them are shouting or trying to kick Obama in the butt to get him to turn around and give them what they think they are entitled to. So far, Obama is sticking to his message and chosen delivery.
by Foodle on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:44:40 AM PDT
You better rest your voice a bit - 'Cause I don't even GO to that church.
by johnnygunn on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:48:02 AM PDT
Obama would have had the sixteen Repubs to override Bush's veto and we would be on our way out of Iraq. That was just a gimmick for a while and had no chance to work. Do you remember Obama supporters saying it could work? We have our own DINOs to beat up first to get them on side.
Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:47:57 AM PDT
but he'll have more leverage as president, obviously.
but what i'm really talking about is his relationship to the voters, not to other politicians.
by jethropalerobber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:11:38 AM PDT
Thanks for conceding the point. That is so rare that I'm not sure how to reply. Ultimately the POTUS has to kick ass to create change. Bush does even with his own side. Obama's approach is not for these times. It may be down the road, but we have a huge mess to clean up and even our Blue Dogs need some retraining. The voters will support the leader that supports them and gives them results. Both Edwards and Obama speak well, that is why I think Obama may be better in the future in calmer and less desperate times. IMHO.
by pioneer111 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:17:17 AM PDT
as i expressed in my first post, i'm not totally convinced what the best approach is.
of course i'm not sure the candidates' postures at this stage tell us much about how they would actually govern either :)
by jethropalerobber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:45:29 AM PDT
We need a clear partisan victory first, because all the Republicans understand is power.
For me, the Perfect Future is an Edwards/Obama ticket, having 8 years of Edwards with a Democratic Congress to not just roll back the Bush years, but actually move us forward with an unapologetically progressive agenda.
And then, 8 years of an Obama administration, where we can seek to work together in a more bi-partisan fashion.
It's far superior to extend that olive branch AFTER we've moved the center back to the center. Not now, when any compromise just moves the center from the very, very far right... to the far right.
The times, they are a-changin'
by Malacandra on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:48:19 AM PDT
by worldwideellen on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:29:20 AM PDT
Work has been insane.
by Malacandra on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:39:07 AM PDT
there is negotiation. There isn't any now. You nailed the priorities.
It's full of stars... My life-long R Ma, for considering McCain, and declaring her support for Obama.
by Terra Mystica on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:34:15 AM PDT
Will Democratic control of the White House and the Congress engender enough respect and strength that the new President could move forward a Progressive agenda without resorting to Bush/Rove-style, in-your-face, cram-it-down-their-throats tactics? Could Bush have been a uniter and not a divider if he wasn't George W. Bush?
by Foodle on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:44:31 AM PDT
Change simply doesn't occur with conciliation as a strategic first principle.
by Terra Mystica on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:10:10 PM PDT
And there will be no respect from the GOP until they fear irrelevancy and "permanent minority" status IMO. They need to bow, and beg like the dogs they are. Their corrupt 2-class two America days are numbered.
"There's been a little complication with my complication"
by dash888 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:40:34 PM PDT
Nailed it, Malacandra.
There are no stupid questions, but stupid people are everywhere
by SecondComing on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:32:49 PM PDT
I've been trying to figure out how to articulate that. You got it for me. Our concept of what "bipartisan" means right now is so right-tilted and unaligned with what people actually want. We need to get our representation way more representative before we engage in all this hands across the aisle stuff.
"Get informed, and let it change you."--wonderingmind42's chemistry professor
by DemocracyLover in NYC on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:58:25 PM PDT
Ultimately the POTUS has to kick ass to create change.
That is by no means a given. Frequently the more successful approach (whether in the White House or the Congress) is to separate the roles of Party Leader and Whip. Many Presidents have been quite successful while playing the conciliatory role of Leader of All the People and letting political advisors, Chief of Staff, and the like do the partisan ass kicking.
I wouldn't choose Obama for a Whip or partisan ass kicker role. That doesn't mean that he can't be a good or great President.
by Foodle on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:36:00 AM PDT
but for these times we need Edwards and Obama after.
by pioneer111 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:42:36 PM PDT
The naked assertion that "Obama's approach is not for these times" is just not very persuasive. Why do you think that these times require that the roles of Leader and Partisan Ass Kicker be held by just one person?
by Foodle on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:39:00 PM PDT
Both have the same goal: Going around the Blue Dogs and the Republicans and taking their case to the people. They have a different strategy is all. Obama is rebranding liberal positions as mainstream and Edwards is demonizing Wall Street. Both approaches could work, but there are disadvantages to both approaches as well.
My favorite is Social Security.
by DelRPCV on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:48:49 AM PDT
"cajole" or "work with" or "bargain" with or "cooperate" with the GOP, he gets his ass handed to him, handily.
And he always looks surprised. Think "Harry Reid".
Every dem who relies on a GOP member of congress to "see the light" or feel any shame at all for being hypocritical or mean-spirited or sanctimonious ends up with that same surprised look.
Cajoling has not worked. Incrementalism has not worked. Shaming has not worked. Cooperation has not worked.
And even if it could work, why hasn't Obama made it work in the last year? He hasn't succeeded in moving the GOP towards the dem agenda has he? Even with a majority the dems are getting every decent piece of legislation shoved back down their throats.
When the GOP was in charge, they didn't bother with "cajoling", and they rammed through shitass bill after shitass bill, and the dems got to look at bush's shiteating grin as he signed the horrors, one after the other. The dems looked upset - we had a deal!!! they cried. Bullshit. There is no dealing with these guys.
Why doesn't the GOP believe that "cajoling" is more successful than fighting? Because fighting worked!
We can't rely on cajoling, sorry.
"Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.
by delphine on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:49:44 AM PDT
by jethropalerobber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:13:25 AM PDT
It's the same argument. How much time does bush spend cajoling the dems in congress to pass his agenda?
He just steps on their faces. Because he doesn't have to cajole to get what he wants, not even when the dems are the majority in congress.
The GOP does not believe in cajoling dems. Why do dems insist that cajoling the gop is a meaningful strategy??
by delphine on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:16:02 AM PDT
He crushes them too.
by pioneer111 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:18:15 AM PDT
I hardly think it wise to emulate him on any level. As has been recently shown, it's not a good long-range strategy.
by DelRPCV on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:50:33 AM PDT
Looks to be working just fine so far!
The MeatGrinder grinds on.
American jobs...sorry don't really need 'em.
FISA....civil rights....don't need those either.
MIC....doin' good, thanks fer askin'
'We' progressives have won nothing of substance and so....
The ReThugs have no reason to negotiate. None.
Obama is a sure loser even if he gets to the WH because he just doesn't get it.
Think Joe Lieberman.
'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'
by Nestor Makhnow on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:44:17 AM PDT
The ReThugs have no reason to negotiate.
...until noon on January 20, 2009. After that, the GOP has a very weak hand to play for quite some time thanks to the Bush/Rove strategy. Emulating that strategy as the only means to repair Bush's damages is a dangerous gamble.
by Foodle on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:51:11 AM PDT
have been successful in enacting conservative legislation that will outlast the next dem administration?
would you say they have been successful in moving the electorate towards their conservative vision?
by jethropalerobber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:51:00 AM PDT
At Facebook: The 12/12 Campaign / Harry Taylor for Congress 2008
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:30:57 AM PDT
I need to lose a little weight off the rear end.
by johnnygunn on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM PDT
Moving forward, there is a possibility. That possibility depends on a number of situations. The first is that America decides they truly cannot stomach the conservative movement anymore (most likely if their transgressions are pointed out daily). The second is Americans decide that Congress and the President are not doing enough to make their lives better. Remember, that is what people want. They expect their siblings to have more opportunity than they currently have. Considering the neo-con movement has moved that timeline back to the Reagan years (HA!), that is a non-starter.
The rest. You don't even want to know, if you already don't. Just consider them coming back into power and doing it again. Only with a passion beyond making money this time.
by funluvn1 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:52:09 AM PDT
John Edwards will bring "people" together to produce change not corporation, this is what he says about it.
I want to be absolutely clear that the corporate greed that is destroying the middle class of this country and stealing your children’s future, it is stealing the future of Democrats’ children, Independents’ children, Republicans’ children. I'm telling you, this is a message and a cause we can unite America around
Edwards Democrats ActBlue
by LaEscapee on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:52:33 AM PDT
More clear, Americans need to be.
We will never allow anyone to even question torture (bi-partisan), spying on Americans (bi-partisan), holding people without a warrant, for YEARS people! (bi-partisan).
You fill in the rest below. I've left the low lying fruit for you.
by funluvn1 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:57:28 AM PDT
You can't hide from me, I know your syntax...
by mmacdDE on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:03:31 AM PDT
Name like funluvn1, and you need to ask?
;-)
by funluvn1 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:10:11 AM PDT
Like that idea, I do!
For me pirates are not so special... a little green Zen master would I be!
by Malacandra on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:51:41 AM PDT
Edwards Democrat voting for Obama would like to remind you, "Concentration Moon, over the camp in the valley" Frank Zappa knew.
by high uintas on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:16:46 AM PDT
dealing with other politicians is another story, as my example of the senate references.
by jethropalerobber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM PDT
putting children's health before partisanship. Even when they all did agree that a plan to unfairly tax 20% of the population to pay for it was just fine. What makes you think a firmly sweet-talking BHO is going to change anything?
Obama is one of the good guys...but he's not (IMHO) going to change anything with his style.
The only way to get the Rethuglican's attention is to kick them in the nuts...HARD...and while they're on the floor moaning, to break both legs...and, in so doing, get them to understand we're serious.
I'm not willing to bet the farm on Mr. Nice Guy...even if I think he's not as nice as he might like us to think he is. (that's a compliment)
Let's pick a fighter...John Edwards.
The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain
by Persiflage on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:54:46 AM PDT
and I personally think I agree with you more often than you even notice my comments. You are that insightful.
Obama is not one of the good guys this time. He is one of the Democrats that will not make a difference and return this country to the American people. Yes, Senator Obama is a good guy. He cares about this country and I care positively about him. He will not even try to change this country beyond what he feels is something he can move forward via Congress. Sometimes, you have to say "screw Congress", this is right, I have the bully pulpit and I'm making it happen. He does not have, in my opinion, the personality or the temitry to do so.
Happy New Year, Persiflage!
by funluvn1 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:09:02 AM PDT
he's a far distant second choice to John, I would prefer him to the other front runner. Yes, you and I are in agreement, but I took my nice guy pill before writing anything today... :-)
Happy New Year to you too, FunLuvn1...and we'll see you at John's inaugural!!
by Persiflage on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:26:22 PM PDT
without that, the 2007 dems would have passed a number of good bills which they crafted through, yes, compromise.
assuming a dem take the WH in 2008, there will be a strong force resisting their one-party-rule. within the media, certainly. but among the people as well. "something there is that does not love one-party-rule." the pedulum always keeps swinging. taking a strategy of nut-kicking republicans will likely hasten that swing.
by jethropalerobber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM PDT
...is a much different proposition than trying to cajole from a weak position. If you think the Democrats are going to lose control of the Congress, then I can see worrying about how effective Obama will be or whether he will compromise too much with a Republican Congress. If, as I, you don't see the Republicans regaining control of the Congress anytime soon, then not so much.
On the other hand, adopting a pugnacious attitude when you are already on top can alienate an awful lot of Americans -- cf. George W. Bush.
by Foodle on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:55:49 AM PDT
Is that a direct Edwards quote? If so, is he referring to Republican voters? Republican politicians? wealthy corporate special interests? It kind of makes a difference.
He does talk a lot about fighting - fighting corporate special interests who stand in the way of policies that will strengthen America and help the middle class. The only voters I see that turning off are rich people who would never vote for a Democrat anyway.
People desperately want some straight talk, and, as Edwards says, to think that these powerful corporations are going to willingly give away their power is a fantasy.
Chomsky Fever! John McCain sucks.
by miasmo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:11:47 AM PDT
whose post i was responding to.
by jethropalerobber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:25:41 AM PDT
he's one tough son of a mill worker, and he did say he's gonna give 'em hell.
by Quilldriver on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:11:45 PM PDT
.........crossing the lines and opposing Mr. Below Freeezing?
Nope.
What does that tell you?
Anyone who knows anything about negotiation knows that the side which has been winning for 40 years and continues to win, thanks to the corrupt Versailles Dems, has no reason to negotiate.
Obama is smoking crack must have Broderalla disease if he thinks the neo-cons or the theo-cons or the paleo-cons are going to negotiate with him.
They are moving their agenda forward.
They have no reason to negotiate!
And so, they won't.
by Nestor Makhnow on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:25:07 AM PDT
Edwards is NOT "vowing to kick [Republican voters] ass." He's vowing to kick the ass of the money interests that manipulate most R voters, as well as the rest of us.
His ass-kicking is on behalf of a big chunk of R voters, and I believe they get it.
by Terra Mystica on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:29:27 AM PDT
I don't think that will be possible until a progressive president takes office and forces change that he envisions -- not a negotiation. And, hopefully, we'll have a democratic congress.
Then when good laws are written and are attempted to be passed, if the repubs in congress continue their crap, with a democratic president, we'll have the bully pulpit and be able to shine a halogen light on the repubs for their behavior. Then, with not much power, let them try and talk their way out of not voting for something that will help their constituents, while trying to support their wealthy friends.
I don't want to see a democratic president and democratic congress start 2009 with trying to be "bipartisan." I need them to force the changes necessary... and make the repubs want to play nicely with the dems, rather than the other way around.
And then on the issues where there are two reasonable sides, and I mean "reasonable," then bipartisanship can come into play and the issue can be negotiated.
A Leader Without Followers Is Just A Guy Taking A Walk
by gooderservice on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM PDT
Edward's campaign as angry. Actually, they are being influenced by his followers. They are angry! In fact, I'm mad as hell! Since November of 2006, our elected Congress continues to reach across the aisle and have its hand slapped if not bitten off. What the MSM is witnessing is a growing consensus for bold change without the weasel partisan Lieberman sense of the Senates like Kyl-Lieberman. Edwards is not angry. He never won a court case as an angry lawyer. When he help defend Bill Clinton from his attackers during the impeachment hearings, he wasn't angry. Over and over, he has been committed to furthering the cause of the Democratic Party that existed before corporate lobbyist stole our government.
Eisenhower- "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."
by NC Dem on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:23:42 PM PDT
At just the moment when Republican and independent voters are ready to jump ship and try something more sensible, coming off the 06 election that showed that no one wants what Republicans are offering, your (and Edwards') prescription for how to win is 'Tell these people we're coming to burn down their villages"? Extreme partisanship worked out so well for the Republicans that the Dems now have a sizeable advantage in Party affiliation, and a huge advantage in young people's affiliation. On seeing that evidence, the prescription becomes "more partisanship?" It'll work when we do it?
by bflaff on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:35:14 PM PDT
The self-identified party affiliation advantage has already shrunk to the point where it is all but the same as it was in November 2004. I'd hate to see that trend continue, and I'd really hate to see the GOP win in November. I'm not at all convinced that strident partisanship is a winning strategy over the next eleven months.
by Foodle on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:10:22 PM PDT
they (Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller, Levin, Feinstein, etc.) won't fight for us re: Iraq, Congressional Subpoenas, the Rule of Law, the Price of Gas, Accountability for the Mortgage Rip-offs, the MoveOn ad., etc., etc., etc. Even when they get fired up rhetorically, the next thing you know they're apologizing (Durbin and ???)!
People are angry about how bad things are. I'll never forget my disappointment when I called both my senators, Durbin & Obama asking them WHY they had voted for PATRIOT Act II. The answer: they needed to work with Senators on the other side of the aisle. I angrily informed them both that they NEED to work for their constituents.
I'll vote for Obama again but not as my first choice.
"You can tell the truth but you better have a fast horse." - Rita Mae Brown -8.38, -5.54
by majcmb1 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:46:33 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 476 comments