When there are only 20 Republicans left in Congress...

Forums: Politics, Democrats, Gop, Partisanship, Bipartisanship
Email this Topic • Print this Page

... do we still have to be "bipartisan"?

It seems to me that our elected officials should do what we, the American people, elected them to do. Since we are largely electing Democrats... obviously we want them to act like Democrats.

At what point do we get to stop caring about what Republicans (who are supported by fewer and fewer Americans each election) think?

Or, maybe we should be bipartisan with the Green party.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 15 • Views: 7,017 • Replies: 115

No top replies

TO HELL WITH BIPARTASAN.

Republicans must pay! They are lying, greedy, conniving cretins. We need to give all our support in rolling over them. Purge the curruption and start with the republican party.

There are plenty of new parties out there with new ideas.

0 Replies

Exactly this kind of over-reaching by the Republicans caused the current Democrat resurgence.

The country may have taken a slight shift to the left, but the Republicans will adjust and the next election will be hard-fought.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Drew, I don't buy it. There is nothing magical about "bipartisanship"

Your argument has several holes in it.

1) Moving forward with the peoples business (i.e. programs that would benefit Americans at large and the most Americans support) is not "over-reaching" (in spite of ideological Republican opposition).

2) The Republicans are doing the opposite of "adjusting". They are digging in their heals and even defiantly stating their intention to return to the past.

3) Your implicit assumption is that all parties last forever. Of course this is not the case. Once a political party becomes, at its core, out of touch with the majority of the electorate, it loses relevance over time and then ceases to exist. Historically other parties have come on the scene to fill the vacuum.

4) My point is that the good of the country, and the will of the American people are far more important then bipartisanship. I am suggesting that the Democrats act with this in mind.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Exactly this kind of over-reaching by the Republicans caused the current Democrat resurgence.

The country may have taken a slight shift to the left, but the Republicans will adjust and the next election will be hard-fought.

Yaknow, I don't actually think this is true.

I think what really shifted the country is the incompetence of the Republican party. Neither their ideology or the things they did seemed to shift the country much until it became really, really clear that they didn't really know what the hell they were doing.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Exactly this kind of over-reaching by the Republicans caused the current Democrat resurgence.

The country may have taken a slight shift to the left, but the Republicans will adjust and the next election will be hard-fought.

Yaknow, I don't actually think this is true.

I think what really shifted the country is the incompetence of the Republican party. Neither their ideology or the things they did seemed to shift the country much until it became really, really clear that they didn't really know what the hell they were doing.

Cycloptichorn

just say no

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

I'm inclined to agree with both the reasoning and the conclusion. Since some people just vote the party, they must be subscribing to that party's principles. Who am I to say they shouldn't get what they vote for.

I would still prefer that one party not be represented by the presidency and both housed, but that is what the nation voted for.

0 Replies

The nature of the beast with American politics is that there will be two dominant, antagonistic political parties.

If the country as a whole shifts left, or right, the political parties will shift right along with them.

Perhaps the Republican party will cease to be the second dominant party (I doubt it), but something will fill the vacuum.

Do ya'll remember Lash's gloating phase after the 2002 midterm elections? The Democratic party was dead. I expect that ya'll's predictions are about on par with her's.

3 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

The nature of the beast with American politics is that there will be two dominant, antagonistic political parties.

If the country as a whole shifts left, or right, the political parties will shift right along with them.

Perhaps the Republican party will cease to be the second dominant party (I doubt it), but something will fill the vacuum.

Do ya'll remember Lash's gloating phase after the 2002 midterm elections? The Democratic party was dead. I expect that ya'll's predictions are about on par with her's.

Woah woah. Not my prediction. I don't think the Republicans are dead by a long shot. They are in the stinker at the moment however.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Drew, whether the Republicans will survive or not is a tangent.

The question I am asking is about the choice facing the Democrats. Should the Democrats...

1) Do what is best for the country and listen to the will of the American public, or
2) Worry about "bipartisanship" (i.e. care about what a minority that is decreasing in numbers, relevence and support thinks)?

I want the Democrats to put the good of the country first... don't you?

What bugs me is that people waste so much energy worrying about "bipartisanship" which, in truth, is not important at all.

1 Reply

DESTROY THE REPUBLICANS!

They had eight years to exercise some introspect, To say " hey, maybe we shouldn't support the policies that are destroying the country?"

They were loyal to what they chose to be loyal to now let them suffer.

I will drive the stake into them. LET ME DRIVE THE STAKE INTO THERE HEARTS.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

The Democrat party has been replaced by the New Republican party....we'll wait and see what the Old Republicans morph into.... Hillary went way conservative, and Obama has adopted some Bush policies.....

The two parties are becoming one big rolling mass of poo.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

The Democrat party has been replaced by the New Republican party....

Well, that's kinda what I'm saying. The nation as a whole took a shift to the right after 9/11. I think people are over their initial panic, though, and are numbed to the constant drone of "terrorism, terrorism, terrorism" from the Republicans. That, coupled with the immediate threat of the current economic crisis, has caused a swing back to the Democrats.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Should the Democrats...

1) Do what is best for the country and listen to the will of the American public, or
2) Worry about "bipartisanship" (i.e. care about what a minority that is decreasing in numbers, relevence and support thinks)?

Except that's a false construct.

1. The American people elected Obama partly because of his bipartisan rhetoric. That is the will of the American people.
2. Bipartisanship is good for both the Democratic party and America.

Here's why: Bipartisanship forces you to make compromises. Compromises are good, because it keeps you from pissing off large chunks of the electorate.

ebrown p wrote:

I want the Democrats to put the good of the country first... don't you?

What bugs me is that people waste so much energy worrying about "bipartisanship" which, in truth, is not important at all.

I'll have to disagree with you on this point.

I'd like to add that I find your attitude of "[we should not] care about what a minority that is decreasing in numbers, relevence and support thinks" extremely distasteful. Let's just ignore all political minorities and do what the majority wants, eh? Given your history here of posting about Hispanic politics, I'd think you'd be a little more sensitive to that.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Bipartisanship forces you to make compromises. Compromises are good, because it keeps you from pissing off large chunks of the electorate.

This is an awfully general statement.

I can give you plenty of examples both current (Don't ask don't tell) and historical (Separate but Equal) compromises that were bad for a party and for the nation.

If you said "some compromises are good if they keep you from pissing off large chunks of the electorate. " I would agree... but making bad compromises on important issues simply for the sake of "compromise" is foolish.

Quote:

I'd like to add that I find your attitude of "[we should not] care about what a minority that is decreasing in numbers, relevence and support thinks" extremely distasteful. Let's just ignore all political minorities and do what the majority wants, eh?

This is a flawed, strawman argument.

First. You are wrong to say that I want to "ignore all political minorities". Quite the contrary. There are plenty of political minorities that I think we should pay more attention to.

I am simply saying that we should ignore a Republican party that is out of touch, hateful and obstructionist.

Quote:

Given your history here of posting about Hispanic politics, I'd think you'd be a little more sensitive to that.

You don't seem understand politics very well.

"Hispanic politics" (your term not mine) is best served by first marginalizing, and then defeating conservative Republican politicians and their supporters. There is no benefit to "compromising" with people who want to ban Spanish or have mass deportations.

This is reasonable (given the ugliness of these people). It is also politically sound because although Hispanics are a minority they have plenty of natural allies who are just as disgusted by conservative Republicans.

There is no reason to compromise with conservative Republicans. There are enough reasonable groups to compromise with... the goal being to push the opposition (i.e. Republicans) over the edge into irrelevance.

Politics means forming alliances with the good people which whom you can reach agreement. It also means defeating people who are standing in the way of progress.

3 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

First. You are wrong to say that I want to "ignore all political minorities". Quite the contrary. There are plenty of political minorities that I think we should pay more attention to.

I am simply saying that we should ignore a Republican party that is out of touch, hateful and obstructionist.

Oh. Just ignore the political minorities with whom you disagree then. Makes total sense.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
Bipartisanship forces you to make compromises. Compromises are good, because it keeps you from pissing off large chunks of the electorate.

This is an awfully general statement.

I can give you plenty of examples both current (Don't ask don't tell) and historical (Separate but Equal) compromises that were bad for a party and for the nation.

If you said "some compromises are good if they keep you from pissing off large chunks of the electorate. " I would agree... but making bad compromises on important issues simply for the sake of "compromise" is foolish.

Yes, it was meant to be a general statement. IMO, bipartisanship leads to better choices on average. There is no perfect method of making choices.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

You don't seem understand politics very well.

Doesn't take long to devolve into throwing insults, does it?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Given your history here of posting about Hispanic politics, I'd think you'd be a little more sensitive to that.

then DrewDad wrote:

Doesn't take long to devolve into throwing insults, does it?

Stop whining. It is particularly out place after you started throwing personal jabs.

(I don't mind the jabs.... it is the whining I find annoying).

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Oh. Just ignore the political minorities with whom you disagree then. Makes total sense.

The better word would be "defeat" rather than "ignore" (although ignoring a group is sometimes a fine strategy to ensuring their defeat).

Every time there is political progress on any issue there is a side that wins, and a side that loses. Every time we have made progress, there was a group of people who had to be beaten and dragged kicking and screaming until they were forced against their will to accepted the inevitable end of their cause.

The battle over segregation was hard fought.... the segregationists had to first be opposed, then demonized then marginalized until they were forced with national guard troops to accept that the nation had moved on without them. The winners in this battle didn't "compromise".... quite the contrary, we kept pushing forward for greater fairness and equality.

The abolitionist movement never accepted the ridiculous compromise. They kept fighting. Slave owners didn't give up until they were forced to accept an unconditional military surrender after a disastrous war.

Womans sufferage. The right to choose. Darwin in the classroom. All of the issues featured a defeated political group.

I have nothing against allies, and compromise with allies is given. But make no mistake. You can't be allies with everyone.

People who have an unacceptable ideology are to be defeated (using the allies you have made).

There is nothing wrong with that.

3 Replies

When there are only 20 Republicans left in Congress...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know