Bipartisanship, Dems with no ideas

[Riddil]

Wasting way too much time at work today, but eh, what the hell, I can spare a little time to post. (Start a new position in 3 weeks, so I'm "short-timing" my current position) ;-)

Watching the news channels this morning and the responses to the State-of-the-Union address really highlights exactly what's wrong with politics today. The whole thing is a mess. There's a few themes you always here from Republicans:

- Why won't the Dems stop their bipartisan tricks and work with us?
- We're the only ones with ideas, the Dems don't have any original thoughts. All they do is insult our wonderful plan-for-the-future.

And the Democrats always say:
- The Republicans preach bipartisanship but everything they do is an effort to force their agenda down our throats.

*sigh*

When are they going to get it in their minds it's NOT "us vs. them". The current state-of-affairs is easy to figure out.

YES, capitol hill is bipartisan, has been for years. Because of that the party-in-power is able to force their agenda. Since Repub's control both houses of congress and the presidency, it means they can constantly try to push their agenda, and all the Dems can do is try to derail it. (ie, Social Security reform).

The Dems *can't* have any ideas for two reasons: 1) Anything they put out there will get shot down. No one will fight a war they know they'll lose. 2) These people ARE individuals. Dems don't always agree 100% with all dems, just like Repubs don't agree 100% with all Repubs. But since we have a damn 2-party system, in order to get anything to pass you MUST meet two requirements:
1) Your party must be in power
2) You must force your party-in-power to enact the changes that the leader of the party dictates

Since the Dems aren't in power there's constant in-fighting as they try to establish dominance, and wait for the pendulum of power to swing back their way. Then we'll have the exact same rule-by-insanity... only with a Ass in charge instead of an Elephant.

I'm really starting to think that we'd be better off if we had a multi-party system like other countries. At least then the political parties would be forced to work together to try to accomplish the common good, instead of their own self-serving interests.

(The BEST case would be a 0-party system, but that ain't happening).

Frustrating.

[maffick]

I agree Riddil. The struggle for greed and power outweighs any democratic ideals, and this is why we have such a mess. The "2 party" system has been effectively and intentionally stifling any other parties (libetarian, green, etc). It is too bad we don't all realize our own mortality more, it might help us realize that there are more importnant things than power and wealth.

[Happy Monkey]

What's wrong with the parties.

IMO, the only thing worse than a two-party system is one with multiple parties and, more often than not, a coalition government where the plurality party alligns with the "lesser of evil" other parties.....not an effective way to govern.

The biggest problem with our current system is the influence of money. One only need to look at the Abramoff scandal. The solution is simple -- public financing of national elections. We spend $billions to "promote democracy" around the world, yet are unwilling to ensure a better democracy at home by taking the money out of politics and enabling members of Congress to focus on policy and legislation rather than continuous fundraising.

As to the Democrats being without ideas, time will tell. I recall that the Republican "Contract with America" was presented to the public only six weeks before the 2004 mid-term elections, which they went on to win. No reason for the Dems to blow their wad too soon, only to have the right wing blogs nitpick it to death for the next nine months.

Originally Posted by Redux

No reason for the Dems to blow their wad too soon, only to have the right wing blogs nitpick it to death for the next nine months.

I cannot see the dems wishing to hold the present bag of shit pre 2012, at least.

Hi dux.

Btw, code red will take away any options in 2008. IMO.

My first usage of IMO, I think it is redundant. If it were not IMO, it would be quoted and linked.

I think this will be my last usage of IMO.

IMO is a disclaimer, IMO is, and I am human, with a specific, exclusive perspective, a unique perspective, so if any poster wishes to challenge my post they cant because they cannot see the issue from my point of view, IMO.

OK, I incorporated it twice, sue me.

[maffick]

How rude, dov, it should be IMHO.

/just my HUMBLE opinion...

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, maffick, no humble there.

Originally Posted by maffick

How rude, dov, it should be IMHO.

/just my HUMBLE opinion...

Humble? Moi? I will let you know how opinionated goes, Maffick, as I adhere to humility, k?

[Riddil]

I vote for a new word... "humbility". The ability to be humble. Humility of course is the state of being humble. Humbility on the other hand implies that you can be humble. If you so choose.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Redux

No reason for the Dems to blow their wad too soon, only to have the right wing blogs nitpick it to death for the next nine months.

What wad? As one Democratic insider noted, the Democrats had a winning formula pioneered and executed by Clinton. They even threw that away. A responsible Democratic party would have seen right through reasons for the "Mission Accomplished" war. And yet their own leadership (ie Tom Daschle) literally did not have either balls or a grasp of history to understand how wrong that war was (and is).

Democratic actions in the Alito hearings were just as devoid of strategic planning. Too often, their responses have been reactionary rather than planned and studied. Furthermore, Democrats have failed to create outright liars (spin doctors) such as Rush Limbaugh to preach to the naive.

Remember, why do politician lie? Because we want them to. We lie to ourselves and call their lies as being politically correct. We don't discuss with the blunt 'only facts matter' attitude as this poster routinely does. Therefore we have the liars we want. It’s just that the Democrat liars don't have an agenda upon which to focus their lies.

Posted those years ago, I noted that George Jr was so vulnerable that the election would have to be lost by Democrats rather than won by Republicans. Democratic support for Kerry was that poor because the party (and Kerry campaign) could not even form a message. That is total political incompetence that plagues much of the Democratic Party.

Why do Republican extremist (and Rush Limbaugh liars) so routinely attack Hillary? She is one of the few competent leaders in that party. Surprisingly, Hilary has a better focused agenda than top Democratic leaders.

So again, I ask, "What Wad?" What is this political consensus that the Democratic Party could rally behind? They don't have one which is why they had leaders such as Tom Daschle who demonstrated no backbone when George Jr lied about aluminum tubes, Saddam, a so incompetently executed attack on Tora Bora, and George Jr's 'all but protecting bin Laden' agenda.

TW...I agree with much of what you said. The current Dem leadership is lacking a coherent vision and focusing too much on what they believe was the successful rhetoric of the past.

2004 was a lost opportunity. What visionary candidate for president would make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign (and then not even fight for his reputation when it was smeared). Kerry was a miserable candidate.

On the positive side, there are up and coming Dem leaders who understand how to combine pragmatism with policy in a way that will play to the growing number of Independents, who now form the key voters. Hillary is one, despite the villfication of the wing nuts. As is Barak Obama in the Senate. He can talk about economic opportunity for all and the role of government in providing a social safety net that most workers understand. Rahm Emanuel in the House (a former policy wonk in the B. Clinton White House) is another. He is heading the House Dem Campaign Committee this year and is a master at defining the issues in a way that will resonate beyond the old Dem base.

And then there are governors in traditional red states like Bill Richardson in New Mex, Janet Napolitano in Ariz who arent afraid to take on the immigration issue and Mark Warner (former Gov) in Virginia, who is as articulate as anyone I've heard about transforming the US to be successful in the new global economy

As to spin doctors, I marvel at how the Bush White House has mastered the art.

- warrantless eavesdropping on citizens is a "terrorist surveillance program"
- gutting the Clean Air Act is the "clear skies initiative"
- opening more of the wilderness to the logging industry is the "healthy forest program"

Not to mention the "successful" spinning of the folly in Iraq (Bush - "Mission Accomplished", "Congress had access to the same intelligence as the White House", Cheney - "the insurgency is in its last throes", Rumseld (or Wolfowitz) - Iraq will fund its own reconstruction with oil revenue")

2006 will be an interesting political year.

Originally Posted by Redux

2006 will be an interesting political year.

2008 should be more interesting.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Redux

As to spin doctors, I marvel at how the Bush White House has mastered the art.

And even when they say something that sounds good:

Originally Posted by George Bush in the State of the Union

"replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

"move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Guess what? Just kidding!

his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

It was a sort of silly way to phrase it anyways, since oil is fungible.

[Riddil]

Well... IMHO (in-my-hyperbolic-opinion) the biggest reason the Dems are so quiet is b/c there's some serious in-fighting. We don't see the power struggle for the most part b/c if the Dems let on that there's multiple factions that can't agree then they'd lose even more support.

Which goes back to the sad truth that disagreeing with your party is seen as a BAD thing, when it should be the norm. Why should All Dems / Reps feel exactly the same on every single issue. Why does it seem that every vote on a major issue is polarized down party lines? Why can't Lieberman stand up and support the war, and at the same time a Republican senator announce he thinks it's a bad idea?

And yeah... even back in middle-school when I first learned of PAC's and lobbyists the thought that went through my head was... "how the hell can this be moral / legal / just?" And I'm still asking myself that question.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Guess what? Just kidding!

It gets better.

The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.