Bipartisanship on the vast majority of issues, is simply a fantasy

[cali]

Even if Democrats take back the Senate, there is no possibility of true bipartisanship, unless you deludedly believe that selling out bedrock Democratic principles somehow constitutes bipartisanship. President Obama went for bipartisanship and even as willing as he was to compromise, he was stymied by the Republicans. That won't be changing.

It's delusional to believe that Republicans are going to move one fucking inch from their vile agenda of privatisation and dismantling. And I believe that Democratic candidates could explain this to the voting public- much as most voters love the concept of bipartisanship.i

[morningfog]

1. The Democratic candidate MUST explain this. We are dealing with scorched earth

lunatics on the other side. They cannot be trusted or worked with. The bipartisan talk is a delusion that hurts us time and time again.

[Enthusiast]

11. +1 a huge bunch!

[djean111]

2. Yes, in this country, in Washington DC, bipartisanship means the Democrats caved (or did what

they really wanted to do, but could cover their asses with "bipartisanship&quot and did what the GOP wanted to do all along. Usually accompanied by a picture of Boehner smiling like a drunken shark and shaking a DINO's paw.
Lot of tired platitudes being thrown around lately. And funny how only one candidate is asked to explain in detail, right now! every little detail of everything they hope to achieve while another is almost literally flinging ponies and rainbows around, with no details of how to feed them.

[octoberlib]

3. Nope. Congress is too polarized and the GOP is too extremist.

I actually think gridlock serves the Republicans' purpose.

[cantbeserious]

4. Agreed - All Too True

eom

[Betty Karlson]

5. Yes indeed

Bipartisanship is a noble idea, but it can only happen when BOTH sides are willing to give and take.

Where one side TAKES whatever the other side GIVES, its called conditional surrender.

[cali]

6. exactly. And surrender is the only thing republicans are willing to consider.

[hatrack]

7. The GOP is no longer a party - it's a cult

Its membership is about 50% Randroids and about 50% End Times televangelists.

Cults cannot be reasoned with or appeased.

Fuck "bipartisanship" with these venal, paranoid clowns.

[Enthusiast]

13. +1 You nailed it.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. There's also apparently an adequate supply of Corporate Tools among them--

not that the Dems are exactly short on that category themselves.

[Vinca]

8. You are 100% correct.

Bipartisanship is no longer attainable. I think the end of civility came with right wing talk radio and Faux News. As hatrack noted, they're a cult, not a party.

[valerief]

9. We know that. We've always known, in this century, bipartisanship talk is bullshit. nt

[daleanime]

12. +1

[zeemike]

10. There is only one way to change things.

And that is to change congress.
And to change congress we need leadership in the party that wants to change things...real change, change the 60% of people who do not vote can believe in.
Get them to the polls with hope of change with a populist agenda and the congress will change too.

I have a deream...that one election we will have such a candidate...my dream is that ir is Sanders/Warren running for president and I will able to vote for that change and see it beguine before I die...and it needs to happen this election cycle.

[Dont call me Shirley]

14. K & R x 1,000,000, cali

[Cosmocat]

15. the only time you hear the word "bipartisanship"

is when rs have the majority ...

When they are in the minority you never hear the fucking word.

[hootinholler]

16. THe Birchers can only be beaten

They will not compromise.

I've heard Bernie say that about the tea party, but sadly my google fu isn't up to finding the clip this morning.

[LWolf]

17. So far, that's exactly how

"bipartisanship" has been demonstrated: selling out bedrock Democratic principles.

[MineralMan]

18. In all likelihood, the President elected in 2016 is going to face

a similar situation to what President Obama has had to deal with during most of his time in office. We might possibly take back the Senate in 2016, but there's virtually no chance of taking the House.

So, the dilemma is: Which candidate will be able to get the most done in that situation? President Obama has accomplished some things, but not all he would have liked to accomplish. As long as Republicans control at least one congressional house, the problem will remain.

Bottom line: Unless we are able to gain strong majorities in both houses, we're going to be stuck with Republican obstructionism. We need to consider that as we approach the elections next year. We also need to be as certain as possible not to let the Republicans win the White House. With control of all three branches of government, they will certainly roll everything back as far as possible.

This will be a major topic of discussion as we move into the actual campaign and election period. Careful consideration to reality is going to be needed.

[Romulox]

19. That's politics in this, the best of all possible worlds...

[MineralMan]

20. Yes, it is.

Unfortunately, we have a voting public that is almost equally divided. We could focus on registering the unregistered and make sure that everyone goes to the polls, but we've shown no sign that we can do that. We've also shrugged off that method time and time again.

So, here we are, with Congress controlled by Republicans and an election coming in less than 18 months. What are we going to do? Will we just hope for the best? Will we opt for a strategy that gives the Republicans control of the White House.

[Romulox]

22. I don't care to read your bromides. Being called a Dr. Pangloss is not a compliment. nt

[MineralMan]

34. You needn't read them, Romulox.

You are choosing to read them. Simply don't, or put me on Ignore. I will continue to write here. Whether you see what I write is your choice.

[Romulox]

37. I'll respond to your nonsense, as I wish, without seeking permission from you. nt

[MineralMan]

41. OK. Whatever you like is fine with me.

Nobody on DU needs permission to reply to posts. I thought everyone knew that. You said you "didn't care" to read my posts. I explained how you could avoid that. I don't care whether you read them or not, really.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Oregon just established automatic voter registration to register the unregistered and we do

our elections by mail so people can vote without having to get people to the polls. National level Democrats such as Hillary Clinton are picking up the idea of automatic registration, this is a new development. So that method is in fact not being shrugged off today as it has been for all time prior to now.
I think it is very interesting that both Clinton and Sanders are taking on the process itself, how we do debates, how we run elections, how we register voters, and they are doing it right out of the gate. I am personally very happy about that, out of both of them.

[jeff47]

25. No, we really don't.

Unfortunately, we have a voting public that is almost equally divided.

No, we really don't.

We have 50-60% of the voting public who feels that neither party gives a shit about them. They'll vote, but only if a candidate gives them a reason to show up. Faux-pragmatism isn't going to get them to show up. "Yes, these policies totally fuck you over, but they're bipartisan!!" isn't going to differentiate our candidates from Republicans. They're explicitly designed to not do so.

Of the remaining 40-50%, a little over half are hardcore Republicans. A little under half are hardcore Democrats. Neither will be satisfied by compromising.

How about instead of blending the lines between our party and the Republicans, we go after the much larger block of voters who can't find the differences we bury?

[MineralMan]

35. I'm all for that. I've been trying to do that for years.

[Romulox]

38. Including the years spent on that *other* website, eh? nt

[MineralMan]

43. Hmm...

The Meta Forum is closed. Carry on.

[Romulox]

47. You want to appeal to your "years" of effort. Well then, how you spent those years is relevant. nt

[Punx]

26. Fox News

Was all over Hillary's voting proposal yesterday afternoon. Definitely hit a nerve.

What we do in Oregon is working well, and can be verified. If Democrats ever lose control of the state government I suspect one of the first thing the Rethugs will do is somehow try to repeal vote-by-mail.

[MineralMan]

42. Yes, Oregon is way ahead of the game. Bravo to them!

Maybe we'll all have the same access one day. I certainly hope so.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. We, the citizens, have to change the game.

One thing the Establishment (does that word date me? ) hasn't had to deal with in recent years is a mobilized and energized public.
In fact, I would argue that they have done their best to disengage us from activism.

Absent citizen involvement and action, a candidacy like Bernie's will go nowhere, and if that citizen participation wavers after the election, everything reverts to "normal." Unfortunately, "normal" is an ecological, cultural and physical death trip.

Can we make things go differently this time? I don't know. But I know I have to do my little part to help, and the people I know who are into Bernie are into him in a big way, seeming ready to put some major effort into it.

There's too much riding on the outcome this time to do less.

[MineralMan]

32. Exactly right. We need to motivate currently unmotivated people

to actually do something. Frankly, the very best thing they can do is register and vote in numbers that have not been seen for decades at least.

From Millennials to people who have given up and are economically disadvantages, we need those who need change to make that change happen, in the ballot box. That's the only place they can act in time to actually forestall disaster.

We can do it, but will we do it? I have registered new voters in my own precinct in every election since 2004 where I live now. Before that, I did the same in my community in California. I learned that newly-registered voters can be counted on to show up on election day. I have seen then there and spoken to them there. However, I am the only person in my own precinct who is involved in actively registering new voters, and I'm not enough.

One thing is certain, though: No amount of typing on this internet forum will make any change at all. The people we need to motivate are not here. We might use social media, but most of the people who are currently not voting aren't reading political stuff on social media, either. Many do not even have access the the Internet.

It will take willing activists to go out and make this happen where they live. In every state, there are millions of people who could, but do not vote. We need to help them understand why they should and help them to do so. And it won't happen in the two months before the election. It must start now and continue.

Will that happen? I doubt it. It's too hard. It takes too much time. Many people would rather complain than act. But it can happen, if we truly want it to happen. I know I want it to happen, so I'll be trying my best, and plan to spend even more time on it than in the past.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. I agree that just being here doesn't do much.

Every day I generally manage to get a few more people on the Bernie wagon. I'm taking a bunch of "12-step" handouts to my massage therapist in an hour or so for her to distribute. (She's an old friend & recovering Green, so she's plugged in to that whole network). Last night I answered an email from an old friend from my school years & went on some about my enthusiasm for Bernie. He and his wife are retired teachers in the Milwaukee area with a lot of social connections. Just things like that. But every day.

And if by some wonderful chance we get Bernie elected, the job of the citizenry is just beginning.

[dawg]

21. Not so!

There was bipartisanship on NAFTA, ending welfare as we know it, repealing Glass-Steagall, making the Bush tax cuts permanent up to $400,000 annual income; and even now, there is bipartisanship over the TPP.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. Exactly. Bipartisanship occurs when

members of both parties respond to the needs of their corporate masters.

[KingCharlemagne]

29. There was bi-partisanship on Iraq in 2002, when Gebhardt and Daschle agreed in the

Rose Garden concordat to take Iraq "off the table" for the 2002 mid-terms.

Worst strategic poltiical mistake in at least a generation, in my opinion. And one that renders Gebhardt and Dascle worthy of nothing more than a historian's contempt.

[jwirr]

23. I agree because our intent is to make the country better for all people and theirs is just the

opposite. They may talk a good line but they never do anything that will not benefit their party and especially the rich.

Years ago we would lose an election but we would still control the House. And that was seen as a very important thing because the House controlled the money. And that is one of the big reasons for gerrymandering. They intend to keep the House.

Making deals with them is like making deals with the devil.

[sabrina 1]

30. It depends on how much more Democrats are willing to give up. So long as the compromises

are all one-sided, and the offers come even before the bargaining begins, there will be what THEY call 'bi-partisanship'. But what is really the game played by the Corporate owned representatives of Wall St whereby we watch until in the end just enough of the 'rotating villains' (thanks to whoever came up with that) vote with the Republicans to complete the deal for their Corporate Bosses.

Do they think we are all stupid, or are they so dismissive of the intelligence of the average voter that they don't even consider how people might react to more of the same?

[raouldukelives]

33. I truly believe corporate money is to blame for all of our ills.

I know I say it virtually everyday, in every post, but I am sure of it heart and soul.

The more power & money the shareholders and the corporations they own have, the less political representation non-investors have.
The less the non-investors have, the less it is a democracy.

We are where we are because of the shortsighted and selfish greed of everyone who continues to invest in, feed and dutifully ignore the elephant in the room.

[DonCoquixote]

39. the Elephant in the room

is that the GOP Congress knows it can be paid literally to MISgovern, by the rich who will feed their pacs with hundred of Millions in revenue. In Mexico, they call this "gold or lead" meaning you take the bribe, or get shot.

[JEB]

40. It doesn't pay to negotiate with terrorists. eom

[awoke_in_2003]

44. These days "bipartisanship"

means both parties are getting ready to screw us.

[magical thyme]

45. certain problems simply don't have compromise solutions

I always think of it like surgery. Surgeon X says the kidney on the right is necrotic. Surgeon Y says no, it's the kidney on the left.

Bipartisanship would compromise, remove half of each kidney and leave the patient with no functioning kidney at all.

Compromise just doesn't work. You need to correctly identify some problems and solve the actual problem, not "make nice" and "get along" with 'bi-partisanship.'

[Johonny]

46. Clean water, clean air, infrastructure spending, nuclear arms treaties

these used to be bipartisan issues than nearly all of congress supported 40 years ago. Not thanks to the magic of GOP labeling they are liberal issues Obama and Democrats use to split the nation. When you want clean drinking water and they want polluted water... how do you compromise? Who wants slightly polluted water? Who wants half a bridge? The concept is insane. Obama has a health care plan, it wasn't perfect, isn't the end, and they want... what? Where is their plan? They want health care for the rich and nothing for the poor. That's what they want.

[Romulox]

48. Look at the TPP. It's very real "bipartisanship"--both parties against the American people. nt