Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(93,952 posts)
21. if you think both party's aspirations have equal merit, or even sincerity
Fri May 4, 2012, 09:21 AM
May 2012

. . . then you could credibly view republican efforts to derail this presidency as some normal political imperative of an opposition party. But, their efforts weren't against an anti-government, corporatist, anti-constitutional, anti-minority, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-environmental, or militarist administration. Their efforts were against a presidency which aspired to what most Democrats accept as a sincere reflection of what they regard as humanist and progressive. Their intentions were to elevate their objectionable, dangerous, discriminatory, damaging, and thieving agenda over the needs and concerns that a clear majority of Americans were anxious and desperate to advance.

The fact that this President sought to include republican initiatives in legislation was more of a reflection of the political realities of a divided government than it was just some arbitrary appeasement. We can argue that a more confrontational approach would have yielded better results, but, to your point, we're not really talking about Democratic obstruction of some agenda desired or required by some majority of Americans.

In fact, many of the initiatives Democrats do obstruct are designed for the benefit of narrow, corporate interests; quite different from republican efforts, so I don't see proof of the equivalency you're expressing.

More importantly, we can see the petty and personal outlines of that initial opposition which has persisted throughout the term. Much of it is, as I express in a post above, heavily tinged with racial overtones, and, in some cases, outright racial slurs. This isn't just politics which Democrats should look to emulate in some way. It's a special brand of republican disunion from the needs and desires of the majority of Americans which seeks to divide on the basis of our differences alone, just for these politicians' personal political gain. It has very little to do with policy and everything to do with their hunger for power and their corporatist mission to neuter government for all but the Defense industry and whatever lines their pockets with our tax dollars.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

is it okay to say, "TRAITOROUS BASTARDS" in public here? ChairmanAgnostic May 2012 #1
As far as I'm concerned it damn sure is madokie May 2012 #3
yep bigtree May 2012 #9
It's never treasonous enough. Not any more. Gold Metal Flake May 2012 #17
They all look like sociopaths. Odin2005 May 2012 #2
It's not treason... kentuck May 2012 #4
I think it would be treason if foreign nationals were involved... JHB May 2012 #22
Richard Nixon really set the standard for the GOP Rex May 2012 #5
Until Newt of Grinch took over the House, they were not so evil, so ChairmanAgnostic May 2012 #6
Right. Nixon set the stage, Reagan got a crowd in the house, but... JHB May 2012 #23
Corporate "patriots", a threat to the nation. Gregorian May 2012 #7
A "confederacy of Republicans" is a great term. hifiguy May 2012 #8
Your "seeds of 2012" will yield rotten fruit peace frog May 2012 #10
It's not because usrname May 2012 #11
well, bigtree May 2012 #13
From the article: usrname May 2012 #12
Strange, isn't it? Canuckistanian May 2012 #14
This is slowly gaining attention malaise May 2012 #15
That's what (R)s do and nobody holds them responsible for their crimes just1voice May 2012 #16
A confederacy, indeed... Snarkoleptic May 2012 #18
I honestly don't see the problem. I wish the Marr May 2012 #19
shirley, ewe geste. ChairmanAgnostic May 2012 #20
if you think both party's aspirations have equal merit, or even sincerity bigtree May 2012 #21
Did I express anything like support for the other party? Marr May 2012 #24
for that to be true bigtree May 2012 #25
I see a lot of broadbrush claims there, but no specifics. Marr May 2012 #28
well, that's one argument bigtree May 2012 #29
you see no problem when the actions of the previous administration newspeak May 2012 #26
I think I just stated the opposite. Marr May 2012 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»For more than four hours,...»Reply #21