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
 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
24. Did I express anything like support for the other party?
Fri May 4, 2012, 11:36 AM
May 2012

I'm saying this is the reality of the system, and it's naive to expect it to function like a happy playground. The other team is going to block your legislation with everything they've got, if they're serious about pushing their agenda. If the policies they're blocking are popular, then they'll pay for it at the polls.

I understand that compromise on certain small points is always going to be necessary in politics. If government were a ship, you'd have to let the minority party arrange the deck chairs while the majority party sets the course.

What we've seen is not compromise, but the adoption of the other team's policies and fundamental beliefs. We have a Democratic president who talks about (and builds policy around) the idea of "job creators" driving the economy, for instance. That's trickle down economics, and it is irreconcilable with the traditional liberal view of the economy.

We've watched the minority party set the course, then lounge on deck and complain when we get there. You'd have to be an idiot to employ such a strategy, and I don't think Obama is an idiot. I think it's fairly obvious that he wants to go to most of the same ports the Republicans do. So to speak.

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 #24