Skip to main content

View Diary: Abandoning (Bipartisan)ship (255 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's whywe should have have forced a filibuster (9+ / 0-)

    last week instead of the dog and pony show. Make it plain that the Dems are getting on with business while the GOP obstructs. In keeping with the metaphor, this bipartisanship looks like the long-abused wife cooking dinner for her abuser.

    Democratic policies are, by their nature, bipartisan, and Republican ones are not.

    by geomoo on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:49:05 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The mistake was making bipartisan passage (12+ / 0-)

      the goal instead of passing a good bill whatever that takes.

      I'm hoping Obama doesn't make this mistake again and, if his latest speeches are any indication, he won't.

      This from the diary simply states the truth:

      On the Republican side, Republican policies cannot give rise to bipartisan solutions.  When the core philosophy of a party is that government cannot work and should do as little as possible, that philosophy benefits only those who have the resources necessary to sustain themselves regardless of whether the government is massive or whether it's so small you can drown it in a bathtub.

      Bipartisanship that aims to placate, team up, work with, or otherwise give any sort of nod to people holding this ideology cannot work to benefit the people no matter how nice co-operation with these people sounds in theory.

      "The time for justice is always right now!" - Samantha Booke, Wiley College debate team, 1935

      by Edgewater on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:07:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup, to the GOP, bipartisanship still means (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Unseen majority, LostRambler

        that the Democratic Party bends over and takes what the Republicans decide - that definition hasn't changed simply because the control of the Legislative and Executive has ....

        "There is no limit to what you can do if you have the power to change the rules." -Josh Marshall

        by grollen on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:25:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Get rid of the right to filibuster (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LostRambler

      Harry Reid should just use the "nuclear option" or the more pc term "constitutional option" and change the Standing Rules of the Senate to prevent filibusters altogether.
      The nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the to formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.

      I guarentee if the Rethugs get back into power they will use it. That is why Harry Reid should use it now. Get rid of the filibuster - period

      •  Sounds "shoe on the other foot" scary. (7+ / 0-)

        They threatened, but they never used it.  I wouldn't want us to be the first to do so. Abandoning collegiality and tradition to get our way amounts to embracing what the Republicans are doing.  You may be right, but I'm not ready to go there.

        Democratic policies are, by their nature, bipartisan, and Republican ones are not.

        by geomoo on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:31:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Collegiality and tradition should not be allowed (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slinkerwink, CParis, geomoo, LostRambler

          to stand in the way of salvaging the middle class and everyone below from the devastation wrought by the corporatist Republican party.

          If we can save the economy without it fine.  But if the situation calls for it I support doing it.

          Enough with hiding what the Republicans have done and are doing.  They want to turn our country into a third world country that slaves to increase the profits of the multi-national corporatocracy.  It must end.

          "The time for justice is always right now!" - Samantha Booke, Wiley College debate team, 1935

          by Edgewater on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:52:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  These are the same Republicans (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CParis, geomoo, LostRambler

            who called conference committee meetings without inviting the Democrats.  Someone really needs to tell them that tax cuts got us here in the first place, and if they want to discuss tax cuts, that's fine, but it isn't going into the bill.

            They make it so damned hard not to act just the way they did.

            The process needed to be, the experts say this, here's the bill that incorporates what the economists say, we've added some lower income tax relief, this will stimulate the economy by doing x, y, and z, take it or leave it.  Let them filibuster if they must - let the people know who is keeping the relief from them.

            If not me, who? If not now, when?

            by ramara on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:21:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We disagree only with respect to strategy (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slinkerwink, ramara, Edgewater

              And your argument is at least as good as mine.  Whichever strategy is chosen, it needs to be chosen with the full realization of the truths we are discussing here:

              They want to turn our country into a third world country that slaves to increase the profits of the multi-national corporatocracy.  It must end.

              Pretend bipartisanship is nowhere.

              Democratic policies are, by their nature, bipartisan, and Republican ones are not.

              by geomoo on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:30:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Reid is too wimpy to use the "nuclear option." (4+ / 0-)

        The problem is Harry Reid is a damn WIMP! You can't count on Reid for anything. Reid is and probably always will be a spineless coward.

      •  The reason the Repubs didn't use it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HeyMikey, LostRambler

        under Bush is because the Dems acquiesced in co-forming the Gang of 14; aka, they cut a deal to allow some concessions but not all of them. I would like to see the Repubs face the same scenario this time around, and maybe inducing fear by threatening the nuclear option would be a way to do that. If that doesn't work to suppress their fili-mania, I'd be in favor of reconsidering the fili option, though with reservations, in that that we'd be stripping possible future Dem minorities of one of their few defenses.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site