Democrats should replace Pelosi

Onceler said:
I disagree. There are plenty of moderate members of both parties, which is what I meant about forging coalitions. You don't have to start from a position of needing to "compromise" with the most extreme righties.

Honestly, it's about the only way any meaningful thing gets done. You want to go way left in the leadership & negotiations, you give power to the far right on the other side, and everyone digs their heels in depending on what letter comes after their name. That's how we get "moral" victories, but no practical change in our country.

Maybe the other school of thought will get lucky, and get an even bigger majority in Congress this fall with a Dem President, so they can just ram whatever they want through for 2 years. They'll only get 2 years that way, though. I'm interested in something more constructive, because fight club politics doesn't work, and never has.
Click to expand...


You see, Lorax, you think too much like me....and I am an alienated member of the national democratic party. You and I have differing views on several issues but the same on some important ones. We have discovered that for the past few years. We have also seen the edges of the parties in power with the middle unable to get anything done. Until the middle start getting some of the positions of real power you will have the edges of one for a couple of years, 4 at the most, and then the edges of the other for the next 2 to 4 years.
 
Onceler said:
I'm not dismissing the agenda, and support much of it, which is why I hate to see it squandered for "moral victories."

Yes, Americans agree with much of that, but they wouldn't agree with an entirely left-wing approach to those ideas, without bipartisanship. Health care won't make it without bipartisan support; they will not pass a piece of legislation like that along party lines.

It's not practical; I know you think it's the best way, but ultimately, it will lead to us being here in 20 years still talking about the failures of healthcare & education & the rest.
Click to expand...

You know what I think you’re way would get us? Nothing. No health care whatsoever, maybe a small minimum wage increase ten years from now, and nothing serious done on the environment – you’d get some window dressing on that. You know, can we possibly see what a more liberal agenda might get us? I’d like to see. I know you are more moderate than I am, and I think it’s just a disagreement in viewpoint, there is probably no point in arguing about it.
 
Darla said:
Of course you agree with it. You’re a Libertarian who wants to pursue a right wing economic agenda. You should either join the Republican party and vote for your leader there, or expand the Libertarian party, but you’re not picking the leader of the liberal party in this country.
Click to expand...

I'm not friends with Jesus and I don't care what people do in their bedrooms so I'm not a Republican. And the Libertarians are essentially shut out (along with the Greens) thanks to your ridiculous major parties.
 
Dungheap said:
Exactly.

As for the idea that "working with Republicans" is the only way to get things done. It doesn't work, particularly in the House. They are raving lunatics. The ones that aren't have been voting with the Democrats on most important legislation (there are about 30 of them).
Click to expand...

I really couldn’t agree with this more, and do not know how it is that people don’t see it.
 
leaningright said:
You see, Lorax, you think too much like me....and I am an alienated member of the national democratic party. You and I have differing views on several issues but the same on some important ones. We have discovered that for the past few years. We have also seen the edges of the parties in power with the middle unable to get anything done. Until the middle start getting some of the positions of real power you will have the edges of one for a couple of years, 4 at the most, and then the edges of the other for the next 2 to 4 years.
Click to expand...

I’d like to see you define the middle, most especially on social issues. Everybody thinks they’re in the middle around here.
 
Darla said:
I really couldn’t agree with this more, and do not know how it is that people don’t see it.
Click to expand...

Hey don't take it out on us, take it up with Obama. He's the one who likes to talk about working with Republicans. And guess what? People like hearing it.
 
Epicurus said:
Okay let's approach this a different way.

Dungheap, in what ways have the Democratic House been effective since 2006?
Click to expand...

Take a look at that link you posted and look at the vetoed and pending bills. That's most of the stuff that I like. Basically, anything that Bush vetoed or the Republicans filibustered is a pretty good bill (SCHIP Expansion, Employee Free Choice Act, Iraq Withdrawal Legislation, FISA Reauthorization (the one that had the veto threat and that was filibustered), Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, recent Energy Legislation, Stem Cell Research, New G.I. Bill, etc. . . ).
 
Darla said:
But you can have the last word Onceler, I don’t want to SF you! :)
Click to expand...

Thank God; one SF is enough for me.

I know I'm a little more moderate than you (maybe a lot, I don't know), but I have a hunch that our ultimate vision for how we'd like America to be isn't too far apart. We just disagree on how to get there.
 
Epicurus said:
Hey don't take it out on us, take it up with Obama. He's the one who likes to talk about working with Republicans. And guess what? People like hearing it.
Click to expand...


People like hearing lots of fantastic shit. People like the idea of it and politicians like the appearance of it (that's why Joe Lieberman is so loved by the right) but in reality it seldom works.
 
Onceler said:
Thank God; one SF is enough for me.

I know I'm a little more moderate than you (maybe a lot, I don't know), but I have a hunch that our ultimate vision for how we'd like America to be isn't too far apart. We just disagree on how to get there.
Click to expand...

That’s probably true.
 
Dungheap said:
People like hearing lots of fantastic shit. People like the idea of it and politicians like the appearance of it (that's why Joe Lieberman is so loved by the right) but in reality it seldom works.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that. I think Clinton worked brilliantly with a Republican Congress on both liberal & conservative issues, and he didn't have to go all "Lieberman" to do it.

What Lieberman has done is different. He's not trying to forge coalitions or find a middle ground; he's trying to assimilate, like the Borg.
 
Dungheap said:
Take a look at that link you posted and look at the vetoed and pending bills. That's most of the stuff that I like. Basically, anything that Bush vetoed or the Republicans filibustered is a pretty good bill (SCHIP Expansion, Employee Free Choice Act, Iraq Withdrawal Legislation, FISA Reauthorization (the one that had the veto threat and that was filibustered), Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, recent Energy Legislation, Stem Cell Research, New G.I. Bill, etc. . . ).
Click to expand...

So they passed good things like SCHIP that ultimately failed, and they passed shitty things like the war funding bill and the Protect America Act that were enacted, and this an argument for their effectiveness?

Before you say it, yes I know that their majority in the Senate is too slim to do it alone. But I genuinely believe that with around 70% of people opposed to the war, it would not be that hard to bring a handful of Republicans on board for a timetable. Same with SCHIP. I suppose really more blame lies with Reid than Pelosi, but I think that both of them could have been more cooperative with Republicans on issues with broad appeal.
 
Onceler said:
I disagree with that. I think Clinton worked brilliantly with a Republican Congress on both liberal & conservative issues, and he didn't have to go all "Lieberman" to do it.

What Lieberman has done is different. He's not trying to forge coalitions or find a middle ground; he's trying to assimilate, like the Borg.
Click to expand...

Onceler, Clinton had to face them down in a standoff, one which shut down the government, and he won because he won the PR war against Gingrich and a majority of Americans blamed the R’s for the shutdown. I mean, the Gingrich types are exactly who I am talking about – you don’t negotiate with them. They are trying to get you to stumble so that you fall, and then they will take a shovel and beat you to death to make sure you never get back up. Clinton took the shovel and beat them to death with it.

And he also caved on far too many things first – that’s why they moved in for the kill.
 
Epicurus said:
So they passed good things like SCHIP that ultimately failed, and they passed shitty things like the war funding bill and the Protect America Act that were enacted, and this an argument for their effectiveness?

Before you say it, yes I know that their majority in the Senate is too slim to do it alone. But I genuinely believe that with around 70% of people opposed to the war, it would not be that hard to bring a handful of Republicans on board for a timetable. Same with SCHIP. I suppose really more blame lies with Reid than Pelosi, but I think that both of them could have been more cooperative with Republicans on issues with broad appeal.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that 70% of people were NEVER for cutting off funding “for the troops”. Now, no such thing would have happened, but that’s the narrative already set, and polls showed Americans did not support that.
 
Darla said:
You are forgetting that 70% of people were NEVER for cutting off funding “for the troops”. Now, no such thing would have happened, but that’s the narrative already set, and polls showed Americans did not support that.
Click to expand...

I said timetable not cutting off funding.
 
uscitizen said:
Lets wait till al Frankin gets in and put him in charge.
Click to expand...

As someone from MN Franken has zero chance, people hate him and we already had Jesse "The Body" Ventura. Look out for independent Dean Barkley. People also have a sour taste for Norm Coleman, except hockey fans.
 
Darla said:
I’d like to see you define the middle, most especially on social issues. Everybody thinks they’re in the middle around here.
Click to expand...

I am definitely not in the middle when it comes to social issues or the right to keep and bear arms. Most here (including you, I think) know this. I am concerned about the make up of the Supreme Court and I know it will be reshaped when Obama becomes president.....this definitely worries me, not with respect to abortion/gay rights or anything like that but solely because of the threats to the 2nd ammendment. Abortion isn't going anywhere, unfortunately, even if Sarah Palin herself were on the court.

As to other parts of the agenda, I am definitely for some form of universal health care. People should have access to adequate care. Dad had a triple bypass this past Friday and I would hate to think where he'd be without the private insurance he has as well as his military insurance.

I also support greener legislation and anything that we can do to get us off of the Middle Eastern oil tit. We have to develop new forms of power and the government should push for it....hard. I don't support this because I think we are killing the planet but because I see it as a national security issue. Lorax and I have talked about this before and we want the same things in this area, but for different reasons. Who cares about the reason, people like us (moderates in congress) should be able to get something done.

Raise the minimum wage - that's a good thing, IMO, as long as it isn't made to be ridiculous. I have supported every minimum wage increase that has happened in the last 20 years.

I could go on with the democratic policies that I support....but I simply cannot go against my moral make-up and vote for the democratic candidates for president that I have seen in the last few elections. So I look to the middle for guys like Ford, Dan Boren, and yes, Mike Huckabee. Guys that would get the above agenda to the forefront but still keep the things I hold dear intact.

You will take issue with my support for Huckabee becasue of his religiousness, but if you look closely at how he governed Arkansas you will see that he did indeed govern from the center as to the issues mentioned above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top