It’s not the Democrats that poisoned the atmosphere. Trying to govern and pass Democratic-supported legislation is not “poisoning the atmosphere”. It’s not like Democrats haven’t been campaigning on health care reform (and other legislation) for decades – why wouldn’t they try and pass it, once that they finally could?
Shouting “you lie!” during State of the Union, declaring that the President has unAmerican values, and the Senate Minority leader declaring that his top priority is ensuring the President doesn’t get re-elected is “poisoning the atmosphere”.
Forgive me, I thought you wanted an interaction – an exchange of ideas between folks who disagree. If you just wanted to preach, perhaps there are better places for that.
The first thing that poisoned the atmosphere was Obama supposedly asking for Republican ideas, but after getting them, implying that maybe he might use them but just remember, “I won.”
Certain things are axiomatic. And I didn’t start this “interaction”. All I said was that ramming things through a 51% vote does nothing to alleviate the poisonous hyper-partisanship. If you disagree with that, go ahead and argue.
Another thing that doesn’t help is including Republican ideas without asking if they are actually Republican ideas and then slamming Republicans for not voting for the things you never consulted them on.
That’s not what you said, because I agree with that. I agree that “ramming things through a 51% vote does nothing to alleviate the poisonous hyper-partisanship”. “Ramming things through a 51% vote” does actually get bills passed, though, and in some cases is the only way.
I guess I should have remembered that, to you, the Republicans are tiny delicate flowers that should be handled with the utmost kindness, respect, and affection.
True, but there are political consequences for doing so. Be honest now. If the GOP had gone ahead and passed SS privatization in 2005, would or would not Democrats be campaigning like crazy to repeal it and sending repeal bills to Bush’s desk starting in 2007? And wouldn’t Democratic partisans hate it intensely because it was a strictly GOP bill? And wouldn’t many independents be sour on the idea because it was rammed through by one party?
For better or worse, this country likes bipartisanship. Partisan bills tend to be unpopular.
Wrong. He reached out to the Republicans for several years. And I wish he hadn’t – the modern Republican party, and their goals, are bad for Americans and for America. “Real” diplomacy and negotiation (as you’re describing) with the modern Republican party would also be bad for Americans and for America. There’s no compromise that the modern Republican party would allow that would not be bad for Americans and for America.
Not engaging in “diplomacy” with the modern Republican party is far better than the alternative.
Opinion, of course. Just as your (mostly fact-free and due to extreme personal dislike) criticisms of Obama’s competence are only your opinion.
Having this discussion while we all pretend the GOP is a reasonable party that honestly wants to make things better and truly has the best interests of America as their first priority is a huge pointless waste of time. In theory i agree with both Terr and Adaher, and if there was a real opposition party i would want things to work the same way they do. Currently that is not the case and expecting anyone to treat the Republicans like they have anything valid to add would be the biggest mistake any Democrat could make.
No, they would have hated because it was a terrible idea. It’s also not similar in that the Democrats never proposed privatizing SS. The Republicans have proposed much of what got passed and then ran away from it when a Democratic President supported it.
He made a show of doing so, or he did so ineffectively. He hasn’t made much progress in diplomacy in the world either, although at least with foreigners he refrains from attacking them while he negotiates with them.
No, the Democrats just failed Diplomacy 101. You don’t just take ideas mentioned by the other side before, put it in a treaty, and then demand the other side support it because sometime in the past they supported some of the ideas in it before. You also don’t lecture them on what a compromise it is and how unreasonable they are for not supporting it.
That’s exactly what many Republicans would say, word for word, about Democrats, substituting “Democrat” for “Republican” in your paragraph.
In other words, you sound no different than the opposing side.