This would obviously create a difference between the two parties overnight and then actual debate could form between the two. Is this a good policy? I’d think that whatever party would be in charge would create little bills that only suicidal politicians would dare say no to, like “The Everyone Loves Puppies Act”. Aside from no-brainers (which are nonexistant in the “hearts”, “minds”, and “souls” of some congresscritters), is this a simple way to create some actual difference between the parties?
To me, a far better thing would be if everybody would vote their conscience and have the party appelation just be a general guide as to what the person believes in. It would make for chaotic government, sure, but it would also make for responsible government.
Of course not. The parties should hopefully work someday towards coming back together again. Negotiate the fine points on how to make the country better.
The current mode of "ours is the only way” is terrible. Compromise should be as important to a politician as oratory. Both should be more important than blustering.
Won’t work. I remember what happened after 9-11, with all that rhetoric about unity and bipartisanship and so forth. The Democrats bought it, and the Republicans used it as an opportunity to push their agenda. The Republican leadership simply doesn’t care about this country or it’s people; they care about themselves and their various agendas. Until that changes cooperation is useless; they’ll just use it to grab yet more wealth and power, and do more damage to the country.
Nuance: the Republican-in-name-only authoritarian pigfuckers who have hijacked and perverted what used to be the honorably conservative view for their own aristocratic purposes.
I might vote against that, first of all because any bill with a name that uncontroversial has GOT to have something terribly suspicious in the text of the bill. Plus, Congress is supposed to make laws, not be Captain Obvious.
No, the Dems shouldn’t say “Yes” when the Pubs say “No.” They should, however, say “left” when the Pubs say “right.” Too often, when the Pubs say “right” the Dems say “right”. As a result, what used to be the center is now on the left. No wonder America has lost its way.
The clue distribution program, for those who need one, will held at ___ from ___ to ____. In fairness to those having problems here, though, you’ll be easily able to identify it by the line of Democratic politicians waiting for theirs.
Bottom line: the Democratic Party needs to stand for something – a lot of somethings, generically summarized as traditional American freedoms and ideals. (And no, Shodan, “American freedoms” does not include the right to force your POV on others. There’s a name for that, but it’s probably inappropriate outside the Pit.)
On the rare occasions the Republicans say something right from the moral/political perspective of the Democrats, the Democrats should endorse it. When what they say is wrong, the Democrats should speak up and stand for what is right, and define it in clear and simple terms that the electorate as a whole can quickly grasp.
It’s not a case of opportunism, or simple opposition to right-wing extremism. To be effective, the Democratic Party has to articulate the ideals for which it stands. It has been remarkably ineffective at doing so over the past few years.
What’s uncontroversial about “Everyone loves puppies?” I mean, well, I don’t love puppies. I like them, sure they’re cute, but I’m not exactly a puppy person.
Mandating that everybody has to love puppies… isn’t that unconstitutional or something?
Well said, the current Republicans in power are not the Republicans of the past.
This is no longer the party of Lincoln, Teddy, Ike or even Tricky Dick. Even yesterdays conservatives were anti-tax & anti-spending, not anti-rights.
The Center has moved far to the right. I suspect that Nixon would be labeled a liberal by the likes of Cheney & Rove.
It can work, but the moderate wing of the Republican Party needs to take back control first.
Should Democrats Immediately Say “Yes” When Republicans Say “No”…
The Republicans have a “trap bill” tactic that makes that impossible. For example, when Democrat John Murtha, a Marine veteran who had originally supported the war, stood up to denounce it and recommend a gradual removal of troops, the republican leaders brought out a resolution to support a complete and immediate pullout. No antiwar rep had suggested such a thing, and it got scant support. Even Murtha voted against it, and it will be used against him in the next election.
If the Dems had done a knee-jerk vote to oppose the Pubs, they would have looked like fools, which was the whole purpose of the trap.
