It's time to restore bipartisanship to America

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Anyone who truly cares about America and American democracy must vote for their Democratic Congressional candidate on Tuesday. Yes, we've all seen the propaganda points about the evil things a Democratic Congress will do. They are transparently partisan FUD, so shrill and insubstantial that I'm frankly amazed so many of the Bush faithful have embraced them. It's not just that many of them are actually good things, nor that many others are pure Rovian inventions, but that virtually all of them are moot. Unless G.W. Bush suddenly turns into a liberal door mat, he can and will veto anything the Dems attempt that doesn't rigidly toe his dogmatic line. In other words, while the Dems can rein in Bush's extremist agenda, they will not be able to advance any agenda of their own.

Let me stress this critical point. Unless G.W. Bush suddenly turns into a liberal door mat, he can and will veto anything the Dems attempt that doesn't rigidly toe his dogmatic line.

The only exceptions will be those things that are sensible enough and moderate enough that Republicans will be willing to join with Democrats to override Bush's vetos. Americans gain both a centrist, bipartisan Congressional agenda to start solving our many problems, plus the adult supervision we desperately need to restore checks and balances. It's a win-win.

I'll concede it's possible the Repubs and Dems will take the low road and squander this opportunity, choosing instead to spend our time in petty partisan squabbles. That may even be the more likely scenario. While that would be unfortunate, we can live with gridlock for two years and fix it in 2008. It's no worse than today, and we still put a leash on Bush.

The other real plus of a solid Democratic victory is that it may force introspection by true conservatives and other Republicans. Maybe they'll finally realize just how far the party has strayed. Maybe they'll decide to eject the neo-cons and religious extremists who've hijacked the GOP, restoring it to its traditional values. Maybe Tuesday will be a big win for America.


Edit:
It's been suggested that I've glossed over one other aspect of the campaign to demonize Democrats, namely that the current Republican government has been the worst offender in many of the areas they attack the Democrats:
  • Big spending? Check, the worst since Reagan's record spending (as a percentage of GDP).
  • Big government? Check, the biggest expansion ever.
  • Reckless fiscal policies? You got it, record deficits (in total dollars), almost doubling the federal debt in six years.
  • Pork? Anyone want to buy a $200 million bridge to nowhere? Too bad, you are anyway.
  • Welfare queens? How many billions in corporate welfare have we handed out lately (*cough* Exxon Mobil *cough*, not to mention the billions of profits Cheney's Halliburton is reaping from Bush's attack on Iraq, nor the multi-billion gift to big pharma when Bush & Co. prohibited the federal government from negotiating drug prices ... unlike every other insurance provider on the planet.
  • Losing the "War on Terror"? No, that would be the Bush administration. The consensus of our intelligence experts is BushCo's action have increased our risk of terrorism. Iraq was a distraction, unrelated to terrorism (and has become a fiasco, of course). Bush's unilateral attack and occupation has inflamed hatred against the U.S. around the world, especially among Muslims. GWB is the new poster boy for al Qaida recruiting. Bush started strong in Afghanistan, but he's losing it, ceding it to the warlords. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Our ports are still wide open, our borders porous. People around the globe -- including our allies -- actually fear Bush more than they do loons like Kim Jong-il. The Bush administration has failed across the board in its responsibility to make America safer, and Congressional Republicans have been willing accomplices.

In short, putting Democrats back in control in Congress is the only rational path, no matter how much gloom and doom some Bush supporters fling. It is vital to getting back not only control of America, but also for traditional Republicans to get back control of their party.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
So to restore bipartisanship to America, we must vote in an all democratic congress?
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
So to restore bipartisanship to America, we must vote in an all democratic congress?

Given that this would leave a Republican President, and possibly Senate, YES.

Of course bipartisanship isa waste of tie, too. What Americans should be fighting for is getting rid of the rigid two-party system that has failed so badly in the past two decades.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Of course bipartisanship isa waste of tie, too. What Americans should be fighting for is getting rid of the rigid two-party system that has failed so badly in the past two decades.


I agree. Get rid of the entire two party system. No more government, no more public 'office,' just individuals acting on their own volitions.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The two party system is here to stay short of a constitutional amendment, I suspect, and I sure don't trust the people in power today to fix it via an amendment.

I think our real battle is to protect at least one of the parties from being dominated by the few, and the only party available to protect now is the democratic party.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
[ ... ]
Of course bipartisanship isa waste of tie, too. What Americans should be fighting for is getting rid of the rigid two-party system that has failed so badly in the past two decades.
I agree 100%, but we have to walk before we can run. We have a malignancy in the White House that poses a uniquely urgent threat to America. A Democratic Congress is the chemotherapy we need to contain the malignancy before it's too late. Once it's gone, we can turn our attention to America's general health.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Even one house in congress is a huge win for America---for once the democrats can stop crazy Bush's biggest bumbles---and force this country into a saner path.
It won't be pretty folks---lots of vote for this popular thing and a weird rider attached to that bill that would make a maggot gag--in short shameful crap by both
parties---but at least Bush will have something putting him in check---as he develops a very lame gimp.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,839
8,430
136
i too would like to see bush and his partners in crime in congress along with the architects of his failed policies get kicked out of office, and soon.

my only hope is if the dems do manage to take over one or both houses, that they do not fall prey to the same temptations that's done such serious damage to the republican party, and that the dems will manage to undo all the damage that bush and his rubber-stamping congress and judicial branches have wreaked on us and the rest of the world.

ok, ok, ok...after reading what i just wrote i have to admit it sounds impossible at this point in time, but one can hope eh?

edit - content
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Too bad in live in Fargo, ND a state which doesn't have any of the really hot races running over here. I will be voting democratic, all the way down this election.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Of course bipartisanship isa waste of tie, too. What Americans should be fighting for is getting rid of the rigid two-party system that has failed so badly in the past two decades.


I agree. Get rid of the entire two party system. No more government, no more public 'office,' just individuals acting on their own volitions.

Awww... where have you been for so long!
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Tab
Too bad in live in Fargo, ND a state which doesn't have any of the really hot races running over here. I will be voting democratic, all the way down this election.

Yeah it kind of makes voting pointless when the person you voted for is ahead in the polls 2 to 1. Oh well I voted today but I bet my vote won't even be counted.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Advocating "bipartisanship" means only that you want the arguments to be prettier.

Same nutjobs, different dialog coach.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Bi partisanship still beats a do nothing rubber stamp republican congress---our founding fathers set up three co-equal branches---if the congress no longer matters,
we get what we have now---an all powerful chief executive gone insane.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,315
14,722
146
Maybe, instead of allowing people to "run for office", we need to find leaders of businesses who are extremely successful, and drag them, kicking and screaming into office for 4 years. If they do a good job, they get to retire with a nice little government pension. If they do a crappy job, no pension, and if they are/turn corrupt...firing squad...;)

There's something inherently wrong with a system where people spend MILLIONS of $$$ to get a job that pays ~$160K/year, or $400K for the presidency...
There's also something VERY wrong with a system that allows corporations to donate thousands, hundreds of thousands, and perhaps even millions of $$$ to political campaigns...Sure sounds like "Pay to Play" to me...
We NEED to get the $$$ out of politics, and do completely away with corporate lobbyists.
We have the best government money can (and usually does) buy...is it any wonder other countries don't want "American Democracy"?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,839
8,430
136
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Maybe, instead of allowing people to "run for office", we need to find leaders of businesses who are extremely successful, and drag them, kicking and screaming into office for 4 years. If they do a good job, they get to retire with a nice little government pension. If they do a crappy job, no pension, and if they are/turn corrupt...firing squad...;)

There's something inherently wrong with a system where people spend MILLIONS of $$$ to get a job that pays ~$160K/year, or $400K for the presidency...
There's also something VERY wrong with a system that allows corporations to donate thousands, hundreds of thousands, and perhaps even millions of $$$ to political campaigns...Sure sounds like "Pay to Play" to me...
We NEED to get the $$$ out of politics, and do completely away with corporate lobbyists.
We have the best government money can (and usually does) buy...is it any wonder other countries don't want "American Democracy"?
you mean the bush/neocon version of democracy that's of the filthy rich, by the filthy rich and for the filthy rich?.... that one?

or the one our founding fathers put together awhile back and promptly got hacked to pieces by the people now in control of our government?

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: tweaker2
you mean the bush/neocon version of democracy that's of the filthy rich, by the filthy rich and for the filthy rich?.... that one?

or the one our founding fathers put together awhile back and promptly got hacked to pieces by the people now in control of our government?
No he means the Democratic one in the Senate where 8 of the 10 richest members are Democrats (in 2004)
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,315
14,722
146
Nah, how about "Of the apeople, By the People, and For the People"
Instead of
"Of the Corporation, By the Corporation, and For the Corporation"...
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,215
4,900
136
A politician is a politician regardless of what party they clothe themselves with. As was mentioned before there is something terribly wrong when a person spends millions of dollars for a job that pays just a fraction of that amount. That in itself should tell you that something is wrong.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No he means the Democratic one in the Senate where 8 of the 10 richest members are Democrats (in 2004)
Kind of shoots down that canard about Democrats always trying to raise others' taxes, doesn't it? If they're voting to tax the wealthy, they're voting to tax themselves.
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No he means the Democratic one in the Senate where 8 of the 10 richest members are Democrats (in 2004)
Kind of shoots down that canard about Democrats always trying to raise others' taxes, doesn't it? If they're voting to tax the wealthy, they're voting to tax themselves.

Except if you look harder, most rich people shelter their taxes, so the hipocrisy lays on the shoulders of the Democrats. Tax the rich, as long as I'm not one of the rich guys getting taxed, right?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No he means the Democratic one in the Senate where 8 of the 10 richest members are Democrats (in 2004)
Kind of shoots down that canard about Democrats always trying to raise others' taxes, doesn't it? If they're voting to tax the wealthy, they're voting to tax themselves.
Except if you look harder, most rich people shelter their taxes, so the hipocrisy lays on the shoulders of the Democrats. Tax the rich, as long as I'm not one of the rich guys getting taxed, right?
So then if the Democrats are always trying to "tax the rich", but the rich shelter their income from taxes, then who exactly are the Democrats taxing? Seems like the hypocrisy is those who whine about how much the rich pay in taxes while simultaneously acknowledging that the rich don't pay so much due to tax shelters.

In any case, this is a diversion from the subject at hand, the win-win of a Democratic Congress and the BushCo fear-mongering propaganda.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,839
8,430
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: tweaker2
you mean the bush/neocon version of democracy that's of the filthy rich, by the filthy rich and for the filthy rich?.... that one?

or the one our founding fathers put together awhile back and promptly got hacked to pieces by the people now in control of our government?
No he means the Democratic one in the Senate where 8 of the 10 richest members are Democrats (in 2004)
cute. but, i can't see these rich democratic senators rubber-stamping everything bush passes their way like every republican senator is doing that always seems to benefit only the rich.

and i can't believe that these rich democratic senators are voting in lockstep with all the republican senators that are authoring and passing legislation that takes money and gov't services from the poor and middle classes and then shoveling this cash over to the very rich in the form of corporate welfare and tax breaks.

so, what's your point?

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No he means the Democratic one in the Senate where 8 of the 10 richest members are Democrats (in 2004)
Kind of shoots down that canard about Democrats always trying to raise others' taxes, doesn't it? If they're voting to tax the wealthy, they're voting to tax themselves.

Except if you look harder, most rich people shelter their taxes, so the hipocrisy lays on the shoulders of the Democrats. Tax the rich, as long as I'm not one of the rich guys getting taxed, right?

No, you miss the point and the facts. The democrats who are welathy in the Senate are voting to pay more taxes themselves.

That's why the 'rich Democrats' attack doesn't have any teeth. If it were a bill about Ketchup, you would have a point on Kerry, but the 'rich guys' label has teeth when they're voting for their own pocketbook against the public interest, not when they're voting for the public good and against their own pocketbook.

It's the same way that when the wealthy supporting the repeal of the estate tax are criticized, we don't mean Bill Gates or Warren Buffet who are opposing the repeal.