WP: Democrats To Start Without GOP Input

[kskiska]

Quick Passage of First Bills Sought

Tuesday, January 2, 2007; A01

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100784.html

[anitar1]

1. excellent. n/t

[rodeodance]

31. I agree.

[PerceptionManagement]

37. Yea, Let Chimpy Veto Universal Health Care!!!

[harpboy_ak]

55. About effing time!

If we have the power and don't use it, the Pukes will treat it as a sign of weakness. It's time to keep the promises made to voters! Steny really needs to keep a tight rope for the first several months.

We can't let the Pukes peel off these dogs and those dogs, etc.

Let W veto what the public wants, more fodder for '08.

[TellTheTruth82]

175. Let's be careful here

harpboy writes: It's time to keep the promises made to voters!

Yet, the promise was clearly made to voters to be bipartisan. If this promise is not kept (and to be sure, most political promises are not), then credibility is lost. Is a loss of credibility desired - let me rephrase that - is dishonesty OK? I have a hard time with that! ( I generally do not believe that the ends justify the means).

[SemperEadem]

182. credibility won't be lost

Most of the country (that majority which voted the pukes out of office) knows that the pukes were never interested in bipartisanship while they had their turn at the wheel...and turnabout is fair play. The country also knows not to expect the pukes to suddenly 'flip flop', change their tack and try to be cooperative with the Dems. It's just that they're whining, wailing and crying now that they don't have the power. The "Minority Bill of Rights" tells us that up front---the exact things they denied the Dems they are seeking now that their asses have been handed back to them.

This isn't about being nice anymore---and the Dems have been playing too nice for too long. It's what has had them beaten down for way too long. The pukes have framed the debate for too long and it's time for THEM to walk the walk instead of talking the talk of bipartisanship. It's time for THEM to choose for either big business/wealthy 1%ers/corporations or for 'WE THE PEOPLE'. It's time for the Democrats to put some sting into their words and it's time the pukes began saying 'ouch'. Eff what you heard. I doubt any adult who is up on their politics and have lived through the last 12 years is that naive to believe that stripping off the veneer of the false "let's get along" that the pukes are hiding behind amounts to the Dems lying.

No---it's time to play hardball, s0n.

[TellTheTruth82]

191. Credibility

If someone says one thing and does something else, that's lying, and it is unethical. Lord knows the Republicans have been doing that for a while. So that makes it OK for the Democrats to do it? Here we are preaching about ethics, and the first thing Democrats do is show they can be wihtout ethics as much as the Republicans. Many Republican voters voted for Democrats because of this issue. They put the Democrats in office. If they then show they are no better, what happens to those votes? It would have been better to say, we do not intend to cooperate with the Republicans and take the fallout (which would have been OK, since it was better than the alternative). I consider lying and unethical behavior to be bad, no matter the source.

[SemperEadem]

201. honey, this is politics

go on and keep considering it unethical... ain't going to stop them. Desire, as U2 sang, "is a promise in the year of election".

[Andromeda]

202. There will be plenty of time to be bipartisan.

On important issues like the minumum wage, student loans, etc., the Dems want to make sure these bills take priority and pass without interference of House Rethugs who would attach pork barrel projects and other exceptions to the bill. Action like this could kill the bill or delay it thus complicating its passing.

[Springster]

203. It's not that they could actually block them since they don't have the votes.

It's simply a process issue. Let them have their say and then vote their proposals down. When the tide turns, and it will from time to time, Dems will be back in the same boat, frozen out because they broke THEIR word.

[DaDeacon]

124. Republicans can get behind whatever law they want as long as it's Democrat!

get them the way the way they got us sandpaper no lube

[Conscious Confucius]

2. Different leaders, same results.

Let's continue dividing the country.

[truthisfreedom]

5. Welcome to DU.

Hope you enjoy your stay.

[Conscious Confucius]

6. Thanks.

You're very kind.

[Skittles]

14. oh PLEASE

I would not give those republican bastards the time of day; they have proven over and over they CANNOT BE TRUSTED

[tblue]

114. Agreed. But am I the only one questioning the slant on this article? Sounds like r/w whining 2 me

[CatWoman]

18. same shit; different day

[pnwmom]

135. The affected bills, like the minimum wage bill, have been extensively

debated already. The snippet of the article doesn't give a good sense of the whole.

[hang a left]

26. Divide the county???

No disrespect intended. But what the heck are you talking about.

[bperci108]

141. Projection.

A sure sign of "Conservatism".


Anyone betting on Time-to-Tombstone? :evilgrin:


But I could be wrong...

[alarimer]

70. It's the republicans who have been dividing the country

they can sit and watch while the Democrats use the rules the Republicans put in place. See how they like it for a change.

[TommyO]

77. What's divisive about implementing the changes

that the Democrats were voted in to make? Keeping Republicans from interfering during the early formative phase of the new Democratic majority makes sense.

[AwakeAtLast]

79. And tightening ethics rules?

That's the major reason they have to keep Repubs hands out of it. :thumbsup:

[CompassionateLib]

154. Sure

Democrats clean of hand? Not a chance. This is not an ideology question, it is a question of rational distrust of politicians. We can trust Democrats, as long as they are under a microscope at all times. If you don't believe that and actually think we can trust Democratic politicians without their being watched, you haven't been paying attention. It is the people we can trust and the politicians only as long as they are visible and accountable to us.

[CompassionateLib]

155. I like keeping the Reps out

That way the Congress will accomplish nothing, which is generally the best thing for the Congress to do. Like staying out of Iraq, not meddling with our bodies, not spending our money on politically motivated waste.

Mark Twain, "the opposite of progress is Congress."

[LSK]

90. LOL

On a visit from somewhere else perhaps?

[lisby]

101. I wish we could all stop accusing anyone who offers

an opposing viewpoint as a spy from "somewhere else" or a heretic or whatever. It's such a clear sign that we are no better than them.

Lisby

[qazplm]

117. especially since

some of us agree with him, in that, I dont think this is a tactic we should be copying from the republicans.

[LSK]

125. I have watched these foul SOBs on CSPAN long enough

To know that they offer NOTHING constructive and benefitial to this country unless you are rich or own a defense contracting business.

[Conscious Confucius]

130. You don't like 'em, but apparently over 50% of the country does.

Considering all Republican presidential candidates are polling ahead of every Democrat, then perhaps people in the country still support the Republicans. They divided the country, sure, I never said they didn't, however we shouldn't continue the split.

Accusing me of being a Republican is little more than childish, seeing as I am far left of Democratic these days. I offered an opposing view, why should that entail me being a spy? We should be able to hold conversation without personal attacks or name calling. Such behavior is why the Dems are in shambles these days. As has been said on here before, we would wat our own young. It's all true, too.

[Lil Red]

146. Please site your source.

Last week, all Republics were polling behind Gore. When did this change. And by the way, "over 50% is not Republican...barely a third are. Are you one of them by any chance?

[lancdem]

147. You need to check

www.pollingreport.com

You're info is months old. Recent polls have Edwards, Obama, Clinton and even Gore, who's probably not running, competitive or even ahead of McCain, etc. McCain has dropped considerably in head-to-head matchups.

[go west young man]

189. Come on.... Dems are nothing like Republicans.

Can you say late night closed door sessions, held over votes, arm twisting, fear mongering, misdiagnosing, Foleys child molesting cover up, Sensenbrenners childish behavior, Ted Stevens rudeness and pompous arrogance, Bill Frists stupidity, Tom Delays arm twisting manipulation, Tom Feeneys inability to take a lie detector test, Santorums potty mouth idiocy and zealotry, Cunninghams thievery, George Allens and Trent Lotts racist views, Hasterts lack of oversight, Pat Roberts stonewalling cover up of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, Jean Shmidts ridiculous big mouth, Rove, Abramhoff, Faux News? Man Dems are nothing like those people. Nothing. So don't kid yourself. Myself and many others here consider ourselves left of the Dems but I hope I'm not so simple minded as to think that Dems and Republicans are one in the same. Fill your mind up with more info and it's easy to see there's a big difference. Why post something like that if you feel it's so hopeless?

[hippiechick]

199. ding ding ding!

Same thing others of us have been :banghead: about around here for years.

:hi:

[GOTV]

98. Same results? Did the GOP also raise the minimum wage?

I must have missed that.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

126. Congress's approval ratings are what? High teens/low 20s?

"Tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans" are measures supported by the VAST majority of Americans. How will passage of these measures divide the country? It might alienate the 25% wingnuttery, but phuck 'em.

Sane Americans want results, so, to the newly elected Democratic majority - have at it!

[beltanefauve]

136. The American people want this

alright! And, they are "populist" measures. What have the Repubs been offering? Gay marriage bans? I don't see any dividing of the country whatsoever!

[aggiesal]

127. I'm trying to understand this ...

This is the Democrats first 100 Hr. plan, and the Republicans want in on this?
This ia plan developed by the Democrats.
Have the Republicans make their own 100 Hr. plan.

12 Years of Republican rule. They changed the rules. Now they are being used
against them and their whining?

We should expect nothing less.

[pnwmom]

132. Very different results, if we get these bills passed.

The Republicans have stood in the way of an increase in the minimum wage law for years. We know their position. It's time to step around them.

[Tight_rope]

176. "dividing the country"? WTF...

I don't know where you've been for the past 6 years. But this country can't be more divided than Bushco have been able to do. To say "We the people" want them to work together is really bullshit. What we want, what I want is to see some better results that affect our/my daily life. This includes Healthcare/medical care coverage, taxes, education, jobs, and housing. For the past 6 years the republicans have not done shit but the opposite of what they promised "We the people". So, I don't care if they Democratics agree to work with the republicans or not. I just want to see results.:beer:

[truthisfreedom]

3. Hear, hear. Fuggedabout 'em. We don't need no stinking republicans.

Let 'em whine on the sidelines. They shut us out of everything for years.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Payback is a m***erf***er, isn't it?

:rofl:

[hang a left]

15. First thought I had ocelot.

Revenge is best served cold.

[Telly Savalas]

27. Fuck revenge.

These people are being paid good money to govern the fucking country, not to throw petty little tantrums as if they were three year olds. We've already suffered 6 years of that.

Keeping far right extremists out of the loop, however, does allow them to do their job more effectively.

[hang a left]

30. Fuck Revenge?

Perhaps I should have chose my words more carefully. We are ready to move on and fast. Those extremists don't need to be in the loop. They need to be sidelined.

[jwirr]

46. I do not think it is payback. Just a measure to stop the pugs

from sabotaging the first 100 hours promises.

[williesgirl]

7. I agree with them - if not, nothing will get done. recommended

[hang a left]

21. I disagree.

We are going to see thing getting done that should have been done years ago.
No time for pansy ass bipartisanship. It is time to do the people's work.

[enough already]

64. Unfortunately, little will get done

Anything of substance will be vetoed by Bushit. The rest (rule changes, etc.) is just inside baseball. We need something tangible out of that first 100 hours, and NOBODY is talking about the fucking war.

[Chulanowa]

153. If he vetos, so what?

It returns to Congress, who can then approve it without the president's say. The Presidential veto is more of a formality except on very narrow margins in legislation. What Congress wants, Congress usually gets.

[enough already]

174. You think they have enough votes to override a chimp veto?

You're dreaming.

[hang a left]

32. You forget the Dems are in control. We dictate legistlation

Everything WILL get done. They will be left running for cover.

[Richardo]

8. I don't like it

Why govern like Republicans?

[Conscious Confucius]

9. I agree

They'll remember our actions and respond in kind come 2008.

[Kagemusha]

10. They'll do it anyway

even.. no.. especially if the Dems play nice, and prove that nice guys not only finish last, but invariably deserve to. They'll see the wisdom of the iron fist even more.

[Conscious Confucius]

13. That may be so,

but we need to lead morally and responsibly. The Dems need to rebuild the common man's faith in politics. If not, the wealthy, white elite will continue their steamroll over democracy. The regular folk hate the petty fighting and corruption in politics. To topple the beast we mustn't become the beast under a different banner. We must establish our own Democratic identity. Copying what worked for the Republicans over the last 6 years will only destroy our efforts of uniting America.

Nice name by the way, Kurosawa is brilliant.

[hang a left]

16. Really, there is no time for nicey nice.

We got work to do.

[Richardo]

39. It's not 'nicey nice'

It's American government. As opposed to Republican government.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hang a left]

19. Just one more response

We are going to lead morally and responsibly, regardless of whose whitey tighties get in knots. The common man's faith will be rebuilt in politics. Once they observe that the elected ARE in fact serving the people to whom they serve. The regular folk hate getting in the rear and their bum holes are quite sore. How do you propose toppling the beast, without actually toppling him? We have a democratic identity. And it will shine baby. We are ready to kick some ass and take some names.

[CatWoman]

23. excellent fucking point!!!

er, "points"!!

:D

[howmad1]

36. Oh bullshit!

If, for the past 6 years, someone has been trying to rip your face off, I suppose you would look to play nice. The dems can and should establish their identity by bringing sanity and justice to government. It's not going to happen by reaching across the isle. The danger is, if the dems reach too far, the rethugs will rip their arms off. Never, ever trust a rethuglican!

[Richardo]

40. You're as bad as they are

Congratulations

[orleans]

49. but don't you think this country gave the dems a "mandate"?

they voted for CHANGE

people want shit taken care of
the dems promised to get some major business done in 100 hours

i think the country will be IMPRESSED by quick, decisive action on our part--no more screwing around like the pukes have been doing

and if we cater to the pukes all they'll do is sabotage our efforts and we'll look foolish & weak

i think if our party doesn't get some major things accomplished (and soon!) we will have our collective ass handed to us in 08

besides, the people in this country can't afford to wait for change much longer.

i know i can't.

[undeterred]

109. Its a WOMANDATE, named Nancy!

:party:

[midnight]

178. I love it. A WOMANDATE, named Nancy.

That's right, and if you are not going to help, get out of the way.

[hang a left]

59. to me it is all about either the life or the death of this country.

tis no time to play around. We need to get a jump right off the line and show how things are gonna start to get done up there on that hill!

I voted for nothing less. I suspect I am not alone.

[bdamomma]

194. You are not alone, we have to keep the pressure on them

and not stop, this is Our country, and no one owns it!!!

[Auntie Bush]

167. I wish you were as smart and cute as your dog.

But no such luck!

[CANDO]

142. Damn frickin' straight! Did FDR play nice? HELL NO!

eom

[Richardo]

41. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[jwirr]

47. It is not immoral to use parliamentary procedures to further legislation.

The procedures are there for that very reason. If they are threatening to filibuster or something like that then we can try to stop them. They set the precedent of one party conferences for the last 6 years - 100 hours more will not kill anyone.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. The underhanded parliamentary tactics of the Repiblicans

were notorious. They have demonstrated themsevles to be entirely untrustworthy. I suggest we not trust them.

[jwirr]

85. Which is exactly why the Dems are taking the first 100 hours for

themselves.

[exlrrp]

88. Whats nice is that the Repubs made the rules

They dreamed up and enacted these rules in their overconfidence just to further disenfranchise our side. we don't have to enact any new rules to sideline them, the ones they created will do just fine.
Now they can hold their caucuses and meetings in the basement and we've left it all nicely decorated with Dean 08! posters all over it.
this is not revenge: whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. How can they complain?
Ameurica has had more than enough opportunity to see the other side act without any input from us. They have no new ideas. Why should we let them interfere with our efforts to set their messes to rights?
Does anyone really think more repuglican input will make the situation better? If so, I have a river here in Oregon for sale cheap.

[GOTV]

105. Have those rules been clearly listed anywhere?

I'd love to see a list of just what the GOP has done to screw over the minority.

[annabanana]

111. I highly recommend this article from Rolling Stone. .

It tells you EXACTLY how Republicans ran the House & Senate for the past 6 years... and why a bit of astringent from the Dems is a
GOOD thing.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever

[GOTV]

115. Thanks much! n/t

[RiverStone]

110. Agreed. The pukes will need to adjust to a new reality...

They will try to cling to whatever fading power they can; and one can bet the rethugs will whine if the DEMS exercise the same parliamentary maneuvering as the party in power..

The People mandated a change in November. The far right's attempts to manipulate agenda during the first 100 hours needs to be squashed aggressively from the get go. I would expect that Nancy & Co. may be civil and open to dialog with moderate rethugs - though after 12 years in the minority - it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

[still_one]

74. Sorry, but it is very clear, the majority sets the agenda

We were NOT suppossed to win in 2006, both historically, and by the poll numbers. The message is very clear, and it is that the PEOPLE OF THE U.S. DO NOT WANT the direction that the republican congress and administration have been leading us

To do anything else would be undemocratic?

[John Q. Citizen]

128. The regular folks don't like making deals with the devil for the sake of appearances.

Should we compromise on the minimum wage or drag out passage for 6 to 8 months so the regular folks will feel better about government? Would that be considered moral by the regular folks?

The regular folks demonstrated their faith in politics by turning out in record numbers for a mid-term election to give control of both houses back to the Dems. I assume that means the regular folks would have even more faith in democracy if the Dems quickly and effectively passed legislation that's popular with the electorate, even if it's not popular with Repo law makers and their clients on K street.

[Conscious Confucius]

133. Don't confuse regular midterm election results as a clear mandate.

With the exception of 1934 and 2002, every ruling congress lost seats in a midterm election. The Republicans are still very popular, because the Democrats have no identity. Simply being Republican-lite will only further the Democratic slide into extinction. Don't be so sure about that mandate. If we become too confident about 2006, watch 2008 slip away. Don't count on the American people, as most don't vote and don't care. Why don't they care? Because of underhanded government tactics. We need to reach out to them and restore their faith in democracy, otherwise the Republicans will win again. The Dems can stand up for themselves without becoming corrupt, its what should have happened 6 years ago.

[John Q. Citizen]

139. So if the Dems pass strong ethics rules, that will make them appear corrupt

in the eyes of non-voters? I don't follow your logic.

What is your evidence that the Repos are still "very popular."

What do you feel is the basis for that "popularity."

[Conscious Confucius]

140. Strong ethics rules are much needed.

I do not argue about their implementation. Again as I have stated before, every Republican presidential candidate is ahead of all of the Democratic nominees. I consider that awfully popular. If the Democrats had this supposed mandate at all, then the Republicans would be 20 points behind every Democrat. The uninterested public will vote with the Republicans come 2008, just as they did in 00 and 04. It's sad, really. I just wonder what it will take for the general public to realize what has transpired over the past 6 years. What America needs in '08 is someone that fills the same niche that Carter did in '76. We need a political outsider that will rid government of corruption and backstabbing. A non-politican is the only thing the masses will support on the left.

[John Q. Citizen]

145. According to the Polling Report.com your information is incorrect.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc
According to the polls listed the Dems lead or tie in a number of match ups. If you check the "Generic Repo VS a Generic Democrat poll, we tromp.

This would seem to contradict your assertions, but without you citing where you get your info from, it is difficult to know if you have a source or if you are mistaken, or what's up.

Also, contrary to your post, in 2000, the country elected Al Gore, but of course Jeb and the Supremes selected bush for us.

In 2004, computer glitches voted for bush at an overwhelming 95%. I'm not sure if this is because computer glitches are right wing, or if it's because, for whatever reason, Kerry didn't reach out to the computer glitch community that election.

At any rate, I think you need to review the sources (if you have any) for your information and possibly reassess your analysis. It appears to be off because of faulty information perhaps.

(edit for spelling)

[Lil Red]

149. Your statement does not an objective fact make! (n/t)

[Auntie Bush]

168. Then Wes Clark is your man.

He has honesty and integrity and is a political outsider and WILL get the corruption out of government. You can count on the fact that he is no backstabber! And that's only 1/100 of the reasons he should be elected President.

[Shakespeare]

144. The historical margin by which we won is most certainly a mandate.

And the republicans will do nothing but obstruct. The congressional leadership is doing exactly the right thing here.

[lancdem]

150. The Republicans are not "very popular"

They lost the Senate, the House, the majority of governships and the majority of state legislatures in November 2006. All the Repubs have left is the presidency. What definition of popular are you using, lol? Wait till the Dems have a chance to govern, then we'll see about their "identity."

[CompassionateLib]

158. Here here

It scares me that with the horrible George Bush as the face of the Republican party it took us 6 years to barely eek out a majority. Too many arguments in this discussion are starting with the words "The Republicans..."

Can't we do what we believe is right regardless of the Republicans? Not to support them and not to spite them. But because of what we believe, not what they do.

In 2008, how will the voters tell us apart from them if we spend two years doing what they do just to spite them and pay them back?

[JusticeForAll]

172. Oh my goodness!

What a silly post! I've been reading your ridiculous tripe for the past five minutes now and I happen on this gem:

The Republicans are still very popular, because the Democrats have no identity.

:freak:

Well, there ya go! The Dems have no identity because your God-glorious Republican asswipes never gave them a chance to BUILD one. With our first 100 hours Nancy and gang will have shown the American public what Dems can do, and what they are all about with policy and without obstruction. I guarantee you, unfettered by the manure that the last Congresses have spread on this formerly beautiful country, our Representatives and Senators are going to make this place grow and shine again. If popularity is what is important, the Dems will win the populace with their agenda. The people voted them in for these reasons, and these leaders are going to give us what we want and have waited for.

Say goodbye to Repuke corruption, a reign of terror, tax breaks for only the wealthy, and this goddamn war, and ring in sensible policy for the common man, common visions of international peace, and a sustainable planet where we all must live.

You think that this short-term strategy is narrow? Can't be any more narrow than the partisan, pro-Corporate, elitist shit we've gagged on for 12 years, can it?

The one thing I do agree with you on is that we should reach across the aisle,
...and slap the Repuglican shitheads back into the hell they have created.

Like someone else said, enjoy your stay! :hi:

<1000 posts but been here since the start...

JusticeForALL
J4A

[paulk]

161. I have some of the same reservations about this as you

however, this could be an acceptable strategy initially if the Democrats stick to passing legislation that the public clearly favors. The biggest problem will be how the media portrays it - as a way for the Democrats to express the public's will in the face of a disruptive Republican Party or as the Democrats reneging on a campaign promise. The article quoted in the OP is not particularly reassuring in this regard - with a clear slant favoring the Republican POV.

[hang a left]

25. Please these bastages aint getting anywhere near 2008.

Have No Fear!

[Donnachaidh]

35. not a chance -- this will help us in 2008

Getting things done quickly that will help the working classes, while avoiding the endless BS, obstruction and bellyaching of the republicans?

That will pretty much lock it up for the Dems in 2008.

[Puglover]

61. "Respond in kind come 2008"

You hoping for a Republican majority and/or victory in 2008? Dude you really should be abit more subtle.

[Conscious Confucius]

134. I don't hope so at all, NO!

I'll make a prediction right here. Besides winning the presidency, the Republicans will regain control of congress. Ask around. Most don't trust the Democrats on national security or terrorism. Because of the fear tactic, Republicans will win. As much as it frightens me to fathom a Republican future, it will happen... especially if all we have to offer is Obama or Clinton. Don't be too confident, we need to consider the future. Why do dissenting opinions immediately equal Democratic traitors or Republican spies? Are we not reasonable people?

[lancdem]

151. Your statement on terrorism and national security

is not correct. Dems have pulled even with Repubs in those areas, thanks largely to Bush's monumental screw-up in Iraq.

[Puglover]

179. No but this is a Democratic board and we

don't "predict" Republican victories 2 years down the road. You are spouting RW talking points.

[GOTV]

99. You mean, if we play nice, then they will too?

How is it that the GOP changed the rules in the first place?

If they will screw the minority over when the minority is nice, and they screw them over when the minority is mean, why should the minority concern itself with what they do to the GOP now that we're in the majority?

[SoFlaJet]

119. maybe we should

call the cops on them like Bill Thomas did when he didn't even want the dems in the same room

[JerseygirlCT]

131. I don't think we ought to *anticipate* that they'll have the chance

in 2008 to do the same.

I sure hope we don't see control of Congress switch back to them!

[lancdem]

148. Only if we get nothing done

Or have scandals of our own. Then we could have problems.

[kenfrequed]

186. Battered Democrat Syndrom

This is the kind of idiocy that made me vote for Nader in 2000. Coddling the right wing and the corporatists does not make them kinder. Patting the rabid dog on the head and letting him sit at the table does not tame him, nor does it make it any more likely that he won't bite your hand.

I don't recall a lot of democratic input in the contract for America. And that was back when the republicans actually pretended to listen to the democrats occasionally. The last 6 years have been nothing but deny and ignore. The Mainstream media certainly hasn't covered how the repubs absolutely railroaded EVERYTHING, closed discussion, shut down hearings, and set up those that did occur so that their corporate cronies wouldn't even have to take an oath prior to giving testimony.

The fact that the Democrats want to get their bills put up to be voted for as is shouldn't be considered a negative thing. We won and America won, why shouldn't they set up the legislative agenda for awhile???

[Eurobabe]

53. Because the things they propose are not HARMING

the country like the CON agenda.

[Eurobabe]

54. GIT 'ER DONE, recc'd

[Warren Stupidity]

56. These bills are the legislative initiatives that

the Republican majority locked out of any consideration for six years. Pelosi very clearly stated that once the backlog of blocked legislation is taken care of the Democratic leadership will reconsider what the rules are. I see nothing wrong with that. The Republican leadership has shown no interest at all in bipartisan cooperation and compromise, they are not suddenly going to get reasonable and we have no obligation at all to play along with them. If given the opportunity they will act to divide and disrupt. Why give them that opportunity?

[still_one]

73. This is for the very survival of our country. Perhaps you don't remember 2000

We still had control of the Senate. Do you remember Tom Daschle? He was the majority leader of the Senate at the time, and did everything he could to work with the Republicans. They DESTROYED HIM.

Please remember this, WE WON THE MAJORITY. The country said they want a change. IT IS THE MAJORITY IN CONGRESS THAT SETS THE AGENDA

This is not a sporting event where good sportsman ship is admired. This is the last chance to save the republic, and unless the Democrats are agressive, you can kiss a woman's right to choose, stem cell research, social security, medicare, government survilence without a court order, and of course building up our credibility in the world again goodbye

[SoFlaJet]

121. great post

still_one

[LSK]

92. to get things done???

:shrug:

[ryanmuegge]

94. Because the Republicans represent an agenda for 1% of the population

There's no difference between the Republican party of today and fringe groups like the modern KKK. They're just as extreme, albeit not on the same issue. The Republicans are engaged in complete warfare against anyone who isn't a billionaire. This nation is a democracy in which the will and interests of the majority are supposed to rule.

[Shakespeare]

122. Because they will do nothing but obstruct our efforts.

They've said so. So, fuck them. They can sit there with their hands tied JUST LIKE WE DID.

If we want to move our agenda at all, then we keep our boots on the backs of their necks for as long as we're in control. And please spare me all the hand-wringing about civility; the republicans made that obsolete about eight years ago.

[JerseygirlCT]

129. I agree. I can't be too difficult to do better than the Republicans

have done. That starts with being more civil. We ought to give them a chance, but not allow them to play games. We have to be the big ones about it, I think. Let them either play nice, or show their true colors. At which point, we're no longer obligated to play nice.

[Imagevision]

11. GOP would be counter-productive anyway -- Cheney em!!!

[Old and In the Way]

12. Democrats were shut out for 6 years.

I don't recall the WaPo being too concerned about that. Does anyone think the Republicans care about the role of bi-partisanship, now that they are in the minority? Better for them to sit on the sidelines and take notes on how to run a government for the people instead of their favorite corporate benefactors. If the people don't like the results, they can elect Republicans in 2008. That's how the system is supposed to work.

[TankLV]

68. The country and the media were NEVER concerned about the Dems being shut out and marginalized before

why now?

No matter what the Dems do, the whore media is all set up to pounce on us...

I think it's about time the repukes got a taste of their own new rules...

This is NO time to play nice - it's time to do what we Dems were elected to do!

Glad all the repuke apologists are back and in force and in plain site here again - easier to see whom to trust and listen too...

[trogdor]

72. It wasn't the rules people were objecting to.

It was the utter crap that was being brought to the floor. The majority party should prevail, period.

Incidentally, it is telling that even though Democrats were effectively muzzled while the Republicans were in control, their grip only lasted a dozen years. That's how long it took for them to prove they weren't up to the task of running the federal legislature.

[4nic8em]

17. I'm a long way

from being ready to "make nice". Let's get America restored back on an even kilter...then I'll be willing to pursue "bipartisanship" with the republic party.

[PBass]

20. These are popular measures. Get 'em enacted pronto...

"House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

These will all have popular support. As the saying goes, "Get 'er done".

Republican lawmakers would just drag their feet, trying to slow things down and embarrass the Dems as "ineffective".

GET 'ER DONE!!!

[ray of light]

62. I agree. They are popular mandated measures to stop the war

here on the middle class and to end the war in Iraq. These were why the vast majority of Americans ousted the Republicans. They could see what their policies were doing to us.

So the Republicans can chose to vote for what the people want or they can abstain or vote no. But if they put things in 'discussion' then the Congress will not be able to accomplish its goals. This would please the Republicans since they'd love to give the "Do Nothing Congress" title to the Democrats.

And the Democrats are unwilling to be seen as "Do nothings..."

This is all good as far as I'm concerned. Because here in my state, I"ve seen the Republicans stymie our Democratic Governor and refuse to pass fair and smart legislation for years!

[grytpype]

22. The Repugs would just try to undercut the Dems and embarass them.

Screw the Repugs, it's their own damn fault they are untrustworthy.

[hang a left]

29. The repukes have absolutely no forum.

The dems are going to introduce very popular progressive changes. They are so screwed.

[bdamomma]

195. hey the repigs caused enough damage they just need to stop

whining and step aside, they did not reach across the isle to us, every Bill the Dems put forward they voted against. Let them keep their mouths shut. Jealous bastards.

[DBoon]

24. When the Republicans decide to become a parlimentary party

and cease acting like a top-down Leninist vanguard party, I will begin to consider maybe talking to them

The Republican Party under Newt, DeLay, Trent Lott, and GWB has only thought of how they can gain more power and eliminate the Democratic Party. They care nothing about representing constituents or formulating a philosophy of governance. They have viewed efforts by Democrats to compromise on positions as an indication of weakness, in the same way a wolf sees a wounded bleeding animal as weak.

The Republicans have not wanted any sort of compromise for at least a dozen years. When they prove they have changed, I would consider discussing compromise with them - and not a moment sooner.

[JudyM]

28. Better to start with the most popular item and see how much resistance they get, I'd think

If they don't get resistance they'd be laying groundwork for bipartisanship for further legislation; if they do get resistance they can say 'we tried' and then move forward without the repukes. But to publicly make a point about promising to do it and then back down is only feeding the problem.

[w4rma]

45. Although I very strongly support the current strategy, yours is also very good. (nt)

[JudyM]

113. Thanks. We'd gain extra 'political capital' by making an initial effort to deal with the repukes. nt

[gratuitous]

33. Time to level the playing field

No sense making nice until the playing field is a little more level, and the pervasive stench of the Republican party, the party that gave us warrantless wiretaps, domestic spying, end-runs around the judiciary, torture as foreign policy, "preemptive" invasions, 3,000 dead soldiers, half a million dead civilians, and half a trillion dollars flushed down the toilet is aired out of Congress. The Republicans can come back and participate once those horrendous anti-American policies are reversed. I'm not interested in "debating" the efficacy of torture, the wisdom of imperialism, or the efficiency of the unitary executive. Those actions are so far beyond the constitutional pale as to merit some time in the wilderness for the party that enacted and endorsed them.

They're lucky they're not in jail.

[depakid]

34. Did the Post prominently decry the far right's tactics?

or did they run cover for them- or worse, enable, legitimize and apologize for them?

Their editors must think we have really short memories- or that folks are really stupid and can't see through their constant attempts to denigrate Democrats and shill for Republicans.

Katherine Graham must be rolling over in her grave- actually, in a way, it's merciful to know that she never saw what a laughingstock her once proud paper has become.

[Joe Bacon]

42. The GOP's biggest mouthpiece has been the WHORESHINGTON POST!

For 14 years, the WHORESHINGTON POST has done nothing but publish Republican Propaganda. Screw them all!

[many a good man]

38. I call bullshit on WaPo

Didn't Pelosi and Reid say before the elections that these popular bills are going to moved through quickly (100 hrs) without extraneous bullshit amendments and delaying tactics? Didn't she say the 100 hrs stuff is not touchable but everything after it will be up for debate?

There is nothing new here, just Republican spin.

[Azathoth]

43. They locked us out of the goddamn conference rooms

Screw 'em. As long as the Dems stick to their core principles and start accomplishing something positive for the country, no one is gonna shed a tear if life gets a little difficult for the fanatically corrupt GOP.

[4nic8em]

44. I for one,

will enthusiastically enjoy a little GOP difficulty. It has been a long time coming...we should ensure that republics understand the 2004 election term "mandate".

[beltanefauve]

48. This says it all:

"House Republicans say their strategy will be to offer alternative bills that would be attractive to the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, with an eye toward fracturing the Democratic coalition. They hope to force some tough votes for Democrats from conservative districts who will soon begin campaigning for 2008 reelection and will have to defend their records.

"We'll capitalize on every opportunity we have," said one GOP leadership aide, adding that Republicans were preparing alternatives to the Democrats' plans to raise the minimum wage, reduce the interest on student loans, and reduce the profits of big oil and energy companies."

They're still all about party over country. The time for reaching across the aisles and fence-mending is definitely not now.

[Divine Discontent]

50. they'll run commercials about what the dem leaders do come 2008

but frankly, I don't give a CRAP!

push it all through.. it's a populist bunch of laws... they can kiss the people's collective arses.



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts & 08!

[depakid]

51. Let 'em run commercials

Do you think ordinary people really care about things like that anymore? Even when they're set to get THOROUGHLY screwed, as with the Medicare scam?

If they did, then all those years of abuse- some of which involved the abrogation of centuries old parliamentary procedures and traditions would have cost them several elections before this one- with or without the Post's downplaying and cover ups.

[Theduckno2]

52. The right-wing noise machine will complain, regardless of what the Dems do.

So, I say let the Democrats roll up their sleeves, get to work, and in the first 100 hours pass some very worthwhile legislation.

I would just love to see Snowjob voicing Bushco's displeasure at the rapidly passed legislation given Bush's lackadaisical attitude toward a new stategy for Iraq.

Go get em Rep. Pelosi! :applause:

[Vinca]

58. Good! Otherwise they will block the Democratic agenda. nt

[Ganja Ninja]

60. How many times have we heard Republican's say ...

"Elections have consequences!" Let'em eat those words.

[XanaDUer]

66. Good point!

Screw 'em.

[Joffan]

63. Another "either-or" presentation of a "both-and" solution

A pure spin article.

Dems have policies to pass, and they will work (or try to work) some bipartisanship into the Congress sessions.

Just because they are using a unilateral approach to pass those high-profile policies and to some extent put in place the framework to allow bipartisan activity to work (ethics?), does not mean that the promised bipartisan activity will not happen.

[rodeodance]

65. Dems to inherit agenda dominated by war (AP)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070102/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq

Dems to inherit agenda dominated by war

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Now the majority party, Democrats will inherit an agenda dominated by the war in
Iraq when the new Congress convenes Thursday, increasing their exposure to what has mostly been a politically damaging issue for Republicans.


In the weeks ahead, the new Democratic Congress will be confronted with
President Bush's new plan for Iraq and a White House request that lawmakers authorize an estimated additional $100 billion to pay for the war.

Democrats also may be asked to support a plan lifting restrictions on reserve deployments to ease the strain on active-duty troops.

While Democrats may try to deflect as much attention as they can toward Bush — citing the president's ownership of the war and congressional limitations on foreign policy — they no doubt will find themselves playing a starring role in a debate that cost Republicans votes in the midterm elections last fall.

"They'll have to show they can govern and govern in a way that will help the executive branch resolve this," said James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.

[rodeodance]

67. "that will help the executive branch resolve this,"---(the WH needs

the Dems help??)...

[Rose Siding]

69. Kick 'em where it hurts, Nancy.

Any Republican obstructionism to the CLEAR will of The People to combat corruption and raise the minimum wage should be thwarted.

[still_one]

71. This article is actually trying to critisize the Democrats for "breaking thier promise"

My first response on the Democratic action is GOOD!!

For the last four to six years the Democrats were excluded from almost any input on issues, and the media INGORED IT. Now for some reason, EVEN BEFORE the first session has begun, they feel it is their duty to point out how "uncooperative" the Democrats are? HOGWASH

For the next two years the media will NOT be our friend, and this administration and Congress MUST NOT BE TRUSTED

some people on DU critisized Pelosi for saying that impeachment is off the table, but once they start investigating, if they find evidence of crimes against the Constitution, they will have NO CHOICE but to impeach, though I am very sure are friends at the MSM will be quick to point out the "pledge" Pelosi made during the campaign. However, that pledge was made before any investigations to place, and NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW

[Selteri]

75. And the cycle continues

I'd rather they at least publically entertained the suggestions to some level before going forward to at least offer an olive branch, though I admit, I'd be wanting to strike them with that olive branch against their portable seat until it was red and they could not sit.

[davidwparker]

76. Right on. What was good for the goose is good for the gander -- while

the goose straightens out all the mess the gander made.

[InvisibleTouch]

78. Good for them!

Our side has waited long enough for an opening. Now it's time to run with it. To do otherwise would spell the ruin of the country and indeed the world.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[justgamma]

84. Welcome supermanxt!

I like your links to the candidates, but I'd like to point out that we are members of the Democratic Party. People here are very sensitive to that.

[Blutodog]

81. STOP funding the WAR!!!

Student loans, Min. wage? If the D's don't voice the publics anger and disgust with this war soon it won't make any difference what they do. STOPPINg the WAR machine has to go to the top of the list. STOP the War bring home our troops. While they're at it they might also stop Bu$h from spying on us illegally while violating the law (FISA).

[NavyDavy]

83. thats not going to happen in the 1st 100 hours....

but it will happen i think...so give it a little time....I know the more time we wait the more people die....but we have to give them a little time....

[bdamomma]

196. Barney Frank was on the other nite on Hardball and he

said the money Bush asked for the war he already has it. And apparently there is some stipulation or view if they stop funding the war, the repigs will turn it around and say the Dems do not support the troops regarding equipment and things like that, I could hear those repigs saying that, but my view on it, they do not have the equipment they needed for the past 4 years.

[dogfacedboy]

82. There will be time to "play nice" later.

Right out of the box, this Congress needs to throw a few punches. All of their proposals are important right now. They need to get 'em through.

[aggiesal]

86. You've got to be kidding ...

For the past 12 years, the republicans didn't even invite democrats to committee meetings.
Why? Because as 1 prominent republican said "Why invite you, we don't care what you think,
and we're going to pass this law anyway."

And now they're complaining!!!

Wa, wa, wa. Get used to it.

[Gman]

87. There's two things you don't want to watch while it's being made

sausage and legislation.

[npincus]

89. pass me the world's smallest violin.

:nopity:

[BluePatriot]

91. in the parlance of the Internet....OWNED!

[jbonkowski]

93. Actually, it's pwned

nt

[Pierre.Suave]

95. The way I see it...

FUCK THE REPUBLICANS, THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF PLAYING NICE, EVEN NOW, SO WHY SHOULD WE?

[Maryland Liberal]

97. NO Mercy!

Like we should really care about what the wing-nuts have to say??? Hello? - WE won the election- WE get make the rules! GOP- take your toys and go home.

[William769]

100. I am very disappointed with several posters comments in this thread.

You may want to have pity on the Republicans but not me. They did everything in their power to change America from what is is suppose to stand for. Weather you like it or not unlike some people the Democrats were given a mandate to do the business of the people (the majority of the people I might add) and it looks like thats what they are doing.

I say arm the torpedoes& full speed ahead.

[annabanana]

112. I'm with you!. . . n/t

[Beetwasher]

102. The Dems Have TOO MUCH WORK TO DO

And don't have time to deal w/ the bullshit that the Repubs were planning to pull if the Dems decided to "play nice".

If the Dems decided to "play nice" the Repubs had ALREADY SAID THEY WOULD FUCK W/ THEM and that they would interfere w/ the Dems getting actual work done.

Good for the Dems in realizing it's not worth it. Not enough people pay attention to these sorts of details for it to make any difference in the long run if they don't play nice w/ the Repubs, however, it WILL make a difference if they rapidly pass major pieces of popular legislation that the Repubs and Chimpy oppose.

[Ian David]

103. Bi-partisanship with Republickers is date-rape. Let them be irrelevant. n/t

[Zodiak]

107. dang Ian, you beat me to it n/t

[krabigirl]

104. Great news! (nt)

[Zodiak]

106. Here is what I think:

This 100 hours of Democratic autocratic rule in Congress is about the most merciful form of "revenge" I can think of for 12 years of being shut out of debates, publically called out for not being invited to the meetings (they have no ideas!), and being forced to watch legislation that hurts the American people and the Constitution get passed by the opposing party (and some turncoats within our party) and their dictator-for-President.

If I had my way, the pukes would have to endure this for at least a year, which is only 1/12 of what we went through. The pukes can do 100 hours standing on their head, but they will predicatably howl about it and get their media proxies to write nasty stories about how they suffer. Screw them. The people's business gets done, whether these elitists think so or not.

As for the DUers on this thread that are uncomfortable with this, remember that bipartisnaship to a Republican is "date rape". Until they change that attitude and get back to the peoples' business (instead of their own interests), they deserve to be shut out for the good of the People. They only offer poison to the debate, anyways.

The best suggestion I have seen upthread is to watch what the pukes do in response, and if they act sorry for what they have done to this country's public discourse, THEN talk about bipartisnaship. But not until then. The People deserve better than poison.

[GOTV]

108. I say, fulfill campaign promises first, then monkey with the rules. n/t

[VegasWolf]

116. EXACTLY!!! Why should we even consider the tired old failed thinking of the conservatives? nt

[Madspirit]

120. We're treasonous...

Go to some of the sites where the Republicans post. They think we should all be tried as traitors, sent to prison or shot....just because we disagree with a wartime president...aid and comfort and all...ya know...

THEY think bipartisanship is weakness and backing down from one's ideals. They don't want to play nice and they NEVER will. You can't share a playground with a bully. They will smack us down every chance they get. NOT playing with them is just survival.

I really suggest it if you have any delusions about olive branches...go to some of the sites of their Talking Heads. I swear, if you don't believe in evolution now, just go to Ann Coulter's forum. It's where all the missing links post.

I have never witnessed such people and I'm a Texan. We have Klan Klavens here. I passed some of their posts on to some shrink friends of mine. They said the people at the Coulter site are "mean-spirited narcissists suffering from arrested development." (haha)

(cover ears)...THEY WILL NEVER PLAY NICE WITH US. They think we are Evil. We don't stand for their mean-spirited ideals of what they think Life Should Look Like. We're not homophobes; we're not racists; we're not xenophobes. Or at least we struggle against those things. They think we are weak and that we are spreading the lies of Evil. These are fundamental beliefs for them. ...fundamental differences between us.... How can we possibly work together.

Or more succinctly....THEY'RE SCARY AND THEY HATE US. Stick your hand out to them...it will get bitten off.
Madspirit

[momster]

123. Thank you, Madspirit!

You've stated the case brilliantly. The Republicans have had zero interest in bi-partisanship for the past dozen years. Now all of a sudden they've got Religion? I don't think so. They see compromise as weakness, they see politeness as weakness, they have no respect for the Democrats at all after a dozen years of liberal=weakling drumbeats. It's time to admit our opponents have no wish to 'make nice' and time to fight back!

[CompassionateLib]

157. So basically...

...you aspire to be like the Republicans? They weren't bi-partisan, we will be like THEM!!!!

I prefer to be bigger then them, not like them myself.

[Madspirit]

177. A sacrifice bigger than.....

It's all very well and good that you aspire to be "bigger" than the Republicans. So...in the name of this Bigness of yours...who's rights are you going to trample on? ...because that's what compromise means to Republicans.

I'm a lesbian. Is it me you will sacrifice on this Altar of Compromise? I am 52, bipolar, unemployed and I would like to have the rights of marriage, so I can be on my lover's...(the woman I have been with for 15 years)...insurance and so if I ever end up in a hospital, unable to make my own decisions, she will be the one making my decisions for me, not some redneck East Texas relative I haven't seen in 30 years. We want to be able to inherit. We want to have a Fully Recognized Life. So, is it us you are going to sacrifice so you can Feel Big?

...or will it be some woman who needs an abortion? ...or will it be the soldiers? ...or maybe an illegal immigrant who wants medical care for her ill baby?

Who will YOU be willing to sacrifice so you can brag about having better manners than the Republicans? Just curious. We are not the divisive ones, you know? They happily spit on us. They will take any olive branch you extend, break it into tiny pieces, chainsaw it and then make a campfire out of it.

Hopefully, we do have Ethics that Matter...and sometimes having ethics MEANS not compromising.
Madspirit

[CompassionateLib]

180. Nice, but irrellevant to my point, or actually in support of it

I said I don't want to act like them. You are rattling off a bunch of issues which to my point will not be addressed if we spend our time screwing them. Which they can claim fairly frankly we screwed them when we were in power. Why do we want to spend our political capital in support of our politicians personal revenge when to your point there are valid issues to address? This is not football where you pick a side to win, or at least it shouldn't be, it should be about doing right by the American people. I want to focus on an agenda, not cheering on any slighted politican "evening the score."

I believe in ideology and issues, not partisan politics and the ends of politicians. They should be working to our end, not us to theirs. So again, by rattling off a bunch of issues, you are supporting my point not rebutting it. Unless you are saying you actually would sacrifice those issues to nail a Republican, which I am sure you are not.

[Madspirit]

181. Nice, but irrelevant to my point, or actually in support of it

No...I am saying whatever it means to you...to hold hands or have Big Manners...to the Republicans...will mean WE compromise on some of these issues. That's what an olive branch, to them, will mean. I am not talking about not spitting on their shoes. (Though I have been spit on by them.) It doesn't mean overlooking it if they chew with their mouths open. I promise to do that. No one was really ...REALLY...talking about evening the score. That isn't even possible, they have been so nasty. "Making nice"...in politics...means compromise. So....who are you going to compromise so we can Make Nice and have Better Manners than They have?
Let me try...one more time.
Reaching out to the Republicans=Compromise. THEY won't consider anything else...reaching out. Once again...who are you going to sacrifice on this altar of Bipartisan politics?
Madspirit

[CompassionateLib]

183. It's not easy to get along with the Republicans, I agree

They have done a pathetic leadership job, and they lost because of it.

You seem to think I'm advocating compromising on policy with them to get along, which I'm not. I'm advocating just advancing an agenda. They are politicans and if the people respond they must get along. Those advocating endless investigations and impeachments and cutting them out of debate which is all over the DU are sacrificing any agenda for partisan interests. If the people see us hammering them they will not support our agenda either but just say more of same.

So again, that is what the Republicans did. Impeach Clinton, cater to the religous nut jobs who while claiming Victorian virtue are obsessed with what both you and I do in the bedroom. I am straight, but I can tell you with the most positive impication what you do in your bedroom among consenting adults could matter to me less. If we advance a postitive agenda the people will respond and they will have no choice. I'm not saying we give anything in policy to the Republicans.

Where we agree is on how horrible the Republican leadership has been. Where we obviously disagree is you don't remember our politicans treatment of theirs before they took over. We lost because we were arrogant and cut them out. They lost because they did the same to us. Now do we repeat the pattern and set ourselves up to return to the minority in the future? And keep in mind, their 2008 candidate would seem to almost have to be better then George W Bush. Who else is that bad?

[Madspirit]

184. It's not easy to get along with the Republicans, I agree

You say we "were arrogant and cut them out". Please explain to me how we can NOT cut them out without compromising our ideals.
Thanks.
Madspirit

[CompassionateLib]

192. Not hard

We make reasonable proposals and go to the people, which is the only approach that works. Letting poltiicans spend their time warring with each other is all they will ever do on their own. Look at the effective presidents since Vietnam. I am using effective in terms of advancing policy, not whether I agree with that policy.

Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. They were the two who spoke plainly and went to the people. Under Clinton as DC plunged into partisan chaos he accomplished less, not more. It is the people who will force politicans to advance an agenda. And that applies to both parties. If you let the petty politicans on both sides take over, we will have endless partisan warfare and nothing will get done.

Look at Kerry's loss, his "plan" was "not what George Bush did." What would you do in Iraq, "Not what George Bush did!" What would you do with the economy, "Not what George Bush did!" That was his answer to everything. Duh and that's good, but for America it wasn't enough even over the pathetic George Bush. You must stand FOR something, not just AGAINST your opponents.

Politicans are like tweedle dee and tweedle dum. Republicans have theirs who lie to them and we have ours who lie to us but in the end they are the same, they prefer to do nothing. We need to keep the feet of our liars to the fire so they will do as they promised us. Better protection of the environment, government out of our bedrooms, helping the disadvantaged, getting us out of Iraq, etc. They would far rather fight a partisan war because it's easier then actually doing something. Allowing them to go that route is letting them off the hook.

[Blutodog]

137. I agree up to a pt.

I know some of these folks ur talkin about. It's not quite as simple as that. Most of these folks are caught in a kind of delusional thought loop. The one's I know get their news from FOX and the 700 Club and Talk Radio ( Rush et al.). It is possble to talk with them , kind of. The problem is they go right back to getting their info form the same wing-nut websites, TV and radio so no matter what u say to them it only lasts for a while.

[beltanefauve]

138. Welcome to DU, Madspirit!

:hi: Thoughtful post!

[CompassionateLib]

156. All the nuts are scarry

What I think is too bad is the lean left middle like me and what I believe are many lean right Republicans have the choice of the right wing nut jobs you accurately describe and the hard left who fly the flag upside down and pine to be Sweden, or worse.

Clearly with Iraq and their desire for their church to own our bodies through the power of government I would never be a Republican, but the endless assault on our economic freedom and anti-Americanism bothers me from the hard left as well.

I find it sad that despite my social liberalism, pro-environment, anti-military and strong belief we help the disadvantaged isn't good enough for many who continually attack me just because I support economic freedom and consider this the greatest country on the planet.

The only solution to me is to align myself with Democrats and advocate we stop the assault on free enterprise, but we should have more than two polar choices in this country. And I've looked hard at 3rd party and they are all more nuts then the first two.

[confludemocrat]

118. Why is everyone buying the WAPO premise? Overdo stuff to get done NOW,

w/o the totally bad-faith shit the Repug always engage in. Do the cooperative stuff LATER. Did FDR ask the Hooverite Repubs for their input on how to get out of the disaster the country was in before starting his 100 days? No, because action was needed right away, and he knew he would get more of the same from them anyway! We are at that point again now.

[ElboRuum]

143. The problem as I see it...

...is that the party will be criticized ANYWAY. It's a question of where the loyalties must be placed. IMHO the newly elected Democrats will see little ill effect from passing legislation they resolved to pass regardless if they let the Reps join in the fun or no. They've made a promise to the constituencies that put them there regarding the passage of certain legislation. If it takes a shut out of the Reps to do that, well I think they should do that.

To me, any political nice-nice is secondary to that. The first and foremost responsibilities of any legislator should be to the promises that they've made to voters.

[fujiyama]

152. Hey may as well use that mandate

How the hell can Dems trust the pukes on issues like ethics reform, minimum wage increases, student loans, stem cell research, etc. when all they tried to do over the last few years was block all attempts at it?

These are basic common sense reforms that most people support. If republicans are included in the decision making, all we will end up with is BAD watered down legislation.

People have to realize that no legislation and gridlock is better than bad legislation.

[lanlady]

159. at long last

Maybe our congressmen will do the job they're paid to do -- the people's business. It'll be a historic 100 hours and woe unto the Rethuglicans who try to get in the way.

The GOP doesn't deserve a say in the people's business. They had the last 6 years practically to themselves, and accomplished nothing positive. Screw 'em.

[Placebo]

160. I love it.

Republicans wouldn't offer anything constructive or positive anyway.

[Johnny Noshoes]

162. NO RETREAT

NO SURRENDER - NO MERCY

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, no matter how satisfying and reassuring."
- Carl Sagan

[JAbuchan08]

163. Well, pragmatism won out over optimism

I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not. The central difficulty in being a Democrat is that Republicans will work to make every decision lose-lose. If we work "with" them they will obstruct to no end. If we work without them they will cry partisanship.

[and-justice-for-all]

164. I have one thing to say here...

..They should at least PRETEND to listen to rethugs opinion, let the rethuglicans have their run of the mouth at the least.

[gordontron]

165. we delt with 6 years, 100 hours doesn't seem so bad

after that I'm all for bipartisan discussion as long as that isn't a codeword for not getting anything done.

[truthisfreedom]

166. The next thing to reverse is that silly "impeachment is off the table" business, Nancy.

We need impeachment. Now.

[Clarkie1]

169. America voted for change, not more of the same. I'm disappointed in this.

It would be a sign of strength, not weakness, to engage the Republicans fully in debate.

I'm extremely disappointed that the leadership is taking this short-sighted approach.

[DFLer4edu]

170. When will the leadership of our party get its act together and learn to frame the debate?

This is a process story which takes away from the issues. The real story should be that "tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans" are only controversial issues to the leadership of the Republican Party. Everywhere else they just make common sense. Notice how the story fails to mention the substance of the Republican objections to "tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans." If this were the focus, it would be clear that the Republican party is corrupt, balances the federal checkbook on the backs of poor people, opposes scientific advance that will save millions of lives in an effort to pander to a small segment of ultraconservative Christians who have lost the true meaning of Jesus Christ's teachings, and fails to realize that to make the American Dream a reality for all Americans who work for it, we have to make access to world class education the birthright of all Americans.

Internal discussions of legislative tactics should not have been announced. Instead of talking about general bipartisanship and then announcing that we will not allow Republicans to put forth their own bills, the Democratic leadership should have been inviting the Republicans to join us in the spirit of common sense bipartisanship and help us in "tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans," measures that the Republican Party surely no longer opposes in this day and age? We should invite the Republicans to join us in ensuring that congressional ethics adhere to our moral values. We should invite the Republicans in ensuring that hard working Americans earn a living wage with which they can afford to feed their families and buy the medicines their children need to stay healthy. We should invite the Republicans to help us to cure diseases which take the lives of millions of Americans every year. We should invite Republicans to fully support education, in recognition that a world class education will enable students to achieve their American Dream. Then if the Republican Party decides that these are not things to which they aspire and that they do not support such legislation, we will have done everything in our power be bipartisan. Our legislative tactics will merely be an effort to keep the train on the tracks and it will be the Republicans who are partisan hacks who lack common sense, degrade our moral values, are out of touch with working class America, are a roadblock to the American Dream, and are willing to see Americans die for a few political points with Pat Robertson and other tv personalities.

Now if only the leadership of our party could get their act together!

[OnyxCollie]

171. So when bills addressing minimum wage, stem cells, school loans, etc.

are passed, will Repugs complain that they were not able to improve upon them, or will they complain they were not able to stop them from passing? If Repugs were actually going to contribute something of worth, then bipartisanship would not only be sporting, it would be (truly) democratic. However, given their past history, this is not likely to happen. Remember the last time the minimum wage was to be raised? The Repugs attached it to the repeal of the Paris Hilton tax. Or how about the fast one the Repugs tried to pull by slipping Duncan Hunter's bill in for John Murtha's?

The Repugs have an agenda, and it does not involve serving their constituents. It involves them getting reelected.

[BrightKnight]

173. It is probably best to start off with the anti-lock breaks.

This is not a good time for back seat driving. Once the country has been safely maneuvered back to the sane center their will be time to listen to their noise.

[wellst0nev0ter]

185. For The Last Goddamn Time: Fuck The Republicans

Quit trying to hug snakes and expecting not to get bit:

Pelosi Seeks House Minority 'Bill of Rights'
Hastert Dismisses Democrats' Complaint, Saying GOP Record Is Better Than Foes'

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 24, 2004; Page A23

House Democrats' anger at heavy-handed Republican tactics reached a new level yesterday, with the chamber's top Democrat asking the House speaker to embrace a "Bill of Rights" for the minority, regardless which party it is.

In keeping with the general atmosphere of the House these days, aides to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he will not respond to the two-page proposal from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A680-2004Jun23.html

[humbled_opinion]

187. OK riddle me this!

My point

1. Minimum wage hike the country wants it and it is way over due.

The following are responses and Counter Points from the people I work with mostly Conservatives.

Who exactly works for minimum wage anyway? Followed with H.S. grads, College students, First time earners.

Why should new workers get immediate raises. There will be no ripple up effect to the MW wage increase so if you currently make $8 and hour and have been working in the company for 4 years the new guy will be right behind you at a mandatory $7 with no time in.

They state that a $2 Increase in MW will be off set by companies dropping benefits packages to (senior) all workers and or scaling back on new hires less jobs potentially increasing the unemployment rate which is currenlty at historic lows.

2. I try to defend and get hit with Rich folks will always figure out a way to keep money. Rich are a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them, there will be no hand outs. The government directing wages will backfire on the economy.

How do I counter this crap?

[wellst0nev0ter]

188. Ask Them To Recount To Them The Economic Disaster

that happened upon the country the last time the minimum wage was increased (1997)

when they get through their first second or so saying "uuuuuhhh" tell them to fuck off with no condom.

And those people 22 and over make up the majority of those who earn the minimum wage.

[go west young man]

190. Maybe if the BOD's and CEO's of these companies...

lowered their own salaries then the rest of the employees wouldn't end up losing benefits and pensions? It comes down to plain ole greed. These CEO's are well over paid and screwing everyone else over in the process.

[bdamomma]

193. Okay Now it's our turn, the repigs did their damage

now we have to clean up their shit, I wish they would just shut up, and let the Dems do their work FOR US. It's long overdue. And ?Bush walking around like he is still the King, well, this should be very interesting, a bumpy ride it will be for the next two years. Maybe Bushie will have a meltdown, of too many tantrums! Stupid frat boy.

[ooglymoogly]

197. omg...wapo is biased....parroting the pukes talking points

who knew? correction; what is now becoming the pukes whining points.

[bamacrat]

198. Good, they have been screwing us for ever. NOTHING will get done with puke input.

[ooglymoogly]

200. i am surprised at some of the thinking on this board

the turn the other cheek crowd....roit, roit, so we can get hit up the side of the head with a frying pan...again...there is a big diff here...the dems are trying to pass legislation that protects our constitution and benifit we the people of this country...the pukes were passing laws to benifit only themselves, the military industrial complex and the rich and now will try to throw a monkey wrench into any legislation that diminishes their "accomplishment" and their ministry of propaganda (msm) will parrot whatever they whine about and send us the bill. this is not a tea party and with our very lives and democracy in the balance we have lost far too much to play nice.