Bipartisanship: An abusive marriage. And, the American people are the children.

[debbierlus]

Mr President, you tried bipartisanship.

It didn't work. It won't work in the future. In order for bi-partisanship to work there has to be TWO sides working together. Not one side appeasing the other by giving into unreasonable and dangerous demands.

Think of a couple going into marriage counseling. The very first thing a marriage counselor will ask before he/she begins therapy: Are you both committed to making this work? Are you both willing to look at your part and accept responsibility? If the answer is no, the counselor will tell the couple without the commitment for change on both parts, there is no therapy that will help the marriage.

It is that way with the Republicans. Not only do they not have the will to change, they are full out intent on creating more damage. The GOP is the abusive spouse in the room. Like abuse partners, the GOP:

Blames the other party for everything that is wrong

Demand the other party change for them

Insist that they act this way because of the other party

Use blackmail and control to get their needs met

Utilize threats to get their way

Play the victim in the relationship and accuse the other party of what THEY have done

As a former battered woman's counselor, I can tell you that the only time this dynamic changes is when the abused party LEAVES the relationship. When the abuser is no longer sustained by a co-dependent spouse, it ends. No more appeasing, begging, pleading, compromising core principles of self to maintain the other party's control and delusion. No more making decisions based on the reaction of an abuser.

Of course, this is the most dangerous time for a the party who leaves because the abuser can become dangerous once they realize they have lost their control over the other party.

But, every day, individuals find the courage to leave. Especially when they children who they will no longer subject to the control and fear of the abuser. They won't put those in their charge, in danger, any longer. Their welfare trumps the codependent relationship.

And, the American citizenry well being should trump the GOPs narcisstic, irrational, illogical demands.

You made a promise of bipartisanship, you made a bigger promise to the American people for change.

It is time for a divorce and full out battle for the restoration of sanity in government. Don't empower these people anymore.

[madaboutharry]

1. The republicans are like an abusive spouse.

It must be a personality type.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Until Dems have a filibuster-proof majority, it is what is required to get anything done. n/t

[debbierlus]

3. That is completely untrue. Until the democrats FIGHT, we won't get anything done

This isn't really all that complicated.

51 votes for a bill to pass. If the Republicans want to filibuster, let them do it. Make them RESPONSIBLE for their actions. Let them be seen as obstructionists. You are telling me that we have to create a bill that won't solve the problem because the repukes merely threaten to filibuster.

What bullshit. There is SO much that the dems and Obama could be doing to fight these pigs. Of course, it seems the DINOS are a huge part of the problem. They should be called out publicly by Obama on their shit as well.

[AtomicKitten]

4. It will take 60 votes to get the bill to conference, 51 after that.

Although I too would love to see the bastards actually filibuster on CSPAN 24/7.

[sampsonblk]

15. Why was it so easy for the GOP to get to 60 when they were in the majority?

Their majority was tiny, yet they were able to pass extremist policies. We couldn't muster 40 votes to sustain a filibuster. We were keeping our powder dry, so as to avoid seeming like obstructionists.

Now that the situation is reversed, in fact our position is even stronger than theirs was, we can't get anything done.

There is something wrong with how our party operates.

I stand by what I said during those darkest days: its an embarrassing lack of courage that causes us to get our asses whipped when it seems we should prevail.

Time to use some of the dry powder we were supposedly storing up.

[AtomicKitten]

16. they were keeping their powder dry, apparently ;)

Hey, I absolutely agree the Dems in Congress were spineless during Junior's tenure. Now that we are in the majority, we still are limited by the confines of process. The Blue Dogs are barking and are a real fly in the ointment in negotiations, siding with the GOP more often than the Democrats.

[Jennicut]

40. Because Tom Delay threatened and bribed

You do know that he offered things in return for votes, don't you? He also employed what is known as the take a turn vote...the moderate Rethugs could take turns voting against something that would hurt them at home but had to vote with the party other times. I don't want the Dems run that way.

[sampsonblk]

41. Then how DO you want the Dems run?

Right now, nothing is being run at all. Its every man for himself.

[Jennicut]

42. Not practically with bribes!

Get a new Majority Leader in who provides more discipline. Discipline is not the same as threatening your life and rep and offering bribes, Delay was dirty. But Reid sucks, we all know that. Nothing will really change with him, Obama will have to circumvent him to get what he wants.

[debbierlus]

21. There is also the real possibility of this being a grotesque game of good cop/bad cop -

And, the exposure of true corporate rule over both parties.

And, if that is the case, the system will just fall in on itself. I think at that point, you will see the viability of a third party because both parties will be exposed for their corporte servitutde.

[Zodiak]

30. 20 of our Senators were DLC

and on each big issue, about a third of them would vote with the Republicans. This happened throughout the bush years, over and over and over again. That's what people mean by power dry...we have to shut up and let the conservative Dems put a knife in our back again and again because we NEED them!

And now they are mucking with the works again....never any consequence to them at all.

I say we don't need them. I say we make them vote our way or cut them off from campaign funds. Then the DLC can fund their campaigns 100% and see how long they stay in office then.

[sampsonblk]

34. I agree with you - nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. Exactly! Until Democrats fight (which means getting rid of all the DLC politicians), we'll be

in the same sh*tty situation.

[MadHound]

7. Another bullshit excuse

Sorry, but the 'Pugs managed to ram through their agenda without resorting to reaching across the aisle, and without having sixty Senate votes. How did they do this? First by having great party discipline. Second, by being willing to fight in every way possible for their agenda. They had the will, and the ability, to kneecap any opponent who got in their way.

This latest whine of "Dems don't have a filibuster proof majority" is just another attempt to excuse the Dems for not having the courage and discipline to get done what needs to be done.

[AtomicKitten]

8. "bullshit excuse" = reality, although I too would love to see them filibuster on CSPAN

It is what it is, your awesome posturing notwithstanding.

[MadHound]

9. Then answer me this

How were the 'Pugs able to get their agenda through Congress, without caving, without doing this bipartisan bullshit, with a majority of less than sixty votes, and it didn't matter who was in the White House, Clinton or Bush?

Oh, yeah, they had discipline and knew how to fight, something that the Dems have no clue about.

[AtomicKitten]

10. How? By virtue of spineless Democrats not willing to resist vis a vis filibuster. n/t

[MadHound]

13. In other words they took the fight to the Democrats

And either kneecapped them or threatened to do so. Thank you for proving my point that the current Dems aren't willing to fight, and in fact will compromise away the good of this country in order to prevent a fight.

Again, thanks for proving my point.

[AtomicKitten]

14. And my point that they need 60 votes to get the bill to conference is the reality of the process.

And is the actual point you were disputing. Oh, and don't forget Democrats have the GOP en masse and the Blue Dogs to contend with in this dance.

[MadHound]

17. Please, stop with the circular logic, and the circular argument.

The original point that I was making(and please, don't try sticking words in my mouth) back up in post 7 was that the 'Pugs were able to ram through their agenda by "First by having great party discipline. Second, by being willing to fight in every way possible for their agenda. They had the will, and the ability, to kneecap any opponent who got in their way." The Dems are either unwilling or unable to do this.

You confirmed that the Dems are unwilling to fight with your post stating "By virtue of spineless Democrats not willing to resist vis a vis filibuster." Again, thank you for proving my point.

Now you're circling back to the excuse that the Dems don't have sixty votes. Again I have to state that's a bullshit excuse and that the 'Pugs were able to ram through their agenda without the need for sixty Senate votes. Which leads us back to the question of why, which leads us back to the answer that essentially the 'Pugs know how to fight and the Dems don't want to fight for what is right, which has been my point all along. So please, don't go and try to circle back again, the fact of the matter is, as we've both deciphered, that the Dems are unwilling to fight for what's right and will cave and cave again.

As far as the Blue Dogs go, that comes under party discipline. If Reid and Pelosi can't crack the whip on these people and get them in line, then they don't deserve to be in leadership positions. What, you don't think that the 'Pugs had liberal or moderate members of their party back when they were in majority? They did, yet somehow Gingrich and others instilled iron party discipline on all Republicans, and gee, got their agenda through. Blue Dogs are simply another excuse for the Democratic leadership not doing their job.

So please, stop making excuses for these people. They are failing miserably and need to be called out for it, because quite frankly due to their inability or unwillingness to fight people are going to suffer and suffer and perhaps to the point of death.

[AtomicKitten]

19. you're the one moving the goalposts, dude

The Dems require 60 votes in the Senate to pass this bill on to conference. That's a fact. It's a fact because the Republicans WILL filibuster. Also of note, Senate rules require at least two members of the opposing party sign on to a stimulus bill if it increases the deficit.

You seem oblivious to and downright hostile to these factoids; either that or you are incapable of entertaining two seemingly opposing ideas in your head at the same time.

It's also a fact that we both agree the Dems have been spineless, although you seem to want to continue to slam that point on the rocks as if we don't in your unfocused rant.

Done and done.

[MadHound]

28. The fact is, duuuuude,

That we should go ahead and fucking let the 'Pugs filibuster. Let them get out there are make an ass out of themselves for holding up a desperately needed stimulus package. Let Obama and Pelosi and Reid and Frank and Kucinich and anybody else get up there in that bully pulpit and day in and day out slam Congressional 'Pugs for holding the country hostage.

Either that or fucking kneecap your opponents. LBJ used to be a master at this, as was Gingrich. Find something that an opposing member wants, or at least doesn't want made public, and dangle it out there in exchange for their vote. Works every time.

But gee, this would require that Dems actually grow a pair and fight, which as we both have said is something that the Dems can't or won't do.

So what are we going to do? Apparently we're going to waste good money on a bad stimulus, which is going to do little or nothing to fix the problems that we have. Yippee, at least we'll have the comfort of knowing that the Dems didn't have to for us, the little people, as we continue to go down the drain.

So, duuuuude. That leaves us back where we came from. The 'Pugs could get whatever they wanted without that magic number because they were fighters while the Dems are willing to bargain away our future instead of fighting for the betterment of this country and its people. Which frankly means that we're going to, once again, get screwed by our own, simply because they don't want to fight.

That's "done and done" duuuuude:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

29. you could really use some anger management courses

We agree that the Dems are spineless, something you still fail to acknowledge in your unfocused rant, yet you continue tilting at windmills in this bizarre rant bemoaning the Senate rules and procedure. You are desperately trying to personalize it for some strange reason :crazy:, perhaps to create the argument you really want to have. I'm not your huckleberry.

[MadHound]

31. And you could use a clue because apparently half of what I'm saying

Is doing a double back flip right over your head. Next time I'll try and spell it out for you in single syllables and using absolutely no linguistic tricks OK.

Big hint: I'm not bemoaning Senate rules and procedure. Try to figure it out for yourself from there. It might help to go study the Congressional career of Gingrich and LBJ, see how they got things done. Oh, wait, that would require study eh duuuuude.

[AtomicKitten]

32. You can't even focus enough to make a cohesive argument.

Clue for you: You ARE bemoaning Senate procedures and rules, in fact, the constraint of procedure and rules has your knickers in a twist. Your harrange clearly doesn't grasp that factoid, in fact, you reject it!: Does not compute in your fog of unfocused rage. What is clear is that you just want to argue, or rather your version of an argument - personal attacks - because you've got nothing else.

So, here you go! You're welcome!

Man looking for an argument (M)
Receptionist (R)
Abuse Specialist, Mr. Bernard (B)
Argument Specialist (A)
Complaint Specialist (C)
Head Hitting Instructor (H)

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.

R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?

M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.

R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

M: Well, what is the cost?

R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.

M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.

R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.

(Pause.)

R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.

M: Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

B: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

M: Well, I was told outside that...

B: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

M: What?

B: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!

B: OH! Oh, I'm sorry, but this is abuse.

M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.

B: Ah, yes, you want room 12A. Just along the corridor.

M: Oh. Thank you very much. Sorry.

B: Not at all.

M: Thank you. (Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walks down the corridor. Knocks.)

A: Come in.

M: Ah, is this the right room for an argument?

A: I told you once.

M: No you haven't.

A: Yes I have.

M: When?

A: Just now.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't

A: I did!

M: You didn't!

A: I'm telling you I did!

M: You did not!!

A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

M: Oh, just the five minutes.

A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not.

A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.

M: No you did not.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't.

A: Did.

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

A: Yes it is.

M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

A: No it isn't.

M: It is!

A: It is not.

M: Look, you just contradicted me.

A: I did not.

M: Oh you did!!

A: No, no, no.

M: You did just then.

A: Nonsense!

M: Oh, this is futile!

A: No it isn't.

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(Short pause.)

A: No it isn't.

M: It is.

A: Not at all.

M: Now look.

A: (Rings bell) Good morning.

M: What?

A: That's it. Good morning.

M: I was just getting interested.

A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!

A: I'm afraid it was.

M: It wasn't.

(Pause.)

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.

M: What?!

A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!

A: (Hums.)

M: Look, this is ridiculous.

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M: Oh, all right.

(Pays money.)

A: Thank you.

(Short pause.)

M: Well?

A: Well what?

M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.

A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

M: I just paid!

A: No you didn't.

M: I DID!

A: No you didn't.

M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.

A: Well, you didn't pay.

M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I got you!

A: No you haven't.

M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.

A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

M: Oh I've had enough of this.

A: No you haven't.

M: Oh shut up.

(Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)

M: I want to complain.

C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes! I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through!

M: No, I want to complain about...

C: If you complain, nothing happens; you might as well not bother.

M: Oh!

C: Oh, my back hurts! It's not a very fine day, and I'm sick and tired of this office.

(Slams door. Walks down corridor, opens next door.)

M: Hello, I want to... Ooooh!

H: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go "Waaah." Try it again.

M: Uuuwwhh!!

H: Better, better, but "Waah, Waah"! Put your hand there.

M: No.

H: Now.

M: Waaaaah!!!

H: Good, good! That's it.

M: Stop hitting me!!

H: What?

M: Stop hitting me!!

H: Stop hitting you?

M: Yes!

H: Why did you come in here then?

M: I wanted to complain.

H: Oh no, that's next door. It's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here.

M: What a stupid concept.

[MadHound]

35. LOL, and you complain about my focus, then go off on a long Monty Python bit

Yeah, OK, well I suppose that I'll drop this right here since it's apparent that you aren't understanding what I'm saying and all this is going to do is continue to devolve into insults and weirdness.

Peace:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

36. The weird thing is

we were damn close to being on the same page from the get-go, and I don't think you understood that. We just approached the Dems' spinelessness from a different direction.

Peace. :hi:

[inna]

37. i totally agree with MadHound nt

[WinkyDink]

11. Can't we at least act as boldly---if not even brazenly---as the MINORITY Party? THEY don't seem to

feel the need to "compromise"!

[AtomicKitten]

12. Democrats suck as the minority party. n/t

[MadHound]

18. Democrats are sucking as the majority party too. n/t

[debbierlus]

22. Amen. The mere threat of a filibuster is enough for them to give on on CRUCIAL items

How wonderful for the Republicans...

Get on your knees democrats...we will filibuster against your bill.

They haven't even TRIED to fight them!

[tavalon]

39. We can't change, until, until, until.......

Have you noticed that the minority party is quite capable of getting every damn thing they want? We didn't know how to be a minority party and we sure as hell don't know how to be a majority and that sucks because we really are the party with the right ideas, we just don't have the spine, ability, commitment, I don't know what to actually implement them.

[liberalsince1968]

6. Perfect analogy.

[whistler162]

20. POS Analogy and "IF" you where a...

"battered woman's counselor" you would know it.

[debbierlus]

24. Why the snark?

?

Odd

[Clio the Leo]

23. Yeah Barack! It's been almost 3 weeks! WHY have you not saved the world?

You clearly have no idea what you are doing ... the American people should have elected ME ME MEEEEE!!!!

Or perhaps we should let this thing play out and see what happens? Just a thought.

And I agree with the above posters. Comparing a bunch of congressmen and women trying to out ego-trip one another totally mocks the BS that battered women go through. Not supercool.

[debbierlus]

26. I respectfully and strongly disagree

The Republicans are gutting CRUCIAL funding for this bill. State are going bankrupt but the Senate version cuts 40 billion for state aid. They are deliberately sabotaging this bill for political reasons. They want it to fail, so they can point to this bill in two years and blame the democrats for what has happened. It is a campaign strategy. Have you listened to the Republican spokespeople today? They are laying it out as their plan.

The Republicans are putting the recovery of the economy is serious danger. What they are doing completely squares with the battered spouse analogy. The consequences of their action are dire. The impact on individuals and families, severe.

Obama conceded a THIRD of the bill to tax cuts right at the get go. We do NOT need more tax cuts. It is not the solution. According to economists, the bill was already to small on spending to provide a effective stimulus.

By allowing the Republicans to dictate the terms, the bill has been decimated - it is simply too small and misdirected to work. The Repubicans CREATED this mess. They need to be fought, exposed for their tactics, and dismissed. It is time to play hardball. Not acquiesce to a bunch of thugs who care only for their own political power.

And, to end, there was absolutely no need to begin your post in such a insulting way.

[Clio the Leo]

27. And I appreciate your respect as it was a bit undeserved...

.... and I will admit to being snarky. As often happens here, my response was not directed to you specifically but to the tone by many here who hold a similar view. So please dont take it personally. ;)

I firmly believe it far too early for us to declare his tactic ineffective. He promised for years that he would act this way, so we had fair warning. ("Audacity of Hope" is practically a playbook as to how he's doing things.)

I respectfully submit that validity of any tactic cannot be assessed in three weeks. His job is not to appease democrats ... and he has been clear that he will compromise if it means getting the big item accomplished.

I also cant buy into the notion that this is a one shot deal. Otherwise, Congress would close up shop and go home for the remainder of this session after this bill passes.

The fact of the matter is, he's playing a long-term ballgame. If we wins in 2012, his ability to say, "I tried to work with these guys and they fought me all the way," will appeal to the majority of voters who despise partisan bickering.

I tend to not concern myself with things that I dont feel will get accomplished .... and getting Barack Obama to change his mind about working with the other side ..... such a fundamental building block upon which his political beliefs are built ... is one of those things that's not gonna change.

[Cha]

33. And, the good news is..

Obama's not insane so he's not going to be doing the same thing over and over again if it doesn't work.

This initial attempt at finding common ground with the repukes is all a part of Obama's strategy..I can't wait to see what comes next:)

Like taking it to the peeps.

[leftstreet]

25. 'co-dependent ' politicians

You pretty much said it.

[earth mom]

38. Bipartisanship is just a way for the dems to be exactly like the rethugs without admitting it.

Let's face it-there are only a small handful of dems left in Washington DC and they are becoming more endangered every day. :argh: