A simple fact to keep in mind: Being nice to Republicans and expecting them to be nice back .......

[Stinky The Clown]

.... is a fool's game.

Throughout history, they have ALWAYS returned little more than a bloody stump when hands foolishly crossed the alligator infested moat that is laughingly referred to as "the aisle".

This is as much an immutable law as are gravity and inertia.

[camera obscura]

1. Atrios calls it Lucy & the football, no?

Every time they swear it's different, everytime they pull away at the last second.

[gaspee]

24. I called it that

here on DU back in '05 or so. That's always what I've likened to trying to work with the right wing to.

[EFerrari]

35. You were right then and you're still right!

[gravity]

2. We are in the position of power

If the Republicans want to participate in the governing process, they have to be nice back. If they don't, then the Democrats can do without them.

Reaching out doesn't mean you have to cave in. It is just giving a fair opportunity to the other side for once, then it is on them to decide what they want to do with it.

[OwnedByFerrets]

47. What in the past two years have made you feel as though

Repugs are going to be nice back? Just them "threatening" to filibuster makes dems cower in fear.

[lame54]

68. Or that dems won't cave in

[NJmaverick]

3. I have always felt that one should be true to one's own ethical and moral views

that the actions or anticipated actions of another, is not an excuse to violate one's beliefs.

[surrealAmerican]

70. Thank you.

Being nice is because of who you are, not who they are.

[gcomeau]

4. Another simple fact to keep in mind.

Political competition in this nation is a perpetual war for the allegiance of the middle.

And yes, that is on topic. I can't believe how many people on this board are actually under the rather clueless impression that the main thrust of things like the Warren invitation, or the Gates appointment, is to win over the far right wing of the nation. It's just sad... like people think Obama has suddenly turned brain dead and thinks the most conservative 20 or 30% of the nation are suddenly going to switch sides and become his base or something.

A small percentage of them may be swayed, but the primary audience for these kinds of gestures is the INDEPENDENTS. When you reach across the aisle, who do you have to reach very emphatically ACROSS in the political spectrum, leaving little to no doubt that they are very firmly in the demographic range you will work with relatively comfortably? You'd think this was Quantum Mechanics or something the way so few people seem to get how things work.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Book mark and then let's talk in 2 years

There will already be bloody stumps where some people's hands were.

[gcomeau]

7. And?

Who said there wouldn't be? LET the Republicans bite the hand that is extended to them, who gives a crap? If we have the middle we have the country and they can snap and snarl all they want.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. This thread wasn't about .......

..... Warren, but since you mentioned him ...... he was not a good choice to go for the middle, in my view. Way to controversial for the REAL base, thereby hurting Obama on that score. As to helping him, I am sure some less controversial figure could have been found. Even one who hates gays as much as Warren. The fact is, Warren is the new, softer face of the followers of Falwell and Robertson and Parsley and every other kook right wing Christofascist Ayatollah Motherfucker wannabe. There is NO difference apart from tone. Why pick the one who ran those right wing debates and has such a high profile among OUR SIDE? If he wanted a Christofascist, why not one less well known?

This got read as a slap at us, and rightly so.

[gcomeau]

23. I used him as an examples. Gates too you'll notice.

And Warren was a PERFECT choice to go for the middle, for exactly the reason you just tried to argue he wasn't. You can't send a clear message to the moderates of the nation that you're willing to operate in a large tent that they'll definitely find themselves inside by "reaching out" to people who, on the Liberal-Conservative continuum, are standing somewhere in contact with your right shoulder. You HAVE to go big to get people's attention and nail the impression into their head. Picking a "less controversial" figure would have defeated the entire point of the symbolism of the exercise for cripes sake.

"Look at me, I will reach out in a spirit of reconciliation and invite this person who very clearly and obviously disagrees with me in a large and significant way" is a statement that has real effect.

"Look at me, I will reach out in a spirit of inclusiveness to this person who nobody really knows and who holds no opinions anyone really has much of a serious problem with" is a joke. It's like saying "I prefer red... but to show how amazingly flexible I am I will consider looking at scarlet". It's pathetic.

The only value the invocation has is symbolic. That's it. It's symbolism or nothing. And you don't get mileage out of choosing a symbol that does nothing but inspire a mass yawn.

And no, it was not rightly read as a slap in the face to anybody. It's ridiculous to read it that way. Obama not only did NOT endorse the controversial position in question, he publicly and explicitly stated his disagreement with it. What this is a "we disagree but you can still participate" gesture... and that isn't a slap in the face to ANYONE.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Gates is less onerous in this conext, in my view .....

..... he can be replaced anytime. His continuance in office actually makes sense, even as it infuriates a lot of us on the left. But at the very bottom of the issue - he can be fired if he does not follow the dictum of the civilian leadership - which I have NO DOUBT he will.

Warren was entirely symbolic and has inflamed the left. Maybe not you ...... but many of us. He elicits far more feelings of visceral poliotical betrayal than does Gates' remaining in office.

[gcomeau]

36. With Gates "less onerous" still acheives a lot...

...because SecDef carries it's own built in guarantee of public exposure. So Obama can pick someone there who isn't actually all that controversial but because of the extreme high profile of the office right now it still sends a hugely effective message to the independents that Obama isn't acting in a purely partisan manner because any degree of deviation from the traditional party standard-bearer in THAT position gets hugely magnified.

Wouldn't work with the invocation. No controversy = no coverage = no opportunity to influence public perception. Just look at how many people can't stop talking about Lowery... if you can find any of them that is. Rationally speaking he should be just as important as Warren, the position he was given is every bit as meaningful (read: meaningless) and he isn't exactly a middle of the road moderate, but he isn't a topic of discussion. At all. Nobody CARES because there's nothing there to grab their attention. The Democratic president picked someone liberal to do something = "dog bites man".

The bottom line is Obama could either use the inauguration to send a message and sway some opinion, or he could waste it. I like that he didn't waste it. He hasn't given anything away, the invocation is an ultimately meaningless ceremony and the people having a coronary over "National Pulpit!" are completely off base. Warren already had national stature, the invocation isn't a platform that can be used for any kind of policy advancement, and Obama took direct action to neutralize anyone's ability to say that the choice represented an endorsement or legitimization of his gay rights stance... all bases are pretty much covered here. And at the same time he's built up a bit of buffer against being characterized as partisan due to any future policy moves he makes. This was exactly how he should have handled things. Yes, it's "inflamed" some of the Left... but it shouldn't have. People are reacting without thinking. But even with that being the case, frankly it's still a net win. Because those people freaking the hell out right now will put it behind them if he delivers on policy. And he'll be better ABLE to deliver on policy the more effectively he manages the perceptions of the moderates. Which he is doing pretty damn well right now.

Now none of this is any form of guarantee he actually WILL deliver. I am unfortunately lacking in the crystal ball/time machine department. But what I do know is if I was personally writing up a game plan to absolutely maximize the ability for the next president to implement all the progressive policies I'd like to see implemented it would look so much like what Obama is actually doing it's scary. So no freak out from me... no chance. I'm practically giddy, and will remain so until Obama takes actions that actually demonstrate he is pursuing an overall policy direction I seriously don't like. And he hasn't even come anywhere close to that.

[CTyankee]

69. Sad but true, husb. Remember the saying, "When you've got them by the balls,

their hearts and minds will follow"?

Is there a Republican seat we can get in 2010 (that we don'thave now)?

[DireStrike]

57. The middle keeps moving right.

Look at Obama and the Warren thing. By "reaching out" to someone as far right as warren, he's defining the "middle" somewhere between himself, a centrist democrat, and Warren, about as crackpot right-wing as you can get. I don't see any hippies or other such comical caricatures of the left, as Warren is a caricature of the right-wing base, being "reached out" to by Obama and thus legitimized.

[Selatius]

63. Your message is incomplete. You cannot win if you don't also win your own base.

If you move too far to the right in trying to court the middle, a good number of people on the left would be just as willing to stay home or vote third party. If you want to win, you win your base and the middle. It's how it was done in the past under FDR and Truman. It's how it should be done now and in the future. The votes coming on the left should be taken for granted at one's peril.

[Jamastiene]

6. K&R

Well said! I know from first hand experience that what you are saying is the ABSOLUTE truth. I live down here in fundyland. I KNOW what they are REALLY like.

[grasswire]

8. thank you

...and they don't hide it. The only remedy is to go after them, and make them feel some pain. Sigh.

[Hydra]

15. Nah, we just need to put them in a time-out

While we go fix the mess they made. They'll blame the mess on us later when we invite them back to the table, but that's life. In that vein, we have to be absolutely careful of what else we let them handle- they've already broken all of the china and stolen the silverware.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Are you talking about the Millions of Registered Republican American Citizens,

or are you talking about Republican GOP congressional and party partisans?

Cause I don't think they are the same. Do you?

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Republican GOP congressional and party partisans .......

..... who are there because Millions of Registered Republican American Citizens voted for them to represent their views.

That's who.

[FrenchieCat]

22. The reason I ask is that I know that all Democrats don't

always support their own congresscritters.....

and also that not all Citizens who describe themselves and vote Democratic share the same views.

So if you were talking about reaching out to Republican Voters, I think that there is a definite number that can be reached. Perhaps it is those who can be mobilized to contact their Republican Congresscritters and apply their own brand of pressure as needed.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. My comments in the OP were aimed far more at the intrenched right wing in Congress than .....

.... :cough: the Joe Sixpacks and the Jotha Plummers - although they come very close to being my targets as well.

Can we reach some in the middle? Well .... yeah. But by stepping once again on the left? Not smart ..... imho.

[blm]

28. It's the LEADERS of GOP and a few powerful Dems loyal to BushInc who have been the problem for

the rest of us this nation....and that includes the millions of Republican citizens still unaware of the fascist agenda of BushInc.

[SeattleGirl]

10. So, does that mean we have to treat them as badly as they've treated us?

IMHO, we don't have to do that. I think we are better than that. That doesn't mean I think we should be volunteers for the bloody stump brigade (:) ), but rather I think that we can behave better than they do.

Behaving better, treating people better, doesn't mean going about it in a naive way. We know how they act; we know what they do. But I still think we can be the better people we are, not act like they do, and still end up with all our proverbial limbs intact.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. So you thin it is about the tone of how we act?

Okay ... whatever.

But we can not work with them and we cannot accommodate them. They have NEVER compromised their basic values to accommodate us.

[SeattleGirl]

33. Apparently we disagree.

It is not my wont to treat others badly. I'd have to work at it. But that doesn't mean that I willingly lay down and let others run roughshod over me. And it doesn't mean if they gob-smack me, I go back for more. I'm just not going to go out of my way to treat others badly.

And having that kind of attitude, "....we can not work with them and we cannot accommodate them." just perpetuates the cycle of anger and hatred. Where does that get us?

[ljm2002]

45. You say, 'And having that kind of attitude, "...we can not work with them"...

..."and we cannot accommodate them." just perpetuates the cycle of anger and hatred. Where does that get us?'

This sort of logical analysis can only get you so far. There is a social / psychological dynamic at work here. The proper analogy is that of the abusive relationship. Often the abused partner thinks that the abuse is their fault, that if they only behaved better or accommodated the abusive partner better, things will change. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, as long as you keep trying to accommodate the abuser, NOTHING will change, and you will only earn their contempt.

In the case of an intimate relationship, usually the only solution is to break off the relationship altogether. In the case of politics, this is not really possible. So the next alternative is to retaliate. Deliberately -- not in the heat of passion. If they hurt you, you hurt them back, with interest. You don't start it but you definitely finish it.

"Reaching across the aisle" with this lot is a losing game. Rather than engendering goodwill, it engenders their utter contempt for you. Because they look at your "reaching across the aisle" as pandering and compromising your principles -- which, indeed, it is. They know what their agenda is, and they stick to it. Just take a look at the recent bailouts: billions for the bankers, nada for the automobile companies -- and why? Because of the unions, that's why. They never miss an opportunity to do some good old-fashioned union-busting. Reach across the aisle to this lot? They've already done enough hand-biting -- if it was me on our side of the aisle, I'd be waiting for their hands to come across and, before beginning any negotiations with them, I'd be ready with a big fat club first. And I'd not negotiate until they were whimpering for mercy -- if then.

It's an easy formulation, really: you don't negotiate with bad players. And these players are, truly, bad. I do not say this lightly -- I remember a Republican party that you could work with for the common good. Those days are long, long gone. This current crew is full of rabid ideologues and corrupt to the core.

Well, it may be too late for this argument anyway. This country is in a world of hurt. Here's hoping we get back to basics and learn how to pull together as a population, and make Congress do our bidding instead of the pathetic corrupt arrangement that we have now.

[Raksha]

52. Very well said.

Re "Reaching across the aisle" with this lot is a losing game. Rather than engendering goodwill, it engenders their utter contempt for you. Because they look at your "reaching across the aisle" as pandering and compromising your principles -- which, indeed, it is. They know what their agenda is, and they stick to it. Just take a look at the recent bailouts: billions for the bankers, nada for the automobile companies -- and why? Because of the unions, that's why. They never miss an opportunity to do some good old-fashioned union-busting. Reach across the aisle to this lot? They've already done enough hand-biting -- if it was me on our side of the aisle, I'd be waiting for their hands to come across and, before beginning any negotiations with them, I'd be ready with a big fat club first. And I'd not negotiate until they were whimpering for mercy -- if then.

I've never been in favor of "reaching across the aisle," and you just explained why much better than I could have done it. They only see it as weakness, and bite your hand off if you try.

[ljm2002]

60. Thanks...

...appreciate your reply.

I would like to stress, it's not that I'm against working with people who may hold different views. It is rather that the right in this country has become rabid and relentless, and are no longer people with whom you can reason or compromise in any meaningful sense. Their idea of compromise is for you to accommodate them, while they continue to whittle away at -- or, more accurately, hack and hew at -- your positions.

Given that, it is absurd to begin negotiations from a position of "compromising" with them.

[Kitty Herder]

71. Hear, hear!

Well said. :applause:

[Hydra]

11. We could fix global warming

Employ all of the unemployed fundies, make healthcare and school through graduate "free," make this a totally green country and let them have their religious freedom...and they'd still hate us and say that we are un-american and how we should be lined up and shot for treason.

In fact, they'd hate us more because our ideas worked.

It makes laugh to see all of these people talking about how it's a new day even as they ask us to cave in to a bad decision.

Deja Moo?

[kenfrequed]

44. I sort of agree...

Fix global warming- sure, they will continue to deny it exists. We really cannot 'fix' this problem but we might be able to mitigate it just a bit. If we did fix it they would claim that it never existed.

Mass Federal employment- getting everyone better jobs would actually help us. People know when they are doing well and when they are doing poorly and as long as we stamp the programs and make them effective and dramatic enough most people will not complain as much.

Free Healthcare- People cannot deny that democrats care if we can provide something like this. An entire generation of Americans thanked FDR and the testiment to his programs was that even republicans had to support many of them and it took them many decades to undermine the mindset and policies of the new deal.

Free edu, green economy etc.

The simple fact of the matter is that the hard core fundies are only about 20-30% of the population (and shrinking). The idea of killing the elements of our party that are populist in nature to accomadate them and the Wallstreet crowd in order to win elections is idiocy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Nice in theory, not supported by evidence.

Obama made significant in-roads into the republican evangelical community. He did much better than Gore or Kerry.

[specimenfred1984]

13. But let's pretend gay-hating bigots are religious

along with "war is peace".

[Stinky The Clown]

18. Yeah .... there's way too much of that.

But that's another story and really a sidebar to this thread.

I agree with you, though. Christofascists.

And if honest Christians want to not be lumped with them, then there needs to be some **visible** pushback against the bigots.

[zeemike]

19. So is that the reason we are nice to people

So that they will be nice back?
Or do we be nice to people because it is the right thing to do?
Do we allow people to speak their mind to change them or to hear what they have to say?
Do we mary someone to make them love us or because we love them?
Are our intentions to control or are we just doing what is right in our own hearts?

[Stinky The Clown]

27. Tra la la la la ........

The intent is to GET SHIT DONE

The intent is to FIX THE COUNTRY.

The intent is to MAKE THIS A BETTER PLACE.

And, append to each of those goals - "as we see it".

So no, it isn't about nice. It is about results.

[YOY]

20. You cannot please everyone. Only a foolish politician would try to.

If Pres Elect Obama wants to reach across the aisle, then fine. Just reach those who can be reached and keep the hell away from those who will NEVER be swayed.

[NMMNG]

21. The frog and the scorpion come to mind

A classic.

[deaniac21]

29. I take it you aren't a Lincoln fan.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. Cute

You know fucking-A well what I meant.

[deaniac21]

34. I know what you said.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. As I said .....

.... cute ... oh (wannabe) inscrutable one.

:eyes:

[deaniac21]

40. Sorry, I'm still having problems figuring out all the rules in circle

jerk threads.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Keep trying .... you have the second part down pat.

Keep working on that circle thing.

[deaniac21]

46. My name is kim not pat

[Stinky The Clown]

49. Never called you pat

But whatever.

KIK

[deaniac21]

51. Humor alert.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. Have you tried the veal?

[deaniac21]

65. Yes, it was free range!

[Stinky The Clown]

67. Shame on you ......

..... eatin' free liddle cows like that.

[glitch]

32. Lincoln yes, Neville Chamberlain not so much.

Not to mention that pesky Civil War.

[Fire1]

31. I said as much on another post. Can you say, 'BACKFIRE?' LOL!

[mmonk]

38. Depends on the Republican.

The new right republicans, you are correct.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Yup .... and they're the ones in Congress, runnin' shit.

[northofdenali]

42. No. Shit.

[yodermon]

43. "Bipartisanship = Date Rape"

I forget who said it but it was a repuke, grover maybe?

[opihimoimoi]

48. Most are some sort of BULLIES with attendant fuckups...like NPD and ABUSE Tendencies

Incorrigible and vindictive, they plot to win their way....

Its so hard to Trust the Pyschos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fic52wzvTo4&feature=related

come, we listen to sull aria

[hfojvt]

50. can you provide some examples?

I believe I can remember a counter-example. President George H. W. Bush ran on his pledge of "read my lips, no new taxes". Then he worked with Congressional Democrats to hammer out a compromise tax increase. The result was that Clinton hammered him as a liar and a tax increaser in the 1992 elections. There might be other examples as well, Nixon helping to create the EIC and the EPA. Reagan increasing taxes on corporations and increasing the EIC. Here's one that I read recently from Michael Harrington

"The Government promised every citizen a decent dwelling in 1949. Under the leadership of a conservative Republican, Senator Robert A. Taft, the Congress agreed that the private housing market was not serving the needs of the poor. They therefore pledged to build 810,000 units of low cost housing by 1955."

Of course, he continued

"In 1970, one generation later, that target has not yet been acheived."

Speaking of Taft, there was quite a bit of progressive legislation passed during his and TR's term. Of course, that was way back, when socialists were still getting 5% of the vote and Republicans included people like Fighting Bob Lafollette. Did you know that a greater percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for Civil rights in the 1960s than Democrats. It's ironic, but true.

[riderinthestorm]

54. you bring up Clinton who was a conservative Dem and reached out to Rethugs

to reform Welfare for example.

And got slammed with multiple fishing expeditions into his private life in return....

There are others, but that one is the most stark in my mind at this late hour.

[riderinthestorm]

55. My mom spouted Faux News talking points @ global "warming" today

as I spent 6 hours driving her around to finish her Christmas shopping in a major snow storm (Northern Illinos).

She ranted on and on about how Al Gore got it so wrong about global "warming" and look at this weather, she's already had to pay the snowplow guy 5 times to plow her driveway and it's not even Christmas.... Blah, blah, blah. Yes, she's a complete Rethug robot, thoroughly Hannitized and Rush Limbaugh is her guru....

I finally just brought her up short and said, "it's global climate change Mom. We're going to experience massive changes in our climate before we get to the serious ramifications of polar ice cap meltdown. We need to get used to this kind of extraordinary weather because we're only going to experience more of it before the earth's climate truly melts down."

Silence from her.

She never says another word about it for the next 2 hours that I shepherd her in to any store, all stores, anywhere she wants while the snowstorm rages. she gets out of the car when we get back to her house at the end. I put all of her purchases on the sofa, hug her and leave. She never says "thank you", or offers any other commentary. I know that on Xmas Day I can expect more crazy talk via Faux News and Hannity....

I hate this division caused by Right Wing radio/TV. It's so dishonest. So destructive. There's no dialogue possible since they paint this shit black or white....

It's crazy.

[Skittles]

56. it's fucking crap

I can't believe so many DUers are spouting this be nice to the enemy garbage

[Stinky The Clown]

58. It seems to be the fashion these days .......

...... not unlike designer names on the ass pockets of one's jeans.

[stillcool]

59. No, but you need them to pass legislation..

[Lucian]

61. Yeah, fuck Republicans.

They didn't give a shit about us for the past eight years. Why the fuck should we give a shit about them now?

[flvegan]

62. Sooo...political "race war" then, yes?

Why be nice to them? Being "nice" is emotional. Be reasonable, have the greater good in mind. If they refuse to play ball, fucking crush them.

Oh, wait...problem is we have complicit Dems that won't. Pity that.

[Swamp Rat]

64. "Mmmm... Coo yah maya stupa! Jee torona machu murishani mind trick!... hahahaah!!!"

[leftofthedial]

66. before snapping off the proferred hand,

they also always manage to drag the "center" farther into the cesspool of the right.

[Kitty Herder]

72. That's so very true. nt

[Kitty Herder]

73. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Please consider this op reccommended anyway. I'm in complete agreement with you Husb.

Some responders to this thread seem to think that it is noble for our representatives to give up their cherished ideals, the ideals for which the people voted, and more importantly, to let down the people who elected them, all in the name of good manners. Well, I for one would prefer elected representatives who will fight for me. That's their job.

[whistler162]

74. A simple fact : If you don't try, you always fail!