General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Offers a Path Forward Beyond the Gridlock
Last edited Tue Jun 9, 2015, 12:26 AM - Edit history (1)
http://correctrecord.org/At her Silicon Valley speech last week, Hillary spoke about the importance of bipartisanship, saying that we cant make progress on the biggest issues facing our country if we dont work across the aisle and listen to each other. Hillary said, Id like to bring people from the right, left, red, blue, get them into a nice, warm purple space where everybody is talking and where were actually trying to solve problems.
In the meantime, a slew of potential Republican presidential contenders spent the week at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Washington, where they engaged in hyper-partisan rhetoric and distracted from the real issues at hand.
Hillarys message was a positive one aimed at bringing both sides together. She said, I dont think I have all the right ideas. I dont think my party has all the right ideas. And she even praised Republican Congressman Paul Ryan for working with Democrat Senator Patty Murray on a budget deal in 2013 to avoid a government shutdown.
Ted Cruzs message at the conference was fiercely combative, telling the audience they should stand up against President Obama and those Republicans who disagree with him ideologically. Carly Fiorinas speech was even worse full of one attack after another against President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Senator Warren.
Instead of using this opportunity on the national stage to talk about real issues and deliver a positive message for the American people, these politicians decided to stick with negativity.
No wonder Americans are so fed up with Washington. This kind of hyper-partisanship embodies everything that is wrong with our political system. Americans want Washington and Congress to work again, for all of us, which is exactly what Hillary Clinton wants, and what she did in the Senate. Notable Republicans from Lindsey Graham to John McCain have praised Hillary Clintons ability to put politics aside for the sake of progress while she was in the Senate.
When asked if she could wave a magic wand and have her wish granted, Clinton said, that we could get back to working together cooperatively again, that we could get out of our mindsets, our partisan bunkers. You cant run a great country like that, and this is the greatest country, and we need to start acting like it and working like it again.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)^T^H^I^R^D ^W^A^Y
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 9, 2015, 10:23 AM - Edit history (1)
Triangulating centrism at its finest. Praising Paul fucking Ryan? Really?!
editing to add the actual link: http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clintons-bipartisanship/ so I can find it in the future.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If the gridlock is what's stopping fascist Republican bullshit from spewing out with a Democrat stamp of approval, then i welcome gridlock.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)Gridlock means nothing is getting done-
When nothing is getting done, nothing changes. So you don't have to worry about new rules, regulations, laws, anything...
Just, business as usual. What we should do is tell Congress to take a couple years off
historylovr
(1,557 posts)The GOP also loves it when Democrats go along with their agenda in "bipartisan" fashion.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)The corollary is then also true, and any progressive legislation is denied too, yes?
(insert alleged and unsupported prophecies of "but there'd be no progressive legistion regardless" below)
PatrickforO
(14,594 posts)It wouldn't hurt either to end gerrymandering - maybe have the Census Bureau draw the boundaries instead of politicians.
It would also be a REAL good idea to a) end the TPP before it ever can become law, and b) end Citizens United.
THEN, maybe we can have single payer healthcare, stronger Social Security and massive cuts to the 'defense' bloat so we can instead fund infrastructure upgrades and CREATE GOOD JOBS.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)You want Hillary to help them? This shows how misguided the Third Way agenda really is.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)candidates spew forth. The will rally behind Sen Sanders, who isn't owned by billionaires and speaks to issues that effect every American. Goldman-Sachs not only wants more of the same crap we've been getting for decades, they want to accelerate it. Their goal is to increase their profits at the expense of the 99%. We need a candidate that will tell Goldman-Sachs that they must start paying their fair share.
Sticking with the status quo isn't going to fix our poverty, crumbling infrastructure, collapsing economy, the Black Security State, or our imperialistic wars.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)He tried it by cluttering his cabinet with centrists to form his "team of rivals." And he wasted a lot of time letting them debate him towards being moderate and move to the middle and compromise.
What did he get? He offered his hand to the most radical, obstructionist, political minority party in modern American history and what did it earn him? He got his goddamned hand chewed off.
The republicans were able to secure their win in 2014 because no one challeneged them on their obstructionism and because we had stupid moderates like Blanche Lincoln who continually stabbed the party in the back and provided fillibuster cover for the re-pug-niks.
What will work is standing bold and strong for progressive policy and then working towards a compromise in between progressive ideas and conservative. Going third way and compromising before you even get to the bargaining table is a recipe for failure.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)You must have missed my last paragraph. Stand tall and strong and use the bully pulpit.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)to be intelligent enough to do their jobs, hasn't happened and I am doubtful we have the right members there.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Do you mean other than the "Bully Pulpit" being traditionally a term associated primarily with the president and their ability to address the nation due to the attention that the office naturally garners?
Senator Sanders has put for legislation occasionally in order to grab public attention and rally public support around an issue, but a senator doing that is not anywhere near as effective as a president.
Also, being almost a branch unto themselves, a president actually has a bit more in the way of bargaining power.
But all that should be fairly obvious.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)to inconvenient facts the other sides brings up. She's lucky that the GOP is so inept and conflicted in its scandal-mongering, because her history contains actions, alliances and decisions that are truly unacceptable and, IMHO, disqualifying.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)compromise with people who are actively working to destroy our country is evil.
Response to upaloopa (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I agree.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)of where we need to go.
Response to upaloopa (Original post)
Paulie This message was self-deleted by its author.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Can't wait to scurry back to the bipartisanship bullshit and the pretending the right wing has any non insane ideas much less any broadly beneficial ones.
What nonsensical pandering stupidity spitting in the eye of all reason have you not heard and seen what these fuckers agenda is?!?
Puffing up Paul Lyin' Ryan and spouting off about fairy tales of warm purple places. Delusional as the TeaPubliKlans but seeing different illusions or at least pretending to.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Perhaps she should have that looked at. There were a few events that kinda indicated this approach is FUCKING STUPID and doesn't ever actually solve any problems.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Well with endorsements from Graham and McCain Hillary should have the Democratic nomination sewn up tight.
?w=490
hatrack
(59,594 posts)Notably between 1993 and 2001, but even more so from January 2009 to the present.
What fucking planet has she been on?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I would appreciate more information.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They don't do that anymore.
The removal of earmarks by Gingrich means there's no reason for them to compromise. It just earns them a primary challenge.
When there's no upside, why do it?
"For the good of the country?" They're the party that believes government is destroying the country. If they make that claim come true, so much the better.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Working across the aisles is needed.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)"working across the aisle" requires having someone to work with. No Republican will work across the aisle to solve our country's problems. They will only work across the aisle to fuck us more. Say, by cutting Social Security or passing "trade" deals.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Hillary wants to change this.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There are zero incentives for Republicans to be bipartisan.
- They are the "government is awful" party. So if government is actually awful, they benefit.
- No earmarks means it's not possible to bribe a Republican to go along with your bipartisan proposal. Those bribes were the way bipartisanship actually worked.
- Working with Democrats earns them a primary challenger, not accolades.
- Their donors will make sure they are personally well off, even if everyone else is fucked.
Seriously, this argument is a copy-n-paste from 1992. It has never worked. Returning to this argument after spending the last two months claiming to be a populist is an incredibly dumb campaign move. Only thing I can think of to top it would be to announce Palin as her running mate.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Pretending that there are Republicans willing to compromise will not get that to happen. Because a Republican willing to compromise is as real as that gold-shitting unicorn.
They've given us three decades of proof. How much longer do you need to start believing them?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The fruit from her work. Actually it hasn't been gridlock for three decades, even Joe Scarborough admits they were had by Bill Clinton many times.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yeah, we totally need more of that.
This "bipartisan" argument is exactly what Obama did from 2009 to 2014. How often did it work?
Never. The ACA is Bob Dole's response to health care reform in 1993, and zero Republicans voted for it.
Obama was begging for Republicans to slash Social Security in return for unding some of Bill Clinton's compromises, and the Republicans would not do it. They even ate large defense spending cuts from the sequester in order to avoid compromising.
And yet Hillary Clinton is proposing we do more of the same tactic that has utterly failed. After spending the last month trying to recast herself as a populist.
This article is why Clinton can not be our nominee. This is utter and complete incompetence from her campaign. Last week, she's a fighter determined to help Latinos and fight for voting rights, and this week she wants to do whatever is necessary to make the Republicans happy. And that isn't helping Latinos and fighting for voting rights. It is an utterly and completely incoherent message.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Your hero worship of Mrs Clinton is disgusting and destructive
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And your snark is back to you.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Since they will not compromise, you are asking for the McConnell/Ryan agenda.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)And since all the incentives are for Republicans to not compromise, we're going to have to give up virtually everything in order to get the compromise you seek.
That results in the McConnell/Ryan agenda, with a few meaningless trinkets thrown on top.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Taking back the House and Senate is the thing to do.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)House, a good start to returning a functioning congress. If we do not take the House and Senate back then some of the congressional members needs to do their job and start working across the aisle in order to improve this country.
hatrack
(59,594 posts)Right?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)It's THE ONLY WAY to deal with the gridlock. Nothing else will work.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)They can fight all they want but until congressional member grow up and accept the responsibility of doing the business in which they are elected of which is working with each other. The GOP is really good at gridlock by fighting for what they want, it has only resulted in gridlock. Fighting is not going to stop gridlock, it will insure further gridlock.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)They will ensure gridlock as long as the President is a Democrat. Doesn't matter if the president is Obama, Clinton, Sanders, or anyone else.
RobinA
(9,898 posts)Which he repeated again and again. How did that work for him?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I've asked you and other clintonistas many times - what,and who are you willing to sell out? 'Causethat's what your "compromise' fetish necessitates, democrats giving up shit for the republicans. yes, it really only goes the one way,m and you know it.
So who needs to do the bending over?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Conservatives are on the same page...and its purple.
June 3, 2015
http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/06/hillarys-progressive-effort-backfires-wall-street-calls-her-out/
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Four Freedoms Park in NYC...
Clinton & FDR shouldn't even be used in the same sentence, unless its talking about how Bill Clinton dismantled several of FDR's great policies for our country under the guise of "bipartisanship", when it was just infiltration by the rethugs.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/09/will-hillary-channel-her-inner-warren.html
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Here you are being elected as the one that will fight, yet you say the bad word (bipartisanship) right off.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)We see how the party of NO worked, and especially Green Eggs and Ham, cost lots of money to the tax payers.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Why would the Republicans change course?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Republican-lite campaigns in 2010 and gerrymandering FTW!
Also, the Republican Senators that will lose and cost them the Senate in 2016 are the "moderate" Republicans. The ones who get re-elected are the most extreme.
"The great moderation" was an artifact of the Dixiecrats. They're gone. We are returning to the normal state of US politics, with two parties that are at each other's throats.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)No morals, no principles. Say good bye to social security and public schools.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)(just forget about the last one they ran, ok?)
Aerows
(39,961 posts):Throws hands up in the air:
And this is the person that everyone tells us is the only one that can win.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Why even bother to have parties if you aren't going to adhere to a platform and try to offer it to the American people as the best one.
The Purple Triangle is why I distrust Hillary. Politicians always invoke "bipartisanship", but it only evokes backroom dealmaking (give-aways to the GOP), not a "way out of gridlock".
Hillary has shown her hand, and it's exactly what the people who are reluctant to vote for her have been saying it was.
Given her audience, this also depresses the hell out of me about how the influence of Silicon Valley money (including the younger generation of employees...?) is going to influence American culture.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They should tell the people they are willing to work with Republicans if Republicans are prepared to be reasonable. That has to be said and said many times.
Of course the experience of the last two Democratic administrations is that those times are few and far between, but we're not the hyper partisan ideologues that the Republican crazies are and that needs to be emphasized.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'd hate to see the wrong one.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)government, criminally wrong-headed, and have a whole slew of dangerously delusional at best policies.
The right tone is to stop legitimizing the wickedly absurd, cruel, and ideologically bankrupt and start calling a spade a spade.
The only tone that needs to be set to move toward a functional government is to put the regressives in the corner with their mouths duct taped shut with a dunce cap on for a few generations until they can once again feign sense and decency.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)opposition themselves as the brand of thinking legitimizes and creates a beachhead in our party for their batshit concept of government and wicked policy positions.
Why do they come back from depravity, cruel neglect, criminal behavior, and insane behavior time and time again? Because folks like you whitewash, excuse, and resuscitate them every single time with this inane bullshit and foolhardy lies.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Absolutely disgusting. Complete disaster on the horizon.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Now that she is running for president she talks about all the populist reforms that she voted against with the hope that peoples' memories are short. 3rd Way Hillary is going to have to come out with a better message than her old 2008 campaign pledges.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Is that from all the bruising of the lower and middle classes?
It's sort of a weird speech, because she's not even pretending she won't go the triangulating centrist route of her husband. She's announcing it proudly.
Ooft. No thank you.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)And the purple crayon.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)seems like the yellow brick road, and we are supposed to pay no attention to whatever is behind the curtain.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Now I can link it to every single post where Clinton pretends to give a damn about women, voting rights, immigration and every other issue she has been trying to use to claim she gives a damn about the little people.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Takes two (sides) to tango, and if only one side is prepared to compromise AT ALL, which side gets screwed? This is an easy one, since we have seen it lo these past 6 years. Hillary is no better liked than Obama on that side of the aisle and will do no better.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)joshcryer
(62,277 posts)You can't have both. So if this is the approach to leadership (beyond the first 2 years) then it is a failing strategy. I can get behind it to keep things normal until the House can be taken back (first two years of playing nice) but you want to fix gerrymandering and take back Congress (which can only be done with a 50 state strategy).
Obama had a wasted opportunity to make great gains in 2010 by putting on his comfortable shoes but admittedly his hand was poorly dealt with the crap he had to resolve after Bush's disastrous presidency.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Never heard that she was even in the state...where else was she chatting up Silicon Valley/rich people types?
I'll bet she didn't make any pit stops in Redding or Fresno.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)than Samsonite.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)No thanks.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)"All you find in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)moderates, independents, and conservatives who aren't batshit crazy. All centrists campaign saying the same thing, and it's positively Orwellian. It's a perfect recipe for continuing gridlock and preserving the status quo. Double plus good.
ms liberty
(8,609 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Why? Because the rank & file of all political persuasions want to keep our jobs home, keep our tax dollars home and most importantly, keep our children home - i.e., not suckered into enlisting as cannon fodder for the MIC and One Percent in their endless bloodthirsty profiteering. The rank & file don't want endless war as a vehicle to keep transferring wealth - what pittance of wealth is left in the rank and file, that is.
Witness Bernie's warm reception in red state New Hampshire: http://politicalmoll.com/and-the-crowd-went-wild/
HRC's response: I want to listen to Bernie milking a cow? Or maybe, I want to listen to cows?
HRC, as per usual is long on words, short on actions.
Still waiting for her to condemn TPP, which would involve her apologizing for her previous support of it. Oh wait, she can just claim it was a "tough choice."
The toughest choice HRC has to make? Which billionaire supporter's private jet to borrow.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)But now that even "the great conciliator" (Obama) has given up on the GOP, and with Mr. Sanders closing the gap on her left wing, is this the right time to exhibit centrism? Isn't that centrist image her biggest weakness in the primaries?
cali
(114,904 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)Hillary has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected President.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I'm not sure if it's scary or pathetic how mid-90's her campaign sounds.
madokie
(51,076 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The start to her campaign has been excellent. Thanks for the op.
cali
(114,904 posts)is anything but democratic caving?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Sanders has done excellent bipartisan work on major issues as has Hillary. With great outcomes. Not all issues lend to this. That is why simple black and white statements such as yours are more often than not wrong. I wouldn't insinuate Sanders is caving in the manner in which you are just because he worked across the isle on major legislation. Granted, Sanders, like Hillary, won't reach across the isle very often. But to see this type of rhetoric on the campaign trail shouldn't be a shock to anyone paying attention to politics for more than a day.
.He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active and on the other by using his status as an independent to form left-right coalitions, Matt Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone. <- Taibbi talking about Sanders.
Sanders has authored or cosponsored bills with Richard Burr, John McCain, John Boozman, Dean Heller, John Isakson, Jerry Moran, Susan Colling, and many more. Numerous were successful in passage.
Hillary has a similar record. At this pace of purity, there are going to be a whole group of people left without a candidate to support.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)You should know that.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They are two different things. One is working with the other side as an executive, the other is working with the other side as an equal colleague. Are you saying he won't work with those people once he becomes President? Many of these aren't simply cosponsoring a bill. Many he played a serious role in with his republican colleagues.
Vinca
(50,318 posts)If she is elected POTUS, which she may well be, the GOP will immediately transfer their reason for existence to "Hillary Hatred" rather than "Obama Hatred." She must face reality and not waste years on end trying to compromise with people who have no intention of being compromising.
RobinA
(9,898 posts)Where have I heard this one before? Tall, lanky AA man with the nice looking family. Closet smoker. Lives in DC somewhere. Seems like a nice guy. Been in the news a lot over the past 6 years. Might be fun to share a j..., well, not exactly a beer, with. Failed regularly to meet his stated bipartisan goal. In fact, has demonstrated without a doubt that "reaching across the aisle" is a good way to get your arm cut off and then beat with the severed limb.
Hilary - You aren't stupid, so I can only assume that you think I am. You are parroting a failed strategy WHILE YOUR PREDECESSOR IT IS STILL FAILING AT IT. Just no.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,390 posts)She could have gone for 'an end to world poverty', 'cheap unpolluting energy', 'world peace' or something. Instead she wants an end to American political partisanship. Talk about a Village mentality.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)because that is the 800 pound anchor around the neck of her political ambitions- her divisiveness. So, of course, she wishes that would go away.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,390 posts)It's what you get from reading David Brooks op-eds, or the Washington Post. It's the correct thing to say to please think tanks, foundations, and White House correspondents. It's not leadership, or imaginative thinking, it's 'correct'.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Third Way compromise consists of throwing a few scraps of social justice our way for the compromise of accepting Republican Corporate economic policies.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Phlem
(6,323 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)When Tsongas said the same thing in 92 I agreed vigorously and supported him. When Obama said the same thing in 2008 I knew it was hopelessly Panglossean, because I had seen the RWNJ hysteria try to take down an incredibly successful trade-expanding welfare-cutting center-left white Southern President with ferocious single-minded abandon. The intervening years have made the prospect even more laughable. The Republicans aren't pretending, even publicly, that they seek the best for the nation any more; only that they seek to stop and attack a Dem POTUS in anything they attempt at any cost.
I like HRC. I know she is not naive. I know she understands Obama has tried bipartisanship and been viciously rebuffed at best and dragged rightward at worst. To think that she, their #1 target for 24 hour hate for the last quarter century, could in any way be more successful working with them is either intentional arrant nonsense or utter stupidity, and stupid she certainly isn't.
Even if, in some strange drug-induced bliss, she actually believed that, it's not what I want in a president. I want one who knows this is a fight, that it is a team sport no matter what idealists pretend. Republicans aren't for working with. They are for negating, stopping, outmanoeuvering, destroying if possible. Sure in a la-la fantasyland I'd prefer it to be otherwise, but I know it won't be for a long long time, and I know HRC has forgotten more politics than I'll ever know, so she is surely blowing smoke here.
Broward
(1,976 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,245 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)thought there would have been more who wants to see something done about the gridlock.
SaranchaIsWaiting
(247 posts)Because that is what it will be. They will not budge one inch, so it is the Democratic side that has to do the giving in. What are you willing to risk, Social Security cuts? more loss of women's rights or more tax cuts for the extremely wealthy all for the cause of getting something done, even if that something is a disaster?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This my way or the highway sure has not worked. Right now there needs to be some funds transferred into the SSDI and unless the republicans "compromise" happens there are going to be a big problem for some folks. Oh, dragging out the false boogie bear is not going to change much.
SaranchaIsWaiting
(247 posts)That leaves Democratic values to be put up for sale to make that purple color.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)and just stare at each other or we can demand they work together and get America working again, the non functional congress needs to go away.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)The worst thing about this (or maybe the best thing?) is that I don't even think she really believes it.
JHB
(37,163 posts)I'm all for making happy-talk about bipartisanship, as long as there are no illusions about the real situation. The conservatives have built an entire system that engages in 24/7 "two minute hates" against Democrats and liberals (they make no distinction, especially in Hillary's case), rewards increasing intransigence and absolutism while punishing any hint of compromise. They've filibustered their own bills when Obama has decided "ok, we'll do it your way, but let's get it done" and all of a sudden they'd have to actually work with him. None of them wanted that photo op, because it would be used against them.
The hyper-partisanship exists because conservatives insist on it. Until their stranglehold on the Republican party is broken, "compromise" is nothing of the sort. It's simply "meeting them halfway" as they pull the goalposts ever further to the right.
What is Hillary's plan to fight that?
FrankUnderwood
(11 posts)to one star and got burned. I'm not gonna let that happen again.