Can someone tell me what the hell "fighting" is, in the context of a candidate?

[Recursion]

From the tone of GDP the Senate is apparently a UFC Octagon, where people fight over things. Some candidates "fight", and others don't. I suppose they tap out. Who knows.

Anyways, can someone elaborate on what "fighting" is, and why it's an important skill for a President?

[DanTex]

1. I'm guessing it means finding ways to outmaneuver the GOP

in congress and get policies enacted despite the obstruction.

The thing is, what's important here isn't willingness to "fight" but rather political savvy.

[el_bryanto]

2. In political terms

Fighting is challenging your political enemies. The tricky thing is that politics, by it's nature, involves a certain amount of compromise; so someone who is 100% a fighter and 0% a compromiser won't get much done. On the other hand someone who is 95% a compromiser isn't really standing up for Democratic Values. Everybody has to sort of determine for themselves what they appropriate amount of compromise is for them.

Bryant

[JayhawkSD]

13. Fighting does not necessarily involve compromise.

I despised George W. Bush with every fiber of my being, but he fought for his evil and despicable policies, did not compromise, and got a Democratic Congress to pass them. He went to the "bully pulpit," screamed at the public at the top of his lungs about the "vital necessity to national security" regarding a bill that he had written (Patriot Act, MCA, immunization of telecoms, etc.) and he got Congress so terrified of public opinion that they passed it.

By comparison, Obama "fought for health care reform" by negotiating with the drug companies in a secret meeting before the process even began.

And that answere the original poster's question about what is meant by "fighting" and "not fighting."

[Cosmocat]

46. That has zero to do with the president in either case

the first example is not about GW Bush, it is about spineless POS democrats in congress alnd the absolute discipline and uniformity of republicans.

People can fantasize about how if BHO just FOUGHT for it, we would have had something other than the ACA, but there is not a single republican, NONE that his "fighting" for single payer, universal or even public option, would have voted for it.

FURTHER, it would not have changed more than maybe a handful of democratic house votes.

Health care reform was centered around one person - Max Baucas, who was bought the insurance industry before BHO was even a state legislator. There is no, none, zero "fight" that BHO could have done that would have changed how he directed ACA out of the senate.

I don't mean to jump on your head specifically, I just get a little agitated when people complain about how all these things would have just been different if BHO just FOUGHT FOR IT.

The issue isn't BHO, it is the PARTY, it is the complete difference between the virulent, uniform discipline of the republicans vs the feckless, splintered, self interested nature of democrats.

[malthaussen]

3. Dominance dynamics.

Most political rhetoric can be seen in terms of wannabe alphas trying to intimidate each other. These days it rarely gets physical, mostly because most of them are cowards who would cry real tears if their precious, soft skins suffered even a slight bruise.

A little different from the days when the coward Preston Brooks caned Senator Charles Sumner -- a much older man -- while the latter was sitting at his desk on the Senate floor.

-- Mal

[uponit7771]

28. +1

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Well, I'll treat this as a serious question, even though it sounds like something a complete

political novice would say.

'Fighting' means writing and sponsoring legislation to do things that need done, even when you know it can't pass.

The Republicans are idiots, but they do fight for what they believe, as stupid as it is. Over and over and over, trying to get rid of the ACA. Their voters SEE them fighting (for the stupidity with which they agree), and so they come out and vote. The things Dem voters want? Not so much. Some, sure, but not so much. So voters are more apathetic, and we wind up with a Senate and House in the hands of Republicans.

Why do we need a 'fighter' in a President? Because we need someone who isn't going to simply sit back and let 'process' decide what gets passed, especially with things being passed by a Republican controlled Congress. We need a President who will actively FIGHT against Republicans rather than try to be all 'bipartisany', one who is unafraid to veto stupid and hurtful legislation.

[Recursion]

5. So, "fighting" is pointless posturing?

Not really what I value in a candidate, though I recognize some people really care about it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Right over your head.

No, it's not pointless. It has a very specific point.

That 'posturing' is electoral gold. It's how you win voters in future cycles. Voters SEE you fighting, so they vote for you.

Eventually you get to the point where you have enough people in power to actually DO the things you've been trying to do for so long.

[Recursion]

7. If your goal is 2032, sure (nt)

Last edited Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Better 2032 then never.

The fight for a better country is not a 'quarterly' affair, like in business. People fight for decades to achieve goals. We are in crisis on labour, economic issues, and reproductive rights because Republicans have been fighting to get us here for decades, and most Democrats have either helped them or simply shrugged off every Republican maneuver to destroy unions, to undermine labour, to undermine reproductive rights. They've been fighting, Democrats not so much. So union membership is at it's lowest point in forever, labour is getting shafted left and right, and clinics that provide abortion services have been dropping like flies, closed left and right.

Because THEY FIGHT.

Fighters do not get immediate gratification, like a candy bar. They win in the long term, after lots of pain and sacrifice.

[NCTraveler]

15. "Better 2032 then never."

Damn straight. Much of the rhetoric(fighting) being done today won't show real results for decades. Calling it useless posturing is to show one doesn't get it. Is the fight for civil rights useless posturing because we haven't accomplished all goals? Not in the least. Was the grassroots movement for equal rights for LGBTQ useless posturing decades ago? No, and we are just recently seeing major results.

[JayhawkSD]

16. Not over mine. I have been making the same point.

Democrats have had a policy of not bringing an issue to a vote unless they knew in advance that they had enough votes to win, a policy which I consider sheer idiocy. They believe that having a vote and losing it makes them look weak. I believe, and public opinion seems to support, that not bringing issues to a vote at all makes them look feckless and ineffective. Voters are left feeling that Democrats don't care.

Republicans know they will lose the vote, but they bring it up 43 times and lose it every time. They go back home and say, "We fought our asses off for you. We tried 43 times to get it done."

I don't like Republicans, but I respect them. I like Democrats, but I have no respect for them whatever.

[Trajan]

10. There is something pointless in this conversation

Oh fuck it ... Gone

[Adrahil]

9. 'Fighting' means writing and sponsoring legislation to do things that need done, even when you know"

That's called "useless grandstanding." To do that occasionally? Fine. Make yourself feel better. Make your point to the electorate. But that is NOT the way to govern inthe long run. That's basically the Teapublican play book right there. They've voted.... excuse me .... they've "fought" to repeal the ACA about 60 times. Useless. No WORSE than useless.

TBH, none of our candidates are THAT bad, but we must avoid that paradigm like the fucking PLAGUE. Let's be the grown-ups in the room.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

20. See my responses 6 and 8.

It's not 'useless grandstanding'. It has a very specific use, and one that is directly related to future electoral victories.

And yes, they fought for repeal, over and over and over, and never got it through. And now they control both the House and Senate.

Because their voters saw them fighting and failing, and came out to vote more of them in so they could try to actually succeed.

[Adrahil]

23. If that's the way you think governing ought to go...

... then I can just say we will not agree.

I find that approach reprehensible.

FWIW, I think none of out candidates cross that line.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

24. I learned a long time ago that the world doesn't work as I think it 'ought' to work.

So despite being called a purist, I'm actually very pragmatic. You go to the polls with the voters that exist, not the ones who happen to be so morally upstanding that they won't vote for 'reprehensible' things.

You don't get things fixed unless you've got the power, and you don't get the power unless you win elections, and you don't win elections when voters see you not doing anything when they put you in office.

[Adrahil]

40. I agree with you in principle....

I suspect we diverge on what constitutes "doing anything."

I think picking fight after fight you know you can't win is not "doing something."

Like I said, once in a while to make a point? Sure. But ultimately, I want my elected leaders to actually try and move the needle.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

45. It's a tactic, with a specific objective in the overall strategic umbrella.

It doesn't achieve the end-goal, no. But it helps gather further resources until enough exist to win the end-goal. Ie, 'moving the needle'. In times of great division, very few 'needles' can be moved bipartisanly, most require an actual, overwhelming electoral victory. The Republicans have been making the sustained push, but still haven't gotten the final piece in place. We have to block them again in the WH to prevent them getting to 'move their needles', but unless we start being seen as 'trying' in Congress, we'll simply keep playing defense.

[Romulox]

11. What a surprise to see *you* come out for Hillary! nt

[Recursion]

12. Err... my avatar is visible, yes? (nt)

[Romulox]

17. It is, but this is an anti-Bernie thread, not a pro-O'Malley thread, so... nt

[Recursion]

18. And?...

Are you equating not supporting Sanders with supporting Clinton?

[Romulox]

19. It's just what you say matters more than your avatar. It's pretty transparent. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. This was about Bernie?

Is Recursion saying neither Hillary nor Martin are fighters?

[Romulox]

22. Yes, that's exactly what he is saying. Moreover, he's saying "fighting" the status quo isn't necessary.

That's pretty much the direction of all his threads though.

[FSogol]

25. Is that how you divide types of threads on DU, Anti-Bernie or Pro-Bernie?

x ?

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. To quote Bruce Lee,"It's the art of fighting without fighting." Enter the Dragon

Fighting means that the President would stand up to congress and the UN and the people for whatever ideology the electing individual holds deer.

Trump would fight for the right to wear bad wigs.

Santorum would fight against man on dog sex.

[Recursion]

27. How does a President "stand up" to Congress or the UN?

What does that actually mean?

[Agnosticsherbet]

32. Fighting is a metaphore for methods of dealing with disagreement.

Congress passes a bill that is not in the interest of Americans, or the intest of a specific group of Amerians. The President can veto it, which is a driect attack, or he can use negotiate with Congress to remove the offensive parts of the bill.

That is how the President "fights" congress. It is a metaphore

The UN General assembly or the UN Seurity Council seeks to pass a resolution that is not in what the Prsident sees as the interest of the United States. In the Secuurity Council, he vetos it. In the General Assembly, he calls together our allies and convices them to vote against it.

The English Language uses the metaphor of war and conflict in many ways.

Fiighting happens whenever the President stands up and refuses to go along with someting the Congress passes.

It does not mean he gets into a ring a goes a few round with Boehner.

Metaphorical langauge is a part of our lexicon.

[Recursion]

33. So the claim is Sanders would use the veto more than Clinton?

Has Obama not used it enough? (I often hear here that he doesn't "fight" enough.) He's vetoed 4 bills: a continuing appropriations bill, a banking bill that would have made it harder for homeowners to challenge foreclosures, a card check bill that would have made it harder to start unions, and Keystone XL. What other bills should he have vetoed? (Or do you disagree with many DUers, and count Obama as "fighting"?)

[Agnosticsherbet]

34. If Republicans hold Congress, Clinton or Sanders would use the Veto Pen a great deal.

Last edited Wed Aug 5, 2015, 08:39 PM - Edit history (1)

As long as Republicans control the legislative agenda, there is little more a President can do.

As for President Obama, I think he has fought for a number of important issues. Especially here near the end of his term in office. His use of Executive Orders to do things that Congress should do has shown that he is fighting. There are, however, limits to what an executive order can do. He can not raise funds. He can create programs.

He picks his fights, and though I would have liked to see him pick a few more, I wasn't the one elected. I will leave it to historians to decided in 20 years or so.

I think that President Obama did not realize the depth of Republican vitriol. Even when he called for them to legislate their own ideas, they refused to do it. Republicans decided it was better to refuse to give the President a win and hurt the country.

[Ken Burch]

39. In other words, you think we should just give up.

That's what blandly settling for tiny increments means. That's what not trying to reset the terms of the discussion means.

What is it about passion and commitment that you so object to? Without those things, we aren't anything at all.

[Juicy_Bellows]

41. "Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory"

I don't think the OP is out for an answer.

Cheers!

[Ken Burch]

29. It means standing up for what you believe in, with passion and no apologies.

It means "here I stand, and from this position I will not retreat, because this is what I care about and this is why I am here".

And it means defending those who elected you, regardless of the size of the campaign checks they right.

Not rocket science.

If you aren't willing to fight in that sense, you've got no reason to seek office at all. It's useless just to say "I will mundanely administer the system on a day-to-day basis". No one wants to elect someone who reduces their purpose just to that.

[Recursion]

31. And what does doing those things accomplish for anyone? (nt)

[Ken Burch]

36. It changes life for the better.

How are we ever better off with a president who wouldn't do those things? Most of the president's job is not mundane administration-he has staffers and the Cabinet for that.

Why would you ever NOT want a president who was passionate about change? I thought O'Malley was promising to be that sort of president.

[Recursion]

42. Martin O'Malley's feelings are the last thing I care about

How are we ever better off with a president who wouldn't do those things?

Because it's energy and time he could spend doing something useful.

Most of the president's job is not mundane

Absolutely wrong. The President's job is almost all either ceremonial or entirely mundane administration of a huge and complex bureaucracy.

[Ken Burch]

43. The president hands off most of the administrative work to staffers.

She or he mainly signs off on things.

In any case, a passionless president who doesn't use the bully pulpit to try to reshape the debate isn't going to accomlish anything progressive, and neither will a president who treats activists as if what they do doesn't matter.

There's no way to do anything progressive just through the way something is administered, or quietly at a desk. Bblandness is generally going to give you center-right policies.

The president is there to inspire and persuade as much as anything else.

And as far as I know, O'Malley is not running a campaign based on a pledge not to do anything as president but quietly read reports and sign forms.

What is it about the idea of passion and persuasion that bothers you so much?

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Giving speeches - It is a term often used by a legislator who lacks actual accomplishments

[Ken Burch]

38. A term which does not apply to anyone in this race.

All of our prospective nominees have lots of accomplishments.

You can't get anything done without bringing a fighting spirit to politics...compromise is useless in the age of the Tea Party, when the other party will accept nothing other than surrender.

The ACA was watered-down to nearly nothing because the administration didn't bring passion to the campaign for its passage. Obama should have left Organizing for America bring a million people to D.C. to clog the streets until the public option was accepted.

We only got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act because people were willing to protest and even be killed in the South in the name of their passage. The politicians would never have removed Jim Crow through polite compromise.

[Sunlei]

35. I don't like when even President Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Sen. Sanders & all the others overuse the

"fight" word. They negotiate / advocate for 'the people' not punch RW radicals in the face for us.

[Ken Burch]

37. It doesn't have to mean fighting in the physical sense.

It just means bringing passionate commitment to what you do.

Negotiating isn't anything, really-and it was always clear that it would be pointless to even try to negotiate with the Republicans.

[delrem]

44. I think Pres. Obama has come out fighting in his 2nd term

in a way that he didn't in his 1st term, and that he's winning some very important ground w.r.t. the direction of the country going into the future. (I *don't* include the TPP in this accolade)

I happen to agree with that direction, where I can say that it's specifically his. E.g. the Iran negotiations were a complete success, and this is a very important thing.

I don't think he could have done it with SoS Clinton continuing into his 2nd term.
Hillary Clinton is certainly a "fighter", but IMO her kind of "fighting" will do nothing but more quickly reduce the world to a cinder.

Dems in the Senate and Congress seem to lack leadership, they don't strike me to be "fighting" at all.

I'm hoping they have the backbone to support Obama in his end term initiatives, but ... history has shown that there's no there there.