Why is it many on DU refuse to understand that nothing can be accomplished unless we

[saracat]

get Republican cooperation? And why is it that some feel we can win without getting Republican votes in 2008? I just don't get it.Some seem to feel we should be vicious to all Repugs and then somehow they should vote for us.I believe we must find some common ground and then we will have the best opportunity we have had in years to gain control of all branches. But an intolerant far lefty is not going to get those votes, I guarantee it.A moderate Repug would have a better chance but a populist Dem who can "bind our wounds" would win. And BTW, I am not a moderate,I am more of a lefty and have often been intolerant myself! But I want us to win and to do the best job we can to turn the country around.JMHO.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. These are questions that need to be explored more indepth

I have been troubled by us falling into the trap that republicans have for the past 15 years. By that, closing our minds, being intolerant, throwing mud and wanting to take a hard stand.
I know the feeling of revenge. the need to hold those accountable but, also to just rip on the repulicans.
But, I also see that this will pullus down to thier level.
Some of the things I've heard today at Ford's funeral reminded me there was a better time. When the hard core dem like Tip could be friends with uber conservative Reagan.
We do need to find dialoge to understand and find some common ground. We also need to think about the country and the terrible mess to clean up. yes, it's thier fault. but, after that, then what.

[saracat]

10. Yes, Ford's Funeral made me think as well. I was appalled at some of the DU

posts.It seems odd that President Carter could admire and befriend Ford but some of the admirers of Carter on DU apparently have no respect for his judgment. I listened to a couple of interviews with Ford and he was actually more "liberal" than some of our Dems.He supported the ERA, Choice, and Gay Rights.He also fought for Human Rights.But some find every opportunity to denigrate him because he wasn't "perfect" and didn't decide the way they would have had him decide.
It is too bad.I wish we had more Republicans like Ford.We would get more done.

[Common Sense Party]

2. The American voting public spoke loud and clear in November.

They said: "We want vicious change!"

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. They said they wanted slim Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate

51% in the Senate and about 54% in the House

[onenote]

31. really? how do you figure?

In how many of this November's elections was impeachment an issue? How many candidates that advocated impeachment won?

It was a vote for change, but "vicious" change? The fact that repubs held 88 percent of their seats in the House and someone like Lieberman was (re?) elected doesn't sound like "vicious" change was on the mind of the electorate in general.

[Common Sense Party]

39. I left off my sarcasm thingie. Sorry.

Just reflecting the view of many DU'ers who seem to think that now it's payback time, time to be as nasty and bloodthirsty as the 'pukes have been.

[onenote]

48. no problem

[Blue_In_AK]

3. Saracat, why is it you're so damned reasonable?

:hug:

[dave_p]

4. Yes, but whose?

I agree it would be foolish for Democrats to imagine that Bush & the neocons represent the GOP.

It would be equally foolish to imagine that those who embrace the neocon perversion of Republican tradition are worth doing business with.

Some Republicans actually hoped to break the White House stranglehold on government last November, let's not forget. They are worthy of respect.

Wounds cannot be bound at the cost of embracing any part of the neocons' anti-American agenda. But all who wish to rally to a humane America recalling its highest ideals should be welcome to play a part.

I honestly don't think Democrats or progressives have a problem with that. I hope many decent Republicans don't, either.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. agreed

I do think there are some republicans who are real ones, like Hagel. The neocons have taken the party over with the religious right. They will have a difficult time recovering from the damage they've done to the party.
I read where Kansas gop is falling apart and ours, here in Illinois, is on the critical list.
That party is going through some power struggles and many will leave and become independent.

[Skittles]

5. HOWEVER

to republicns, cooperation = Democrats bending over

[eleny]

11. Exactly! Like how they now want a Minority Bill of Rights in Congress

Nuts to them.

Embracing progressive views is how conservative Dems like Jim Webb got elected. I say we be faithful to our liberal values. Let them come to us.

[ixion]

20. exactly. I believe the dems have made a far greater effort to cooperate in the past

however, the GOP sees 'cooperation' as simple capitulation.

I think the time is ripe for the dems to go on the offensive here, and consistently remind people of things like 'up and down' votes and the 'nuclear' option.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Cuz we can be...

as arrogant as they are?

One of our biggest complaints about the President-like-object and current Congressional leadership is their insistance on "my way or the highway." With them, of course, it's because they are craven, evil, greedy criminals intent on destroying the country for power and profit.

With some of us, on the other hand, things must be done absolutely, positively our way because we, and we only, see the light of reason, truth, justice and all that other good stuff.

The mind boggles yet again.

[MADem]

8. Moderate/pragmatic views are often greeted with derision, unfortunately

It's a shame, it's not reflective of the party, or the nation for that matter, but it happens. And those who are center-leftists, or just moderates, can often feel massively unwelcome.

I am further left than candidates I will support, because I'm pragmatic.

Ironically, though, your observation, while frequently accurate, doesn't always hold true. Folks can ignore the sins of a much-too-conservative-for-everyday-consumption politician, as often as not, if he is on the right side of one particular issue that is important this week or this month or this year. Jack Murtha comes to mind--he's in the 'right' (or should I say LEFT) place on Iraq, so his other stances, which are to the right of the bulk of the party, are ignored--for NOW, anyway, because that is 'the' issue du jour. All the lefty friends the poor guy made as a result of his Iraq stance will drop him like a hot potato once that issue is resolved, though, I suspect. He'll join the ranks of bastards who don't see things the 'left' way before he knows it!

[countmyvote4real]

9. Something I saw on the DU homepage:

When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil – Thomas Jefferson on the necessity of the impeachment provisions to our Constitution.

I think it's time to purge from all ranks and sides.

[rhombus]

12. Haven't you heard? Its impeach or die

sad state of today's politics.

[cornermouse]

15. Impeachment might be the only way to bring an early end to

our involvement in Iraq. It could literally be a lifesaver for many families. I consider that good reason.

[Union Thug]

13. Intolerant far lefty checking in.

And yes, tear them up. The repiglicans are on the ropes, a couple more to the body and another to the head and the whole body will drop.

[Skittles]

16. BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAA

:thumbsup:

[lostnotforgotten]

14. Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right - It Will Be A Cold Day In Hell Before I Show

Tolerance to the knuckle dragging cretins that got us into this mess.

They need to PAY!

[saracat]

29. That is exactly the attitude that will block progress! We need to find the Hagels and Chaffees and

Snow's and work together.Two wrongs don't make a right.We will acheive nothing by behaving as badly as they did. We don't necessarily have the only good ideas worth implementing. If we display the arrogance and small minded ness of the GOP we are no better than them.The public spoke in November and said they wanted compromise. If we don't accomplish anything , we will lose in 2008.

[SteppingRazor]

34. I think this depends on the Hagel or Chaffee in question.

I think we were perfectly right to target Chaffee in the senate elections and replace him with a Democrat. Welcome to the senate, Mr. Whitehouse. But where victory in this manner is impossible -- say, in Nebraska -- then I'm all for working with peopel like Hagel to get things done. Naturally, there are some people on the far right who are never going to work with us, and that's fine -- we wouldn't have anything to agree with or compromise on anyway. But where we find rational Republicans in a part of the electorate that Democrats cannot yet gain control of, we should be more than willing to reach out to them.

[enough already]

42. We need to find the Hagels and Chaffees and Snows....

....and run them out the fucking door and replace them with Democrats. Every last one of them is part of the problem.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. One of those cretins is by 78-year-old mother...

Who was indoctrinated at an early age but who, if properly educated, might actually see the light one of these days. We need to frame (and I'm really starting to get tired of that term) the discussion about health care, for example, in ways that resonate with her. Same with Iraq and with the Minimum Wage.

There is no shortage of Republicans who are odious and entirely beyond the reach of any logic or persuasion. But they are the minority, even within their own party. Far more people who vote Republican can be lured to our position (at least some of the time), if we take the time to persuade them -- and possibly refrain from painting them all as knuckle dragging cretins.

[JCMach1]

17. Wrong is Wrong

No compromise with idiocy... these are not your Father's Republicans...

[saracat]

28. But there are moderate and "liberal" Republicans who need to be

encourged to come out of hiding.People like Chaffee and Snow.I know Chaffee was defeated but I think he should be offered a post. No one ideology, even ours, is a good thing.Solutions come about through an exchange of ideas. And we do not have to knuckle under to them to make that happen.

[sam sarrha]

18. I agree that is why i use Reich Wing/RepugNuts and not Republican, theres a difference. i recognize

that and applaud it

[JohnnyLib2]

19. WWBD ??

What would Bill do? :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[sofa king]

21. Because Republicans are fucking morons.

Those are the Republicans I presume you're talking about, because the the avaricious ones, the sociopaths, the jingoists, the corporatists, the bigots, and the bible thumpers are never, ever going to change their allegiance--thank God. The moderate Republicans of the 1970s are long, long gone, never to return.

That leaves the weak-minded doofuses, the "23%ers," identified by John Dean as people who always tolerate whatever the ruling party does no matter how egregious the offense. Right now, those idiots are the closest thing to "moderate Republicans" that there is.

Well, thanks to the last election, we're going to be the ruling party going into the next election, which means the 23%ers are going to be backing the Democrats, so long as the Democrats appear to be in charge. We don't have to like them and it's foolish to waste a red cent or a second thought on them, because we either have 'em or we don't. Their perception of politics comes from the Shinola caked on the bottoms of their boots.

So fuck 'em.

[fasttense]

22. Hmmm, it seems to me that the Repukes have

managed just fine without moderates or Democratic votes. They have insulted and demonized everything liberal. They have done it so well the word liberal by itself is an insult to most Americans. I seriously doubt a single liberal voted for the bushes and they took control of all three branches of government without a problem. What makes you think we liberals can not do the same?

[saracat]

27. The repugs did get some Dem votes and they obviously got the preponderance of so called Independents...

And the Repugs DID get the moderate vote,( when they won), which is the vote, along with the Independents, that we need. Unfortunately many Democrats, including those that scream the loudest don't vote.They just don't , no matter how hard we try to get out the vote.This years victory was actually given us by the moderates and Independents. But we need to acquire more of them. I honestly no longer know what to try to get Dems to vote.That is why the liberals cannot do the same thing the GOP did!

[JNelson6563]

23. Seems we've got plenty of all mindsets

Let's see....here at DU I've seen the folks who won't budge one inch on their "principles". Of course if we went their way we'd never win so much as dog catcher and remain forever out of power, accomplishing absolutely nothing and being subjected to complete rule by and for the oligarchs.....

Then there are those who literally trip over each other racing to appease the Rehtugs at every turn.....

Then there are those who actually have a realistic view. Some compromise is necessary to achieve progress. They may not be willing to go out in a blaze of glory, shooting for the absolutely unattainable by establishing amost memorable exit (i.e. first group I describe) but they will live to fight another day and will actually continue to make progress even if it's an inch at a time (unlike 2nd group who would be too fearful of offending Rethugs to make any progress at all).

A seriously mixed lot here at DU. I wish more were involved in RL politics though, it would make for more productive dialogue.

Julie

[Ian David]

24. Common GOOD, not common GROUND. Bipartisanship with Republickers is date-rape. n/t

[Vinca]

25. Do you honestly believe that if we all sit in a circle and hold hands

the Republicans won't do everything in their power to sabotage the legislation Democrats want to get passed? Their fondest desire is to tell the 2008 electorate that the Democratic Congress was worse than the "Do Nothing" Congress. Democrats won, Democrats have the majority, Democrats rule.

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

30. True Believers, Right or Left, are more alike than different.

In my experience, they're both fiercely intolerant, evangelistic Fundamentalists who find it nearly impossible to see anything but blacks and whites--no greys.

That's why, when a True Believer's idol reveals a trace of clay in his feet, the True Believers tend to stampede, NOT to the Moderate Center but to some new True Belief.

Yet anyone who has lived long enough and observed how life works soon realizes that Truth is almost never found in the black-or-white extremes. Truth is a moving target, but most of its movement is within the vast areas of grey.

Thus the opposite of BOTH ends of the True Belief spectrum is the Moderate, and it's the toughest position of all to hold. It demands lots of knowledge (instead of mere faith in a doctrine or a person), and therefore it contains constant risk of being wrong and having to change one's mind. It often means adopting a worthwhile idea from either of the extreme ends of the spectrum, rather than rejecting such ideas simply because of their pedigrees. The Moderate must work very hard to think with the newer and emotion-free Rational Brain instead of with the oh-so-powerful-&-seductive emotions of the much more ancient Savage Brain.

It's pretty easy to be a True Believer. You simply make up your mind, then spend the rest of your time shouting down any other position, while twisting logic and reason in order to defend your True Belief.

But to be a Moderate, you gotta have a healthy self-esteem that's not afraid of being wrong (maybe often), plus a constant thirst for information of all kinds.

Bottom line: Where our nation is concerned, I don't want to exchange one end of the True Belief spectrum for the other. Let's go Truth-hunting instead. In my experience, that usually leads to Liberal principles like "The Golden Rule" anyway.

[Mikey929]

32. Excellent Post!!

I could not agree more. I'm a relatively new poster on here (lurked for quite a while) and there is a tone of retribution on here that disturbs me. You know -- the idea of "once we get power we're going to do the same crap to you that you did to us." I don't get it. I saw one post that said Bush and Cheney should be arrested and taken to Gitmo -- without a trial even! Is that what America is all about? Exerting unjust power once you have the ability to do so? No one should be advocating the abolishment of civil liberties, least of all those progressives who decry that very thing when it is done by the current administration.

True believers are always the most reactionary and the most capable of wrongoing because they always justify it on the grounds that the ends justify the means.

[paulk]

33. great post

when I was younger I tried my best to be a "true believer", but, over time, my more pragmatic (and rational) side finally won out.

Being a moderate, or at least a political realist, can be a damn hard job here on DU.

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

36. Thanks, Mikey and Paulk. Moderates often begin as contrarions.

If every time we hear a flat statement of belief we challenge it--either by examining its obverse side or by extrapolating it to infinity to see how it holds up--then we soon find ourselves nudged toward the Moderate position.

It's the folks who challenge only the statements that disagree with their "settled gospel" who succeed in remaining stagnant...at least until incontrovertible evidence of their error is thrust into their face. When that happens, they rush off to find another True Belief that they hope won't let them down.

And yes, we Moderates often seem to be in the minority on this site. But remember, True Believers have to speak more loudly than Moderates, lest they hear inconvenient truths. And they can post faster, because they don't have to ruminate first--they already know what they believe. All they have to think about is a clever new way to insult their "adversary."

Being a True Believer means never having to say you're sorry.

Moderates tend to be more forgiving--of themselves, first, and thus of others--partly because they really don't feel threatened by outside ideas and partly because they've often needed forgiveness themselves (remember, being a Moderate means changing your mind occasionally, maybe in public).

There's no question that the general public tends to prefer True Believers as their leaders. True Believers--like GW--can generate a reassuring aura of certitude and strength of principle. However, the basic principles of a Liberal are also strong and certain--most of them can be found in the teachings of all the great philosophers, from Socrates through Nietszche, and I hasten to include the New Testament.

But as all philosophers and psychologists also teach, the devil is in the details. Moderates are burdened with having to cogitate about the application of those principles, while True Believer simply turn to whatever gospel their leader ordains.

That's why it ain't easy being Grey.

[ieoeja]

35. Like all the former "Democrats" who ...

.. became Far Right nutcases. David Brock was just one such exmaple. A lot of the Republic talking heads out there claim to have been a Democrat until they found out how "evil" Democrats were.

Inevitably when one of them provides details about his/her former life as a Democrat, it turns out they were actually in the Collge Young Communists or some such organization that had nothing to do with the Democratic Party. With their Black or White math:

Given: Republic NOT EQUAL Communist
Given: Republic NOT EQUAL Democrat
Then: Democrat EQUAL Communist

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

37. Excellent example, Ieoeja!

I also saw it happen when Nixon's pedestal fell. Many of his True Believers stampeded to the Radical Left instead of examining the situation itself to find lessons of human truth in it.

And how many Evangelizing Atheists have we seen swing to Evangelical Religion, or vice versa?

True Believers are anchored to their need for a Pure & Perfect Gospel--uncertainty scares and threatens them. We can empathize with them, since we envy such certainty ourselves, and so we can forgive them (even when we're forced, on principle, to resist them).

Moderates are doomed to float through the Truth Spectrum forever, looking to find what's true about any given situation and what works to make things better. Unfortunately, the answers they find are usually messy and often scary, because they're about this messy, scary human race.

[Common Sense Party]

40. Damn good post, from a fellow moderate.

I'm conservative on some things, progressive on others.

I DON'T think all Republicans are Nazis.

Puts me in the minority around here sometimes.

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

43. As Mark Twain said,

"The trouble with common sense is that it's not all that common!"

Hee hee, CSP, you better get used to being in the minority...at least for awhile. But just as the public eventually woke up to Bush's dysfunction, the majority eventually recognizes good sense when it hears it.

[welshTerrier2]

45. gray is not a virtue

i've posted the following before but it just seemed so relevant as a response to your post that i thought i'd take it for a drive again:

when i think of black and white thinking, i see an absence of nuance and of depth and of multi-faceted analysis ... it leads to very poor solutions almost everytime ...

sometimes this "don't be so b&w" argument tries to make a case for centrist positions ... that is a false response ... for example, take an issue like equal rights for gays ... it's absurd to make an argument like "you people are so all or nothing ... you should be happy we're willing to support you in making just a little progress" ... that's just crap ... you can't have "a little equality"; you either have it or you don't ...

the win at any cost crowd doesn't like to hear this line because it potentially interferes with "winning" ... they make their "we're so pragmatic" arguments ... again, it's just crap ... arguing against b&w thinking does NOT require those at the polar extremes to move to the mushy middle ... i do NOT accept that premise ...

what b&w thinking falls short on, as i describe it, is the ability to appreciate the multi-facetedness (no, i doubt it's a word - how about multi-faciousity?) of almost everything ... when you start to stir tactics and timing and values and yes, political practicalities, and all the other variables into the great stew, then and only then are you able to think beyond b&w ... so, in terms of political spectrum perceptions, one might reasonably argue that someone on the "far left", whatever that might entail, might be a b&w thinker but it is erroneous to assume that means they are somehow required to compromise or move to the middle ... therein lies the rub ...

taking the example of someone on the extreme left, they may fail to see the many factors at play on a given issue ... their views may lack subtlety or nuance ... unfortunately, this often either weakens their ability to make their case or it leads them to bad policies or bad tactics ... often, they have failed to deepen their understanding of the situation in a sufficient way and have rendered themselves less effective ... breaking out of such b&w thinking is often necessary but that does not mean they need to change their fundamental position but rather appreciate the position in greater depth ...

remaining totally in the abstract here, one of the frequent frustrations i have in my discussions on DU is caused by a conflict between short-term tangible policies and longer term, perhaps more abstract policies ... most of my thinking takes the view that twiddling with today's details is fundamentally folly ... we'll be patching the same holes in the hull over and over and over ... when we finally get them all fixed, many will jump for joy and say "i told you so - look how good things look now" ... and then the stupid ship captain makes the same old mistakes again and we're crashing into the same rocks and ripping apart the hull ... there's always an urgency to why we have to do the short-term thing when i see the long-term thing as far more meaningful ...

in the political context, especially the "progressive" political context, we fight for civil rights; we fight for workers rights; we fight to preserve our freedoms ... of course, that's all good ... but I fear our gains are ultimately illusory ... how easy it's been for them to repeal the Bill of Rights ... whatever we win is too often given as an appeasement to quiet the masses and keep us down on the farm ... if it doesn't "cost them in their wallets", they yield each little token of social progress to lull us back to sleep ... but on any given dark day, whoosh ... so, we elect this really good guy or that one ... we fight this little battle or that one ... again, all good but i worry we are not really taking care of the non-b&w, not right there in front of us, big picture ... and everytime we choose to go short, almost even failing to see the wide open receiver in the end zone (hey, lighten up, i'm watching football as i write this), we've lost an opportunity even if we see it as progress ...

so, for me there is way too much b&w thinking and it often manifests itself not in terms of political extremism but rather in failing to install a proper foundation before starting on the finish work ... the problem is not with political polarity or failing to compromise or move to the mushy middle; the problem i too often see is just plain narrow, short-term thinking ...

[enough already]

41. I want to win and crush the bastards in the process

They've been shitting on us and this entire country since 1994. They need to be purged. We sure as hell don't need them for anything other than paperweights.

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

44. "Crushed"? "Purged"? Doesn't revenge just invite revenge?

Please look at Iraq, for example. Then look at South Africa, where--having won the government--they took the risk of trying to understand their fascistic oppressors and forgive all but the worst of them. Which nation is in flames that show little hope of subsiding and which nation is making at least some forward progress?

Hell, I've taken plenty of revenge during my 6-plus decades (far too often, it's been standard male "road rage" retribution), but I gotta say it never made me feel better. In fact, it usually made me mad for a long time afterward.

The only process that has healed my bad feelings has been (A) understanding, and then (B) forgiving. It doesn't necessarily change the other guy--that's not its purpose, although sometimes the example is contagious--but it has the same result as if it HAD changed the other guy, because it eliminates my bad feelings about the incident.

I recommend to everyone that they try it sometime. You'll soon be smiling a lot more.

[EFerrari]

46. Well, being vicious is against my personal philosophy but we can

win without Thug votes if we register Chicanos and get the votes of Chicanos, Native Americans, blacks and poor people COUNTED.

[LWolf]

47. There is a difference between "finding common ground"

and being complicit. You know, actually furthering the republican agenda while making regretful remarks and excuses for not opposing that agenda.

I don't think Democrats have to be vicious; we can work in a way that leaves the opposition their respect and dignity, without furthering their agenda.