The United States just can't take another 4 years of partisan fighting

[ginchinchili]

Not on the level it's been and the level it will continue on if Hillary is elected president. But that's a very big if. A Hillary nomination would finally give the Republicans something to get energized about.

I encourage you to ask yourselves these 2 questions: 1.)Is Hillary better qualified to be POTUS than Joe Biden? 2.) Who would appeal to more Americans, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden?

Hillary is the John Kerry candidate of 2008, a good senator but a weak national candidate. I like them both, but they both lack widespread appeal. There's simply too much riding on this election to roll the dice by nominating a weak national candidate. Make Joe Biden our candidate and we have the best qualified candidate with the widest national appeal. We can't gamble the election away.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. what partisan fighting?

There have to be two real political parties with real differences for a partisan fight.

Politics is not about everyone sitting around the campfire holding hands and singing koom ba ya.

[ginchinchili]

3. No, but it is about getting things done

And you have to be able to work with the other side to govern successfully. All veteran politicos will tell you that it's never been this partisan in their lifetimes. We're too divided, and I don't agree with you encouraging that. It puts you on the same side as Rush Limbaugh.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Have you been paying attention?

Every time our party 'works with the other side' it is to advance 'the other side's' agenda. When it comes to our agenda, 'the other side' is marching lockstep in opposition. All we accomplish is a series of one sided concessions as we reach out to meet intolerance halfway.

Telling a poster here that he or she is "on the same side as Rush Limbaugh" is a massive insult. You should consider not doing that.

[PatSeg]

7. I can see that happening in reverse

With a larger majority in the house and senate, the dems could being working with the other side to advance the dems agenda. The republicans would get a concession here and there, but they would not have the upper hand if we have strong majority and a competent, respected president.

Life could be much, much better!

[ginchinchili]

8. But Rush encourages the dividing of America

and you are doing the same thing. How would you prefer I put it? You don't like Rush but you agree with him on this? You're on the opposite side of Rush on everything but this? You can't stand Rush but you both agree that America is better off divided? How would you have me state it to your liking? No matter how it's stated, it's still true that you both prefer to see our country divided, and I personally take offense to that, so don't expect me to play nice to you or Rush or anyone else who enjoys seeing my country so divided.

[TankLV]

18. OK - tell the REPUKES to start FIRST...

then we'll talk, OK?

[ginchinchili]

25. No, we win the presidency and show them how it's done

And when we have to play hardball, and we will, we play hardball. But not in the unAmerican way they have grown accustomed to. Look what's happened to their Party. If you think it can't happen to the Democrats, you're being naive.

[TankLV]

29. No, honey, YOU'RE the one that's naive if you think it's the DEMS that have got to play nice

after the REPUKES did this shit for all these years...

as I say - go ahead - REPUKES first - THEY are the ones who locked the dems out of rooms, they're the ones who didn't even let the dems DISCUSS anything because they already had the votes, they're the ones who wanted to do away with the fillibuster, except now that they're in the minority they never thought they'd ever be again thanks to all their CHEATING and STEALING and DEMONIZING...

No - REPUKES FIRST - then we'll talk...

[ginchinchili]

32. OK, I'm naive. Go do it the Republicans way

But if that's that way this Party goes, the Party will lose a lot of its supporters, me included, because a lot of us don't want any part of cheating, stealing, and demonizing. But I'm confident Democrats are better than that. You will be the one disappointed.

[PatSeg]

46. I don't want to be a Republican

I'm a Democrat because we DON'T behave like republicans. I don't think you're naive. I don't want to see our congress turned into a school yard brawl - "Well, you did it first!" If the Democrats start pulling the same deceitful crap that the republicans did, then we have ONE party and no resolution to anything.

[ginchinchili]

50. Ahh...a breath of sensibility. Thank you, tsegat01

I know the hot heads I'm coming across on this board are not typical of the Democratic Party. I applaud their passion. I just pray it becomes better directed than much of what I see here. This tit for tat crap is small minded and will only dig our hole deeper. Think I'll go to bed. Good night.

[PatSeg]

55. And I share the passion and anger on a daily basis

but before I make decisions, I stop and think. My passion propels me to action, but I try to let my reason to the talking. Meanwhile, I'll still yell at the TV and flip off an occasional asshole, but I won't fight from that frame of mind - it would be a lose-lose confrontation.

Good night!

[Downtown Hound]

88. No one's talking about cheating, stealing, and demonizing

We're talking about enforcing the law. These Republicans have broken so many of them that a lot of them would be eligible for the death penalty if the same law applied to us applied to them. At the very least life imprisonment. When did it happen that demanding accountability from your government for its actions amounted to lying, cheating, stealing, and demonizing?

[ginchinchili]

91. I don't equate bipartisanship with allowing people to break the law.

Do you? Of course the Constitution should be upheld and criminals prosecuted, including Bush and members of his administration. What gave you the idea that I don't support enforcing the Constitution and our nation's laws? If someone says that we should be able to work with those in the other Party in your mind is that the same as saying we should allow Republicans to break the law? I'm just trying to figure out where that idea came from, because it certainly didn't come from me.

[Downtown Hound]

93. Well, how exactly do you think that's going to get done?

You're complaining about the partisan atmosphere in Washington. Do you really think that these criminals and thugs are just going to give up their power and walk nicely into a jail cell due to some bipartisan agreement?


You can talk nicey nice all you want. But the partisan atmosphere is going to get worse. And I say bring it on. I'll be listening to the screams of the one million dead Iraqis and 4000 U.S. soldiers in my imagination to give me inspiration to carry on the fight. Our country needs justice. The Iraqis need justice. The world needs justice from this atrocity that is the Bush administration. That justice is not going to be achieved through bipartisanship. That's like saying I'm going to negotiate with a rapist to see what kind of sentence I can get him to give himself.

[ginchinchili]

98. If you want to make up arguments, then start your own post

Don't argue with yourself and then pretend it's me taking up your weak counter argument. Don't make absurd extrapolations. Object to statements I actually make, or just start your own thread. The counterpoints that you're attributing to me don't reflect how I feel. But I suspect it's not my explanations you object to. Perhaps you just don't like my opposition to Hillary Clinton's nomination. I oppose her nomination, not because my beliefs run counter Democratic ideology, but because they are much in line with it. If you want to state that you support Hillary, or whomever, do so. Don't be insidious about it.

[Downtown Hound]

108. Hahahahahahaha! n/t

[ginchinchili]

112. Just what I thought, a bunch of hot bogus air.

[dugggy]

61. You are making too much sense!

That is not popular here, you should know that by now.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. I asked you politely to stop with the insults.

And yet you persist. Odd that, considering that you are arguing for an end to 'partisan fighting', which fighting exists mostly in your imagination. Perhaps you should lead by example and make your case without painting those who disagree with you as allied with that foul gasbag of fascism.

[ginchinchili]

71. My point is accurate

Which is why you sidestep it in favor of just trying to shut out the truth. I stand by my post. You prefer a divided nation, Rush prefers a divided nation, and I find both of your opinions on this matter destructive and appalling.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Yo! We are a divided nation!

That is the point. There are real and profound political differences. That is supposedly why we have political parties. The parties are supposed to represent profound political differences, and then they compete with each other to win votes and by winning votes implement their political vision rather than the opposition parties political vision. Politics is supposed to be partisan. Calls for 'biparisanship' are naive idiocy. Why not just have one political party? That would end the fighting. I know, we could call it the Corporate Kleptocracy and War Party. Its programs would sail through congress opposed only by a small group of nasty folks like me. It would be War and Corruption without end. Sound familiar?

[ginchinchili]

77. Sounds like you're using Iraq as your model for America

If you are incapable of understanding the difference between not allowing any differences and working through our differences in order to move forward, then any explanation is beyond your grasp. I don't know who you support, nor do I care, but it is intellectually corrupt to take someone's position on a subject, change it so that you can forge an easy target, then pretend like you have a winning argument. It's the path taken by someone who is too weak minded to have an honest debate.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. Ah first I was Rush, now I am a terrorist.

Got it.

[ginchinchili]

83. Sorry, understanding is slow in coming to you

Allow me to repeat myself since you are incapable of honest debate:

"it is intellectually corrupt to take someone's position on a subject, change it so that you can forge an easy target, then pretend like you have a winning argument. It's the path taken by someone who is too weak minded to have an honest debate."

Of course, if you want to pretend I'm calling you a terrorist, then pretend away. I'm actually insinuating something else, but I'm finding it more amusing to watch you silly yourself on this thread. So...what am I calling you this time?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. Have To Jump In Somewhere

Before Clinton came into office he was voted the most effective governor by the governors of the other fifty states... Obviously this was a bipartisan lot... Once he became president the Congressional GOOPERS opposed his health care legislation, which was his hallmark issue, because they felt it was best to weaken him by opposing all his legislation...

The Pugs were intent of sabotauging Clinton's administration before it started...That's why he trimmed so much... And even then they hated him so much they impeached him...

F the GOOPERS...Let them play nice first...

[ginchinchili]

100. I just believe that we have to lead by example

It's a shame that so many Democrats on this board equate honest leadership with weakness. It would appear that you and others do, but I don't. I state that the Democrats should demonstrate leadership with integrity and should try to work with Republicans, and you and several others assume that means be weak and let the Republicans push us around. That's a damn shame. That's not what it means to me at all. Part of demonstrating real leadership and integrity involves being strong and not putting up with crap that the opposing Party, or anyone else, including those within our own Party, throw out there to muck up positive progress. But I don't call that being overtly partisan. I call that leadership. We just disagree on that point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. The Republicans Opposed Clinton From 1/20/93

He wasn't even allowed a "honeymoon"... When Clinton proposed his health care legislation Bob Dole was willing to work out a compromise... Newt Gingrich and Bill Kristol informed him to oppose it so they would have an issue... They opposed it... Universal health care died... The rest is history...

To expect the Republicans to play nice is naive at best, dangerous at worst...

The Republican party needs to be made so small they can meet in a phone booth...

[ginchinchili]

106. That sounds like really tough talk. I bet you're a tough guy

"The Republican party needs to be made so small they can meet in a phone booth..." And just how do you propose doing this? Talk about "aberrant nonsense." I bet you even had to look that word up. (Aberrant, that is. You seem to be well acquainted with nonsense.) So tell me, just what do you specifically recommend the Democratic Party do to destroy the Republican Party. I'm very curious. Should we deport them all? Take away their voting rights? Make it illegal for them to work? What do you suggest? Just how should Democrats exercise their majority status in a way that destroys the Republicans?

[ginchinchili]

111. You talk tough, but can't back it up. Just how should Dems destroy the Repubs?

I'd really be interested in hearing your "plan."

[Downtown Hound]

87. There is no working with the other side here

That's what you don't understand. This other side is criminally dangerous. They have staged a coup in this country, destroyed our democracy. Invaded another country. Shredded our constitution. There is no getting along with people like these. They must be fought, and fought hard.

[ginchinchili]

101. Need I remind you that most Democrats went along with it too?

Should we just execute the whole bunch? I prefer dealing with reality. Not every Republican broke the law here. Investigate those who appear to have done so, and try to work with the rest. What you fail to understand is that roughly half our country leans toward the right and roughly half to the left. I just think it's foolish to try and disenfranchise half of America because they happen not to agree with me. The Republicans tried to rule that way and it was a bust. If the Democrats decide to follow suit, the results will be the same and our stay in power will be relatively short.

[Downtown Hound]

110. Actually most Democrats didn't go along with it

61% of them voted against it. It's just that with the Republican majority, the 39% that did go along with it was more than they needed to give them an overwhelming vote.

[burythehatchet]

9. took the words right out my mouth

if only there could be a partisan debate.

[stimbox]

75. Exactly

If only there could be a REAL partisan debate.
I wish the Democrats would act like an opposition party.

[Kagemusha]

2. I know what you're saying but, have you read about the viciousness circa 1804?

I mean, partisan fighting has been going on for a very, very long time, and it's routinely been very, very nasty.

I don't think much of Biden, myself.

[ginchinchili]

11. Perhaps you could reread my post

I didn't say it is the most divided our country has ever been. If you wish to debate a point I make, please do, but do it factually. I think it's clear that the country was more divided before and during the Civil War. That doesn't make being as divided as we are today ok. We've done better and we can do better again.

I don't believe in the idea of electing Hillary Clinton so that Democrats can have their revenge. Yes, I see those kinds of attitudes in Republicans a lot, but that doesn't mean we should counter with the same asinine attitude. It's like the torture argument. Many Republicans argue that we should feel free to torture because others will do it to us. They screw us we should screw them. I'd like to believe we're better than that. We shouldn't torture because it's the wrong thing to do. And if you're supporting Hillary Clinton, it shouldn't be to stick it to the Republicans. They are roughly half our nation, our brothers and sisters, ok, our less enlightened brothers and sisters, but still our brother and sisters. I don't want to approach things the way they do. I want to approach things on a higher road and smarter.

[Kagemusha]

14. I'd like the high road, but I understand legions of leftists loudly disagree with me.

However, I disagree with "the country can't take 4 more years of this". Yes, it will. It always has. It may break certain people's hearts, maybe yours, maybe mine, and fill us with a thorough disgust of politics, but there'll always be someone else to yell louder and do the marches and fight to stick it to the enemy, even if you and I don't want to do that. And I just think it's naive - of myself, specifically - to think otherwise, however much the higher road looks like it might be a good thing to try once in a while, as long as it's a road leading to getting good things done. But that's not really how Democrats want it to work, is it?

[ginchinchili]

20. A well-considered post. I appreciate that.

As for your last question, some do and some don't. I think it's dangerous to pigeonhole Democrats, and Republicans for that matter. I do believe that the pendulum effect is at play and at some point we'll start swinging back to a more civil government.

Yes, partisan politics will always be with us. It's part of Democracy. There are responses to my post that imply that I'm suggesting all partisan politics come to a halt. I'm not naive. But implicit in their responses is that it's got to be all or none, and none is impossible.

My hope is that the Democrats can show the Republicans how it's done. Otherwise we do run the risk of that pendulum swinging too far out where real damage is done. I'm not one who believes that everything will necessarily stay ok. I do think things can go badly awry. Hell, I think things are badly awry right now, but they can get worse. We can't afford that and, thus, my original post.

[2rth2pwr]

42. Name a time when partinship did not rule the day. The idea that

there is a compromise position that everyone will be happy with is ludicrous. Left and Right are not just words they represent two different world views. What is the compromise position on Iraq? Abortion? Cutting Taxes? Slavery? Is military spending going up or going down? Universal health care or not? The list is endless and there is no way to unite everybody politically, sorry to burst anyones bubble.

The way to win and get your way is to convince enough people to agree with your position, and that requires political skill and know how.

What's the moderate position on torture?

[reality based]

43. Two turns of the screw seems moderate to me

Seriously, you've got a good point. Of course there are ways to compromise, sometimes, if both parties are willing and if at least one of them has some imagination. The problem is that sometimes people choose not to compromise and other times adopt extreme positions expecting the other side to come more toward their position. As President Clinton has pointed out on Hillary's health care plan in the early '90's, the Republicans made a political decision not to compromise and won the next election. Clinton used some pretty clever jujitsu on them later when they continued to attempt this tactic, e.g. the government shutdown. As our OP poster says in one of many posts, we must be smart about when and how to fight. Grand generalizations about partisanship may be fine spinning points for one's chosen candidate but aren't really very helpful for dealing with the "real" world of politics.

[kurth]

4. Joe who?

[PatSeg]

6. I wonder how many people are seeing this

It is possible that we've become so used to the divisive world we've lived in for almost seven years, that perhaps people have forgotten it wasn't always this bad. There are republicans who will be voted out of congress and some who will retire. Many of the others will adjust to not being the only game in town and start to make the compromises necessary to survive. An era is now ending and in order to make real changes, we have to have a congress that can work together, even if they don't always agree. And of course we need a president who does not encourage dissent in congress.

We also need a president who will win by more than a slim margin and in order to do that, we need someone who can appeal to independents and even some disillusioned republicans. Remember "Reagan Democrats"? I'm picturing the reverse with Biden.

[MetalCanuck]

10. I can see separtist movments starting if things get worst.

In Canada we are always fighting to keep Quebec in Canada. They do not realize they cannot survive without Canada. They will find out if they ever separated though.

Vermont has a separatist party and they will start to gain power soon if things get worst.

[reality based]

12. I guess we should just surrender then. Sigh.

GREAT
:sarcasm:

[ginchinchili]

13. Consider Bush's approach toward fighting terrorism

It's always "in your face" or "hurt them twice as much as they hurt us." Well, it sounds good. A lot of people even think it feels good. But has it worked? No. There are far more people who want to attack our country and our people than ever before. It's backfired. You have to be smarter than your opponent. You can't let your emotions guide you or you end up with Bush outcomes. So, no, you don't surrender. You play smart, and that doesn't mean you act as selfish and obnoxious as they are. Why? Just look at the shape our country is in. It doesn't work. You fight for your ideals, but you fight smart. The Democrats are the better Party and we are going to be given the chance to prove it. Let's not blow it.

[reality based]

16. You fight smart-- but you fight

You think that the American Authoritarians are just going to lie down after this election and negotiate. If so, you haven't been paying attention. JFK said: "Those who ride the back of the tiger often end up inside." Hillary has had to deal with them before. I don't think she's under any illusions about how they play the game. I'm not sure about some of the others.

[ginchinchili]

23. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth, words I didn't say

and then suggest that I haven't been paying attention? Show me where I say that the Republicans, or whomever you define as "American Authoritarians," will just roll over and play nice? Don't bother, because I didn't. I know better. You're making the straw man argument, and making me the straw man. I don't appreciate it. Make your point, but don't do it by making up positions and ascribing them to me.

[reality based]

30. I like old Joe Biden. I was sitting by him once when he referred to a bunch of

uniformed Texas Aggie "Corps" members as the "fascists" in the room. We were all much younger then and had a good laugh. That was about the time Goldwater was justifying extremism in the defense of liberty (in the wake of the Kennedy assassination) and LBJ was accusing him of wanting to put Strontium 90 in little girl's milk. Ah yes, the idyllic good old nonpartisan times. It was better then. We had the majority and that was because we knew how to frame the issues and they didn't.

I meant to put a question mark at the end of the first sentence of my preceding post.

[PatSeg]

47. And we could blow it

if we let emotions override reason. It is not enough to be right, we have to be smart as well.

You said it very well, so I won't try to add to it.

[TankLV]

15. A little PARTISANSHIP would be refresing for a change...

DEMOCRATIC kind after all the repuke shit we've had...

I WANT partisanship - I WANT payback - I want to RID the country of repuke EVIL...

sorry - no sale here...

Funny, now that the Dems have a real shot at changing the direction, everybody is shouting "bipartisahship" and against partisanship of the Democratic variety...

I question the motives of any idiot spousing that bipartisanship crap...and I've never been wrong yet...

Tell ya what - AFTER we've had a chance to UNDO all the CRAP the REPUKE PARTY has forced on this country in their PARTISAN fights, and the Democrats and Progressives and Liberals have had their way for oh say TWENTY YEARS, then we can BEGIN to talk about "bipartisanship", OK?

Oh, and REPUKE would have to go FIRST...

[Nite Owl]

22. Well said! n/t

[ginchinchili]

27. ...and I've never been wrong yet...yes you have, beginning with that statement

I can't stand Rush Limbaugh. Not only because I so strongly disagree with his positions, but also because of the way he so arrogantly tries to cram those positions down our throats and everyone disagreeing with him is antiAmerican or supports terrorists. It's ignorant and harmful. If that approach impresses you, than go for it. I have more integrity than that. I'm hoping that youth is your excuse.

[TankLV]

31. no honey, my EXPERIENCE - YEARS of it is what PROVES me right...and your ignorance proves your wrong

I am not willing to sweep REPUKE CRIMES under the rug so they can dust it all off and DO IT ALL AGAIN...

I'm tired of your repuke friends SHIT. TIRED.

It's time to RID our country of this DISEASE first, then we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya...

And it'a not about fighting like the repuke do - like you said - with LIES and TREACHERY and STEALING...all WE need is the TRUTH and a willingness to FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT - which is totally UNLIKE what the repukes have done.

If you're trying to equate DEMOCRATIC TRUTH to REPUKE LIES and CORRUPTION, you're in the wrong place...

[ginchinchili]

33. You sound like you're suggesting we round up Republicans

and execute them. Is that what you'd like to see happen?

[reality based]

37. Just the war criminals after a fair trial

and then commute the sentence to life at hard labor bustin' rocks

[ginchinchili]

38. Hell, why didn't you just say you wanted to uphold our Constitution

instead of all the foaming bluster. I'm just sick of the hate. Just because I'm hated doesn't mean I should hate back. Yes, I know. That's not cool to state. Oh well. Guess I'm not cool. Darn it.

[reality based]

40. You want to talk about hate?

What do think all the enabling of G.W.Bush's misanthropy that has taken place in D.C. has engendered throughout the world. Especially in the Middle East. And in New Orleans. I don't think you understand the deep antipathy that exists in the American electorate toward both parties. People will support partisanship that is directed toward dealing with their everyday problems that are getting harder and harder to bear. If no one taps it and directs it constructively, it may blow up in unimaginable ways. Those polls on public dissatisfaction with Congress mean something. I don't think it means they want to have a beer with some Senator. Get real.

[ginchinchili]

44. Don't suggest that I don't understand

I lost everything I owned in Katrina. Don't dare try to preach to me about the antipathy that's bubbling up in our American psyche. You just don't get it. Hate breeds hate. There are ways of dealing with hate, but you don't do it by generating more hate, anymore that you can stop people in the world from wanting to kill Americans by going around and killing everyone you feel threatened by. You get real. Your username is a misnomer. How can you be reality based when you think you're going to go around solving problems by hating people and trying to disenfranchise other Americans just because they don't think like you? How fucking arrogant. Did it serve our country well when the Republicans acted that way? Well, did it? No. And it won't if we do it either. The whole ship will just continue to sink as we sit around squabbling, and the whole time you'll be up on deck ranting and raving about not being mean enough and not being partisan enough until we all drown. Like it or not, we will have to work with the Republicans to get a lot of things done. No, that doesn't mean we have to compromise our ideals. When you are the majority party and particularly if the president is from your party, you determine the agenda. I shouldn't have to tell you that, but apparently it's necessary. But you'll still have to work with the Republicans. That's reality based. You can't even understand the importance a candidate's image plays in his or her election. I don't think it means wanting to have a beer with a senator either, just didn't think that needed to be said. Typical bullshit from a typical mind who pretends they know something but doesn't know shit. Your problem is, you don't seem to understand much of anything, except hate.

[reality based]

49. My you're getting a bit personal for a non hater. Sorry about your losses in Katrina.

I think the general thrust of your OP is too accommodating to the forces that endanger our Constitution and our democratic republic. Unfortunately it seems to be too common among some Washington DC Democrats. "Unto everything there is a season" says the scripture. This is not the time to worry about partisanship but rather a time to make partisanship meaningful for people. When someone refuses to count my vote and the courts provide me with no effective review, what is my recourse? To mount a fierce political attack to restore constitutional democracy is my first choice. Republicans have been operating in general outside the bounds of our traditional consensus about how to conduct politics since at least the Clinton impeachment. It is time to rein them in to preserve the system. That is not hate but rather justice.

[ginchinchili]

56. I think you had it coming

Now had you said that from the start instead of attacking my appeal for reason it would have saved us many a keystroke. Nothing I've written on this board or anything anywhere in my life should be interpreted as not heeding the directives of the Constitution, which is what you're addressing. I agree with you on everything you suggest here. The Republicans broke that constitutional directive when they impeached Bill Clinton and installed Bush as president. Believe me, you could not have been any angrier than I was, and still am. I'm not taking about compromising the Constitution. But I am saying that we shouldn't try to do the same thing to a Republican president for any similar "offense" or install illegally install a Democratic president. By the same token, I believe that Bush and Cheney broke the law. They need to be investigated at least as rigorously as Ken Starr investigated Clinton, but I'd like to see them both behind bars, if the investigation and subsequent trial proves them guilty of breaking the law. I would include that in my agenda for moving forward. But I don't believe that moving forward means steamrolling a leftwing agenda over anything and everything right of that agenda. It won't work and in a matter of time the Democrats will lose power again. Hey, if it was all about what I want, I would be saying what you are saying, screw the Republicans. I say it all the time. But this isn't just about what I want. It's about what's best for my country.

[Downtown Hound]

89. Simple question

Do you believe war criminals should be prosecuted for their crimes, or not?

Those allies that prosecuted all those murdering Nazis at the Nuremberg trials sure were a bunch of haters, weren't they?

[ginchinchili]

94. You're creating a straw man argument and attributing it to me

That's like accusing me of wanting to protect poachers because I state that I'm a hunter. You're way off base. If you wish to debate some point I make, then by all means do so. But don't make something up and insinuate I stated it and then attack that position. It's intellectually dishonest. You can state that you support prosecuting the Bush administration without falsely implying that I'm opposed to it, because I'm not.

[Downtown Hound]

96. Then what the hell are you saying?

All I hear is a lot of whining about how mean things have become in Washington, and accusing our side of going down to the level of Republicans. Why? Because we're pissed off about what has happened? Because we demand justice for the dead? I hear a lot of complaining from you, but no solutions. Just how do you think we're going to destroy this war party through bipartisanship?

[ginchinchili]

102. We don't try to destroy the Republican Party

We win them over to our side by showing the country the proper way to lead. "Destroying the Party" is the Republicans approach. They've managed to do more harm to their Party than to ours. We would have the same result. Just do what's right and the country will want more of it. You don't have to persecute all Republicans. If the Democratic Party tried to do so you would see the Party fall apart just like the Republicans are doing now, because most Democrats feel that there are much more important things to focus on. And hopefully we'll be in the position of determine where that focus should be placed. If your attitude was allowed to rule the day you'd see half the Party break off because we prefer a united country, as united as we can be while still allowing for our differences. If destroying the Democratic Party is your aim, then go ahead and give it a try. I don't think you'll succeed.

I've been making my case until my hands are about to fall off. If all you get from it is complaining, than it's because that's all you want to hear. It's obviously more convenient for you that way.

[Downtown Hound]

109. You win them over to our side by destroying their ideology

And you don't do that by working with them.

[ginchinchili]

113. hmmmm....destroying their ideology...why didn't I think of that?

That's pretty damn astute....how are we going to do that again? I forgot.

[Downtown Hound]

116. Why, by being nice to them of course

Don't do anything that could be considered demonizing or aggressive, because you just might bolt from the party!

Or, how about speaking the truth? Just imagine if we had a majority in Congress that went out of their way to call these criminals on their shit. And don't bother telling me that that would drive moderates from the party. The Democratic Congress has been doing exactly what you're suggesting, bipartisanship. With a bunch of war criminals. And as a result, their approval ratings are in the tank. I would go so far as to venture that it's people like you that will be the downfall of the party.

[ginchinchili]

117. LOL...yeah, people like me.

Yes, Downtown Hound. You've called me out. Now I'm going to come clean. Although I passionately want a greater Democratic majority in Congress and a Democrat in the WH, the reason I do is so they can do the minority Republican's bidding. It only makes sense. Kissing the asses of Republicans directly where they pucker is my real goal, and should be for everyone! After all we've been through, I mean, with this crazy costly war, the Clinton impeachment, ignoring our health care crisis...I could go on and on...it just leads me to the obvious conclusion: if we can get more Democrats in office then they can empower the minority Republicans by being their punks. We could elect Hillary, for example, then insist she, too, do nothing about health care. In order to please the Republicans further she could see how long she can keep the Iraq war burnin'. Maybe they'd even cut us in on a small portion of the profits. To see this all come to fruition is my razon detre, or however you spell that. Are you with me? Please, Downtown Dog, please help we spread the word. The Republicans need our help! And I owe you my thanks. Thanks for, well, for outing me. It's so liberating. You are sharp, Downtown Mut. Very, very sharp.

[Downtown Hound]

118. You've grown very boring

And for someone that claims to loathe partisanship, you are quite childish.

Goodbye.

[Orangepeel]

17. I don't understand why you think Hillary is more like Kerry than Biden is

Both good guys, but both also long winded, long time Senators from the Northeast (well, Delaware's close enough). :shrug:

[ginchinchili]

34. It's the beer test

People wouldn't feel particularly comfortable having a beer with Kerry or Clinton, but they would Biden. You and I probably would love having a beer with any of them. I'm not talking about you or me. I'm talking about some typical Joe or Jane off the street. Not to oversimplify it, but Bush's handlers were very successful in cultivating that image with Dubya. Of course, that was pure farce. Mitt Romney has the same problem (actually, all the top Republican candidates have that problem to varying degrees). It's the image Thompson is trying so hard to create, but he's only looking like an uninformed imbecile.

[jillan]

36. I have to tell you - there are a group of people at DU who have gone to the local pub with Kerry

more than once. And they had a great time.

I see Biden more like Kerry. Intelligent, foreign relations experts, statesmen.
Biden maybe more 'blue collar', while Kerry maybe more cerebral, but inside I see them more similar than different.

Hillary? Well she is in her own category. Definitely goal orientated.

[ginchinchili]

41. I'm not having much luck tonight in making my points

I didn't mean to suggest that having a beer with Kerry wouldn't be fun. I'm really not talking about beer at all. The beer test was just a phrase that was used in the last 2 presidential elections. It refers to a candidate's image.

Do you remember when the media made a big deal about Kerry going wind surfing? Well, I didn't understand what the problem was. I thought, if it relaxes him, that's good. But, what I consider to be, the right leaning media used it to make him appear highbrow. It wasn't football or shooting pool (even though Kerry played football, but that worked as well for him as being in the military. Damn those rightwingers). They did that a lot with Kerry, some of it earned. Historically, in the US if you're a multi-millionaire you have to accept the fact that you will be seen as, well, stuffy. It doesn't matter what you and I think. This is a general perception that become very important in a general election.

It wasn't much of a problem with Bill Clinton. He was just plain gifted, and a well rounded person, in large part due to the events of his difficult childhood. Hillary doesn't pull that off like Bill can, in my opinion. Lately she's started using the laugh. When she first started doing it. perhaps authentically, it worked for her (an odd thing to "work" for someone, but...), but it's like she got the impression it worked so she started using it more. Now, she's being made fun of for it.

A lot of this is just plain silly, but some candidates pull this stuff off and none of the attacks stick, like Bill. But oftentimes it has an effect. It did on Al Gore. He's just naturally kind of stiff. If you're tuned in to Al Gore, it actually becomes a nice characteristic, but it works against you in a presidential campaign, as it did Gore.

Biden is gifted in this sense, not in the same way as Bill Clinton, but in the image competition the result is the same. He comes across as down to earth and a straight shooter.

[jillan]

45. You are doing a great job.

I agree - Biden is down to earth.
He is a great speaker - except when he gets too frustrated and starts yelling like he did at that union debate.
But - other than those few moments- he has great elocution. He speaks on the level of the average person, and displays confidence in what he says. And he has a pleasing voice. Which I can't say about certain candidates. He doesn't have any wierd speaking patterns like bush does, and a certain candidate. (I'm not one to use names - you'll have to use your imagination) I have watched some of his campaign events on C-Span where he has held the audience in the palm of his hand. That is a gift.
The one thing that Biden did that made him larger than life to me, was when he broke down talking about Iraq on Hardball.
You knew at that moment that he is not just all talk, that there are real emotions behind his words.

Stop by the Biden group - I posted an important thread just for us Bidenites :)

[PatSeg]

51. You've made your points very well

Sorry I wasn't here to chime in earlier. I know what you are saying and I think a lot of Democrats are hypersensitive right now and read things that weren't actually there.

It is important that we differentiate ourselves from those we oppose. We may have to compromise now and then on policy. but we don't have to compromise our values and our integrity. We don't have to become what we hate to achieve our goals. We can be smarter. We can be civil. We can be tolerant. We can be just and still hold people accountable for their crimes. We don't have to take our tactics out of their playbook.

[karynnj]

58. If you look at your description of Kerry,

you know that the truth was never what Kerry was, but how the media painted him. Windsurfing is not an elite pastime - unless the elite is defined using a scale of fitness, rather than wealth. Kerry, a war hero, pilot, equestrian, athlete who played 4 sports in colleges, who plays guitar (far better the Clinton plays accordian), who (like Clinton) has a wealth of knowledge on a huge range of issues is likely far more well rounded in the traditional sense of the word. As an op-ed in the NYT explained, if Kerry were Republican, they would have been thrilled to have a genuine war hero and athlete - everything they attacked would be a virtue.

[PatSeg]

63. That's how Rove plays politics

Attack their strengths not their weaknesses. Just imagine how they would trash Jesus!

[karynnj]

65. In Kerry's case, he had a wealth of strengths to choose from

[PatSeg]

68. Sadly, that's the truth

The republicans knew that and pulled out all their guns. Then for extra measure, cheat.

[Inuca]

66. Yep! What she said. n/t

[supernova]

19. Climb down off that high horse bro'

We are no where near Civil War levels. We'd have to live through somthing like the 30s labor unrest or at the very least a prolonged 1060s first.

And no, I don't think Joe Biden is the way to go. I like him. But I like him in the Senate right where he is.

I'm a Kucinich or Edwards person.

[ginchinchili]

28. I'm happy right where I am, thank you.

Perhaps you should read someone's post a little more thoughtfully before suggesting they come down off their high horse. I'll try this again. I didn't say this is the most partisan our government has ever been. I used the Civil War as an extreme example to make my point thinking maybe readers will understand the obvious. Guess I was wrong.

I like Kucinich and Edwards, but Kucinich has a 0% chance of winning the presidency. I like Edwards chances better, but Biden is more experienced and has a better grasp on foreign policy and there's a hell of a lot of work to be done shoring up our international relationships, not to mention Iraq.

[supernova]

39. I did read your post

and I think your analysis is cursory, to be charitable. Biden serves us better in the Senate.

You say we can't take four more years, but frankly history proves we've seen worse and survived. It's a fallacy to think we won't.

[ginchinchili]

48. I'd like us to do more than just survive, wouldn't you?

You criticize my analysis, calling it cursory, but you're unable to explain why. Not surprising. Let's try this....on one side of the room we have a group of people who all disagree and have determined that there shall be no compromising. They argue and fight. On the other side of the room another group of people. They disagree on a lot of issues, but someone suggests that they first consider certain goals they may have in common: improve education; improve our health care system; bring an end to a war. On the goals they find much common ground. But how to reach those goals? A lot of disagreement, but there are some things they can agree on. When they come to a log jam that they just can't seem to get around, the majority in the group says, well, we're going to try it our way. If it doesn't work out to the people's satisfaction then they can remove some of us and replace them with more of you and we can try it your way.....is this any clearer to you? Because if the Democrats run roughshod over all things remotely conservative when roughly half the country is conservative, it won't be long before the pendulum swings back the other way. It's happened before. How long we stay in power is determined by how our elected officials perform and conduct themselves. If they perform like the Republicans have been during the last 10 years or so, the Democrats will be thrown out. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No truer words have been spoken.

[PatSeg]

54. When I was very young

it was the Democratic party that was known more often for corruption. Certainly not all of them, but it was a tag that stuck for a long time and often comes from too much power for too long.

[PatSeg]

53. I wish I could share your optimism

but I'm sorry, I think the entire planet is at risk right now and we are no longer the isolated country we were 100 or 150 years ago. Anything our government does affects not only us, but the whole world. Where we are right now really doesn't have any historic precedence.

[demommom]

119. It is a very different world now, than the past .

Not realizing or admitting that we may not be able to take 4 more years of this is very dangerous. Has the belief that our country is invincible and can because it has, survive much worse than this,lead us to where we are?

If one side must always control one another without compromise, how will there ever be peace or prosperity?:shrug:

[PatSeg]

52. Edwards has a grasp of domestic issues

that would be very effective in a time of peace, but with our serious international issues, I don't think he is the right choice right now.

[TankLV]

21. What the US can't take is another TWELVE years of CORRUPT REPUKE SHIT...

Sorry to spoil your fine repuke spew now that we're close to being able to CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY after these long dark years of REPUKE PARTISANSHIP...

[Catherine Vincent]

24. Imo, all future presidents elected will have to deal with partianship.

I can't see real bi-partianship from now on. The republicans started this mess with the bogus Clinton impeachment. So whether a Hillary, Edwards, Obama, Romney or a Bush were to be elected, it will all be the same.

[illinoisprogressive]

26. I can support Biden. I can't Hillary

[ginchinchili]

35. In my opinion, Hillary is too great a gamble

one I'm not willing to take, if I can help it. I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination, but I'll be doing some heavy drinking on election night to numb the pain.

[PatSeg]

57. And I will join you!

I can settle for less than I want if I have to, but this time, this time I'd like us to really make the best choice.

[Connie_Corleone]

59. Biden moved up to number 2 with me. But, Obama is still number 1.

[Enrique]

60. Biden strikes me as very East Coast

I wasn't aware that he had such wide appeal across the country. Do you have evidence of this?

[PatSeg]

62. I've seen him in small groups in Iowa

and he really connects with people. He comes from a blue collar background, very close-knit Irish family. Though he is very intelligent, he can talk to anyone about anything in language people understand.

When I saw his speech to the IAFF, that was the clincher for me. It was by far the best political speech I've ever heard and he received five standing ovations. I know he didn't get their endorsement, but if he was the nominee, he would get their votes. The speech is available at YouTube. I've watched it three times and the last time was with a recovering republican. I think it sold him.

[wyldwolf]

67. The same thing we've read on DU countless times, just worded differently

wasn't true the last 99 times, isn't true now. The big question is do you think you've had an original thought?

[Inuca]

69. You disagree, fine

But why on earth do have to be so ABNOXIOUS?!?!?

[sampsonblk]

70. Easy answers

1) Not really. They are all pretty qualified to be president.

2) Check the polls.

If she's a weak national candidate why is she ahead in all the head-to-head matchups?
Secondly, if she's a weak national candidate, what does that say about Biden who doens't even register in any major poll?

Lastly, Mrs Clinton's campaign effort is superb. As I have said before, hers is the tyupe of campaign effort we needed in past years. Joe Biden has no such organization. None of the candidates have the intense, professional effort that Mrs Clinton has.

[kad7777]

72. If you put Biden and Clinton side by side

Biden wins hands down with his accomplishments for this country. Not mention his experience, and let's not forget the Clinton's went to Biden for a lot of advice. They trust and respect him.

[ginchinchili]

74. The US faces enormous challenges

We need someone with sound judgment and the experience to back it up. I'm not saying the other candidates wouldn't make good presidents. I'm arguing that Joe Biden would make the best of the bunch. Yes, Hillary is smart and talented, but to nominate her would involve 2 major gambles: 1.)Can she win in a general election, and 2.)Is she equipped to make the very best decisions involving Iraq and our place in the world. We've gambled, and lost, enough. It's time to quit throwing dice for our country's future and simply go with the most qualified candidate for the job.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. What Accomplishments?

What landmark legislation?


All I know is he voted to screw broke people when he supported Republican sponsored bankruptcy legislation...

[ginchinchili]

104. If you don't think Biden is the most qualified, explain who is.

and why.

[kad7777]

114. Here's a few accomplishments

Biden’s Iraq plan scores Senate win

The Senate found its first bipartisan consensus on the Iraq war Wednesday, dealing a minor rebuke to the Bush administration and a major boost to Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.).

Two of Biden’s presidential rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.), joined with fellow Democrats to back the political remedy for Iraq that he has promoted for more than a year. Biden’s amendment calling for a decentralized Iraqi government passed 75-23 and won over 26 Republicans.

Biden billed his vision of diverse federal regions in Iraq as a strong challenge to President Bush’s war policy, and Democratic leaders who were cool to the plan earlier this year declared Wednesday that the new Congress finally had prodded Bush toward a new approach to Iraq.

“It’s an achievement by Congress,” said Sen. John Warner (R-Va.).

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) missed the vote on Biden’s plan as well as a vote on Iran offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), both of which were added to the defense authorization bill. Obama’s office has said he would likely support the Biden language.

The Bush administration previously has opposed a mandate for federalizing the Iraqi government, but the State Department did not comment publicly Wednesday on Biden’s plan.

Meanwhile, every Democratic leader backed Kyl’s amendment on Iraq, which called for Tehran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to be designated a terrorist group. More incendiary language referring to the use of “all instruments of U.S. power in Iraq” to block Iran’s activities was dropped from the amendment, but Biden and Dodd still opposed the language. The amendment passed 76-22.

Clinton supported the Iran amendment, exposing her to continued criticism from anti-war groups active in the Democratic presidential primary.


The Biden Crime Law

Since coming to the Senate, Biden has written some of the most innovative and far-reaching criminal justice proposals in recent history, including the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, also known as the Biden Crime Law, which was signed by the President in 1994. The law is responsible for putting more than 100,000 additional police officers on the streets; assisting states in building prisons and boot camps to make punishing crime more cost-effective; helping fund "drug courts" that combine intensive supervision, drug testing and treatment for non-violent first offenders; and supporting existing juvenile crime prevention programs that are proven successes. The law also banned 19 of the deadliest assault weapons and their copies and increased penalties for interstate gun trafficking and for using semiautomatic weapons in violent or drug trafficking offenses. The Biden Crime Law has been widely credited with the dramatic drop in crime rates during the 1990s.


Preventing Violence Against Women

Included in the 1994 Crime Law is Senator Biden's landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which is the first federal law to address gender-based crimes in a comprehensive way. This bill strengthened federal penalties for abusers, stalkers, and repeat sex offenders and provided over $3.8 billion to states to fund battered women’s shelters, train police, prosecutors and nurses, and established a national domestic violence hotline. Senator Biden also authored the widely acclaimed Violence Against Women Act of 2000. In addition to extending many of the successful programs from the original Violence Against Women Act, VAWA 2000 includes $1 billion to help prosecutors track down domestic abusers, $875 million to expand shelters for battered women and their children, $200 million for legal assistance for victims and $140 million to stop violence against women on college campuses.


Preventing Genocide

Through his work on the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden has sought to promote the use of American power to stop dictators who commit crimes against humanity or genocide. In the 1990s, Biden was among the first to call for active American leadership to end Serbian aggression in Bosnia, and likewise urged U.S. action in Kosovo to stop Slobodon Milosevic’s genocidal actions there. He has urged strong U.S. and international action to prevent genocide in Darfur, and authored legislation to engage NATO and provide additional sanctions to pressure the Sudanese regime.


Strengthening U.S. Diplomacy

Biden has worked across party lines to strengthen American diplomacy. In the late 1990s, he joined with Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms on legislation to reorganize the government’s foreign policy agencies, and co-authored the landmark "Helms-Biden" legislation authorizing the payment of nearly $1 billion in back dues owed to the United Nations, contingent on U.N. reforms. Senator Biden also has been leader in expanding U.S. radio and television broadcasting into the Muslim world to explain U.S. policies and counter anti-American propaganda.
Senator Biden’s legislative interests have focused on a wide range of foreign policy issues, including arms control and non-proliferation, European security, the Middle East peace process, and international narcotics policy. He has traveled widely during his Senate career and meets regularly with visiting heads of state and foreign ministers.

[stimbox]

76. Bipartisanship has worked so well...

:sarcasm:

Fuck that.
No more mr. niceguy.

:nuke:

[ginchinchili]

78. You sound envious of Iraq's more partisan approach.

The all or nothing approach in a democracy doesn't work.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. You need a bigger brush and more tar. nt.

[ginchinchili]

84. No, that was adaquate.

[stimbox]

99. Yeah.

You centrists have done a great job with compromising with the Repukes.
Thanks for your complicity.

[robinlynne]

79. Then lets move the republicans to the marianas.

[Vanje]

82. The rebublicans will contiue partisan fighting, no matter

...no matter who Dems choose.

Partisan fighting is all they've got.

[mark414]

85. America needs a new season, not a re-run

[ginchinchili]

86. That sounds good

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. Having Two Roosevelts And Two Adams Didn't Hurt The Union

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Game...Set...Match

Here's a plethora of polls showing Hillary eviscerating her GOOPER opponents:


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


Now, you can show me any poll of Biden defeating his GOOPER opponents...


Before Biden can be taken seriously let him demonstrate that he can poll greater than the margin of error against his Democratic opponents:


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

You're only making people hate your candidate with your aberrant nonsense...

[ginchinchili]

103. lol....my aberrant nonsense. Do you even know what that means?

Give an example. And make it a quote, please. Not one of your made up attributions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. You Keep Saying She Can't Win...

Aberrant-deviating from the proper course or untrue...

You keep trying to spread the meme that Hillary Clinton can't win...You remind me of Adrian in Rocky IV when Rocky's about to fight Ivan Drago... She says "you can't win." What did Rocky do? He opened a can of whoop ass on the big Russian... Every published poll in the last couple of months show Hillary beating her Republican opponents:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

You can't site one poll that shows Joe Biden beating his Republican opponents for the presidency...
I'll admit there aren't many published polls pitting Biden against his likely Republican opponents but that's because "nobody" expects him to win the nomination to get the opportunity to challenge them... Right now he's behind the margin of error in just about every published national poll against his Democratic rivals...


It is what it is...

[ginchinchili]

115. Not quite. Aberrant is atypical, something out of the norm

Something that breaks the pattern. To say that believing Hillary can't win in the general election is aberrant nonsense would mean that it is a unique and silly position. However, if you're paying attention at all you would know that a lot of people believe it. Sen. Dodd made a similar comment just yesterday. Freak coincidence? Was his comment aberrant nonsense as well? In fact, one of the main criticisms aimed at Hillary is that she's unelectable in a general election. Are all the people who feel that way thinking aberrant nonsensical thoughts? But then that would be a contradiction of terms, now wouldn't it? Put down your dictionary. You're not impressing anyone, especially since you don't even know how to use the words.