Can't we all just get along?
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17304
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 11/05/04 - 12:30 Post subject: Can't we all just get along?
Okay, this is not so much about Rodney King  as it is just continuing the compromise issue from the original Zell Miller thread.
I believe there is a mentality that the winning party doesn't have to compromise, because 'my guy won'. I'm not saying I wouldn't be guilty of the same mentality if Kerry were there instead. And because of this, the opposing/losing party tends to be on the defensive "I'm still right, the incumbant is more wrong that ever" etc. I don't know. I think for this 'unity' to really happen and work, there needs to be compromise and concession from both sides. But will it happen? Can it happen?
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19384
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 12:37 Post subject:
Sorry. Both sides have to want it to happen. And in an election, that just won't - each has to appeal to their base. And that extends to running things... the unity of the parties that happened after 9/11 didn't last terribly long.
Both parties are equally accountable.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 12:41 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | Sorry. Both sides have to want it to happen. And in an election, that just won't - each has to appeal to their base. And that extends to running things... the unity of the parties that happened after 9/11 didn't last terribly long.
Both parties are equally accountable. |
I agree and we as the electorate need to hold them accountable, or boot them out on their asses
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 12:41 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | Sorry. Both sides have to want it to happen. And in an election, that just won't - each has to appeal to their base. And that extends to running things... the unity of the parties that happened after 9/11 didn't last terribly long.
Both parties are equally accountable. |
I agree, but I don’t think Bush has any incentive to work towards the middle. Now that he is free of worrying about re-election, I firmly believe he is going to move further to the right. I don’t think he has done anything to suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16450
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 12:42 Post subject:
My spin is the election verdict gives Bush the political clout to offer the olive branch, to be the uniter. Regardless of the past, this is a new era and a chance to start some initiatives such as social security changes or tax reform that can plow a new row in the political landscape.
Depending on where you live, it might be a lot like it is around here. This is a heavy Democratic district here in Northern Minnesota. It's like a sense of loss... people actually wore black for a few days. I think the typical stages of grief need to happen for a good many Democrats... denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. My hope is things can fast forward to acceptance where Democrats will come to the table and be willing to participate instead of gridlock.
That's the difference right now. Regardless of issues. The process is that Democrats are the minority and they can be steamrolled or they can leave their mark on legislation by being involved. Four years is a long time to hold grudges and play defense. I think there is room in the Congress for everyone to be on the offense if they work at it.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17304
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 12:45 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | My spin is the election verdict gives Bush the political clout to offer the olive branch, to be the uniter. Regardless of the past, this is a new era and a chance to start some initiatives such as social security changes or tax reform that can plow a new row in the political landscape.
Depending on where you live, it might be a lot like it is around here. This is a heavy Democratic district here in Northern Minnesota. It's like a sense of loss... people actually wore black for a few days. I think the typical stages of grief need to happen for a good many Democrats... denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. My hope is things can fast forward to acceptance where Democrats will come to the table and be willing to participate instead of gridlock.
That's the difference right now. Regardless of issues. The process is that Democrats are the minority and they can be steamrolled or they can leave their mark on legislation by being involved. Four years is a long time to hold grudges and play defense. I think there is room in the Congress for everyone to be on the offense if they work at it. |
Very good points, I think you are right.
Again, I hope you are right about your first paragraph.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 12:49 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | My spin is the election verdict gives Bush the political clout to offer the olive branch, to be the uniter. Regardless of the past, this is a new era and a chance to start some initiatives such as social security changes or tax reform that can plow a new row in the political landscape.
Depending on where you live, it might be a lot like it is around here. This is a heavy Democratic district here in Northern Minnesota. It's like a sense of loss... people actually wore black for a few days. I think the typical stages of grief need to happen for a good many Democrats... denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. My hope is things can fast forward to acceptance where Democrats will come to the table and be willing to participate instead of gridlock.
That's the difference right now. Regardless of issues. The process is that Democrats are the minority and they can be steamrolled or they can leave their mark on legislation by being involved. Four years is a long time to hold grudges and play defense. I think there is room in the Congress for everyone to be on the offense if they work at it. |
Jrjo, what has Bush done that makes you believe he will become a more moderate President; more willing to compromise, more willing to let go some of the divisive issues, in the second term than he was in the first? Do you believe he (and the Republican majority) will be ready to met the Democratic party half way, or is the compromise expected to come from the more liberal side?
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 13:04 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
I agree, but I don’t think Bush has any incentive to work towards the middle. Now that he is free of worrying about re-election, I firmly believe he is going to move further to the right. I don’t think he has done anything to suggest otherwise. |
it's called checks and balances...dems need to be strong enough and field strong enough candidates to position themselves to take back house seats in two yrs...if bush governs too far to the right for the taste of the american people, then the dems need to offer decent enough ideas and candidates to take back the house...or at least bring it back close enough where they send a message...bush is a lame duck president, but if the republicans want to continue to hold the majority in '08 and beyond they'll actually need to show that they can govern (i.e., reach compromise on key issues with their opposition) or they'll be looking in from the outside just like the dems are now...
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 13:05 Post subject:
Here's an article from the Washington Post about Bush's speech and his legislative agenda.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6411614/
I greatly doubt Bush's intent is to be bi-partisan, policy wise. It seems more like the domestic version of "Either you're with us, or against us."
Note this from the article:
"In both his public appearances since defeating Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Tuesday, Bush talked about his desire to earn the support of many of those who voted for his rival and his hope that he can attract the support of at least some Democrats for an agenda that includes overhauling Social Security and the tax system.
But he made it clear he is not looking for a gathering somewhere near the middle of a political spectrum defined by red and blue. "With the campaign over, Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and results," he said. However, yesterday's appeal to Democrats came with strings attached, with the president saying, "I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals.""
If the goal means keeping the nation out of the toilet, I'm all for that.
If it means 'Wake up and smell the coffee and support my conservative agenda', well that's a whole other story. When it comes to policy, I don't agree with hardly any of his goals. A number I think are quite detrimental to our nation's future.
Guess I shouldn't expect to be reached out to anytime soon, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16450
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 13:06 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | Jrjo, what has Bush done that makes you believe he will become a more moderate President; more willing to compromise, more willing to let go some of the divisive issues, in the second term than he was in the first? |
I'll admit, I've got no links to give you or quotes to jazz in my reply and convince you. And I think what I see in GWB is what a lot of Americans see is not zealot that the extreme left sees, but a lot more compatible guy. He spent his years as TX governor being bi-partisan, so we know he's got the tools. I just think the problem with DC is that both side haven't all at once said "enough". When I saw his press conference yesterday, that's what I saw. A man saying "enough, let's get some work done." And the reality is issues are only divisive if they are spun that way. Why can't an issue be just that, "an issue"? Why does it all have to be "them against us"? That's a lot of what I think Americans saw in the debates and in the campaign is GWB was more capable of getting to a point of saying 'enough'. JK was more apt to say "I'll fight". So really, the difference between his first and second term does lie a lot on the Democratic response and whether the fight goes on.
| Quote: | | Do you believe he (and the Republican majority) will be ready to met the Democratic party half way, or is the compromise expected to come from the more liberal side? |
Like I said before, it's gotta be the minority that comes to the majority's table. It's simple numbers. Half-way isn't going to happen in the climate right now. But even if it's right-leaning of center legislation, isn't that better than far-right leaning legislation pushed through on party lines? Everyone wins when they get their footprint on what happens instead of lying by and being the doormat.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16450
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 13:12 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: | | If the goal means keeping the nation out of the toilet, I'm all for that. |
I think Megawill put it best a few months back when he said that the difference between Dems and Repubs is they have the same goals, just different ways of getting there.
We all want healthy educated children. We all want seniors for generations to have enough social security and medicare coverage. We all want tax burdens evenly shared and responsibly spent. The list goes on. The point being, continuing to spin the President's speeches of saying "goals" into being some zealot extreme right wing gay hating, environmental catostrophic, war thirsty "goals" does nothing but insure the divide stays there.
The goals are the same, Dems or Repubs. It's a new day, like I said in another thread, drop the swords and pick up the legislative pencils. There's work to be done and continuing the campaign won't get it done.
|
|
|
|
|
Wicked Flea
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 365
Location: Hair of the Dog
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 13:14 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: | "I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals.""
|
See I am wondering...
A: Who is "our"
B: What are the "goals"
I would love it if Bush did try to unite instead of divide. But I don't see what incentive he has to do that.
"Still, Bush said he would move ahead forcefully to carry out his agenda.
When you win, there's a feeling that the people have spoken, and embraced your point of view, and that's what I intend to tell the Congress."
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 13:16 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | That's a lot of what I think Americans saw in the debates and in the campaign is GWB was more capable of getting to a point of saying 'enough'. JK was more apt to say "I'll fight". So really, the difference between his first and second term does lie a lot on the Democratic response and whether the fight goes on.
|
I couldn’t disagree with you more. I guess I’ll just have to leave it at that.
| Quote: | | Like I said before, it's gotta be the minority that comes to the majority's table. It's simple numbers. Half-way isn't going to happen in the climate right now. But even if it's right-leaning of center legislation, isn't that better than far-right leaning legislation pushed through on party lines? Everyone wins when they get their footprint on what happens instead of lying by and being the doormat. |
It sounds like you’re saying the left has to concede what they believe in so the right can get what they want done. That is not compromise, that is not uniting, that will not bring moderation. If anything, with a Republican Congress and President, they have more responsibility to not push through a right wing agenda, to concede some to the left, if they truly want to unite this country. I don’t see that happening.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16450
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 13:24 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | I don’t see that happening. |
This is only the third day. I only ask that you get yer popcorn, make sure there's plenty of ice in the freezer and pin a little eensy bit of hope on your chest. The doomsday chant isn't what gets America from here to there. Some healthy skepticism is fine, but when 48% of the country goes adamantly day-to-day saying the sky is going to fall, that just might happen. Am I making sense? It's like being in a car. Bush has the wheel, but the Dems can be navigators and help choose the course. Or they can sit in the backseat for four years. Maybe I'm too simplistic, but that's how my backwoods brain sees it.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/05/04 - 13:27 Post subject:
An honest observation from my keyboard - I think its funny that after four years of bitter partisanship from the Dems. - That they are telling W to become more moderate. Bush has to be the one to reconcile, not the other way around. Amazing, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
Related topics: | |
|
|
