NationStates Jolt Archive

So, the general concensus is that with a popular, electoral, senatorial, house and judicial majority the republicans must now compromise.

That sounds interesting. Lets see which of the following liberals here are read to compromise on;

So, the general concensus is that with a popular, electoral, senatorial, house and judicial majority the republicans must now compromise.

That sounds interesting. Lets see which of the following liberals here are read to compromise on;

Not compromise, just recognize that a great deal of the nation is worried about this administrations actions of the last four years. Maybe they could work to earn some of our trust.

Now judging how Bush slapped all of those reporters down by saying he was the voice of the people, and the "Political Capital" and the "Mandate" he now says he has, I think that we can be pretty sure he won't bother with us 48% of the voters who didn't think he did a good job.

You should have set the poll up so we could select more than one option.

You should have set the poll up so we could select more than one option.
Aye. I agree with that. While the options were good, there should have been the option for us to be pick more than one.

So, the general concensus is that with a popular, electoral, senatorial, house and judicial majority the republicans must now compromise.

That sounds interesting. Lets see which of the following liberals here are read to compromise on;It's not as simple as that. I'll vote for tax cuts on your list, because I think there's some room in there, but the problem isn't going to be over whether or not there should be tax cuts, but rather who should get them and how they should be paid for.

Personally, the other ones on your list are non-starters. We can talk about a partial birth abortion ban as long as it takes the health of the mother into account (the reason that it's been overturned in every federal court every time it's been passed), but abortion foes don't want that loophole in there. Social Security privatisation? Two problems--one, it would be outrageously expensive and we're already running massive deficits, and two, I don't trust the markets because I can't exercise any control over them. At least with the government I can vote, as meager as that is. Vouchers? No thanks. In too many parts of rural America, there is no private option, and in urban America, the vouchers wouldn't cover the cost of a good private school. A better solution in my eyes would be to fully fund education infrastructure and stop depending on local property taxes to pay for it. And if you do that, and make certain that every kid has a shot at a good education regardless of their economic standing, affirmative action can go by the wayside on its own. Gay marriage is a human rights issue, so there's no budging on that one.

I didn't see the poll. Partial birth abortion is a pretty nasty issue, and a pretty nasty procedure. Even though most of the nation has a drastic misunderstanding of what it is, it is something I would gladly concede, as long as the actual rights for a woman to choose are left intact. Gay marriage is a personal freedom thing so I wouldn't compromise there. The tax cuts I think are irresponsible for government, but hey what do I know. I don't know much about education vouchers. I think privatizing social security would be a horrible idea. It may be inefficient when run by the government, but to actually put the poor and elderly at the mercy of corporations would be a grievous error. Affirmative action can go, its unconstitutional.

Good idea, but I can't change it now, so just have to pick one.

I think the point here is that democrats expect conservatives to compromise, but show no willingness to do so themselves. At that point it is no longer called compromise!

This is a bunch of BS to expect Republicans to compromise now that we have won the election. You know as well as I do that if the Democrats had won this election as the Republicans did, there would be no talk of compromise. Democrats would have gone straight ahead. You can't seem to figure out that losing 51-48 on the Presidential election is a clear mandate. No Democratic president has received a majority of the vote in the 20th century except FDR and LBJ in '64. Further more when Republicans win 4 more seats in the Senate and pick several more in the House, this seems like a clear mandate from the people to legislate and govern on the agenda that the people elected them on.

David Limbaugh can express it a little better than I can...

Oh and before the name Limbaugh sends all you liberals off the deep end, why don't you read the entire article and actually refute the points he makes.

On Uniting, Healing, And Mandates
November 5, 2004

The Democrats' repeated charge that President Bush broke his 2000 campaign promise to be a uniter, not a divider, is fundamentally dishonest and wrongheaded, as is their insistence following this election, that he begin the healing process.

In the 2000 campaign, President Bush promised to reach out to Democrats if elected. And based on his record as Texas governor, this wasn't just empty talk.

When he took office, he didn't initiate any rash partisan actions like President Clinton did when -- through Janet Reno -- he summarily fired all 93 of the country's United States attorneys before their replacements were secured.

By contrast, President Bush didn't fire Clinton CIA Director George Tenet, even after the War on Terror became the consuming issue of his presidency. He approached Tenet with an open mind, not a partisan heart.

On the education bill, President Bush not only reached out to Senator Kennedy personally, he accorded him great deference in drafting the "No Child Left Behind Act." In return, Kennedy stabbed him in the back, denouncing him as an intransigent partisan. Not only was that a personal betrayal, it was a calculated distortion of the highest order.

Consequently, Kennedy got the best of both worlds. He achieved 90 percent of his education agenda (angering many conservatives), yet still excoriated President Bush for being a miserly, uncharitable Republican ogre for not going far enough.

President Bush got no credit for his overtures to this partisan ingrate or for his genuine efforts to "set a new tone" in Washington. As usual, the Old Media spewed the Democrat propaganda that President Bush was a shrill partisan.

Democrats, in the meantime, while falsely condemning President Bush for his "partisanship," proceeded to engage in the most egregious partisan obstruction in recent history, especially with the attempted wholesale usurpation of his judicial appointment power, using the filibuster weapon to block his judicial nominees.

Having deluded themselves into believing Bush had stolen the presidency, they lambasted President Bush for four years straight, with a short hiatus following 9-11. Democrats were firing all the partisan volleys -- incessantly calling Bush a liar, racist, homophobe, and corrupt benefactor of big corporations and rich individuals -- and Bush was the one tagged as a partisan. It was right out of the Twilight Zone.

It was hard to stomach the Democrats' allegation that Bush broke his promise to be a uniter, since he did try to unite and they wouldn't let him. It takes two to play that game.

Similarly, their post-election demand that President Bush extend a bipartisan hand to heal the nation's wounds really means that he should adopt major parts of their agenda or greatly dilute parts of his own.

And the Democrats' claim that President Bush doesn't have a mandate means that they refuse to accept their defeat. President Bush won the popular vote 51 percent to 48 percent. Under our constitution, that means he has as much authority as if he'd won by a 30 percent margin. He won running on his agenda -- not 51 percent of it -- and against Kerry's agenda.

His victory doesn't mean he should only try to implement 51 percent of his agenda. It means that he's entitled, indeed obligated, to try to achieve 100 percent of it. Any less would be a fraud and a breach of his campaign pledges. His supporters didn't vote for him believing he only meant half of what he said. We have representative government, not government by plebiscite.

Under our system it is up to the Democrats now, as the opposition party, to lobby for their position through the process, which does not mean employing dirty tricks such as the filibuster, but vigorously advocating and exercising their rights within the system.

And when the president does try to implement his agenda, it will not mean he's being divisive, but that he's fulfilling his constitutional duty and honoring his trust with the voters.

For all the slander President Bush received from Democrats during the last four years, do you remember him ever reciprocating with comparable displays of disrespect for his opponents? You don't, because he was always a gentleman.

It's time for Democrats to quit berating him and falsely accusing him of lying. It's time for them to start heeding their own advice and getting used to the fact that he won, fairly and squarely.

They would do well to understand that the highest goal in politics and governance is not to hold hands and get along, but to govern according to the principles and positions upon which you were elected.

But if it's healing they want, perhaps they should stop inflicting harm.

Personally, I think that compromising wont really help them, they are already so close to the Republican party anyway. They would be better of changing their campaign strategy to be more aggressive and factual.
They need to have more ads with Bush holding hands with the Saudis, remind people that he refused to face the bullets in Vietnam, and show figures on the number of casualties in Iraq, etc.

The only reason Bush is so successful at pretending he is a 'man of the people' is because the democrats try to do the same thing, they would be much better of not bothering and instead campaign to expose Bush for what he really is by repeating simple cold hard facts about Bush and his policies over and over again.

Partial Birth Abortion, but I think another good one for Presidential candidates, at least, is the death penalty - see Bill Clinton. Any compromise by the Democratic party on abortion would help them, as they're losing their traditional hold on the Catholic vote. People like Bob Casey would be big helps to the Dems, he was about as liberal as can be with the exception of the abortion issue, and he was exorcised from his party.

This is a bunch of BS to expect Republicans to compromise now that we have won the election. You know as well as I do that if the Democrats had won this election as the Republicans did, there would be no talk of compromise. Democrats would have gone straight ahead. You can't seem to figure out that losing 51-48 on the Presidential election is a clear mandate. No Democratic president has received a majority of the vote in the 20th century except FDR and LBJ in '64. Further more when Republicans win 4 more seats in the Senate and pick several more in the House, this seems like a clear mandate from the people to legislate and govern on the agenda that the people elected them on.

i agree why should there be a compromise he won the election the democrats are just grasping at straws. Bush won both teh popular vote and the college thats a mandate form the people. or perhaps it should be somthing like the 1850 compromise yea right

Democrats should compromise on Partial Birth Abortion
Democrats should compromise on Gay Marriage
Democrats should compromise on tax cuts
Democrats should compromise on education vouchers
Democrats should compromise on privateising social security
Democrats should compromise on affirmative action

If I were gonna choose, I'd comprimise on social security cos I don't think the democratic stance is practical as it stands, and would agree to pilot programs on school vouchers so long as it didn't drain money from actual public school improvement.

I'm not a Democrat, or American, but I would suggest never to compromise on gay marriage with the anti-freedom party (Republicans).

I think they should compromise on affirmative action, which is a stupid idea anyway.

Could Americans explain to me what's so good and so bad about privatising social security and education vouchers?

I say Democrats should compromise on tax cuts, but only if Republicans stop overspending ("conservatives" my eye!).

i agree why should there be a compromise he won the election the democrats are just grasping at straws. Bush won both teh popular vote and the college thats a mandate form the people. or perhaps it should be somthing like the 1850 compromise yea right
Bush just barely won a ajority of the popular vote. He won 51% which means that 49% of Americans don't want the Republicans. Should Bush not govern for all Americans - he is their president, right?

I wanted to vote in the poll, but I am British , so its none of my business ;)

I wanted to vote in the poll, but I am British , so its none of my business ;)

I guess you don't read the guardian then either. :)

I'm not a Democrat, or American, but I would suggest never to compromise on gay marriage with the anti-freedom party (Republicans).

I think they should compromise on affirmative action, which is a stupid idea anyway.

Could Americans explain to me what's so good and so bad about privatising social security and education vouchers?

I say Democrats should compromise on tax cuts, but only if Republicans stop overspending ("conservatives" my eye!).


Bush just barely won a ajority of the popular vote. He won 51% which means that 49% of Americans don't want the Republicans. Should Bush not govern for all Americans - he is their president, right?

Were not overspending-the deficit was left over from the Reagan administration. Clinton/Bush Sr failed to pay for it and Bush is being flamed crap from it, just more crap democrats can pin on Bush. Kind of like the tax cut for the rich. Bush lowered taxes for the top 50%, but just a lot more for the upper percentages. You liberals say that richer dodge taxes when they really have to pay close to 55% of what they make. You also know that the top 50% of Wage Earners pay 96.03% of All Income Tax? The top 5% pays 53% of Income Taxes alone. And your whining about the rich getting the tax cuts.

Uhuh... Well reading your poll issues half of them are not even valid.

- Partial Birth abortion ban is a done deal. Past tense.
- The tax cuts are already done. They were done in 01'
- Both sides have stated they agree with civil unions being legal as opposed to gay marriage. Trust me I was paying attention.
- Affirmative action, is not on the agenda. Where did you get the impression that it was?

I am affriad that I am not following what you mean about compromise? Or did you actually mean the fact that the Democrats would not allow any judge appointments? That would b a very nice thing. I hear that 4 judges are leaving the Suppreme court in the next 4 years.

Yeah, yeah a pipe dream but I can dream can't I?

This is a bunch of BS to expect Republicans to compromise now that we have won the election. You know as well as I do that if the Democrats had won this election as the Republicans did, there would be no talk of compromise. Democrats would have gone straight ahead. You can't seem to figure out that losing 51-48 on the Presidential election is a clear mandate. No Democratic president has received a majority of the vote in the 20th century except FDR and LBJ in '64. Further more when Republicans win 4 more seats in the Senate and pick several more in the House, this seems like a clear mandate from the people to legislate and govern on the agenda that the people elected them on.

David Limbaugh can express it a little better than I can...

Oh and before the name Limbaugh sends all you liberals off the deep end, why don't you read the entire article and actually refute the points he makes.

On Uniting, Healing, And Mandates
November 5, 2004

The Democrats' repeated charge that President Bush broke his 2000 campaign promise to be a uniter, not a divider, is fundamentally dishonest and wrongheaded, as is their insistence following this election, that he begin the healing process.

In the 2000 campaign, President Bush promised to reach out to Democrats if elected. And based on his record as Texas governor, this wasn't just empty talk.

When he took office, he didn't initiate any rash partisan actions like President Clinton did when -- through Janet Reno -- he summarily fired all 93 of the country's United States attorneys before their replacements were secured.

By contrast, President Bush didn't fire Clinton CIA Director George Tenet, even after the War on Terror became the consuming issue of his presidency. He approached Tenet with an open mind, not a partisan heart.

Firing Tenet would be stupid so that does'nt make him a uniter.

On the education bill, President Bush not only reached out to Senator Kennedy personally, he accorded him great deference in drafting the "No Child Left Behind Act." In return, Kennedy stabbed him in the back, denouncing him as an intransigent partisan. Not only was that a personal betrayal, it was a calculated distortion of the highest order.

Consequently, Kennedy got the best of both worlds. He achieved 90 percent of his education agenda (angering many conservatives), yet still excoriated President Bush for being a miserly, uncharitable Republican ogre for not going far enough.

President Bush got no credit for his overtures to this partisan ingrate or for his genuine efforts to "set a new tone" in Washington. As usual, the Old Media spewed the Democrat propaganda that President Bush was a shrill partisan.

Kennedy found out how badly it was mandated and run. So he attacked Bush for imcompetence. Granted it wan't solely his fault. However, the Leader is at fault when a thing goes wrong a little. The buck has got to stop there too.


Democrats, in the meantime, while falsely condemning President Bush for his "partisanship," proceeded to engage in the most egregious partisan obstruction in recent history, especially with the attempted wholesale usurpation of his judicial appointment power, using the filibuster weapon to block his judicial nominees.

Having deluded themselves into believing Bush had stolen the presidency, they lambasted President Bush for four years straight, with a short hiatus following 9-11. Democrats were firing all the partisan volleys -- incessantly calling Bush a liar, racist, homophobe, and corrupt benefactor of big corporations and rich individuals -- and Bush was the one tagged as a partisan. It was right out of the Twilight Zone.


Well his judicial nominees were not moderate so why not? They should stand up to him when he isn't uniting or trying thereof.
So no its not falsely. Well people are entitled to believe Bush has only been elected once by the people. Bush did lie a few times. Well to be against gays like he is can seem homphobic...
He is a benefactor from rich companies that were corrupt. I'm not sure about racist never heard that charge.
It was not near Twilight zone.

It was hard to stomach the Democrats' allegation that Bush broke his promise to be a uniter, since he did try to unite and they wouldn't let him. It takes two to play that game.

Similarly, their post-election demand that President Bush extend a bipartisan hand to heal the nation's wounds really means that he should adopt major parts of their agenda or greatly dilute parts of his own.

Diluting parts would be trying to unite. Bush did not try. Show me when he tried.

And the Democrats' claim that President Bush doesn't have a mandate means that they refuse to accept their defeat. President Bush won the popular vote 51 percent to 48 percent. Under our constitution, that means he has as much authority as if he'd won by a 30 percent margin. He won running on his agenda -- not 51 percent of it -- and against Kerry's agenda.

His victory doesn't mean he should only try to implement 51 percent of his agenda. It means that he's entitled, indeed obligated, to try to achieve 100 percent of it. Any less would be a fraud and a breach of his campaign pledges. His supporters didn't vote for him believing he only meant half of what he said. We have representative government, not government by plebiscite.


Um yeah sure. He can be a uniter or he can go all the way with his plans. Can't be both. Bush has to choose. And anyone has the right to charge he lied about uniter if he tries to go 100%.

Under our system it is up to the Democrats now, as the opposition party, to lobby for their position through the process, which does not mean employing dirty tricks such as the filibuster, but vigorously advocating and exercising their rights within the system.

Fillibusters are not cheap and are legal. Yes tell me how advocating and exercising their erights will help when repubs won't change their mind?


And when the president does try to implement his agenda, it will not mean he's being divisive, but that he's fulfilling his constitutional duty and honoring his trust with the voters.

For all the slander President Bush received from Democrats during the last four years, do you remember him ever reciprocating with comparable displays of disrespect for his opponents? You don't, because he was always a gentleman.

Look either he is a uniter or he implements 100% plan. You can't do both!

Yes he did disrespect his opponent. Vice Presidents count. In fact anyone who works for you counts. You are responsible for them. If they say something bad they represent the company or in otherwords you.


It's time for Democrats to quit berating him and falsely accusing him of lying. It's time for them to start heeding their own advice and getting used to the fact that he won, fairly and squarely.

They would do well to understand that the highest goal in politics and governance is not to hold hands and get along, but to govern according to the principles and positions upon which you were elected.

But if it's healing they want, perhaps they should stop inflicting harm.
Yeah, let us see you stop dissing and lying about them first. Sheesh Seahawk. What did you mean by not read it. Its exactly what I would expect from him being like the talk show guy.

In fact why should they when its all lies, partsisan, bs talk.

Were not overspending-the deficit was left over from the Reagan administration. Clinton/Bush Sr failed to pay for it and Bush is being flamed crap from it, just more crap democrats can pin on Bush. Kind of like the tax cut for the rich. Bush lowered taxes for the top 50%, but just a lot more for the upper percentages. You liberals say that richer dodge taxes when they really have to pay close to 55% of what they make. You also know that the top 50% of Wage Earners pay 96.03% of All Income Tax? The top 5% pays 53% of Income Taxes alone. And your whining about the rich getting the tax cuts.
When you've figured out the difference between the deficit and the debt, and when you actually understand what you're spouting, give me a ring. :rolleyes:

I didn't see the poll. Partial birth abortion is a pretty nasty issue, and a pretty nasty procedure. Even though most of the nation has a drastic misunderstanding of what it is, it is something I would gladly concede, as long as the actual rights for a woman to choose are left intact. Gay marriage is a personal freedom thing so I wouldn't compromise there. The tax cuts I think are irresponsible for government, but hey what do I know. I don't know much about education vouchers. I think privatizing social security would be a horrible idea. It may be inefficient when run by the government, but to actually put the poor and elderly at the mercy of corporations would be a grievous error. Affirmative action can go, its unconstitutional.

I agree with a lot of what you just said. Partial birth abortion is a pretty gruesome procedure and politically unpopular, even with a lot of pro-choicers. Gay Marriage should be legal, but until we see more young people voting we'll be lucky to see Civil Unions stay legal (especially with crazies like the Religious Right gaining influence). Making the tax cuts permanent is a good idea IMO, but only if Bush cuts spending vigorously, since we're massively in debt. Social Security privatization actually wouldn't imply leaving it to the corporations, what the GOP has in mind is to let people invest a portion of it in stocks or private insurance. As it stands, a lot of people are saying that this privatization idea (while good) could turn into Dubya’s own version of the Clinton healthcare plan fiasco: A costly proposal that never gets past congress. As for affirmative action: I second that, but we need to get rid of “legacies” at colleges and other similar discrimination before that happens.

When you've figured out the difference between the deficit and the debt, and when you actually understand what you're spouting, give me a ring. :rolleyes:

I mixed the word up, proves I have lot on my mind. My bad :(. As I do know the difference because trade deficit and consists of importing more than one exports. Debt is obviously, spent more than received.

The Democrats should compromise on tax cuts. When it comes to the tax code, they have no real power, anymore. But I think it might be more attractive to Democrats if there is a national sales tax, which Bush supports.
But I think they must compromise first on energy policy. No one has brought that up since the Great Northeastern blackout of 2003. It passed the house, but is languishing in the Senate because of Democratic philibusters. However, right now, the GOP must find nine democrats to help break the philibuster. By next year, they'll need five. Plus, this has been a very polarizing issue, moreso than even Social Security reform. With a Bush administration more powerful and energized than ever, the Dems will have to pass it, or face a battle in Congress. After all, this issue has become near and dear to the GOP heart.

So, the general concensus is that with a popular, electoral, senatorial, house and judicial majority the republicans must now compromise.

That sounds interesting. Lets see which of the following liberals here are read to compromise on;


Democratws say they want compromise, which of these do you think they should do first
Democrats should compromise on Partial Birth Abortion
Democrats should compromise on Gay Marriage
Democrats should compromise on tax cuts
Democrats should compromise on education vouchers
Democrats should compromise on privateising social security
Democrats should compromise on affirmative action


:confused:

I mixed the word up, proves I have lot on my mind. My bad :(. As I do know the difference because trade deficit and consists of importing more than one exports. Debt is obviously, spent more than received.


What we are talking about is the Budget deficit and the Debt. Budget deficit lead to increased debt. However, since rates are so low, while the national debt is increasing the amount of money required to service that debt is not as onerous as it has been in the past.

I refuse to compromise with the bible thumping rednecks that make up our coservative party.

I voted for affirmative action, since that's really the only part of the Democrat platform I disagree with.

I must say - so far I am pleased, and a bit surprised, with the thoughtfulness of the liberal replies to this post.

I wish I could say the same of the conservative posts, but most are embarrassing.


This gives me hope that maybe some good things will happen over the next four years rather than just a political stalemate.

I had hoped to watch you liberals at each others throats arguing over which of theses is most expendable and why or why not.

You stole my fun! ;)

"David Limbaugh can express it a little better than I can...Oh and before the name Limbaugh sends all you liberals off the deep end, why don't you read the entire article and actually refute the points he makes."

Oops you played your hand too soon. You're supposed to place thinly disgused refrences to your own blatant prejudices at the bottom of the article. You'll need to brush up on that in the future. In the mean time I'll do just that. Hard to say why you'd want me to destory this article, if you had asked me to leave it alone, I generally take pity on the more feeble arguments I encounter.

This steaming load you set down before us is full of lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations. Sheer propaganda without any sense of history, or any thought of truthfulness. This article is merely meant to propel the right wing even further down this frenzy of self-justification.

"By contrast, President Bush didn't fire Clinton CIA Director George Tenet, even after the War on Terror became the consuming issue of his presidency. He approached Tenet with an open mind, not a partisan heart."

Nor did Clinton fire Bush Sr.'s CIA director George Tenet. Oops! Did you forget that Bush Sr. Actually appointed Mr. Tenet and that the woefully partisan Clinton kept his worthless ass through the debacle of India and Pakistan getting the bomb without our knowing about it?

"On the education bill, President Bush not only reached out to Senator Kennedy personally, he accorded him great deference in drafting the "No Child Left Behind Act." In return, Kennedy stabbed him in the back, denouncing him as an intransigent partisan. Not only was that a personal betrayal, it was a calculated distortion of the highest order."

Nor did Senator Kennedy take the name of "No Child left behind" and slap it on entirely new legislation. The original "no child" policy was wholly different in construction and purpose, founded by a school administator who was agahst at the later misrepresentation of her work. The new bill took the name because it sounded catchy and slapped it on something entirely different. Kennedy's "Betrayal" was because he supported the original "No child" policy, not the current form.

"Democrats, in the meantime, while falsely condemning President Bush for his "partisanship," proceeded to engage in the most egregious partisan obstruction in recent history, especially with the attempted wholesale usurpation of his judicial appointment power, using the filibuster weapon to block his judicial nominees."

The dreaded filibuster weapon, scourge of mankind. Sorry, but if you look at the FACTS, Democracts passed over 90% of Bush's appointiees without harassment. Clinton's appointee's didn't get so lucky; in fact it was his appointiees that were slapped down by the republican congress at an alarming rate. So far from the "most egregious partisan obstruction of recent history" the Democracts bent over backwards to allow all but the most wholly unacceptable appointments to pass. "Recent History" in this case is VERY recent, because in order to make that claim they would have to be the most recent...you can't even count the ones immediately before it. Oops again; Mr. Limbaugh a partasain hack.

"Having deluded themselves into believing Bush had stolen the presidency, they lambasted President Bush for four years straight, with a short hiatus following 9-11. Democrats were firing all the partisan volleys -- incessantly calling Bush a liar, racist, homophobe, and corrupt benefactor of big corporations and rich individuals -- and Bush was the one tagged as a partisan. It was right out of the Twilight Zone."

Ah, this has to be one of my favorite scenes. The Twilight zone was an amazing show that revealed that reality and fantasy sometimes intermixed. Nowhere is that more true than here. This paragraph refutes nothing, simply catagorizing the various labels it thinks that the left was using, not realizing that Bush WAS caught using information that was distorted, had (has) a horrible record for reaching out to the leaders of the Black community, proposed legislation AGAINST homosexuals, oversaw massive corruption scandals in the private sector and only one highly inneffectual piece of anti-corruption legislation passed afterwards without any comment from the white house. Oops, guess that he IS partisan. Never mind the "partisan volleys" that the right was flinging during this period; I can accept that as a tit-for-tat arrangement, but seriously, lets call a spade a spade here.

"Under our system it is up to the Democrats now, as the opposition party, to lobby for their position through the process, which does not mean employing dirty tricks such as the filibuster, but vigorously advocating and exercising their rights within the system."

Wait...but the filibuster is a right. It is utterly legal and totally within the normal bounds of the legislative process. Care to look into just how many times the Republicans have used this tactic in the last 20 years? No? So you are actually calling for the Democrats to give up their one ability to resist the blatant partisanship of the right...not that that would EVER stop you from continuing to attack them. But you call for it all the same.

Would you swear off the filibuster? Would you call for the right to never again attempt to disrupt the political process? It worked very well for the Republican congress during the budget balancing times of the Clinton administration; I'm surprised you don't look back on it with favor.

"For all the slander President Bush received from Democrats during the last four years, do you remember him ever reciprocating with comparable displays of disrespect for his opponents? You don't, because he was always a gentleman."

If you don't remember him doing that, I suspect calling for a transcript from any of his campaign speeches where he mentioned senator Kerry or Ted Kennedy would quickly refresh your memory. To suggest even for a second that someone would not remember that BOTH sides slung mud is attempting to rewrite history in a most base and pathetic way. Seriously, is this a joke? Do you actually suggest to say that no one remembers the litany of attacks that Bush and his closest members of his cabinet force-fed the news channels? Do you not remember the famous "truth squads" or "spin alleys" that both sides dredged up?

Or are you trying to suggest that the people of America actually do forget all the rotten, dirty and horribly effective tactics that BOTH SIDES used? And that a coyly worded attack op-ed like this one would actually change the way they see the world? This seems the most likely. I shudder to think that its possible. If that is the case though, write me in as the greatest lover of all time. I could use the publicity.

"They would do well to understand that the highest goal in politics and governance is not to hold hands and get along, but to govern according to the principles and positions upon which you were elected. But if it's healing they want, perhaps they should stop inflicting harm."

Whoo boy. If I am allowed a slightly unfair comparison here, that's fairly Stalinesque thinking on Mr. Limbaugh's part. To suggest that the "highest" and thus somehow most noble and true function of governance is to RAM DOWN THE THROATS OF ALL WHO OPPOSE your way of thinking is EXACTLY what you accuse the Democrats of doing in this very attack op-ed! So the democrats are bastards for doing what you yourself...are doing. Wait. That doesnt' make any sense! Let me spell out the arguements for you.

1) The democrats are bastards
a) because they are partisan (ie they don't compramise with us)
b) they complain about our lack of outreach, when they don't reach out.
2) Republicans should remind them that
a) We only wish to pursue our goals, not reach a consensus
b) We don't need to reach out to them.

Thus, 1 is to 2 as 2 is to 1, so that 1 and 2 are in fact both 1, and in that I mean they are both 0. You're accusing losers of being like you! That means you are both total zeros. The more you focus on merely smashing your agenda's down their throats the more they will focus on just that themselves. Do you expect them to take it up the ass for you or something? They fundementally disagree with you! You Fundementally disagree with them! ITS OBVIOUS that the only way to make things work is to work together or...elimate the other side entirely...

Shit. That's what this is about, isn't it? This article is meant to help place the Democratic party outside of the public debate. To marginalize for no other reason than you're tired of sharing power.

Sad. That the mighty have fallen so far. Scrambling to justify themselves for their own misdeeds. If you were truly good or just in your actions; I suspect others would be justifying you, and people would forgive your transgressions. Right now you are cornering yourselves, soon you will only have yourselves to blame and only yourselves to rely on. I understand now the meaning of the phrase, "Lonely at the top" The Republicans are Waxing in power but waining in moral legitimacy. Now all they can do is prop themselves up with these rediculous justifications of their own misuse of power.

I am never dissapointed with your posts, Niccolo.

Good idea, but I can't change it now, so just have to pick one.

I think the point here is that democrats expect conservatives to compromise, but show no willingness to do so themselves. At that point it is no longer called compromise!

I don't expect that. In fact, I'd rather see the Dems just stop compromising entirely. See this thread: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=370964

The US elected Bush - let 'em have him.

I am never dissapointed with your posts, Niccolo.

Thanks! :)

I read in the paper yesterday that provatising Social Security is estimated to cost over 4 trillion dollars and will take years to implement. On the basis that, even though it's never been even considered elsewhere let alone tried, it must be a really good idea and will save money. How? where is that 4 trill going to come from? Especially if they cut taxes. Prepare yourself for an even more horrendous deficit, America!
As for the post about the top 5% paying 50% of the income tax. That's bacause they earn more! If every 1% of the population paid 1% of the overall income tax, the low-income earners would be paying more tax than they earn! How is that fair?
Look, if Person A earns $400 p/week and pay 25% income tax, you pay $100.
If Person B earns $4000 p/week, you pay $1000. So Person B is contributing 90% of the income tax revenue of the two. The % contribution means nothing. Manipulating figures and statisitics like this is pointless. It proves nothing.

I read in the paper yesterday that provatising Social Security is estimated to cost over 4 trillion dollars and will take years to implement. On the basis that, even though it's never been even considered elsewhere let alone tried, it must be a really good idea and will save money. How? where is that 4 trill going to come from? Especially if they cut taxes. Prepare yourself for an even more horrendous deficit, America!
As for the post about the top 5% paying 50% of the income tax. That's bacause they earn more! If every 1% of the population paid 1% of the overall income tax, the low-income earners would be paying more tax than they earn! How is that fair?
Look, if Person A earns $400 p/week and pay 25% income tax, you pay $100.
If Person B earns $4000 p/week, you pay $1000. So Person B is contributing 90% of the income tax revenue of the two. The % contribution means nothing. Manipulating figures and statisitics like this is pointless. It proves nothing.

Yes, but facts don't really matter in politics. And no truth has ever stopped an attractive lie.

Yeah, shifting the tax burden to everyone who consumes anything and removing the burden from those with "money to spare" seems like a bit of a fool's errand to most sane people. But that's what we're dealing with here; the tax "compromise" here would probably set the middle and working classes back 70 years or so, but if it helps turn out the base voters, screw 'em.

Source: census.gov

The population of the United States is 294,701,554.

The voting age population of the United States is 217,800,000.

Using CNN's numbers for the election results, we see this:

George W. Bush 59,459,765
John F. Kerry 55,949,407
Ralph Nader 400,706

Obviously there were assorted other candidates and write-ins, but we'll just go with that for now.

We get that 115,809,878 people voted. That's a little over 1/2 the voting age population of the United States. (53% actually)

For you Republicans: That means, of the voting age population of the United States, 158,340,235 citizens did not vote for George W. Bush.

So, please, stop claiming that your President is so damn popular or that it is a vast majority. He won by a scant margin. Remember, also, that when you brag that Bush received more popular votes than any presidential candidate in history, so did John Kerry. The closest anyone has come has been Ronald Reagan, who received 54,455,075 votes in 1984.

Less than 1/3rd (0.273) of the nation's voting age population elected George W. Bush. It is Bush and his administration which must do the compromising, not the rest of us. He works for us, not the other way around.

I'll say this again: MANDATE != DICTATORSHIP.

"David Limbaugh can express it a little better than I can...Oh and before the name Limbaugh sends all you liberals off the deep end, why don't you read the entire article and actually refute the points he makes."

Oops you played your hand too soon. You're supposed to place thinly disgused refrences to your own blatant prejudices at the bottom of the article. You'll need to brush up on that in the future. In the mean time I'll do just that. Hard to say why you'd want me to destory this article, if you had asked me to leave it alone, I generally take pity on the more feeble arguments I encounter.

This steaming load you set down before us is full of lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations. Sheer propaganda without any sense of history, or any thought of truthfulness. This article is merely meant to propel the right wing even further down this frenzy of self-justification.

"By contrast, President Bush didn't fire Clinton CIA Director George Tenet, even after the War on Terror became the consuming issue of his presidency. He approached Tenet with an open mind, not a partisan heart."

Nor did Clinton fire Bush Sr.'s CIA director George Tenet. Oops! Did you forget that Bush Sr. Actually appointed Mr. Tenet and that the woefully partisan Clinton kept his worthless ass through the debacle of India and Pakistan getting the bomb without our knowing about it?

"On the education bill, President Bush not only reached out to Senator Kennedy personally, he accorded him great deference in drafting the "No Child Left Behind Act." In return, Kennedy stabbed him in the back, denouncing him as an intransigent partisan. Not only was that a personal betrayal, it was a calculated distortion of the highest order."

Nor did Senator Kennedy take the name of "No Child left behind" and slap it on entirely new legislation. The original "no child" policy was wholly different in construction and purpose, founded by a school administator who was agahst at the later misrepresentation of her work. The new bill took the name because it sounded catchy and slapped it on something entirely different. Kennedy's "Betrayal" was because he supported the original "No child" policy, not the current form.

"Democrats, in the meantime, while falsely condemning President Bush for his "partisanship," proceeded to engage in the most egregious partisan obstruction in recent history, especially with the attempted wholesale usurpation of his judicial appointment power, using the filibuster weapon to block his judicial nominees."

The dreaded filibuster weapon, scourge of mankind. Sorry, but if you look at the FACTS, Democracts passed over 90% of Bush's appointiees without harassment. Clinton's appointee's didn't get so lucky; in fact it was his appointiees that were slapped down by the republican congress at an alarming rate. So far from the "most egregious partisan obstruction of recent history" the Democracts bent over backwards to allow all but the most wholly unacceptable appointments to pass. "Recent History" in this case is VERY recent, because in order to make that claim they would have to be the most recent...you can't even count the ones immediately before it. Oops again; Mr. Limbaugh a partasain hack.

"Having deluded themselves into believing Bush had stolen the presidency, they lambasted President Bush for four years straight, with a short hiatus following 9-11. Democrats were firing all the partisan volleys -- incessantly calling Bush a liar, racist, homophobe, and corrupt benefactor of big corporations and rich individuals -- and Bush was the one tagged as a partisan. It was right out of the Twilight Zone."

Ah, this has to be one of my favorite scenes. The Twilight zone was an amazing show that revealed that reality and fantasy sometimes intermixed. Nowhere is that more true than here. This paragraph refutes nothing, simply catagorizing the various labels it thinks that the left was using, not realizing that Bush WAS caught using information that was distorted, had (has) a horrible record for reaching out to the leaders of the Black community, proposed legislation AGAINST homosexuals, oversaw massive corruption scandals in the private sector and only one highly inneffectual piece of anti-corruption legislation passed afterwards without any comment from the white house. Oops, guess that he IS partisan. Never mind the "partisan volleys" that the right was flinging during this period; I can accept that as a tit-for-tat arrangement, but seriously, lets call a spade a spade here.

"Under our system it is up to the Democrats now, as the opposition party, to lobby for their position through the process, which does not mean employing dirty tricks such as the filibuster, but vigorously advocating and exercising their rights within the system."

Wait...but the filibuster is a right. It is utterly legal and totally within the normal bounds of the legislative process. Care to look into just how many times the Republicans have used this tactic in the last 20 years? No? So you are actually calling for the Democrats to give up their one ability to resist the blatant partisanship of the right...not that that would EVER stop you from continuing to attack them. But you call for it all the same.

Would you swear off the filibuster? Would you call for the right to never again attempt to disrupt the political process? It worked very well for the Republican congress during the budget balancing times of the Clinton administration; I'm surprised you don't look back on it with favor.

"For all the slander President Bush received from Democrats during the last four years, do you remember him ever reciprocating with comparable displays of disrespect for his opponents? You don't, because he was always a gentleman."

If you don't remember him doing that, I suspect calling for a transcript from any of his campaign speeches where he mentioned senator Kerry or Ted Kennedy would quickly refresh your memory. To suggest even for a second that someone would not remember that BOTH sides slung mud is attempting to rewrite history in a most base and pathetic way. Seriously, is this a joke? Do you actually suggest to say that no one remembers the litany of attacks that Bush and his closest members of his cabinet force-fed the news channels? Do you not remember the famous "truth squads" or "spin alleys" that both sides dredged up?

Or are you trying to suggest that the people of America actually do forget all the rotten, dirty and horribly effective tactics that BOTH SIDES used? And that a coyly worded attack op-ed like this one would actually change the way they see the world? This seems the most likely. I shudder to think that its possible. If that is the case though, write me in as the greatest lover of all time. I could use the publicity.

"They would do well to understand that the highest goal in politics and governance is not to hold hands and get along, but to govern according to the principles and positions upon which you were elected. But if it's healing they want, perhaps they should stop inflicting harm."

Whoo boy. If I am allowed a slightly unfair comparison here, that's fairly Stalinesque thinking on Mr. Limbaugh's part. To suggest that the "highest" and thus somehow most noble and true function of governance is to RAM DOWN THE THROATS OF ALL WHO OPPOSE your way of thinking is EXACTLY what you accuse the Democrats of doing in this very attack op-ed! So the democrats are bastards for doing what you yourself...are doing. Wait. That doesnt' make any sense! Let me spell out the arguements for you.

1) The democrats are bastards
a) because they are partisan (ie they don't compramise with us)
b) they complain about our lack of outreach, when they don't reach out.
2) Republicans should remind them that
a) We only wish to pursue our goals, not reach a consensus
b) We don't need to reach out to them.

Thus, 1 is to 2 as 2 is to 1, so that 1 and 2 are in fact both 1, and in that I mean they are both 0. You're accusing losers of being like you! That means you are both total zeros. The more you focus on merely smashing your agenda's down their throats the more they will focus on just that themselves. Do you expect them to take it up the ass for you or something? They fundementally disagree with you! You Fundementally disagree with them! ITS OBVIOUS that the only way to make things work is to work together or...elimate the other side entirely...

Shit. That's what this is about, isn't it? This article is meant to help place the Democratic party outside of the public debate. To marginalize for no other reason than you're tired of sharing power.

Sad. That the mighty have fallen so far. Scrambling to justify themselves for their own misdeeds. If you were truly good or just in your actions; I suspect others would be justifying you, and people would forgive your transgressions. Right now you are cornering yourselves, soon you will only have yourselves to blame and only yourselves to rely on. I understand now the meaning of the phrase, "Lonely at the top" The Republicans are Waxing in power but waining in moral legitimacy. Now all they can do is prop themselves up with these rediculous justifications of their own misuse of power.


Niccolo, that was perhaps the most interesting and incisive thing I've read about the "Rush Limbaugh approach" to our political situation back home I've read since the election. You may not have meant to do so, but you also have tapped into some of the post-WW II background for the current "relationship" between Democrats and Republicans.

Nicely done.
:)

Remember, also, that when you brag that Bush received more popular votes than any presidential candidate in history, so did John Kerry.

Wow, that's a good point.

Source: census.gov

The population of the United States is 294,701,554.

The voting age population of the United States is 217,800,000.

Using CNN's numbers for the election results, we see this:

George W. Bush 59,459,765
John F. Kerry 55,949,407
Ralph Nader 400,706

Obviously there were assorted other candidates and write-ins, but we'll just go with that for now.

We get that 115,809,878 people voted. That's a little over 1/2 the voting age population of the United States. (53% actually)

For you Republicans: That means, of the voting age population of the United States, 158,340,235 citizens did not vote for George W. Bush.

So, please, stop claiming that your President is so damn popular or that it is a vast majority. He won by a scant margin. Remember, also, that when you brag that Bush received more popular votes than any presidential candidate in history, so did John Kerry. The closest anyone has come has been Ronald Reagan, who received 54,455,075 votes in 1984.

Less than 1/3rd (0.273) of the nation's voting age population elected George W. Bush. It is Bush and his administration which must do the compromising, not the rest of us. He works for us, not the other way around.

I'll say this again: MANDATE != DICTATORSHIP.


So, someone who understands the numbers! I've lost track of how many times I've heard people saying that Bush's tally means anything when taken out of context of the rest of the numbers. Following on from that, the percentages are more interesting than the raw numbers. For example, using the numbers you cite, the difference between the two men was only 1.6% of the total eligible voters. Keeping in mind that 47% of eligible voters didn't vote, Bush's re-election doesn't look all that secure. But even if we just talk about those who voted, Dubya still only got a 3% advantage.

So, did he win? Of course he did. Did he get some kind of overwhelming "Well done, George!" from the American people? No.

So unless he really does intend to inflict some half-baked fundamentalist theocracy -- or should that be Bushocracy? -- on us, he needs to compromise with all of us, not just Bush-voters.


PS -- sorry, I almost forgot: Congratulations, Mr Bush. It took you four years to win the popular vote in a presidential election, so you must have set a record for the longest ever election campaign.

I didn't want to make a separate post, but I keep coming across people (Republicans by any chance?) posting how Dubya was good and honest and true, and all the campaigning abuses were on the other side, and how his 4 years in office were exemplary.

Lest we forget. (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts)

Now I'm sorry, but I know I'm not the only person who remembers seeing these things when they happened, so could we get past the "that didn't really happen" stuff and just accept it?

Based on what he's done as opposed to what his fans say and ignore, I'm going to suggest an alternative interpretation to the one which says that Mr Bush is a fine upstanding Christian who does everything exactly by The Book and with complete integrity. I won't address whether he's a Christian or not: that's between him and God, although I regard his his fundamentalism as something that works against rather than for his faith. My own interpretation of Dubya is that, for all the self-righteous hype about Bush by his fan club, he's just another politician [read: "power-junky who will do anything to get elected"]. And he's not even the best of the lot, ethically, politically or intellectually. He just had the best electioneering machine behind him. To quote Radiohead:

I will stop, I will stop at nothing.
Say the right things when electioneering
I trust I can rely on your vote.

[chorus]
I go forwards you go backwards
And somewhere we will meet.
I go forwards you go backwards
And somewhere we will meet.
Ha ha ha

Riot shields, voodoo economics,
It’s just business, cattle prods and the i.m.f.
I trust I can rely on your vote.

[chorus]
I go forwards you go backwards
And somewhere we will meet.
I go forwards you go backwards
And somewhere we will meet.

He just had the best electioneering machine behind him. To quote Radiohead:

I will stop, I will stop at nothing.
Say the right things when electioneering
I trust I can rely on your vote.

[chorus]
I go forwards you go backwards
And somewhere we will meet.
I go forwards you go backwards
And somewhere we will meet.
Ha ha ha

Riot shields, voodoo economics,
It’s just business, cattle prods and the i.m.f.
I trust I can rely on your vote.

[chorus]
I go forwards you go backwards
And somewhere we will meet.
I go forwards you go backwards
And somewhere we will meet.

You know, I always wondered what he said between the chorus! This has got to be the least likely place to find Radiohead lyrics known to man ;)

Oh, I'm curious, what did you mean when you said I tapped into 1950's relationships between the parties? I have an inkling of what you mean, but I can't put my finger on it.

When did republicans compromise in the last 2 years? never.

What makes you think that they will this time?

Aye. I agree with that. While the options were good, there should have been the option for us to be pick more than one.
The poll was about which ont they should compromise on first. They should compromise first on the abhorent practice of partial birth abortion. We can move down the list from there.

If you dems compromise on Affirmative Action you will lose a large amount of the black vote. You sure about that?

If you dems compromise on Affirmative Action you will lose a large amount of the black vote. You sure about that?

To who? The Republicans, who don't support Affirmative Action either?

The poll was about which ont they should compromise on first. They should compromise first on the abhorent practice of partial birth abortion. We can move down the list from there.

For crying out loud, will anyone ever pay attention to what really happens with this canard. The Democrats have compromised on this issue. We have said, over and over and over, that we will sign that legislation, with just one proviso: that there be an exception in the case that the life or health of the mother is in danger. The reason why we keep voting it down, and why the courts keep voting it down, isn't because we're sacreligious atheists hoping to bring down the wrath of God upon us. It's because every time that bill has come up, Democrats have introuduced an amendment to provide just this kind of exemption, and every time, said amendment is defeated by the Republicans.

Personally, I'm proud that my party took it's obligation to uphold the general welfare seriously enough to risk their majority in Congress, rather than build it on the backs of dead women. I sure as hell am not going to compromise on it, nor would I want my congresswoman or Senators to do so.

Oh and before the name Limbaugh sends all you liberals off the deep end, why don't you read the entire article and actually refute the points he makes.

On Uniting, Healing, And Mandates
November 5, 2004

The Democrats' repeated charge that President Bush broke his 2000 campaign promise to be a uniter, not a divider, is fundamentally dishonest and wrongheaded, as is their insistence following this election, that he begin the healing process.

In the 2000 campaign, President Bush promised to reach out to Democrats if elected. And based on his record as Texas governor, this wasn't just empty talk.

When he took office, he didn't initiate any rash partisan actions like President Clinton did when -- through Janet Reno -- he summarily fired all 93 of the country's United States attorneys before their replacements were secured.

By contrast, President Bush didn't fire Clinton CIA Director George Tenet, even after the War on Terror became the consuming issue of his presidency. He approached Tenet with an open mind, not a partisan heart.

On the education bill, President Bush not only reached out to Senator Kennedy personally, he accorded him great deference in drafting the "No Child Left Behind Act." In return, Kennedy stabbed him in the back, denouncing him as an intransigent partisan. Not only was that a personal betrayal, it was a calculated distortion of the highest order.

Consequently, Kennedy got the best of both worlds. He achieved 90 percent of his education agenda (angering many conservatives), yet still excoriated President Bush for being a miserly, uncharitable Republican ogre for not going far enough.

President Bush got no credit for his overtures to this partisan ingrate or for his genuine efforts to "set a new tone" in Washington. As usual, the Old Media spewed the Democrat propaganda that President Bush was a shrill partisan.

Democrats, in the meantime, while falsely condemning President Bush for his "partisanship," proceeded to engage in the most egregious partisan obstruction in recent history, especially with the attempted wholesale usurpation of his judicial appointment power, using the filibuster weapon to block his judicial nominees.

Having deluded themselves into believing Bush had stolen the presidency, they lambasted President Bush for four years straight, with a short hiatus following 9-11. Democrats were firing all the partisan volleys -- incessantly calling Bush a liar, racist, homophobe, and corrupt benefactor of big corporations and rich individuals -- and Bush was the one tagged as a partisan. It was right out of the Twilight Zone.

It was hard to stomach the Democrats' allegation that Bush broke his promise to be a uniter, since he did try to unite and they wouldn't let him. It takes two to play that game.

Similarly, their post-election demand that President Bush extend a bipartisan hand to heal the nation's wounds really means that he should adopt major parts of their agenda or greatly dilute parts of his own.

And the Democrats' claim that President Bush doesn't have a mandate means that they refuse to accept their defeat. President Bush won the popular vote 51 percent to 48 percent. Under our constitution, that means he has as much authority as if he'd won by a 30 percent margin. He won running on his agenda -- not 51 percent of it -- and against Kerry's agenda.

His victory doesn't mean he should only try to implement 51 percent of his agenda. It means that he's entitled, indeed obligated, to try to achieve 100 percent of it. Any less would be a fraud and a breach of his campaign pledges. His supporters didn't vote for him believing he only meant half of what he said. We have representative government, not government by plebiscite.

Under our system it is up to the Democrats now, as the opposition party, to lobby for their position through the process, which does not mean employing dirty tricks such as the filibuster, but vigorously advocating and exercising their rights within the system.

And when the president does try to implement his agenda, it will not mean he's being divisive, but that he's fulfilling his constitutional duty and honoring his trust with the voters.

For all the slander President Bush received from Democrats during the last four years, do you remember him ever reciprocating with comparable displays of disrespect for his opponents? You don't, because he was always a gentleman.

It's time for Democrats to quit berating him and falsely accusing him of lying. It's time for them to start heeding their own advice and getting used to the fact that he won, fairly and squarely.

They would do well to understand that the highest goal in politics and governance is not to hold hands and get along, but to govern according to the principles and positions upon which you were elected.

But if it's healing they want, perhaps they should stop inflicting harm.

Unfortunantely, corporations don't pay me to refute garbage. But how much of his nonsense am I really supposed to take seriously anyway?

INTRODUCING... LIMBAUGH VISION!!!

[limbaugh type=foxhole:
No Child Left Behind? It was an idea, an idea about education, coming from a Yale graduate! And just because Bush "didn't fund" the program, those traitorous communist pinko fairy prissy partisan democrats called it a "failed program." 9-11 wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for lesbians and the ACLU! YOUR TO BLAME GODLESS SINNERS!!!!!1111Shift+12345432115453525!!!!!
[/limbaugh]

At least O'Reilly doesn't say he's nonpartisan.

Wanna take the legs out from under the Republican party?

Ditch the rabid gun control.

Wanna take the legs out from under the Republican party?

Ditch the rabid gun control.

I only wish....

So, the general concensus is that with a popular, electoral, senatorial, house and judicial majority the republicans must now compromise.

That sounds interesting. Lets see which of the following liberals here are read to compromise on;
It is useless to vote because "The Liberals" will not compromise. Now if you want to talk about the Democrats having any kind of future then let's look at the issues you listed:

Democrats should compromise on Partial Birth Abortion - They should abandon it outright. 90% of the country sees it as murder and this is based on science not faith. Any doubts look at a 30+ week sonogram. This will open the door to a reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Democrats should compromise on Gay Marriage - Dems should favor going the civil union route. If you mean on a constitutional amendment, I say let Bush "spend his capital" and spin his wheels. If anything, it is ultimately up to the states. An attempt at a federal law may just persuade some SC justices to hold off on their retirement. A case in opposition once it becomes law could have interesting effects that the neo-cons might not want to risk.

Democrats should compromise on tax cuts - They will.

Democrats should compromise on education vouchers - They can't BUT they have to articulate why. It will gut the public school systems.

Democrats should compromise on privateising social security - That's not going to happen anyway. To make it a two tiered system would screw those who have paid in a lifetime. SS is a ponzi scheme and the bucks have to keep flowing in.

Democrats should compromise on affirmative action - and God should say he was just kidding with Moses and Jesus but it'll never happen. Of all the things you listed this is the least likely to happen.

Democrats, in the meantime, while falsely condemning President Bush for his "partisanship," proceeded to engage in the most egregious partisan obstruction in recent history, especially with the attempted wholesale usurpation of his judicial appointment power, using the filibuster weapon to block his judicial nominees.

Having deluded themselves into believing Bush had stolen the presidency, they lambasted President Bush for four years straight, with a short hiatus following 9-11. Democrats were firing all the partisan volleys -- incessantly calling Bush a liar, racist, homophobe, and corrupt benefactor of big corporations and rich individuals -- and Bush was the one tagged as a partisan. It was right out of the Twilight Zone.


Well his judicial nominees were not moderate so why not? They should stand up to him when he isn't uniting or trying thereof.
So no its not falsely. Well people are entitled to believe Bush has only been elected once by the people. Bush did lie a few times. Well to be against gays like he is can seem homphobic...
He is a benefactor from rich companies that were corrupt. I'm not sure about racist never heard that charge.
It was not near Twilight zone.
BS I am surprised you missed the obvious misstatement regarding, "the attempted wholesale usurpation of his judicial appointment power." Seahawk you need to review Article II, section 2 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html) of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the Senate the ultimate power and authority in it's responsibility to advise the president about nominees and the authority to consent to (approve or reject) those nominations. Here is a relevent section of The Section:

He (POTUS) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

For crying out loud, will anyone ever pay attention to what really happens with this canard. The Democrats have compromised on this issue. We have said, over and over and over, that we will sign that legislation, with just one proviso: that there be an exception in the case that the life or health of the mother is in danger. The reason why we keep voting it down, and why the courts keep voting it down, isn't because we're sacreligious atheists hoping to bring down the wrath of God upon us. It's because every time that bill has come up, Democrats have introuduced an amendment to provide just this kind of exemption, and every time, said amendment is defeated by the Republicans.

Personally, I'm proud that my party took it's obligation to uphold the general welfare seriously enough to risk their majority in Congress, rather than build it on the backs of dead women. I sure as hell am not going to compromise on it, nor would I want my congresswoman or Senators to do so.

Actually, ther has never been a documented case where a partial-birth abortion was necessary to protect the mother. At that point the fetus can live outside the womb and a cessarian can be performed. The 'health of the mother' objection is a red herring.

This is a bunch of BS to expect Republicans to compromise now that we have won the election. You know as well as I do that if the Democrats had won this election as the Republicans did, there would be no talk of compromise. Democrats would have gone straight ahead. You can't seem to figure out that losing 51-48 on the Presidential election is a clear mandate. No Democratic president has received a majority of the vote in the 20th century except FDR and LBJ in '64. Further more when Republicans win 4 more seats in the Senate and pick several more in the House, this seems like a clear mandate from the people to legislate and govern on the agenda that the people elected them on.


Oh. My. God.

Will you marry me?

Actually, ther has never been a documented case where a partial-birth abortion was necessary to protect the mother. At that point the fetus can live outside the womb and a cessarian can be performed. The 'health of the mother' objection is a red herring.

Umm, no.

Apparently, you seem to think that a Cesarian is something that you can simply order up in a drive-through, rather than the major surgery it is. There are plenty of conditions (hemophilia, for example) that very well might lead to the death of the mother were a Cesarian performed. If that woman also happens to be too small or too weak to get the baby out on her own (even with a risky episitiotomy), she dies. In that instance, a partial-birth abortion is about the only way to save any of the lives in question. Distasteful, yes. But necessary as well.

Moreover, let us suppose that the woman is having a psychotic episode (it's hardly out of the realm of possibility, considering 10% of the American public has one form of mental illness or another, quite a few of which can exhibit psychotic symptoms, and additionally many of which have to be discontinued during pregnancy to avoid birth defects). You can't get consent from her, so what you're talking about is forcibly strapping her down and cutting her open in that instance. Positively medieval.

Hmm...

Compromise (n):

1. a ) A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

I agree. We should compromise. Both sides should figure out what the hell is BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY and do that, regardless of partisanship...

...but, unfortunately, we're too divided... :( which is a shame, really. Just look at how both sides view it. "A VICTORY" or "A DEFEAT". What happened to the idea of choosing a leader to represent the entire country, rather than trying to "beat the other guys?"

If Bush comes up with a plan which will cut the national debt in half like he promised to, I'll support it. Except I don't think he will - he'll cut taxes and at the same time he'll increase spending. And, the unfortunate thing is, I think Democrats would have done the same - "raising taxes" is an anathema.

Compromise would be nice. Compromise, not unconditional surrender.

You know, I always wondered what he said between the chorus! This has got to be the least likely place to find Radiohead lyrics known to man ;)

Oh, I'm curious, what did you mean when you said I tapped into 1950's relationships between the parties? I have an inkling of what you mean, but I can't put my finger on it.

Glad to be of service!

As for your question, the post-war paranoia about "the Reds" -- McCarthyism in particular -- seems to have been more enthusiastically embraced by Republicans than Democrats, and especially, it seems to have been held onto more doggedly by Republican individuals than Democrats, albeit privately, long after it was officially repudiated. Before Republicans fell into the habit of routinely labelling Dems as "liberals" when they didn't want to discuss ideas, they used to call Dems "fellow-travellers" and "pinkos". Same tactic, different details. The result was then as now, an inability by the GOP to see that Democrats could have a different, less controlling opinion but still be sincere and patriotic. Remarkably, some of those close to the McCarthy fiasco and its aftermath are still going and provide continuity with the current administration. The kind of anti-intellectualism, dirty politics and "spin" we take for granted now (e.g., groups of supposed independent "good citizens" who just happen to be willing and able to carry out a character-assassination on behalf of the Fearless Leader; the use of espionage-like tactics against American citizens in order to short-circuit open debate; the presumption of guilt and moral turpitude when dealing with one's political opponents) were created by the witch-hunting mentality of the late '40s and early to mid-'50s.

It wasn't a great time in our history, and recent events make it clear that at least some of us haven't left the worst of that time behind us.