Why do democrats compromise so quickly?

[Ignoramus]

Push for who supports your beliefs now. Only compromise when you have to (at vote time). Why not?

[baby_bear]

1. Only a few did...but that was too many

Carper, Feinstein and Wyden, along with a few of the Usual Suspects, sold out the high road on Medicare to the Republicans. Also Daschle because he refused to back the filibuster, even though he voted against the dastardly bill itself.

The rest of the Dems were fine. I heard some damn good speeches on the floor Sunday afternoon. But what good does it do when a few Dems spoil it for the rest of us, and hand Bush a campaign issue in the process?

I am beside myself thinking about this.

s_m

[Nederland]

2. Because

the Republicans have the votes and if you don't compromise until vote time, you get nothing.

[Ignoramus]

3. Huh?

I don't understand what you are saying. If you vote for Dean you vote for Dean. If you advocate for Kucinich and vote for Dean, you vote for Dean.

[baby_bear]

4. If the Dems had stuck together, they would have won

25 Dems in the House voted for the Medicare bill; if 3 of those had voted no,it would have died there. Two more Dems in the Senate for cloture would have prevented a vote on the bill.

I don't see where compromise even comes into the picture. When you compromise, don't you get something? When you sell out, you get nothing.

That's what we got, on Medicare.

s_m

[Nederland]

24. Confused

The Republicans have a significant majority in the House. Even if every Dem voted against it, it still would have passed.

[ulysses]

6. ok, so...

what have we gotten lately?

[sangh0]

11. here you go

member items
republican votes in opposition to the energy bill
extensions to unemployment insurance
no vouchers in the Leave No Child Behind bill
sunset clauses in the PATRIOT Act
Repukes didn't go "nuclear" on filibusters
no authorization to invade Syria, Iran, etc (at least, not yet)
no permanent tax cuts for the rich

that's off the top of my head. If I put some more effort into it, I could come up with more.

[ulysses]

15. ok, so in other words

we've gotten a bunch of vague promises to stop the worst of the mauling being done to the body politic, but only after the damage has been done.

Woohoo. Yay compromise.

[sangh0]

I've edited the list to add to it

so please check it again

Re: member items

It's pork that's directed towards a specific Congressperson's district/state.

[Nederland]

23. A Prescription Drug plan

...instead of the abolishment of Medicare altogether.

[ulysses]

26. you, and we, are still playing their game.

Next will be a choice between abolishing Medicare altogether or, what? shooting seniors outright?

Oh, and as for you senior citizens who believed that amusing little claim that you would all benefit from this bill -- suckers! According to Public Citizen, pharmaceutical companies have given $44 million since 1999 -- 78 percent to Republicans, 22 percent to Democrats -- and spent millions more hiring an army of lobbyists that physically outnumbers the 535 members of Congress. The Health Reform Program of Boston University estimates that of the bill's $400 billion price tag, $139 billion will go to increase drug-company profits over eight years, a 38 percent increase in what is already the world's most profitable industry.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16053

Again, when you compromise, you get something in return. And before you tell me that they had the votes anyway, a question - if they had the votes anyway, why bother "compromising" with Dems? Why not just go ahead and abolish Medicare?

[sangh0]

28. They didn't have the votes

that's why they had to offer a new benefit.

So why wonder about what the Dems got in return? You've already answered the question yourself.

You could argue that it was a bad deal, and I would agree. However, that's not the same as saying the Dems got nothing.

[ulysses]

32. why, if it isn't sangh0!

So why wonder about what the Dems got in return? You've already answered the question yourself.

You mean this? "we've gotten a bunch of vague promises to stop the worst of the mauling being done to the body politic, but only after the damage has been done."

Again, woohoo.

You could argue that it was a bad deal, and I would agree. However, that's not the same as saying the Dems got nothing.

I haven't said that they got nothing. They got bent over and fucked without even a reacharound. That's something.

[sangh0]

36. No

You mean this? "we've gotten a bunch of vague promises to stop the worst of the mauling being done to the body politic, but only after the damage has been done."

No, I mean the prescription drug benefit. It's not very good, but it's not "nothing"

I haven't said that they got nothing. They got bent over and fucked without even a reacharound. That's something.

You left a lot out. I listed it earlier, but I'm not surprised to see you ignore it.

[ulysses]

39. I didn't ignore it.

Perhaps you didn't see my edit to my original reply to your post. I just wasn't very impressed with what we got.

[Nederland]

30. Flawed Understanding

I think the mistake is believing that Congress is simply divided into two groups, Republicans and Democrats. Its not. Its made up of 535 individuals with varying degrees of loyalty to their party. They all come from different areas of the country and therefore represent people with differing interests. To expect John Breaux to vote with Ted Kennedy consistently is not only naive, its asking him to ignore the fact that his constituents are very different from Kennedy's and violate his duty to represent them. Moreover, its a mistake to say the Democrats got nothing in return for compromising. People like John Breaux who compromised with the Republicans on the Medicare bill did get something in return. Perhaps its not something that you would consider significant, but evidently it was significant enough to them to sway their vote.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about party loyalty and partisan politics, the Medicare bill is a horrible example to use. This was a bill pushed through by the moderates of both parties. The far left and the far right (RW deficit hawks at least) voted against it. It is not an example of RW Republicans ramming through their agenda, its an example of what happens when moderates from both sides get together and craft a compromise bill.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if you hop over to Freeperland you'll see people over their moaning about how "this is what we get when we compromise with liberals". In other words, they ironically feel exactly the way that you do about this bill.

[sangh0]

33. Yep

that was an excellent post about the Medicare bill. How sad is it that liberals who think moderate Dems are just like Republicans continue to think that there are only two sides to Congress?

[ulysses]

34. heh

Furthermore, if you want to talk about party loyalty and partisan politics

You know I'm all about party loyalty, Nederland. :D

Kidding aside, your justification of Breaux gives me a nifty justification for having voted for Nader.

its an example of what happens when moderates from both sides get together and craft a compromise bill.

Is this where I'm supposed to get happy?

In other words, they ironically feel exactly the way that you do about this bill.

Broken clocks, etc.

[sangh0]

37. Funny how you make no comments

on Nederland observation about who voted for this bill, and who voted against, and how it was NOT a "party line" vote. Instead, you merely repeat your opinions without any reference to the underlying facts.

[ulysses]

40. no, actually I did respond to that.

That was the "is this where I get happy?" part. Not that I expect you to read what I write, though, so let me elaborate.

Moderates of both parties got together and wrote a crap bill that gives billions to industry and lets them all go home to crow about what a wonderful drug benefit bill they all wrote.

Whoopdefuckingdo.

[Nederland]

43. Welcome to the Minority

You simply aren't going to have a lot to be happy about for awhile. Get used to it or get more liberals elected. Those are your choices.

[ulysses]

45. Nederland, my friend,

I've known that I was in the minority for quite a while. I'm still right. :)

How's the kid?

[Nederland]

46. She's doing quite well, thanks

Makes for plenty of mixed emotions.

On the one hand, I can sit down and start playing with her and completely forget all the shit that pisses me off. On the hand, I fear for the type of country she will grow up in. Right now, I think I'm going to turn off the TV and play peek-a-boo :)

Have a good Thanksgiving...

[ulysses]

48. I'll bet.

Not that it's any consolation, but I suspect that a lot of our parents worried about the same thing. And here we are.

Enjoy the peekaboo and may your turkey be moist. :)

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

41. Or...

... kneepads. It must get old down there.

[the_real_38]

10. That could really be an offensive term to use...

... to some of the ladies here. Maybe you should stick with "bitches" or "corporate ho's".

[TSElliott]

14. I would think that

PUSSY or BITCH would be about equal on the offense meter for the ladies. Now if it were the C-WORD that is a different story.

[redqueen]

18. How about we try to find a term that DOESN'T denigrate women?

How about it?

IMO it's worth a few moments to search for a term that doesn't reinforce the meme that women are somehow less than men. (guffaw)

Thanks.

[TSElliott]

20. Ok how about Dicks...

is that better?

[redqueen]

22. Doesn't say quite the same thing, does it?

I prefer whores, since it's not cowardice that they're displaying, but rather greed and complicity (IMHO, of course).

Then again, there are countless other adjectives one could use. IMO searching around for better ones not only enhances your point, but also improves your vocabulary. :)

[sangh0]

29. Why don't you geniuses say what you mean?

Say "because they have no courage".

[redqueen]

35. All praise the all-knowning sangh0

Please. :eyes:

Courage? It's got NOTHING to do with courage or cowardice.

It's lack of principle. That's not cowardice, that's selloutice. :silly:

Heard of pork? Check it out.

These are not cowards. These are paid lackeys. Whores. Accessories. Accomplices. Agents. Auxiliaries. Chumps. Dupes. Marks. Flunkies. Go-betweens. Hirelings. Intermediaries. Jackals. Minions. Pawns. Puppets. Stooges. etc.

[sangh0]

38. So then say what you mean. Is that too hard for you?

"It's lack of principle. That's not cowardice, that's selloutice."

What do genitals have to do with it?

[redqueen]

47. hehe

I agree with ya!

I'm the one who first suggested that we look for alternate adjectives.

Neither set of genitals seems anywhere near appropriate to me. :)

[maggrwaggr]

49. pu**y: soft, yielding, pliant ....

deleted by the PC police. Okay ........

How 'bout WIMPS. Gee, I thought "pussy" was slang for "wimp"

[stevedeshazer]

8. Getting an envelope

with anthrax spores in it tends to make one more amenable to compromise.

[TSElliott]

9. If thats the case then

they should get out of office all together and stop bending over to kiss their own ass every time a Republican bill comes through.

[sangh0]

12. That's easy for you to say

Let us know when you start risking your life for the rest of us.

[TSElliott]

17. It's their elected position.

If they are unable to handle the job due to the fact that they think someone is trying to poison them they should get out.

[sangh0]

19. The last time I looked

"eating anthrax" was not listed as a fringe benefit for Senators. You talk big for someone sitting down if front of a PC.

[TSElliott]

25. I can talk big because

they were elected by the people of their state to represent their states interests, if they are not representing the interests of the people in their state they are not doing their job.

Anthrax is a bullshit excuse anyway, "ooohhhh I am not kissin the asses of Republicans, oohhh better start checking my mail for anthrax."

[sangh0]

31. Changing your tune?

they were elected by the people of their state to represent their states interests, if they are not representing the interests of the people in their state they are not doing their job.

and if they don't do their jobs, they don't get re-elected. Since these people are elected, the assumption is the voters approve, and if they don't, they'll elect someone else.

You see, the system is designed to eliminate those who don't represent their states and it's constituents. Your claim that they are not doing their job is obviously bullshit, or else those pols would be voted out of office.

Anthrax is a bullshit excuse anyway, "ooohhhh I am not kissin the asses of Republicans, oohhh better start checking my mail for anthrax."

Now that I showed you that receiving anthrax isn't part of the job description, you've changed your tune, and now "anthrax is bullshit"

[redqueen]

21. I agree

Politics is ugly and has been for over four decades.

Time to wake up to the fact that anyone with kids or a wife or any desire to stay unassassinated should not be in politics if they wish to participate with their integrity intact.

Lucky for politicians, integrity ain't as important as good hair.

[redqueen]

13. Whored out. n/t

[redqueen]

16. Oh, you're asking about voters, not 'leaders' (and I use the term LOOSELY)

Since JFK / MLK / RFK, the national psyche has been beaten down constantly.

We've been effectively brainwashed.

Reagan's & Clinton's corruption of the media helped.

[tom_paine]

27. Because, though it may seem ludicrous nowadays, that was the

way things worked back during the Days of the Old Republic.

Both sides compromised, neither got what they wanted fully.

That was the way it USED to work. Imperial Amerika, being a Third World Nation, albeit a very rich one, works along the principles of other Third World Countries.

Negotiation, in a "Western Philosophical" style (like in the Old Republic) doesn't go for Totalitarians.

they want everything they want. That's it.

You give something up. So what? Now give up the rest.

You give something else up, and ask for some movement on the other side.

SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! YOU GAVE IN...NOW GIVE SOME MORE YOU TRAITOR!

We used to scoff at the "unenlightened" Third-World "compromise" methodologies when we had to deal with them.

Now, of course, the Imperial Busheviks who have seized America, practice that Third-World negoitiating style.

The shape of things to come...

[sendero]

42. My wife...

... has another take on this bill. She thinks that, contrary to the idea the pukes have of trumpeting a huge victory for seniors in the upcoming campaign, savvy Dems are going to ram it down their throats.

Because once seniors have time to digest this bill they are not going to like it at all.

[Democat]

44. Because we have no leadership

Dashle is not a leader, he is a complete failure.

We need strong leadership to keep the troops in line and to rally them.

We have no leadership.

I have said this for a long time.

As long as Daschle is in charge, we are fucked.

Don't be surprised if we lose in 2004 and Daschle still refuses to step down.

[maggrwaggr]

50. no leadership, no organization, NADA

It's pathetic and as long as we've got dems voting for bills like this we deserve to lose.