[subego]

I asked this in another thread, but I think it deserves its own:

Originally Posted by subego

How would you rate the administration and Republicans in general in their for their attempts to maintain the coalition they built in Congress to vote for the war?

The Democrats are the anti-war party. Why is it such a shock that even the people who voted for the war are anti-war? Politics is about give and take. What have the Republicans given the Democrats for going against the interests of their constituency? Should they lose reelection for not challenging the Administration because it's for their own good? For the good of the country?

It seems to me, if the administration really cared about the WoT, they would have expended some effort into maintaining that coalition. I'm not being coy, I can't think of a single thing the Republicans have done for the Democrats.

If you support the WoT, aren't you a little miffed by the administration's choice to tell the Democrats to **** off? Do you see how that may have had an impact on how they behaved?

Complain all you want about the Democrats. The more you loathe them, the more you think they're whiny insipid bastards, the more you prove my point. So, you knew the Democrats were going to suck like this, and even though the future of the free world is at stake, you felt it was prudent to laugh at them and accuse them of "helping the terrorists"?

[Millennium]

Quick question, subego: are you actually from the US?

I mean no disrespect or anything here, but I notice that you're using the term 'coalition' in terms of Congress. That term sounds very much like a party-centric parliamentary system, which I suspect you're more familiar with, as many other democracies have them. The US doesn't really work that way, though. Certainly it has poltical parties, and it follows the rules now known as parliamentary procedure (though the House is considerably more lax than the Senate as far as this goes), but the structure of its legislature is quite different.

Many people in both parties -all but one person- voted for the war. But this doesn't, in and of itself, bind them into a coalition the way it might in a parliamentary system. There was no formalized give-and-take on the issue, and no meetings between the parties to discuss any deals; this just happened to be an issue that the various members of Congress almost all happened to agree on at the time.

There really can't be a coalition when only two parties have any significant power anyway. If those two formed a coalition, there would be nobody left to form an opposition. Essentially, the US is in a permanent state of what people in parliamentary systems would call a majority government: at any given time, one party has a true majority (greater than 50%) of the seats.

Truth be told, the government doesn't actually have to be this way; there's no law that states it, nor any Congressional rules. It comes from some traditions that were rather firmly entrenched into the US government from the very beginning, and while these traditions could be broken, no one seems to have any real interest in doing so.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Quick question, subego: are you actually from the US?

Chicago, born and raised.

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Many people in both parties -all but one person- voted for the war. But this doesn't, in and of itself, bind them into a coalition the way it might in a parliamentary system. There was no formalized give-and-take on the issue, and no meetings between the parties to discuss any deals; this just happened to be an issue that the various members of Congress almost all happened to agree on at the time.

I was thinking on a more informal basis. While I would say the above is the ideal, and is how I like to think of government when it's made, my understanding is that the reality is a little more like horse trading. Even if the person you are talking to shares the same goal, the question they pose to you when you ask them for support is "what have you done for me lately?"

I don't think "coalition" is used much in American politics because the horse trader/sausage making aspect is a dirty little secret. I don't think there's a more appropriate word for it. This needs to be done even within the same party.

Originally Posted by Millennium 

There really can't be a coalition when only two parties have any significant power anyway. If those two formed a coalition, there would be nobody left to form an opposition. Essentially, the US is in a permanent state of what people in parliamentary systems would call a majority government: at any given time, one party has a true majority (greater than 50%) of the seats.

You phrased this perfectly for my purposes. What I'm saying is that when the administration got the vote for their land war in Asia, their job here at home wasn't finished, it had only started. Even if the idea of a coalition is anathema to American politics (I'm being extreme here, I know that's not what you are saying) a coalition is exactly what you are going to need if you want to insure the war's long term success. You need to silence the opposition. The traditional way to do that is to give them something shiny. If you want to take a little, give a little.

This is usually the case even if things are kind of lopsided. Successful politicians have an instinctual (if not spiritual) understanding of the "wheel of karma".

The Republicans decided to take the opposite tack. They threw up a wall, pushed their agenda exclusively (in which they could succeed considering their majority), and, I would imagine in anticipation of the inevitable (the Karma thing again) they concentrated as much power as possible in the hands of the Executive.

Rather than put some "precious" on the table, they tried to silence the opposition literally. If you dissent, you are "helping the terrorists".

This brings us back to the WoT. What was the Republicans rationale for acting this way with something that's so unbelievably important?

If you take them at face value, the Republicans claim they needed to act this way because the Democrats are terrorists. I heard Newt Gingrich tell Sean Hannity that "Nancy Pelosi hates America!"

While I have my own more pedantic theories as to why the Republicans are acting this way, let's wallow with Newt like a pig in **** until every inch of our bodies are covered with his revolting statements. Is he acting like someone who really cares about the WoT? Is the solution to the most complicated problem of the... ahem... millennium, as simple as "trust Newt"?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by subego 

While I have my own more pedantic theories as to why the Republicans are acting this way, let's wallow with Newt like a pig in **** until every inch of our bodies are covered with his revolting statements. Is he acting like someone who really cares about the WoT? Is the solution to the most complicated problem of the... ahem... millennium, as simple as "trust Newt"?

Why not ask why the Democrats have moved away from Republicans?

[subego]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Why not ask why the Democrats have moved away from Republicans?

Why would I need to? You asked it.

Seriously though, I think I've more or less answered this question. The Democrats are retaliating for being cut out of the loop. You can call them irresponsible for acting this way, but the question at hand is the responsibility for cutting them out of the loop in the first place.

The Republicans not only cut them out of the loop, their argument has boiled down to "we had to cut them out of the loop, it was the only safe thing to do for America".

At best, someone who thinks this, or says "Nancy Pelosi hates America", or tells you "the terrorists want you to vote Democrat" is deluded. At worst they don't care one whit about the WoT and only personal gain.

As someone who does care about the WoT, I'm all for assessing blame where blame is due. I think the Democrat's idea to pull out is pure insanity. They have acted badly when put in a ridiculously bad situation. I however will not accept that the Democrat's response to this situation is somehow worse than the actions of the people who put them there for personal gain.

Again, the evidence I present that we are talking about people more interested in personal gain is that someone who really cared about the WoT would have made overtures to the Democrats in order to seek their continued approval. It seems to me the worse you think the Democrats are, the more important the overture, if only so they don't end up as a thorn in your side while you're off saving the world.

A key difference between Nancy Pelosi and Osama Bin Laden is that Nancy commands far more respect, and as an powerful American, she's going to demand that respect. The powers that be maybe should have given 10 minutes of thought to this.

Justify for me in terms of the WoT why the Republicans thought walling off the Democrats was the optimum strategy?

The best spin I can put on the Republicans is that they were so assured of their success that they didn't think they needed a coalition until it was far to late. This is the best. Evidence would indicate it's probably the right spin. This is not good at all. Assess blame where blame is due.

Think about it. Had the Republicans decided to be just a touch less hardcore, and given the Democrat's something, anything, the greedy Democrats would have lapped it up, and not whined quite so hard (they love to whine but wouldn't be as inclined to rock the boat if they were getting some action). Being a little more open to opposing viewpoints could have helped avert most of the major disasters we have seen thus far on the WoT. Iraq would be a success and Bush would go down in history as the President he wanted to be. The Republicans would be winning seats right now.

We'll never know because as I said, the Republicans never gave them one goddamn thing. If I were a Republican I'd be asking for a frigging refund.

[subego]

As per usual, it takes me a few stabs before I hit the squishy bits. For those who don't like the long-winded me (all of you), here the essence of my question in digest form:


Justify for me in terms of the WoT why the Republicans thought walling off the Democrats was the optimum strategy?

[vmarks]

You know, the GOP has made considerable outreach to the Democrats, only to be rebuffed.

NCLB - written by the senator from MA. passed.
Drug plan entitlement - passed by many
Patriot - passed by nearly all.
Resolution for Iraq War - nearly all.
Soc Sec reform - Dems killed.
Tort reform - Dems killed.
Judicial nominees - Dems blocked
John Bolton confirmation - Dems blocked.

Clearly, the Drug plan and NCLB were an outstretched hand that was slapped not long after.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Why not ask why the Democrats have moved away from Republicans?

I wasn't trying to hit and run, just in a hurry.

Honestly, I think the Left has consistently used The War to hit Bush. This is evident in the media (the 1000-count fest, the 2000-count fest, the current coverage). Bush has made it pretty clear throughout that he's not willing to compromise on national security, and bi-partisan activities (read that GIVING IN) would be doing that. Also, he'd have to backpedal, and we know that's media suicide.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You know, the GOP has made considerable outreach to the Democrats, only to be rebuffed.

NCLB - written by the senator from MA. passed.
Drug plan entitlement - passed by many
Patriot - passed by nearly all.
Resolution for Iraq War - nearly all.
Soc Sec reform - Dems killed.
Tort reform - Dems killed.
Judicial nominees - Dems blocked
John Bolton confirmation - Dems blocked.

Clearly, the Drug plan and NCLB were an outstretched hand that was slapped not long after.

I'm not an expert in all these things, but I think we are dealing with different notions of the term "outreach".

How is offering to privatize social security and nominating people the Democrats can't stand "outreach"?

[subego]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I wasn't trying to hit and run, just in a hurry.

Didn't think you were.

Originally Posted by finboy 

Honestly, I think the Left has consistently used The War to hit Bush. This is evident in the media (the 1000-count fest, the 2000-count fest, the current coverage).

That's my point. What were the Democrats expected to do? Why didn't Bush expect this to happen? Arrogance? If he did expect it to happen, he clearly assessed the impact it would have to be minimal. Why? Arrogance?

Originally Posted by finboy 

Bush has made it pretty clear throughout that he's not willing to compromise on national security, and bi-partisan activities (read that GIVING IN) would be doing that.

I'm not proposing he compromise on national security, I'm saying he should have been willing to compromise on something else for the sake of national security.

Originally Posted by finboy 

Also, he'd have to backpedal, and we know that's media suicide.

Bush set those rules up for himself with his demeanor. You want to tell me Clinton never backpedalled?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

As per usual, it takes me a few stabs before I hit the squishy bits. For those who don't like the long-winded me (all of you), here the essence of my question in digest form:


Justify for me in terms of the WoT why the Republicans thought walling off the Democrats was the optimum strategy?

There were a good many who already had the new Administration in it's cross hairs. To mention two, the Iranians (via Chalabi) and the Democrats who had a hard-on over the way Clinton was dealt with during the 1990's AND those who STILL believe GWB didn't win the 2000 election, fair and square.

With those kinds of **** stirrers (some of the posters here act in that same kind of spirit) and grudge holders establishing accord with Democrats was only a fond dream.

Once you try and you see the efforts come to naught you move on. Once you see there are those who want your hide you deny them power by denying them information and access to the decision making process. When the President held over many of the Clinton team he quickly came to regret it. Many of those folks screwed things up because they wanted to do things the way they'd been done during Clinton. There can be two equally valid ways of dealing with a situation but if you do ABC according to one school of thought and XYZ according to the other school of thought you can screw up the whole thing worse than if you had simply gone full steam ahead with EITHER ABC or XYZ.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

With those kinds of **** stirrers (some of the posters here act in that same kind of spirit) and grudge holders establishing accord with Democrats was only a fond dream.

Fond dream? How many Democrats voted for the war?

Originally Posted by marden 

Once you try and you see the efforts come to naught you move on.

What efforts? Is the difference in tone from 2002 and now in my imagination?

I put it crassly, though succinctly, in the in the first thread I made about this subject.

In 2002 Bush was talking to us like he wanted to get laid. He needed something from us.

After he got what he wanted he stopped returning our phone calls.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by subego 

In 2002 Bush was talking to us like he wanted to get laid. He needed something from us.

After he got what he wanted he stopped returning our phone calls.

I would say that was your imagination.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not an expert in all these things, but I think we are dealing with different notions of the term "outreach".

How is offering to privatize social security and nominating people the Democrats can't stand "outreach"?

Nominating people of your own party is human nature. That aside, knowing how hard Clinton fought for Social Security reform and how the entire Democratic Party was behind the movement, a movement which included the option of moving funds into the private sector; why would this not be viewed as an "outreach"? It was one of Clinton's most important agendas.

[vmarks]

I forgot to mention the interest in energy independence, both in new transportation technologies and reducing demand for oil.

Or his directing funding to South Africa for AIDs education / treatment, a position Clinton had also talked to.

The recent law that allows the President to inform Congress and call out the National Guard in emergencies without waiting on state approval is a response to the criticism on slow response times for Katrina. But he's getting hammered on this as an usurpation of power.

Republicans make efforts to reach out to Democrats and Democrats rebuff those efforts on reasons of partisanship.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Fond dream? How many Democrats voted for the war?

In the Senate:
29 for
21 against

In the House, the % of Democrats for the war was higher. Answer your question?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

[Macrobat]

I think this article pretty much sums up the truth about the WoT, and it's written by a DEMOCRAT!.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Only Issue This Election Day

The problem the Democrats are facing is the FACT that, if successful, the WoT qualifies as a true "legacy" for President Bush, at a time when the vaunted Clinton Legacy is falling apart around his (and his party's - by default) ears. They spent (and still spend) so much time defending and buttressing HIM up, that their fates are tied utterly to history's perception of him (as a man and as a president). This is something that all the "why do you keep bringing up Clinton" posters simply do not get. The Democrats hitched their wagon to the Clinton Star, and now they live or die with him. He screwed the pooch so solidly (politically and literally) that they find themselves in the position of having to CREATE controversy and even fight AGAINST policies HE WANTED in order to simply be differentiated from the Republican policies.

Their demonstrated lapse and nearly criminal non-response to the obvious run-ups to 9/11 have come round to bite them in their collective keesters, and they are fighting tooth and nail to attempt an avoidance.

The biggest problem that the Democrats face today (and in the forseeable future) is their utter lack of ideas.

All they harp on is "Do More," "Do It Smarter," etc., etc.

These make wonderful titles for potential policies, but there is no substance behind them. There has not been ONE concrete, specific suggestion of a plan of action from ANY Democrat except for the single - MORONIC - "Withdrawal Timetable" mantra. Yeah, lets publish for the "insurgents" to know when we're leaving - it worked WONDERS in Vietnam, after all. Oh wait! That was the Democrats, too!

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Nominating people of your own party is human nature.

Hence they make crummy candidates for an example of an overture.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That aside, knowing how hard Clinton fought for Social Security reform and how the entire Democratic Party was behind the movement, a movement which included the option of moving funds into the private sector; why would this not be viewed as an "outreach"?

Because the Democrats weren't behind it:

Originally Posted by Pew Research Poll

What's more, the resistance to the proposal is bi-partisan: while Republicans oppose the idea 59%-29%, Democrats also reject it, 51%-33%

Link

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It was one of Clinton's most important agendas.

Funny how he never mentioned one of his most important agendas in his biography.

I'm going to have to go with the Republicans on this one. Clinton was trying to deflect attention away from the Lewinsky thing.

In general, Democrats just don't like to privatize things.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I would say that was your imagination.

Are you sure? Maybe he's still taking your calls.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Bush set those rules up for himself with his demeanor. You want to tell me Clinton never backpedalled?

The major media wasn't hostile to Clinton, and that's the primary difference. He could backpedal and they'd help him make excuses.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I forgot to mention the interest in energy independence, both in new transportation technologies and reducing demand for oil.

I'm not 100% up on his transportation initiatives, though I'd be willing to investigate them if you claim they're that good.

As far as reducing the demand for oil, all I remember is when he said we needed to do this in a speech. It was first up on Jon Stewart that night. Was that because Jon is a partisan? No, it was because it was laughable.

Bush pooh-poohed this idea right up until the moment he made that speech, and then all of the sudden he declares it like it was his idea, even though his pooh-poohing had greatly exacerbated the problem.

You keep providing me with very strange examples. What you would call an overture seems more like a boot in my eye, only less hard than last time.

I'd hate to be on the other side of the negotiating table with you.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Or his directing funding to South Africa for AIDs education / treatment, a position Clinton had also talked to.

Do you mean southern Africa?

Saying the Democrats rebuffed this for partisan reasons shows a lack of understanding of the Democrat's issues with the program.

They rejected it because of the insistence that money for condoms would have to be matched at least dollar for dollar with abstinence education. The Democrats complained that this was a misallocation of resources.

Were they incorrect? Maybe. Partisan? No.

So we're on the same page, I would consider this as an example of a real overture if the Administration offered to give Africa condoms, no strings attached.

[subego]

Originally Posted by finboy 

The major media wasn't hostile to Clinton, and that's the primary difference. He could backpedal and they'd help him make excuses.

Same deal. Bush was hostile to (most) of the media.

We may have a chicken and egg situation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

In the Senate:
29 for
21 against

In the House, the % of Democrats for the war was higher. Answer your question?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Yes it does. Sounds like a coalition was more than a fond dream.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not 100% up on his transportation initiatives, though I'd be willing to investigate them if you claim they're that good.

As far as reducing the demand for oil, all I remember is when he said we needed to do this in a speech. It was first up on Jon Stewart that night. Was that because Jon is a partisan? No, it was because it was laughable.

Bush pooh-poohed this idea right up until the moment he made that speech, and then all of the sudden he declares it like it was his idea, even though his pooh-poohing had greatly exacerbated the problem.

FYI, this press conference took place May 11, 2001.

Q What would you tell an American citizen who is suspicious that your energy policy is going to benefit the oil industry, because of your background and Vice President Cheney's background in the industry?

THE PRESIDENT: I would tell the American people I'm going to tell the truth when it comes to energy; that we have a serious problem; that we need to do a couple of things. One, we need to encourage the development of technologies to help us conserve. We need to be more conservation-minded in America.

But I'm also going to say, as plainly as I can, we won't conserve our way to energy independence. We must also increase supply. It's in the consumer's interests that we do so. The more supply there is, relative to demand, the less the price will be.

And I believe that we can have exploration and sound environmental policy go hand in hand. The only thing I know to do, sir, is to tell the truth the way I see it. And we can play like there's not an energy crisis, or hope there's not a problem; there is a problem. And there's a problem that's going to confront this nation. And my job as the President is to take the problem on and propose the solutions I think necessary to solve the problem. And again, I repeat: it's a combination of good conservation and an increase in supplies. And I believe we can do both.

And so, I think most of the American people understand that. Thank you.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010511-3.html

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

FYI, this press conference took place May 11, 2001.

President Bush Holds Press Conference

This is a speech. What policy has he actually enacted?

Even in the speech itself he outlines the plan of increasing supply. How the hell is that going to spur conservation?

Conservation is in the consumer's best interests? Bullshit. It's in the consumer's best interest to find the best deal, just like it's in a company's best interests to make profit.

The reason conservation takes effort (often of the government kind) is because it is counter to the consumer's interests.

The capper though is this is the response to a question about fears of Bush's energy policy being a benefit to the oil industry.

No doubt the questioner fears no more.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The problem the Democrats are facing is the FACT that, if successful, the WoT qualifies as a true "legacy" for President Bush, at a time when the vaunted Clinton Legacy is falling apart around his (and his party's - by default) ears.

Their demonstrated lapse and nearly criminal non-response to the obvious run-ups to 9/11 have come round to bite them in their collective keesters, and they are fighting tooth and nail to attempt an avoidance.

The motives you ascribe to the Democrats are so bereft of morals they just further prove my point. The Democrats are all of the sudden too ethical to be bought-off?

I'll accept that Democrat's principles can be a matter of their convenience, but their principles aren't a matter of yours. Either the Democrats are selfish, or they're not. Pick one.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The biggest problem that the Democrats face today...

I'm not disagreeing with you from this point on. I've already said the Democrats are very mistaken in wanting to withdraw from Iraq. I think it's obvious that they lack the unified direction of the Republicans.

[subego]

As the person who created my argument, let me pass on some advice to those want to counter it.

Y'all need to stop debating my premise, which is that the Republicans have treated the Democrats like a red headed stepchild. I mean, I like to consider this with an open mind and all, but the idea that the Republicans have actually been trying to get along with the Democrats seems ludicrous to me.

Take a moment here. Are you sure you really want to debate whether the Republicans were nice and open to the Democrats?

Instead, confront my conclusion, which is that this treatment was a bad thing for the WoT.

By the way, if you want to answer that the Democrats were less nice, and that they act all obstructionist, and this is why the Republicans didn't try harder to get along... fine, I can't disagree with you, but you lose. Keeping whiny obstructionist Democrats in their place is more important than the WoT?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is a speech. What policy has he actually enacted?

Even in the speech itself he outlines the plan of increasing supply. How the hell is that going to spur conservation?

Conservation is in the consumer's best interests? Bullshit. It's in the consumer's best interest to find the best deal, just like it's in a company's best interests to make profit.

The reason conservation takes effort (often of the government kind) is because it is counter to the consumer's interests.

The capper though is this is the response to a question about fears of Bush's energy policy being a benefit to the oil industry.

No doubt the questioner fears no more.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 11, 2001

Press Conference of the President
The James S. Brady Briefing Room

Listen to the President's Remarks

2:04 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. First, let me begin by talking about how pleased I am that a budget has been agreed upon. And it's now time for the Congress to act quickly. It's time for the Congress to pass meaningful, real tax reform, and I urge them to do so before Memorial Day.

[...]

But I'm also going to say, as plainly as I can, we won't conserve our way to energy independence. We must also increase supply. It's in the consumer's interests that we do so. The more supply there is, relative to demand, the less the price will be.

I'm getting seasick just trying to figure how you can be on both sides of the same argument???

Look, the President said we would try to increase supply but that even though conservation was good it wasn't going to solve the problem.

Cheap gas is what we yearn for but the President has said that cheap gas is part of the problem. We think everything is fine when gas prices are low and we waste it like drunken sailors. He said words to this effect.

[vmarks]

If your premise is fundamentally flawed, and I believe that it is, then discussing whether or not bad treatment is unproductive is irrelevent.

Your premise is open to discussion even if it wasn't what you really thought we'd be talking about.

We can make a decent argument that not extending so much effort at outreach to democrats would have been more productive- it would have meant effort spent at doing the things we elected them to do, rather than creating more entitlements, for example.

But as I said, your premise is flawed.

[subego]

I'm writing an overall response here, but as I was writing, something that was a genuine outreach just occurred to me.

Immigration.

So we have one.

Before you jump on my count, give me a few more hours to wrap up my next post. I just wanted to put this here before someone else mentioned it to show that I am willing to put up real world examples where applicable, and that it is in fact possible to satisfy me.

In other words, I haven't been trying to take down all the examples provided so far because I'm being a jag, I honestly don't see them as analogous.

It's important to me to be a straight shooter.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

If your premise is fundamentally flawed, and I believe that it is, then discussing whether or not bad treatment is unproductive is irrelevent.

Your premise is open to discussion even if it wasn't what you really thought we'd be talking about.

Uh, I didn't tell you not to discuss it. In looking out for your best interests, I advised against it.

But, hey. Bring it on!

Other than the aforementioned immigration issue, since the vote for the war Republicans in their magnanimity have offered the Democrats:

At least 3 really galling appointments (Gonzalez, Bolton and Alito).
A Social Security plan they rejected when a Democrat proposed it.
Oh, and a transportation bill.

Before you completely dismiss my premise, let me make sure I'm clear what I mean by overture. Here are some other examples:

Condoms for Africa with no strings attached.
Raise the minimum wage.
Stem Cell Research.
Back off the abortion thing a bit (see: Alito).
Not ace out the Democrats on the intelligence committees.
Keep the Capital Gains Tax.
Keep the Estate Tax.

I'm not quite sure of the flaw in my premise since I have yet to hear an example that ranks with these. FWIW, I don't even agree with the last two.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

We can make a decent argument that not extending so much effort at outreach to democrats would have been more productive- it would have meant effort spent at doing the things we elected them to do, rather than creating more entitlements, for example.

Let me approach this from a different direction. I'm hoping that even if I'm wrong, I can prove that at least I'm not trying to BS you.

You're Israeli, right?

I think this is relevant because if you are Israeli, your opinion on the importance of the WoT is way the hell more valid then mine. This is in your backyard. You understand better than most why we'd want to keep it out of our backyard. Of course, it's easy for me to say this because I think our opinions on the importance of the war on terror are nearly equal. At least as equal as they can be considering I'm a soft American who's never been shot at, or had someone who was that interested in shooting me in close proximity.

In terms of the frustration you must feel towards the Democrats for their obstructionism, all I can say is I feel your pain. No. Make that I frigging feel your pain. I've lost count of how many times I screamed that the Democrat's "plan" for Iraq is delusional.

I don't know if anyone's done this, but I want to apologize for the way the Democrats have behaved. This is to marden, ebuddy, Macrobat, finboy and Kevin too, but it's especially to you, because as I said, you're in the ****. We're all for the most part (knock on wood) observers. Again, the frustration you must be feeling is unimaginable.

As to the Democrats' motivations for pissing away the future of the world, allow for the possibility I may have insight. They're in my backyard as it were.

Considering the magnitude of the Democrats' folly in terms of their "plans" for Iraq, I think it's tempting to ascribe motives that are of an equally dramatic magnitude. The Democrats "hate America" for example. Like many extraordinary things that have something simple at the core, the Democrats' behavior is the result of something far less dramatic. My analysis provides three key reasons:

First, as I mentioned in the OP, the Democrats are the anti-war party. Their constituency is anti-war. As has been demonstrated, they can be convinced to support a war at a specific period of time, but you can't deny their anti-war sentiments. In other words, you have to keep convincing them.

Second, as I also mentioned in the OP, the Democrats were cut out of the loop. The Democratic agenda was essentially stymied after the war started. This isn't how politics works. You have to give action to get action. If you don't allow the opposition some of their agenda, the only option you leave open to them is to oppose. I'm talking about really letting some of their agenda through more or less untouched. Like one or two of the examples I gave above (none of which are related to national security).

Thirdly, is the colossal mismanagement of the war. Bush has demonstrated an overwhelming resistance to criticism, even legitimate criticism. I shouldn't have to explain how detrimental this trait is. I think history will show this as the lynchpin of our major bungles. Even if it doesn't, I think it must be acknowledged that this is at the very least a serious hurdle that confronted the Democrats.

Even if you disagree with the weight I apply to these factors, I hope I've made a somewhat plausible argument that the Republicans put the Democrats in a difficult situation. They were boxed in a corner, and lacked ideas on how to constructively remove themselves from it. For a few years they were punched in the nose over and over (mostly due to Bush's aforementioned resistance to criticism), until Jack Murtha stumbled in calling for a withdrawal. Bereft of any other ideas (as has been accused), they've clung to the first thing that's given them traction.

In other words, when confronted with the challenge of this difficult situation, the Democrats rose to the challenge by being worse than useless. They've been petty and selfish. They've been defeatist. They've trashed morale. They've done ridiculously wrong-headed things that fit the accusation of "helping the terrorists".

On more that one occasion, I've pointed out the fact that even the biggest, dope-smoking, hippy, anti-war communist who thinks the WoT is a sham is completely abandoning their values by leaving the Iraqi people in the lurch, especially considering that same hippy is (correctly) claiming we're the ones who ****ed them.

You won't hear Democrats mention this. I think it's appalling. Considering how reprehensibly both sides have behaved, sometimes I think I'm literally the only person who actually gives a **** about the Iraqi people.

So heap whatever derision you want onto the Democratic Party, I'll be right there next to you. But remember what I said about both sides. There is a key difference between the behavior of the Democrats and Republicans that needs be taken into account.

This is the crux of my argument. The Democrats behavior was reactionary. The Democrats weren't the ones holding the reins. As bad as their reactions were, when assessing blame you have to take into account the actions they were reacting to.

Allow me to take the three reasons I proposed the Democrats acted the way they did and spin you a little alternate history. I'm sure it could use some polish, but it's from the heart:

Originally Posted by President subego

Good evening. People of America...

A few years ago, we undertook the monumental responsibility of liberating the country of Iraq from under the thumb of a ruthless dictator.

Our combat operations achieved a success unprecedented in all of history, and the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is now a memory.

Other aspects of our mission have not gone as well.

Our mission to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction fell afoul of his efforts to gain standing among the leaders of the Middle East. His defiance of UN resolutions did not hide weapons but weakness.

When faced with this discouraging development, we must remember that the weapons themselves aren't the issue, they are the tool. We undertook this responsibility not for the weapons but the will to use them. If you remove the weapons you have not removed the will. This is why it is vital that our mission continue. Only through freedom will the Iraqis truly have the tools they need. Without freedom they have only the tools of terror, which they will find anywhere as we learned on 9/11.

We must also confront that our troop deployment, which has been exemplary in service, has been given too large a task. Too much effort is spent maintaining our place. We cannot move forward, which is why I'm speaking to you tonight.

Our mission requires us to double our current troop deployment as soon as is practically possible. Just as our initial success was unprecedented, our mission has become so as well.

The gravest responsibility we place on the officers in the armed forces... and I wish I could say this in a less direct way... is to decide that people must die. This is not only the enemy, but with their own troops. Men and women who depend on them for their well being. Men and women they love as if they were brother and sister.

They are brother and sister.

These people, the finest people I have ever known, in order to do their duty they must not let their emotions overtake them. Their conscience is the orders they are given, orders that ultimately come from me.

I must be their conscience.

Though I am here tonight asking you for the authority to send brave Americans into harms way, you would give me the responsibility to act as their conscience. Knowing the difficult course that lies ahead, asking you for this duty is the most difficult decision I have ever had to make.

Thank you, and good night.

That's how you sell the anti-war party on continuing a war. That's how you take responsibility for your mistakes.

Throw in a well timed "overture" as I outlined above, and an already instituted raise in soldier's pay (which President subego would have enacted immediately). Assuming this didn't come too soon before or after an election, Democrats that balked at this would be crucified.

Even at their slimiest, most Democrats in Congress aren't monsters. They were stuck in a bad situation and reacted really badly.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Hence they make crummy candidates for an example of an overture.

I can certainly agree to this, but you'll agree it'd be difficult to squelch the "survival" mentality prevalent in Washington from either side.

Because the Democrats weren't behind it:

You mean aside from the majority of Clinton appointees? Along with Gore, Kennedy, Gephardt, and Boxer. In fact, Clinton traveled the entire country with his mantra of "Save Social Security First." You don't remember the debate on what to do with the Federal surplus in 98? Democrats fell in lock-step with Clinton opposing tax cuts in lieu of resolving Social Security? Granted, it may have been a clever diversion to avoid the call for tax cuts, but it was most certainly used. A panel was set up to study the issue and in fact, privatization was on the list of potential fixes.

Funny how he never mentioned one of his most important agendas in his biography.

Funny how you'd place a higher degree of importance on one's biography than you would in one's actions as President while in office. "Save Social Security First" was the official plan of the Clinton Administration, stated clearly in his State of the Union address, and in fact placed on list of priorities under 'office of the President' 1998.

"As with so many other long-term challenges, if we act now, it will be far, far easier to resolve the problem than if we wait until a crisis is close at hand. I believe we must save Social Security and do it next year."

Clinton proposed committing 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years -- an estimated $2.7 trillion -- to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector, just as any private or state government pension would do. "This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years," according to CNN.

Per DLC; On the biggest challenge of all, Social Security, the time has come to replace talk with action. The President's brilliant "save Social Security first" strategy united traditional liberal Democrats who want to preserve the system as it is with New Democrats who want major reforms. The President's own timetable demands that Congress begin work on Social Security in 1999. Republican efforts to finance a big federal tax cut with projected federal budget surpluses will gain momentum if Democrats tarry on Social Security.

I'm going to have to go with the Republicans on this one. Clinton was trying to deflect attention away from the Lewinsky thing.

Unfortunately, you have your timetable backwards. His call for Social Security Reform was already well under way (actually having begun in '96), but derailed by impeachment proceedings, not the other way around.

In general, Democrats just don't like to privatize things.

Truth be told, the majority of Americans polled at the time were skeptical about privatizing Social Security, but it was in fact part of the Clinton proposal. Republicans wanted tax cuts overall from the budget surplus, Dems supported Social Security reform.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can certainly agree to this, but you'll agree it'd be difficult to squelch the "survival" mentality prevalent in Washington from either side.

Absolutely. I was only disqualifying it as an acceptable example of an overture.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You mean aside from the majority of Clinton appointees...

I meant the public, which despite claims in this thread to the contrary, is far more important to Democrats who are in office then whether their "boy" came up with it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Funny how you'd place a higher degree of importance on one's biography...

I went back and read what I posted, and I think that may have come off like I was saying "see, all the proof you need". I meant it as more of a throw-away.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unfortunately, you have your timetable backwards. His call for Social Security Reform was already well under way (actually having begun in '96), but derailed by impeachment proceedings, not the other way around.

I thought the major push didn't start until Lewinsky, but I very easily could be wrong about this. It seems mostly irrelevant though, at least in the sense of it being a suitable overture since the Democratic public ultimately rejected it.

I could be wrong here, but I think the issue may be the connection between my premise and my conclusion. Ignoring my conclusion, I would say the examples given are examples of overtures. They're the kind of overture a minority party would expect from a majority party.

The Democrats don't see it that way. They think the Republicans owe them for the war.

I've just had an epiphany here. I've understood more or less what each side is saying, but I've failed to connect them together to come up with the perceptual dissonance this has caused.

Here. Let me start at the beginning. Believe it or not, the Republicans and Democrats agree (just like I said in the post above of vmarks and myself) on the importance of national security. I'm thinking this idea should be acceptable (at least for the sake of argument) since I would say beyond the very vague notion of "importance" that is where the agreement ends. As to how to deal with such an important issue there is truly a yawning chasm. A "gulf" if you will.

The other issue I would say the parties are in agreement on is that both more or less have a wish to see national security (and by extension the WoT and Iraq) as being "above the fray" in terms of politics. It's too important an issue to let partisan squabbles to get in the way. At least this was what people wanted in 2002.

Bush makes his impassioned plea, the Democrats accept. The Republicans say "you did the right thing, we'll take it from here", and proceed as if it's business as usual, after all, from their perspective, it is business as usual. Iraq is, and should, remain "above the fray".

But there is a very important reality in this for the Democrats. As I said, they are the anti-war party. Both parties agree on the importance of national security, they totally disagree on how to do it. The Democrats, would want to deal with this situation with as little violence as they thought possible, which I'm sure you can realize would likely involve not going to Iraq in the first place. Seeking the non-violent solution, even to the point that a Republican would find insane, is one of their core values.

With a fair amount of effort, Bush convinced enough of the anti-war party to put aside a core value "for the good of the country", but I think you may see the harsh and sad political reality that putting aside a core value for the good of the country is not going to appeal to their constituents. They're the anti-war party. Even if they think it's for the good of the country, going to war won't get a Democrat reelected.

Unless, they have something else to show for it, something to balance it out.

Good results (from a Democrat's perspective) would do this, otherwise, some of the examples I give in the post above yours would be needed.

The Republicans conduct "business as usual", and hence offer the kind of overtures you would expect the majority party to offer a minority party. To a Democrat, who is now in the negative column for voting for the war, and climbing with every stumble (no WMD forward) an offer of such a "weak" overture is essentially asking them to roll over and die.

You're not going to have a good success rate with this tactic.

To me, this realization is a big breakthrough. I'm think beginning to get a bead on the thought process that lead the Republicans to think it was a good idea to pound so hard on the Democrats. Previous to this the only rationale I could come up with was a "slash and burn" strategy. Which, as I think you can imagine, seems like a dubious way of running something like the WoT.

In the post above yours, I present an alternate strategy the Republicans could have taken somewhere along the way. I would really appreciate it if you would check it out. I think this and the last post are the farthest I've come along on anything in here. I really think they're some of my best posts ever.

Not of course, because of the words. Good grief these things are long. For the ideas to be mined within. I'll work on refining things, though again, I'd love your opinion in the meantime.

At the very least, I can promise it has a message directed to you by name.

[subego]

I have a "bite sized" angle on my argument I'll figure I throw out too, since my 14 course versions suck.

I would say an example of an "overture" would be firing Rumsfeld.

You are all claiming that the Democrats "rebuff" overtures, if Rumsfeld had been gacked earlier, would the Democrats have rebuffed this?

Even if they were to claim it was not enough, I think you'll have a tough time making a plausible argument that the Democrats would somehow claim this was a move in the wrong direction, or that they would have any problems with it whatsoever beyond the fact that it should have happened sooner.

The more Bush is willing to meet in the middle, the less the Democrats have to plausibly complain about. The less they complain, the less they obstruct.

C'mon, work with me here people. Over the past few years our country has almost torn itself apart. I've been absolutely stumped as to why the Republicans have been acting like divisive jerks. I came in here after Katrina filled with a ridiculous amount of piss and vinegar. After being here for a week, I can't say I had any less piss or vinegar, and I can't say I felt the Republicans weren't acting like divisive assholes, but I realized that these divisive jerks were rational people, at least some of them were.

Ever since then I've been trying to reconcile the two. To me you were still acting like divisive assholes, but I held on to the fact that rational people had decided to act this way.

I've been in enough arguments to realize that 90% of the arguments that rational people have boil down to miscommunication. Even the slightest miscommunication can have a cascade effect, and before you know it people draw knives and ****.

I've been searching for this miscommunication, and I think I'm getting closer. Meet me halfway. You may think I'm a divisive asshole, but hold out for the possibility that I am rational, and I have good reasons for acting like a divisive asshole.

Reasons that are so good in fact that once you understand you may realize I'm not being a divisive jerk, it just looks that way because of some fundamental miscommunications.

That this is the case with you (i.e. you're not acting like divisive jerks either, it just looks that way from my perspective) is an idea I've been clutching to for dear life since the beginning.

[ebuddy]

To sum up; actions will cause equal opposite reactions.

At least, this my general posting style. If I'm discussing a topic with a fair-minded, sober-rhetoric style poster; I will establish rapport with them by discussing the issue in like fashion. When I see; "All Republicans", "all conservatives", "your ilk", etc... I become mildly annoyed and will meet them with an equal degree of vitriol.

There are some bent on being divisive for nothing more than the sake of it. They exist from all philosophies and are certainly not exclusive to either liberals or conservatives. They are considered trolls as you know. Some times there are posters you suspect of being "devil's advocates" or even "joke accounts" because they spew out the most mind-numbingly partisan banter and vitriol.

I've often thought it'd be really cool to facilitate a way for all those who post here and have the resources to travel, to meet me here centrally-located in the Midwest at a lounge or bar or something and actually put faces to names and get to know them. I'd be happy to choreograph the event and I think it'd be fun, but I fear there are some here who really may not be able to separate disagreements from personal affronts and wish real harm to another.

Still... I wonder if people from this forum have actually hooked up at some point. Hmm.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To sum up; actions will cause equal opposite reactions.

I wish I could sum up in five words. I think everyone else does too

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

At least, this my general posting style. If I'm discussing a topic with a fair-minded, sober-rhetoric style poster; I will establish rapport with them by discussing the issue in like fashion. When I see; "All Republicans", "all conservatives", "your ilk", etc... I become mildly annoyed and will meet them with an equal degree of vitriol.

There are some bent on being divisive for nothing more than the sake of it. They exist from all philosophies and are certainly not exclusive to either liberals or conservatives. They are considered trolls as you know. Some times there are posters you suspect of being "devil's advocates" or even "joke accounts" because they spew out the most mind-numbingly partisan banter and vitriol.

I should try and make it clear, my "c'mon folks" wasn't accusing anyone in this thread directly of trying not to meet me half-way. However, I think because of ill will the last few years a lot of legitimate arguments got tossed out in the fray.

I would say one of the most important virtues someone can foster in themselves is to look at people's behavior in as non-judgemental a way as possible. I've found it opens up huge vistas in terms of understanding people's motivations. That I do this is probably one of my best and most useful traits.

Even actively pursuing this, it's taken me years, literally years, to push my judgments aside enough to get at the motivations behind the Republican attitude.

It's a lot like having an argument with your SO. You have a fight and can't believe the hurtful things they are saying. After a (hopefully) short time has passed, you still can't believe how hurtful they are being, but you know you love them, you know they love you. There has to be a good reason for why you're SO is acting insane.

As soon as I can get a lock on what the SO thought she was reacting to, the problems tend to become much smaller. Likewise, once I realize where she was coming from, I realize my reactions were wrong. Understandable, but like really wrong.

I asked you all to "C'mon" (which in hindsight probably wasn't the best way to phrase things) because I think giving my argument an honest go-around is asking a lot.

I'm trying to explain years of Democratic divisiveness. I say I value national security as much as you but I'm telling you to vote Democrat. I've so far rejected all the proposed overtures. I've made statements like the Democrats feel like you owe them for the war.

The war is a tired old subject that frustrates everyone. Asking you to consider what I say above is asking you to push aside all that frustration. All while I'm saying really frustrating things

I'm totally willing to be proven wrong, but considering the level of frustration, I'm not going to accept I'm wrong because someone is too frustrated debate anymore. If you want to prove me wrong, you have to meet me halfway and not treat me like a partisan hack, even though at first blush I may seem to be exactly that.

I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm just illustrating what I consider the great hurdle I need to jump to show people that I'm trying to have an honest debate. That's why my posts are so long and contain so many qualifiers. As I said, it took me a loooong time to realize that maybe, just maybe the other side isn't acting as much like a partisan hack as I think they are, and even this did not come from direct evidence, but a long term holding-out for the possibility that there's something I'm still missing.

Basically, I've dumped so much on your plate, I know this won't get anywhere if the person I'm talking to is only going to play with their food (again, I'm not accusing you, just trying to explain my rationale)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've often thought it'd be really cool to facilitate a way for all those who post here and have the resources to travel, to meet me here centrally-located in the Midwest at a lounge or bar or something and actually put faces to names and get to know them. I'd be happy to choreograph the event and I think it'd be fun, but I fear there are some here who really may not be able to separate disagreements from personal affronts and wish real harm to another.

Still... I wonder if people from this forum have actually hooked up at some point. Hmm.

Well, if we were to get together, at least you can always count on a Democrat bringing a knife to a gunfight.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I meant the public, which despite claims in this thread to the contrary, is far more important to Democrats who are in office then whether their "boy" came up with it.

Actually, from the polls I've read, the majority of Americans agreed that it was a problem in need of repair, they didn't feel it had been explained to them sufficiently. 98 was when Clinton began defining the plan and of course that got derailed by the Lewinsky issue.

I thought the major push didn't start until Lewinsky, but I very easily could be wrong about this. It seems mostly irrelevant though, at least in the sense of it being a suitable overture since the Democratic public ultimately rejected it.

The public never got a fully-defined plan to reject. Again, the polls I've seen indicate distaste for the lack of information. The major push started over a Federal surplus. Republicans were calling for tax cuts with the surplus in revenue, Clinton's mantra as well as the DLC and others at the time was "Save Social Security First".

I could be wrong here, but I think the issue may be the connection between my premise and my conclusion. Ignoring my conclusion, I would say the examples given are examples of overtures. They're the kind of overture a minority party would expect from a majority party.

I don't think it was an overture of any kind. It was a difference in opinion as to what to do with the Federal surplus.

The Democrats don't see it that way. They think the Republicans owe them for the war.

Owe them what for the war?

Here. Let me start at the beginning. Believe it or not, the Republicans and Democrats agree (just like I said in the post above of vmarks and myself) on the importance of national security. I'm thinking this idea should be acceptable (at least for the sake of argument) since I would say beyond the very vague notion of "importance" that is where the agreement ends. As to how to deal with such an important issue there is truly a yawning chasm. A "gulf" if you will.

On National Security the public trusts the apparatus more than either one of them. They support the Patriot Act and actually support not only tapping "nefarious" American's phones, but monitoring their email. I've been guilty of viewing Democrats as nothing more than "adversarial" at times and while this may be unfair, I've made these judgments on who they allow speak for them. Since 2004, they've steadily divorced themselves from their most vocal element and the Americans praised them with their trust and vote. I believe this election was a referendum on Republicans and a vote for Conservatism. I believe the Democrats will act with this in mind and you'll see little change in how we address "nefarious" Americans or terrorists abroad. (other than a buildup in military presence in Iraq which I welcome) You just might think or believe otherwise by what is said. That's politics.

The other issue I would say the parties are in agreement on is that both more or less have a wish to see national security (and by extension the WoT and Iraq) as being "above the fray" in terms of politics. It's too important an issue to let partisan squabbles to get in the way. At least this was what people wanted in 2002.

Certainly optimistic and I hope you're right. That which we don't know (which is most things that go on in places we cannot be), we can't reject.

But there is a very important reality in this for the Democrats. As I said, they are the anti-war party. Both parties agree on the importance of national security, they totally disagree on how to do it. The Democrats, would want to deal with this situation with as little violence as they thought possible, which I'm sure you can realize would likely involve not going to Iraq in the first place. Seeking the non-violent solution, even to the point that a Republican would find insane, is one of their core values.

Again, I appreciate your optimism. However, the US has always been actively engaged in thrusting its influence. Read some of the speeches given by Clinton in Germany prior to our actions in Yugoslavia. I certainly wish that Administration had acted with the degree of caution you seem readily willing to give them in Waco, TX.

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We
are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further
into the future." - Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright, New York Times, Feb. 22, 1998.

With a fair amount of effort, Bush convinced enough of the anti-war party to put aside a core value "for the good of the country", but I think you may see the harsh and sad political reality that putting aside a core value for the good of the country is not going to appeal to their constituents. They're the anti-war party. Even if they think it's for the good of the country, going to war won't get a Democrat reelected.

Neither will pulling out our troops and losing the war in Iraq. The good news is, they won't. I personally guarantee it. They're no more the "anti-war" party than the Republicans. Certainly, there are the loud ones on both sides, but most are not where they are.

The Republicans conduct "business as usual", and hence offer the kind of overtures you would expect the majority party to offer a minority party. To a Democrat, who is now in the negative column for voting for the war, and climbing with every stumble (no WMD forward) an offer of such a "weak" overture is essentially asking them to roll over and die.

You're not going to have a good success rate with this tactic.

To me, this realization is a big breakthrough. I'm think beginning to get a bead on the thought process that lead the Republicans to think it was a good idea to pound so hard on the Democrats. Previous to this the only rationale I could come up with was a "slash and burn" strategy. Which, as I think you can imagine, seems like a dubious way of running something like the WoT.

You've lost me entirely with the above. What are you talking about? "Republicans pounded hard on the Democrats"??? With all due respect; what one particular newspaper are you glancing at once a year?

In the post above yours, I present an alternate strategy the Republicans could have taken somewhere along the way.

The Democrat ideas for Iraq included;

- you'll never be able to win over the Republican guard
- you'll get killed with Saddam's WMDs
- you'll never capture Saddam
- people are dying
- I don't see any WMDs Bush, Where are the WMDs?
- the Iraqis won't be able to vote because it'll be a blood bath at the polls
- they'll never agree on a Constitution
- they'll never elect a PM
- give timetables.
- people are dying and there are no WMDs.
- Where's Osama?
- you told us there were WMDs.
- we supported the war because you lied and said there were WMDs.
- people are dying and there are no WMDs
- Bush is a liar
- it's been three years, how come we're not done democratizing an entire country?
- Where's Osama?
- Where are the WMDs?
- send more troops to Afghanistan
- N. Korea is acting up, why aren't we sending troops?

On which one of the above should Bush have offered the "overture"? I would've liked for Bush to have sounded less "defensive" in his speeches and more "informative" and this is what I believe the nation voted against. They're tired of an Administration trying defend the action instead of explaining how this is supposed to offend terrorists abroad.

I would really appreciate it if you would check it out. I think this and the last post are the farthest I've come along on anything in here. I really think they're some of my best posts ever.

Well, I gave it a go.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well, I gave it a go.

Which I appreciate. And I appreciate this discussion. I need to pare things down to the component parts and make another digest version. A bunch of new ideas always come to me while I'm writing.

I am wondering though.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've lost me entirely with the above. What are you talking about? "Republicans pounded hard on the Democrats"??? With all due respect; what one particular newspaper are you glancing at once a year?

This is what I meant by meeting halfway. This isn't the first time I've been having an excellent conversation with you and then when you don't understand something you whip out the ad hominem.

I'm a big boy and can take it and all, but I don't think I've ever done this to you, so I don't know why you keep doing it to me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm a big boy and can take it and all, but I don't think I've ever done this to you, so I don't know why you keep doing it to me.

I was really asking how it is you could've seen this as "Republicans pounding the Democrats so hard". You almost seem to ignore the immense pounding this Administration has taken at every turn.

There's something I noticed about your posts. It's like when your boss doesn't want to just come right out with whatever he truly wants to say, so he beats around the bush for 45 minutes before you get to the part of why you're not getting the bonus this year. You post 400-word dissertations of reconciliatory banter, then hidden deep within is;

"Democrats are anti-war, Republicans should've listened more to them."

" I thought all Republicans were a$$holes, but some of them are rational, but I still believed they were a$$holes. I think I've had an epiphany, maybe I just perceive them all as a$$holes".

"sh__-canning Rumsfeld was an overture."

"Collosal mismanagement of the war"

For example;

Originally Posted by subego

I have a "bite sized" angle on my argument I'll figure I throw out too, since my 14 course versions suck.

I would say an example of an "overture" would be shitcanning Rumsfeld.

You are all claiming that the Democrats "rebuff" overtures, if Rumsfeld had been gacked earlier, would the Democrats have rebuffed this?

Where did we all claim this?

Even if they were to claim it was not enough, I think you'll have a tough time making a plausible argument that the Democrats would somehow claim this was a move in the wrong direction, or that they would have any problems with it whatsoever beyond the fact that it should have happened sooner.

... but no one is arguing this except you. You don't bend and fold for compromise. If you believe something is a good idea, you act. If you don't believe it's a good idea- you likewise may not act. I mean, would it come as a shock to you that there are a great many Democrats who'd like to see just about every member of Bush's cabinet gone? You don't throw people out of your Administration necessarily as an "overture" as you've argued. You simply see the handwriting on the wall in the case of Rumsfeld. The timing behind Rumsfeld leaving is so Bush can still use a predominantly Republican Senate (which has to sign off on the new nominee) to get the person he wants for the job. If he had waited, Rumsfeld would be gone and it would be exponentially more difficult to get someone he likes in that position.

The more Bush is willing to meet in the middle, the less the Democrats have to plausibly complain about. The less they complain, the less they obstruct.

... but this is not sound reasoning. If Dems could just take a little more a pro-life stance and agree to privatize Social Security, problem solved right?

This is my favorite part though;

C'mon, work with me here people. Over the past few years our country has almost torn itself apart. I've been absolutely stumped as to why the Republicans have been acting like divisive assholes. I came in here after Katrina filled with a ridiculous amount of piss and vinegar. After being here for a week, I can't say I had any less piss or vinegar, and I can't say I felt the Republicans weren't acting like divisive assholes, but I realized that these divisive assholes were rational people, at least some of them were.

Here you're calling "the Republicans" assholes, but admit they are rational people. Uh... thanks? Then you say; "work with me people, I'm stumped why the Republicans have been acting like divisive assholes." as if this is some exclusive Republican trait. How can anyone rational or otherwise meet this halfway?

Then you go on...

Ever since then I've been trying to reconcile the two. To me you were still acting like divisive assholes, but I held on to the fact that rational people had decided to act this way.

So... you, meaning "the Republicans" are rational people so you meaning "the Republicans" must have made a conscious decision to be assholes.

I've been in enough arguments to realize that 90% of the arguments that rational people...

Again, I presume you're talking about the rational people that have made a conscious decision to be assholes; i.e. "the Republicans", but I admit it's less than clear...

have boil down to miscommunication. Even the slightest miscommunication can have a cascade effect, and before you know it people draw knives and ****.

This entire perception is only that though, a perception. There is plenty of vitriol on either side of the spectrum. You seem to subscribe to a "good guy", "bad guy" thing and it almost seems to hinge upon whether there's an (R) or (D) after their name.

I've been searching for this miscommunication, and I think I'm getting closer. Meet me halfway. You may think I'm a divisive asshole, but hold out for the possibility that I am rational, and I have good reasons for acting like a divisive asshole.

Reasons that are so good in fact that once you understand you may realize I'm not being a divisive asshole, it just looks that way because of some fundamental miscommunications.

In short, "the Republicans" have decided to act like divisive assholes because they've simply misunderstood you to be a divisive asshole? Give you some time you say? Meet you halfway? Work with you? You may have some good points? Of course, I'll admit that. You may have some points. I just ask that you not bury them in long dissertations crafted to conceal wholly partisan rhetoric. Seriously, you say the post just above mine was among your best, but the post you offered for this thread is how you feel. Don't hide it. Out with it. People have argued the points you made in your OP, but instead of reading what they had to say it was like you were already thinking of what you were going to type next.

That this is the case with you (i.e. you're not acting like divisive assholes either, it just looks that way from my perspective) is an idea I've been clutching to for dear life since the beginning.

So, you're hanging on for dear life to your perception that "the Republicans" aren't truly divisive assholes, but they just look that way to you because they don't understand you? I mean again, with all due respect; what in all that is good and green on this earth are you talking about?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not an expert in all these things, but I think we are dealing with different notions of the term "outreach".

How is offering to privatize social security and nominating people the Democrats can't stand "outreach"?

For the 9 trillionth time, there was no effort to "privatize" Social Security, and saying so just proves you buy everything Democrats say.

Allowing people the chance to invest a certain percentage of their Social Security tax in the private sector is NOT privatizing.

It's about as honest as the Democrats ads run against some Republicans this election saying that they wanted to institute a 23% sales tax on everything. They fail to mention that the plan would ELIMINATE all other Federal taxes.

The Democrats are great at the sound byte and manipulating it. And you are good at buying it.

[davesimondotcom]

I ask you: What "overtures" have the Democrats made towards the Republicans? And why should the GOP had made concessions the the Democrats when they had a clear majority in Congress and the Presidency?

I'm a centrist and I wish people would move towards the middle, but there is no incentive when you have majorities.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was really asking how it is you could've seen this as "Republicans pounding the Democrats so hard". You almost seem to ignore the immense pounding this Administration has taken at every turn.

Your logic is mighty flawed here.

subego: The Republicans pounded the Democrats.
ebuddy: No they didn't.
subgeo: Huh?
ebuddy: The Democrats pounded the Republicans.

So lemme get this straight. The Republicans didn't pound the Democrats, but the Democrats did pound the Republicans?

Uhh, I believe they both pounded each other.

I'm sorry you thought I was saying the Republicans were unjustified in pounding the Democrats, but I didn't say that. I just made the factual observation that a pounding had happened. I "ignored" the pounding the Democrats gave the Republicans because that wasn't what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's something I noticed about your posts. It's like when your boss doesn't want to just come right out with whatever he truly wants to say, so he beats around the bush for 45 minutes before you get to the part of why you're not getting the bonus this year. You post 400-word dissertations of reconciliatory banter, then hidden deep within is;

Excellent. This is what I'm looking for. Tell me what you think I'm saying, and I can clarify my miscommunication. Of course it would be great if I could just communicate clearly the first time, but I'm not, so I appreciate you making the effort you shouldn't have to make.

You caught it half right. I am absolutely posting reconciliatory banter, and I'm not coming right out and saying what I want to say for two reasons. First, as I said, my point is changing as I receive input. Secondly, I know I have to get past a lot of frustration the parties have with each other.

I don't think however, you have correctly pegged my aim as taking away the "Christmas bonus".

For instance...

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"Democrats are anti-war, Republicans should've listened more to them."

Not listened, appeased. I'm really miscommunicating if you haven't picked up that I am pro-Iraq war. Why would I want the Republicans to listen to the Democrats about the war? The Democrats ideas for the war generally suck.

Also note that none of the examples I give of appeasement (the overtures) are national security related (except for the Rumsfeld thing which is a special case). I'm saying the Republicans should have given the Democrats something they wanted so that Republicans didn't have to listen to the Democrats about the war.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

" I thought all Republicans were a$$holes, but some of them are rational, but I still believed they were a$$holes. I think I've had an epiphany, maybe I just perceive them all as a$$holes".

I'm admitting I have faults in my perception. If you don't understand where someone is coming from, you are forced to imagine (rather than know) what their rationale is. You will base this on what they say. The rationales I imagined were unpleasant, just as I would assume you have imagined some unpleasant rationales for why the Democrats act the way they do.

Looking back at what I said, I unsurprisingly didn't make things as clear as they could be. Let me say two things. Firstly, I almost never call people here names. Even if I want to, my desire doesn't trump that it isn't constructive. I only "called names" in this instance because I was admitting my own fault, i.e. these are names I wanted to call, but realized that there must be something wrong with my perception, not your actions.

As I say in the next post "even actively pursuing this, it's taken me years, literally years, to push my judgments aside enough to get at the motivations behind the Republican attitude."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"sh__-canning Rumsfeld was an overture."

This was an example of what would have been an overture. All the examples I provided were not of a national security variety. I couldn't imagine asking to put this on the table until it happened.

Once it did happen, since Bush claimed he intended to do this all along, I noted Republicans saying that if this had happened in September, they very well might have still controlled Congress.

I'm saying that this is exactly the thought process I'm using. Bush responds actively to criticism, the Democrats have less to criticize.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"Collosal mismanagement of the war"

Well, we can agree to disagree on this. I'm just calling it how I see it. All I can say is that I'm judging this from a pro-military, pro-Iraq war standpoint.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Where did we all claim this?

Originally Posted by vmarks

You know, the GOP has made considerable outreach to the Democrats, only to be rebuffed.

Originally Posted by marden

Once you try and you see the efforts come to naught you move on.

macrobat claims the Dems will shoot down anything that doesn't support Clinton and whack Bush. I'd say that qualifies.

I had also been under the assumption that you had been claiming the Democrats rebuffed the Republicans. At the very least since you want to say Social Security was an acceptable "overture", I'm curious how you would describe the Democrats' reaction to it?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... but no one is arguing this except you...

See above.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... but this is not sound reasoning. If Dems could just take a little more a pro-life stance and agree to privatize Social Security, problem solved right?

This is how things would be if Bush didn't have a war to support. What I'm saying is that had Bush decided to meet in the middle, the Democrats would be in a much weaker position to be obstructionist. Likewise, Bush would have been in a stronger position to do something like ask for more troops.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is my favorite part though;

Everything here hit you completely wrong. All the things you think I'm accusing you of I'm placing on myself.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... you, meaning "the Republicans" are rational people so you meaning "the Republicans" must have made a conscious decision to be assholes.

No. I'm saying the asshole thing is my perception. The way you behave is rational. Since I know you to be rational if I perceive you to act like an asshole, I am wrong.

I still perceive you to be an asshole because there's something I'm not understanding, but because I know you to be rational, I know the problem is my perception.

What I have been looking for, and had an epiphany about, is what the problem is with my perception. As I said, I knew one week after coming here there was a problem with my perception. It has taken to now for me to begin to understand what the problem was.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, I presume you're talking about the rational people that have made a conscious decision to be assholes; i.e. "the Republicans", but I admit it's less than clear...

No. Rational people have made a conscious decision to behave in a way that I perceive as being an asshole. Since I know they're rational, I realize the problem is in my perception.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So, you're hanging on for dear life to your perception that "the Republicans" aren't truly divisive assholes, but they just look that way to you because they don't understand you? I mean again, with all due respect; what in all that is good and green on this earth are you talking about?

This is what I mean by the "cascade effect". Look at this sentence " you're not acting like divisive assholes either, it just looks that way from my perspective."

How could you read this as the problem is that you don't understand me?

[subego]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom 

I ask you: What "overtures" have the Democrats made towards the Republicans? And why should the GOP had made concessions the the Democrats when they had a clear majority in Congress and the Presidency?

I'm a centrist and I wish people would move towards the middle, but there is no incentive when you have majorities.

This is the point I'm trying so badly to make.

The "overture" the Democrats made was voting for the war.

There was no reason the Democrats needed to make this concession. There was no incentive given to them by the majority to vote for it except the promise of good results and the importance of national security.

The Democrats are going to determine what are good results and the importance of national security on their own terms. Once the Republicans fail to come through (again, on the Democrats' terms) their vote for the war becomes a liability.

That's my point. The incentive for the majority to play ball with the minority is that the minority can (and did) decide to act like whiny assholes. We would all like to think ideally about this situation, that the Democrats shouldn't be acting like whiny assholes for the good of the country, but I'm saying this denies how politics works.

If the Republicans had given the Democrats less to complain about, they would have complained less, under threat of the withdrawal of "overtures".

Even if the Democrats continued to act like whiny assholes under these circumstances, no one would have bought it because the Republicans had made it unequivocally clear they were willing to negotiate.