Evan Bayh: Where Democrats went wrong

[brindisi]

I don't necessarily want Republicans to be deferential. I would much rather see them demonstrate more willingness to reach across the aisle. I think such a gesture is long overdue from them.
Ringo

Republicans will be glad to reach across the aisle saying "Help us reduce the size of government, help us get government out of peoples' lives." That's reaching across the aisle I can support.

When Obama say's "I'm going to fundamentally transform America, please help me." That's not reaching across the aisle I can support.The only appropriate response is "Like He**! We'll fight you every inch of the way."

 

[Ringo84]

If the Republicans expect Democrats to reach across the aisle to them, they're going to need to be willing to reach across the aisle to the Democrats. Otherwise, the two parties will not be meeting halfway.
Ringo

 

[brindisi]

If the Republicans expect Democrats to reach across the aisle to them, they're going to need to be willing to reach across the aisle to the Democrats. Otherwise, the two parties will not be meeting halfway.
Ringo

Do you have principles upon which you will not compromise? I'm sure you do, as do I. I expect that of Republican politicians as well.

If the Democrats say they want to make government bigger by X amount and Republicans say they want to make government smaller by X amount, which is meeting halfway: making government bigger by X/2, or smaller by X/2? There can only be meeting halfway if the direction is agreed on, and for far too long Republicans have agreed with Democrats on bigger government. That has to stop and be reversed.

 

[childofGod1]

Republicans will be glad to reach across the aisle saying "Help us reduce the size of government, help us get government out of peoples' lives." That's reaching across the aisle I can support.

When Obama say's "I'm going to fundamentally transform America, please help me." That's not reaching across the aisle I can support.The only appropriate response is "Like He**! We'll fight you every inch of the way."

You're absolutely right, it's far more important to do what's right for America and what the voters want than to make nice with politicians.

 

[Ringo84]

Compromise doesn't have to mean 'giving up one's strong beliefs' - it can mean 'working with the other party to ensure that those beliefs are enacted'.

If the Democrats give a little ground, and the Republicans give a little ground, something can get done that mutually benefits both parties and, best of all, the American people.

But if both sides refuse to give even an inch, nothing gets done, and nobody - least of all the American people - is happy.

You're absolutely right, it's far more important to do what's right for America and what the voters want than to make nice with politicians.

"Making nice" is what's right for America. It's how things get done in Congress.
Ringo

 

[childofGod1]

Do you have principles upon which you will not compromise? I'm sure you do, as do I. I expect that of Republican politicians as well.

If the Democrats say they want to make government bigger by X amount and Republicans say they want to make government smaller by X amount, which is meeting halfway: making government bigger by X/2, or smaller by X/2? There can only be meeting halfway if the direction is agreed on, and for far too long Republicans have agreed with Democrats on bigger government. That has to stop and be reversed.

It makes me think of this passage.

2 Corinthians 6
14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will live with them
and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they will be my people.”
17 Therefore, “Come out from them
and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.”

It's the same principle. Where there is no common ground, compromise is rarely possible.

 

[Ringo84]

14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.

Tough. Republicans are "yoked together" with Democrats. If they want things to get done in Congress this term, the Democrats are the people with whom the Republicans have to work. That's just the way it is.

They can either act like five year olds and demand that the Democrats do all of the compromising, or they can act like adults and work with their opponents to get things done for the American people. That is, after all, why they were sent into Congress.

This is basic stuff that grown adults should have learned in kindergarten.

Where there is no common ground, compromise is rarely possible.

How do you know there is no common ground? Have Republicans tried to work with the Democrats, or have they simply declared that no middle ground can be found?

You never know until you try.
Ringo

 

[KIYX]

That sounds either like a Republican fairy tale or a story that was taken out of context. The Republicans have not been interested in cooperating with Obama since day one.

YouTube - Fox News; Major Garrett reports - Obama I won!

I guess it's easier to blame the republicans than to admit Obama was never really interested in working with them.

 

[Ringo84]

I guess it's easier to blame the republicans than to admit Obama was never really interested in working with them.

So since Obama was triumphal during a meeting in early 2009, that indicates that Democrats were never interested in working with the Republicans? Bull.

Obama supposedly knew that he wouldn't get any cooperation or bipartisanship from the Republicans from almost day one. Yet he still tried to appease them during the health care debate. The story about Democrats not wanting to work with the GOP is a fairy tale.
Ringo

 

[KIYX]

So since Obama was triumphal during a meeting in early 2009, that indicates that Democrats were never interested in working with the Republicans? Bull.

Right because flaunting your victory in your opponents faces like a 5 year old really engenders a "lets work together attitude".

Obama supposedly knew that he wouldn't get any cooperation or bipartisanship from the Republicans from almost day one. Yet he still tried to appease them during the health care debate.The story about Democrats not wanting to work with the GOP is a fairy tale.
Ringo

Right which is why democrats and the president repeatedly lied saying that there was no republican health care plan.

Remember folks, if you can convince people the opposition has no plan you don't have to ever actually debate the merits of that plan.

 

[Ringo84]

Let me congratulate you for effectively changing the subject from the Republicans to the Democrats of 2009. Keep moving those goalposts!

Saying "I won" in one meeting is not the same thing as refusing to work with the other party - which the Democrats repeatedly tried to do and the GOP did not.
Ringo

 

[NotreDame]

Passing the health care bill was the hard part. It will be perfected over the next couple of generations. Social Security wasn't perfect at first.

Social security was not perfect at first, but it is now? Are you kidding?

 

[NotreDame]

The Democrats didn't "go wrong" and they weren't surprised by the result of the election. Obama knew this would happen and said so over a year ago. This is the price you pay for signing major, history making legislation. Lyndon Johnson knew that by signing the Civil Rights Act, he would lose the South. He decided it was worth it. Obama decided that national health care was worth losing the midterm election. He probably anticipated losing the Senate as well as the House, so it isn't as bad as expected.

Yes, it was history making legislation because A.) The legislation included an exercise of federal power never utilized before in U.S. history by the federal government, B.) The power is of a profound magnitude, essentially demanding people purchase a service and enter into a private contract for those services C.) The financial regulation included a provision in which the federal government could seize a company and this was not subject to judicial review (so much for the due process clause of the 5th Amendment).

In case you could not tell, those are not very good characteristics of the legislation, which is to say the legislation was historic at least in part because of these poor qualities associated with the laws.

 

[KIYX]

Let me congratulate you for effectively changing the subject from the Republicans to the Democrats of 2009.

Ok....

Let me refresh your memory.

Evan Bayh: Where Democrats went wrong

Keep moving those goalposts!

Yes because discussing where democrats went wrong in a thread about where democrats went wrong is moving the goalposts.

Saying "I won" in one meeting is not the same thing as refusing to work with the other party - which the Democrats repeatedly tried to do and the GOP did not.

Right because lying to people repeatedly makes people want to work with you.

 

[Ringo84]

Ok....

Let me refresh your memory.

Evan Bayh: Where Democrats went wrong

Yes...and one of the major ways the Democrats went wrong was trying to concede so much to the Republicans.

Right because lying to people repeatedly makes people want to work with you.

Whether or not Obama "lied" to anyone is a separate issue from his supposedly saying "I won" in a bipartisan meeting.
Ringo

 

[KIYX]

[/SIZE][/B]
Yes...and one of the major ways the Democrats went wrong was trying to concede so much to the Republicans.

Right all that conceding the democrats did for the republicans... So all the time they were claiming that the republicans had no plan they were secretly conceding things to them...

Even though they had a majority and didn't have to.

Tell me another.

Whether or not Obama "lied" to anyone is a separate issue from his supposedly saying "I won" in a bipartisan meeting.

Yet goes along way to show that the democrats had zero interest in working with republicans.

Unless you think lying about someones position is a form of cooperation.

 

[Ringo84]

Even though they had a majority and didn't have to.

No...I don't suppose that Democrats had to concede anything. That's what bipartisanship is all about.

Yet goes along way to show that the democrats had zero interest in working with republicans.

One meeting does not show anything about the Democrats' years in control of Congress.

That statement is little more than projection.
Ringo

 

[KIYX]

One meeting does not show anything about the Democrats' years in control of Congress.

That statement is little more than projection.
Ringo

I love how you act as if I've only talked about one meeting the whole time.

I guess ignoring the times I've spoken about democrats lying about the plans the republicans have doesn't matter to you.

Tip: if you are lying about someone it's not going to make them want to work with you.

 

[mpok1519]

The problem is the left simply didn't vote. Had we actually voted the house might be more balanced.

 

[Ringo84]

Death panels...'Socialism!' echo chamber...government bureaucrats....

Who was lying about whom?
Ringo