Screw bipartisanship

[proud2BlibKansan]

Screw bipartisanship

This sort of thing drives me nuts. According to the dependably annoying David Broder, a bipartisan group of mostly ex-office holders are planning to issue a demand that the major party presidential nominees agree to support a “government of national unity.” Otherwise, they threaten, they’ll support a third party candidate, probably NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

<skip>

Seriously, what planet do these people live on? Here on earth, we have two major political parties: one that wants endless war in Iraq, opposed by another that (at least in terms of its rank and file) wants the war ended. We have one party whose dominant wing seems to want to transform the United States into a Christian theocracy, opposed by another party that still (mostly) believes in the Separation of Church and State. We have one party that believes that we need even more tax cuts for the wealthy and even less governmental protection for consumers and workers, opposed by another that wants to return at least a little fairness to our tax code and our economy.

So, just exactly what is this proposed “government of national unity” supposed to stand for? More tax cuts for the wealthy, just not quite as many? Not ending the war, but continuing it in a more unified way? Ending the Separation of Church and State, but doing so with a smile?

What Broder and his ilk can’t seem to get though their heads is that the American people aren’t divided because they’re in a prickly mood. They’re divided because of real disagreements over critical issues of policy.

<skip>

I don’t doubt the sincerity of unity government advocates, but if they really do run Bloomberg, a billionaire who could easily self finance, all they’ll succeed in doing is handing the White House over to yet another right wing Republican against the will of the majority of Americans (Bloomberg, as a social liberal, would almost certainly steal more votes from the Democratic nominee than from the Republican).

Screw bipartisanship. We have more important things to worry about.

http://www.lastchancedemocracycafe.com/?p=1175

[Selatius]

1. Seems the "center" wants to Naderize the next election.

For once, it's not the "far leftists" who are to blame.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Bingo!!

Time to nip this crap in the bud.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Oh, the bipartisanship theme is just a rationale for Bloomberg to get in.

Nobody is going to seriously try to enforce bipartisanship from this meeting, either, it's just an excuse for Bloomberg to gather supporters and backers from both parties and make some trumpet noise to let everyone know he is gettin' ready and polishing up his non-partisan theme.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Some of the more conservative Dems in Congress

have been preaching the joys of bi-partisanship for quite some time now.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Well, there's bipartisanship, and then there's "in bed with".

Congressional Dems are the latter.

[msongs]

3. at this time, NO political party in the US is acting to end Iraq occupation nt

[JDPriestly]

4. And whatever peace rhetoric Bloomberg spews, I don't think

he will either. He has the perennial hawks of both parties behind his run. That is not good news because they are going to take corporate money at the wazoo.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. YES!!

And that infuriates me.

[stillcool]

5. wow....we've managed to revive...

overt racism, sexism, national religiosity, and now...McCarthy-ism. I guess it's full-fledged fascism.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Yes it's fascism

[Fredda Weinberg]

11. If your post didn't contradict itself, you might make sense. But you're

advocating endless struggle, which I find repugnant.

I don't like Bloomberg; I've worked in his administration twice and he's no improvement over the machine Democrats ... but no worse either. I haven't seen anything right-wing about him, save the ruthlessness that put his application on all the Wall Street traders' desks.