A Heretical Suggestion?

[Stinky The Clown]

This may be heresy to some (many), and admittedly, if I heard it from someone else, that would be my first reaction, too.

But hear it out anyhow ..... and please weigh in with thoughtful replies ......

Let's assume something that now seems more than possible ...... let's assume we win at least one house of Congress in the midterms. And then let's assume we win the white house in 06.

The country is badly divided. Seriously bad. Perhaps even catastrophically divided. This divide is more than politics as usual. It is visceral and it is poisonous.

Would it be a good idea to govern in a bipartisan manner? What might that look like?

Let's assume we have a reasonably progressive president. Not a DLCer. Not Republican light. A true progressive. And that fact sets the policy direction. But as a way to bridge the divide, would any of the following make sense?

A reasoned and reasonable Republican as vice president? Fundies, neocons, and religious extremists need not apply. Say someone like Chris Shays (a republican, to be sure, but so far he has not shown himself to be a nutjob). Or maybe even someone like George Pataki. Or Bill Weld. In other words, a moderate, Rockefeller Republican. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

More than a smattering of similarly flavored Republicans in the cabinet?

To be sure, this would be a tightrope act. The progressive president would set the direction for the country. In many ways, the 'moderates' would be window dressing. They would be the ones who demonstrate that the country is under leadership that has the best interests of the **entire* citizenry at heart.

I know ... I know ..... we've had the shit beat out of us and this sounds like appeasement or moving to the center or some such. That is NOT my intent in exploring this. My intent is to find a way to tone down the hate and divisiveness that started with the incessant attacks on Clinton, and made worse by the current administration, which has brought it to a boil. A purely Democratic congress and/or administration, with no moderation or appearance of moderation, would simply turn into a way to see the militant right (mainly the neocons and religious extremists) go off, plot, raise money, and turn up the vitriol to even higher levels.

There's a part of me that even sees some form of civil war in this country if we don't somehow remove the totally and completely hate filled divide that now runs rampant through society.

I do not want to see that.

The foregoing is not a plan, or even a suggestion, so much as a topic to kick around a bit.

Your thoughts?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Let's look at history

the only time that a VP of another party was on the ticket, and that was 1864. The GOP was renamed the Union Party, and the idea was to pull in as many Dems as possible. It is also interesting to note that both Lincoln and Johnson were moderate in comparison to the Radical Republicans who had taken over Congress. As you know, when Johnson took over, it was a continuous battle for power, and the result was impeachment of Johnson, who escaped conviction by one vote.

There are many incidents where biparitsanship in Cabinet appointees happened, but if memory serves, the members of the minority party had minor positions. And I don't recall these types of cabinets being created during times of severe stress in the nation.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Clinton had a Republican SecDef - Cohen

That's not all that minor a role. Beyond that, none come to mind.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. He also had a repub head of the FBI

who was unrelenting in persecutin - er - prosecut - uh - investigating the guy who appointed him.

[Adelante]

8. Who fucked him royally

And so did Freeh. I know your heart is in the right place, but I don't see this working. I wish I could, though.

[Yupster]

12. Bush has Norm Minetta

Secretary of transportation right now

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Anything that will help to unify our nation after the recent years

of division would be a welcome change, IMO. Hardly anyone is totally liberal or totally conservative in their views, so a little moderation might just help to bring the two sides close enough that there could be reasonable debate on issues instead of everyone squaring off in separate camps to hurl insults at each other.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Oh my! Another "heretical suggestion"

I didn't read this post past "This may be heresy to some (many)..."

Why? I think it's the most self-congratulatory and obnoxious conceit that DUers use. Ooooooooo....you're saying something that might be outside the box! Ooooooooo!

Fucking yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

[Poiuyt]

6. You don't have to be so mean about it

If you don't like the post, then don't answer it

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. I don't have to

but it's fun.

See how I'm being all subversive and heretical?...:eyes:

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Thanks for being so thoughtful

And I'm glad you're so sure of yourself that you're able to see my deceit.

Do you feel better for having posted?

As you say: "Fucking yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn".

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Not deceit

conceit.

And, quite frankly, yes, I do feel better. Thanks.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Glad to hear that .......

Conceit huh?

You know ..... your first reply to my OP added exactly nothing to the thread. Except to attack me. Which is fine. I'm a grownup and can handle rejection from the likes of you.

But what was your purpose? I'd honestly like to know. Were you in a bad mood? Does conceit or deceit strike your vaunted self as some moral failing of lesser people for which you're a self-appointed arbiter?? Do you simply like to hear yourself speak? Or were you hoping it would be some pithy thread stopper?

What was your purpose?

And why did you feel the need to post at all? If this topic bothers you, click it away. Or put me on ignore.

Or start your own thread ... which I see you only infrequently do.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. The topic doesn't bother me; nor do you

The affected and obnoxious rhetorical pretention to heresy annoys me. It's far too common as a thread opener, and strikes me as self-congratulation posing as proviso. The simple fact is that our culture pretends to value "different" thought, so opening a thread with "I may be behaving heretically here..." has about the same value as "What you're about to read is really edgy and cool and written by me" - and is as annoying. I have no problem with this topic, or you. I have a problem with the piddling way in which you opened and framed your commentary. And, as I'm trying to explain, that has nothing to do with you. You did not invent this stupid post opening, nor did you lend it its cultural weight. If anything, you were merely reproducing an annoying cultural habit, probably even unconsciously.

As for purpose, my only purpose would be to make one person stop when they're about to write one of the following to open a thread:

"I know I'm being heretical here, but..."
"I know that many here will disagree with me, but..."
"I know that I'm cutting against the DU grain here..."
"I know that I'm in the minority in thinking that..."
"I suppose I'm not in the DU mainstream when I say that..."
"Were DU a group of helium atoms, my opinion on the following topic would more likely exhibit the characteristics of neon..."
"I know I'm about to come off like a guy wearing the red Speedos in a room full of business suits but..."

or the other thousand and one variations of this unbearable, insufferable, transparent, and masturbatory rhetorical gambit...just to stop, for one second, just as their fingers are about to commit such tripe to screen, just a halt, a pause, a moment of simple reflection, and that during said pause, the writer would reverse from this horrible course, and see just how unbearable, insufferable, transparent, and masturbatory such sentiments really are.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. .

:rofl:

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. Almost always my exact response to it

For some reason, the 4,983,067 "heretical" statement just raised my ire.

But look on the bright side. At least you're an "individual" :eyes:

[Sparkly]

31. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeez....

Who pissed in your Cheerios?

[nishiki]

9. I think you are right on

John Kerry may have had this idea in mind when he made overtures to McCain as a possible running mate. We truly need a leader who is a uniter, and an alliance with moderate republicans is a good idea. A lot of liberals complain about the silence of Democrats, but I find the silence of moderate Republicans baffling as well. Why are the good hearted, fiscally conservative Republicans allowing this administration to walk all over them and hijack their party. By actively including Republicans who may have ideas that clash with our progressive agenda, but have not forgotten that they work for the people of the USA, not corporate special interest groups, we can negate the hard right and religious right who will be back in full attack mode once the Democrats get back in power.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[calimary]

30. Welcome to DU!

I'd hate to see it be McCain, although he'd sure have marquee value. Glad you're here. Help us GET RID OF THESE BASTARDS!!!!!!!

Visualize IMPEACHMENT!!!!

Then go DO something about it.

[newyawker99]

34. Hi nishiki!!

Welcome to DU!! ;toast:

[electropop]

10. We have a whole lot of damage to repair.

Our infrastructure, our environment, our educational system, our international reputation, and our military lie in shambles thanks to Republican irresponsibility. We will have to act in a concerted and unified matter to get the job done in a reasonable time. Most Republicans have shown they are incapable of responsible action or of working with Democrats. Granted, you list a few who might, but when push comes to shove, we need people we can count on for the tough votes and tough policies.

The whole Republican machine is about to fall apart. The party is feeding on its own, and its supporters are leaving in droves. We have no need to throw them a sop. We can attract many of those who are leaving, by demonstrating good governance. This can only be accomplished with a strong and decisive administration, ie all Democrats and progressives.

After Bush is impeached (by August 2006) and the House flips (in January), our Democratic leaders will have (if they choose to exercise it for a change) a great deal of influence. The Republican leaders in the House, Senate, and White House will all be seriously weakened, with many Republican Senators simply biding their time until '08 or '10, when they lose their seats. Their majority in the Senate will be weak, and their status in the House will be as a discredited minority. The appointed caretakers in the White House will be drawn from people very far down on the chain of succession, and for that and simple credibility reasons, very weak.

We need to prepare now for a strong comeback and act like a powerful and courageous majority party. If we continue to let our "leaders" act like whimpering, compromising sissies, we deserve to fade into oblivion.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Your comments put my mind on another topic ......

Wouldn't it be something if a few of the moderate repubs switched party after the midterms? Like the Maine senators and Chafee? A few others, maybe?

Anyone in the House?

[electropop]

33. Not at all unlikely.

Lots of folks simply want to be on the winning side, and are not so extreme in their views that they would have a problem with our side. From the viewpoint of their constituents, many may be more interested in having their Reps/Senators holding good committee seats etc, than in which party they are.

[T Wolf]

11. No! No! A thousand times, No!

This turning the other cheek will only get our throat slashed while we are looking away.

How many times do Dems have to get fucked over by the pukes before they (you) learn the lesson? You cannot compromise with them. As predators, they only view that as weakness.

In political terms, you can argue (unsuccessfully I think) that moderation and compromise might be more effective in getting elected.

But, in terms of governing. No fucking way! If (and I do think it is a very big "if") the we take control of both Congrss and the WH, the only sane course of action would be to do everything to purge the filth that has been running the country into the sewer. Put them down and keep them down. They have nothing to contribute to what would be an almost impossible job of correcting the course and would do everything to sabotage the effort, ensuring that Democrats would get blamed for the failure.

Sure, in a perfect world, all people would work for the betterment of all people. But we know that is not reality. Reality is the fact that unless every trace of the pukes is removed, they will only cause further harm.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Quite a leap, there. Why did you see the need to personalize this?

This part of your otherwise thoughtful post was not needed :How many times do Dems have to get fucked over by the pukes before they (you) learn the lesson? Clearly that leap about my not having learned lessons was based on your obvious leap to a conclusion and your black and white thinking.

Now, that aside, let's go to what you actually said. It seems to me your thinking is very black and white. How is that any different from how we see the republicans? The world is many shades of gray. For some republoicans, what you say is absolutely true. For others, not so much. In fact, for the one's associated directly with this administration or the leadership of today's GOP it is true. But for all republicans? I don't think so.

Let's take a look back in history. Reagan. Do you remember the Reagan Democrats? True enough, some of them were ultra conservative, mostly religious, old time Democrats who saw their party move left. But many were simply tired of what Reagan painted as the 'problems' with the left. The republican counterpart of them is who this might be aimed at.

Reagan did nothing that was left leaning. And yet those people stayed with him. Imagine the same thing, but this time a move to the left. An administration (and a party) that appeals to the squishy part of the right, but governs left, left, left.

As to finding people to serve in such an administration who could do this and still remain acceptable to the right, think of pigeonholing. Let's say there's a Republican who agrees with us on, I dunno, environmental issues. Have him serve is Interior secretary. Who cares what else he believes? He will have narrow influence.

That's what this is about.

What it is NOT about is moving to the center or appeasing. For that, I agree with you. It is a losing proposition.

[starroute]

13. The Republican base would consider them traitors

Bipartisanship in this country is effectively dead -- as least as far as the right is concerned.

When I was a kid, bipartisanship wasn't just a catchphrase. The Republicans and Democrats often agreed on foreign policy and saved their differences for domestic policy. Even domestically, the differences tended to be more between how quickly and how abruptly to make changes rather than in the nature of the changes themselves.

Real wedge issues didn't show up until the late 60's, starting with Vietnam but also with things like school busing. And the wedges have gotten worse and worse. The divisions now run all the way down to the root.

There are still Republican moderates around who might be prepared to work with Democrats. (Weren't one or two of Clinton's cabinet members Republicans?) But the Republican base would disown them if they did. And there's no way of working with the real wingnuts.

So what you say sounds good in theory, and it might even help win over some of the soccer mom types, but it's not going to heal the real divisions in the country.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. You may well be correct .......

At least about a repub VP right now. That would likely do just as you suggest it might.

[NinetySix]

15. HERETIC! Burn him, burn him!

Actually, I think there is a role to be played in politics by both liberals and conservatives. It's true that liberals, as well-intentioned as they are, often overreach themselves.

The proper role for conservatives is to provide a circumspect point of view so that good ideas flourish and ill-conceived ideas wither. Despite the political vitriol and rancor of the past 25 years, there is a place in the political discourse for both.

Find a Republican who genuinely agrees with this sentiment, and I'm all for the idea.

[Rowdyboy]

16. I understand your reasoning but I can't agree with your conclusion....

A progressive nominee who selected a Guiliani, a Pataki or a McCain would set off a fire-storm at the convention. I believe he or she would face a walk-out by many delegrates and the vp nominee would likely be booed from the floor.

I really don't see this as a viable option at this time, BECAUSE the country is so bitterly divided.

[karynnj]

23. I agree it won't work, but for a different reason

The VP has almost no real powers. What's in it for most people is that it greatly increases your chance to be the Presidential nominee. Would the Democrats 8 years down the road nominate the Republican? I doubt it. That leaves only a bond of trust that the VP will get to do somethings that are in his/her interest area, where the vp and President have similar goals. (Would the Democrats have backed pro-life conservative John McCain?)

The only other function is to become President in case the President dies.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. I see your point ........

.... in fact, you make several points and I understand them.

But isn't it true that the vice presidency has changed in recent years? Not officially, to be sure, but in practice. Gore was quite active. Cheney even more so (I ****love**** today's headlines!).

The issue of nominee successorship .... yeah, that's a problem.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

25. I agree

but for the Republican VP I'd rather see a socially conservative, economically liberal Republican. I'm not sure if such a beast exists but I'm afraid if we had a pro-big business VP then we'd still see a lot of corporate crime.

[calimary]

29. What would be indescribably delicious is if a Dem presidential

candidate had GOPer Chuck Hagel as a running mate. This is NOT a bad idea, actually, and presents plenty of opportunity to plead for unity. Besides, Hagel, who's a moderate, and is pro-choice, is big with the Diebold company. If he wanted to "influence" the voting, as such, he'd have to do it for his own ticket - with the Dem on top. Wouldn't that be wicked!?!? :evilgrin:

[Sparkly]

32. I think if there were a way simply to get the TRUTH out...

It would bridge a LOT of the divide. Some righties might even view it as Democrats becoming "moderate" -- at this point they think "Liberals" are out to burn the Bible and persuade children to engage in gay sex and whatever else.

Telling the truth about ultra-rightwingers wouldn't hurt, either.