Cognitive dissonance, or what?

[nonconformist]

I've noticed something that is pretty ironic lately.

Now, for years, many here on DU have criticized the Clinton administration for it's compromises with the right-wing, resulting in rather crappy policy... there are a few examples, like for instance DADT, but most notably welfare reform. The criticism is valid.

Now, if you can wade through the right-wingish attacks on the Clintons prevalent now (cigars and blue dresses, damn woman is only a wife, that sort of thing), you'll notice that the Clinton administration is still criticized (rightly so) for bad legislation passed in compromise with the right.

And yet, these are some of the same people that are now trying to convince all of us... and the nation... that Obama's insistence on compromising with the right and pandering to moderate and disgruntled Republicans is the key for change, the key for winning, the key for a successful administration.

Ummm.... what?

[Xipe Totec]

1. You have a point

I'll leave it at that.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. There is some kind of half ass idea that Obama is going to appeal to

directly to the republican rank & file, not the actual republican congressmen. This is pretty far fetched.

[rinsd]

3. Compromise is only good when Obama does it, silly.

[DJ13]

4. Theres a difference between acting Republican, signing GOP bills into law (Clintons) and.........

........working WITH Republicans to get Democratic legislation passed (Obama).

[nonconformist]

7. Because Obama can convince Republicans that our way is the right way?

I'm not that naive.

[anigbrowl]

15. And yet...

A good many people I know who have been Republicans for years - 2 time Bush voters, in some cases - are drawn to Obama. To the point of switching parties, in some cases. They like him precisely because he is not steeped in ideology, and they're repelled by the ideological turn the GOP has taken in recent yeas. On the other hand, they still don't care for Hillary Clinton.

There are a great many moderate Republicans out there who voted for Bush the first time because they were tired of the political wars of the 90s and/or got hurt when the dot-com bubble burst. They voted for Bush the first time in the mistaken belief that he was a humble guy who would walk it like he talked it, and because his dad was actually a passable President - far from outstanding, but not all that bad. Then some of these same people voted for Bush again in 2004 because they were shaken by 9/11 and had been scared into believing the administration's lies about Saddam.

Now that time has gone by, now that the full awfulness of Bush's economic policies have come to light, and now that they are more likely to have a parent who's retiring (or in some cases, are approaching retirement themselves), they're reconsidering their political positions and finding a lot that they like in Obama's policies and his way of presenting them.

Perhaps you should talk to more Republicans more often. You don't have to agree with their politics to have a meaningful discussion about politics with them.

[nonconformist]

17. Not steeped in ideology? Obama's entire campaign is ideology!

That was really funny. The whole idea of bringing everyone together on the same page is the very definition of being idealistic.

And do you think those converted Republicans are suddenly on board with progressive, liberal, Democratic ideas? I don't buy that for a second. They may be sick of partisanship, but they expect moderation and compromise in government for their support. And, as we see, that generally leads to shitty legislation that everyone hates.

[BlackVelvet04]

9. Yeah, all the republicans are going to swoon at the great

oratory of Obama and pass any democratic legislation he wants.

Could you possibly be any more deluded?

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Why not, The Dems did for Reagan, Hill did for the IWR. Was she deluded?

[groovedaddy]

5. I've never gotten that "reach across the aisle" crap

The repubs only attempts at "reaching across the aisle" for past 7 years (or more) was so they could pimp slap Democrats.
Who is the stuff designed to appeal to?
Speak about what you stand for. Expect that repubs aren't going to agree with you. Tell the american people that we need more representation in congress to get anything done.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. When has Obama said that he would compromise with the right? Do you have a link to him

saying that?

[nonconformist]

10. Wow, he's said this numerous times.

He's talked several times about rising above partisanship and working with Republicans to reach compromises. He's "reaching across the aisle" and getting moderate Republican voters. This is a key theme to his platform.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. So providing a link to him saying he would compromise with the Repos should be easy. Yet none.

[nonconformist]

14. Are you saying he's not saying that?

Obama supporters not only admit that, but embrace that about him.

In any event, for starters, he's ran TV ads about working with the GOP:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/22/obama_ad_touts_work_with_gop/

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Working with Republicans is fine. Passing bullshit right wing legislation is another.

My mom used to say, "You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

I think Obama may have read, "How to win friends and influence people."

Paul Wellstone passed important health care legislation working together with, of all people Sen. Brownback. They didn't see eye to eye on much, politically, but they actually liked each other and respected each other, and they worked together on areas where they could.

The problem with Bill was he worked together with Repos on some real bad stuff. Like NAFTA, which a majority of his own party, not to mention his base, were adamantly opposed to.

So I don't see it as cognitive dissonance at this point. If Obama becomes the next President and he tries to compromise on basic Democratic core values the way I saw Bill do too often, I will certainly speak out about it.

[nonconformist]

26. But it will be too late then, won't it? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

27. It's already too late for Hill. She started crossing over in 1993. In 2002 she was still crossing

over, when she joined a small minority of Dems to vote with an overwhelming majority of Repos to invade and occupy Iraq to grab oil, water, and basing opportunities.

Obama hasn't crossed over as of yet.

The best way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior.

[readmoreoften]

30. What on earth do you think "working with the Republicans" means?

Working together to impeach Bush?
Working together to protect labor?
Working together to protect choice?
Working together to protect LGBT people from being fired?
Working together to make sure health insurance companies don't destroy the nation? (While taking more contributions from them than Republicans :crazy:)
Working together to WHAT?
To WHAT?
On rebuilding infrastructure? They want to outsource the work to Halliburton.

Oh, on the bipartisan stuff everyone already "works together on"... like making sure there's enough money for brownies on Friday at the CDC?
What "bipartisan stuff" is he going to do that isn't being done?
Isn't censuring MOVEON.ORG bipartisan enough?

[John Q. Citizen]

35. Are you pulling for a candidate who will

launch a military attack on the Repos? Kill them all? Kind of like in Kenya?

It apparears that in Kenya neither side will work with the other, that's for sure. It that what you want?


Or are you just looking for lip service? A candidate who will make bombastic speeches while voting for war with iraq? What do you want?

[nonconformist]

36. No, lip service is NOT what I want.

Which is what Obama brings to the table.

Your strawman about everyone literally killing each other aside, I want someone that will fight... that will fight for ME, that will fight for Democratic, progressive, liberal ideas. Someone who doesn't think that it's preferable to negotiate on the ideas until they're a tiny little nub of what they used to be. If I want wine, and the other side wants water, tea isn't going to make ANYONE happy. It's just less "offensive".

[Armstead]

8. It's a sticky wicket, I'll admit

My feeling though is that there IS a difference between starting from a clear position and negotiating from a position of strength, and starting out with the assumption that the other side has all of the advantages.

The first approach is a real negotiation. The second is simply a series of concessions.

[HeraldSquare212]

13. Did Clinton compromise on DOMA and welfare reform, or just give in for political expediency?

I think it was the latter. He was signed those bills even though he didn't want to, because he was afraid the issues would be used against him in the campaign. He couldn't figure out how to get himself out of those jams by anything other than capitulation.

[nonconformist]

16. At the end of the day, what's the difference?

Rolling over is rolling over. When you're talking about bringing both parties together and embracing moderate Republicans, what types of policy do you think will arise?

I know exactly what types of policy. Policy that ends up pissing everyone off.

[displacedtexan]

19. Who contolled congress until recently?

Imagine what the Clintons could've accomplished without lying, cheating Repukes
dominating congress and the press.

Just my observation.

[TheDonkey]

20. Clintons built the DLC but now Obama is the DLC candidate? whaaa??

Odd things.

[nonconformist]

21. Did you post in the wrong thread?

I don't see anything in the OP talking about the DLC.

But really, you should check out Obama's voting record, even though it's very brief, and compare it to Hillary's and the DLC.

But that's not what I'm talking about, nor what I asked. I asked how Obama working with the Republicans and pandering to their vote will bring about good policy, when history suggests that compromising with these assholes leads to nothing but shit.

[LWolf]

22. Good point. n/t

[Levgreee]

23. Adopting right-wing policies is different from compromising/working with them

no cognitive dissonance...

[leftofthedial]

24. make a deal with fascists

and the fascists will win

[nonconformist]

25. Precisely. nt

[sandnsea]

28. He's criticized Clinton's compromising with the right

but I'm sure I could post that 50 times and nobody would notice.

[nonconformist]

31. Just because he's criticized it means nothing.

So have his supporters. But we're being told that Obama wants to reach across, work with the Republicans, put Republicans in his cabinet, and his Republican support is touted as key to winning.

As I said, cognitive dissonance.

[sandnsea]

32. Where did you get all of that?

Being able to get things accomplished, like usaspending.gov, does not mean you're handing the country over to the Republicans. Do you know Kennedy worked with Orrin Hatch to get SCHIP? We need that kind of cooperation again. That's what Obama is talking about.

[nonconformist]

33. Yeah, ok. nt

[HughMoran]

29. This has been bothering me for quite some time

I have been trying to square the irony of the situation, but it just doesn't jibe for me.

It's not the message is it? It never was. It's the messenger. It was the affair with Monica. It's a highly driven woman.

It's embarrassment & sexism.

[ArkySue]

34. I don't want a compromiser

That's what Reid and Pelosi do, and it's working fine. :sarcasm:

I want someone to punch the damn Repubs in the nose and make 'em sit in the corner til they learn how to behave.

[nonconformist]

37. Exactly. Anyone who thinks this is an effective approach...

needs to ask themselves how they feel Congress is doing lately.