If Obama and Dems want to portray GOP as crazy hostage takers, why do they agree and listen to them

[yurbud]

than their own progressive caucus?

If you judged the administration by their actions, they think corporate Democrats and the GOP are the only players in town, and the progressive majority of the party and our representatives are the crazy aunt they keep locked in the basement and only let out when it is time to vote.

[pnwmom]

1. Because the crazy hostage takers are their co-equals in legal power

since they control one of the two houses of Congress and, through the filibuster, have minority veto power over the other.

The Constitution requires us to negotiate with them, whether they are crazy and evil or not.

[villager]

2. I guess that doesn't explain the same penchant exhibited when the Dems controlled both houses

n/t

[pnwmom]

3. You know we never controlled both houses because we never had

the 60 votes required to overcome the filibuster that -- for the first time in history -- the Rethugs decided to use for practically every vote.

You know that Lieberman was an independent, not voting with the Democrats at key times.

But you keep pretending we controlled both houses. Why?

[villager]

10. Thank God he kept caving in on every tough negotiation in advance, then!

After all, we've been entirely helpless this whole time!

[yurbud]

16. more pertinently, why didn't Dems use filibuster when they were in minority and Bush in office?

it is evidence of either corrupt complicity or cowardice.

[pnwmom]

17. No, it's evidence of nothing except for the fact

that NO PARTY in history ever used the filibuster in the way that the Republicans have during the term of the first African American President in history. The Rethugs didn't do this to Clinton when he was in office, or to Carter. Why would we have done this to Bush? We still believed, at the time, in a functional government with people like Kennedy and Hatch reaching across the aisle to get things done.

[yurbud]

20. they had a chance to change it two years into Obama's term...

How long does someone have to keep taking hostages before you take away their gun?

[TheKentuckian]

19. Get real, the Constitution says 51 votes passes the Senate and we had one of the largest majorities

in history. Pretending only LBJ's and FDR's majorities were the only "real" majorities in 240 years is a dog that doesn't hunt and if it was the case then we should have went constitutional day one.

We controlled both houses because we had the Speaker and the Majority Leader. I guarantee we'd say the TeaPubliKlans controlled both houses if they had 51 in the Senate and their guy was Speaker.

[Kalidurga]

4. I know this is simplistic,

but the tea baggers have lizard brains and Democrats don't. Democrats have a tendency to want to hear both sides and cooperate. The lizard brains have a tendency to point fingers and blame.

[FiveGoodMen]

13. When one of the sides is "let grandma starve" you DON'T have to consider both sides

Compromise with evil is not a virtue.

[polmaven]

11. Speaker Pelosi's House

passed a TON of good legislation, which was promptly blocked in the Senate.

[pnwmom]

12. Exactly. Because we never had a filibuster proof majority

since Lieberman was no longer a Democrat by then -- having defeated one in the general election.

[yurbud]

22. the Senate Dems had a chance to change filibuster rule and refused, so they are enabling

their own beating--or they're just putting on a show for us before they go off for martinis with the Republican buddies.

[EFerrari]

5. .

[Erose999]

6. New shit has come to light! And shit... man, she kidnapped herself

A young trophy wife, in the parlance of our times. You know. She uh... owes money all over town, including to known pornographers.

And thats cool, thats cool.

I'm saying she needs money, man.

And of course they're going to say they didn't get it because... she needs more, man.

She's gotta feed the monkey.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

7. NEVER judge anyone by their words. Actions are all that matters

That includes politicians and political parties. What does that tell you? Democrats are just putting on a show. They just want to collect their paychecks and go home - not actually have to FIGHT to REPRESENT the people who voted for them. They will only fight for those who BOUGHT them, which most of us cannot afford to do.

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Just fucking exactly!

Actions are all that matters.

Everyone repeat that 100 times a day till it sinks in!

[readmoreoften]

8. What's more: if they're so crazy why put a premium on a happy "middle ground"?

Who wants to be in the middle of crazy?

[FiveGoodMen]

14. "Who wants to be in the middle of crazy?"

That's a great one-liner!

I'm going to use that.

[Armstead]

9. That's the basic conundrum n/t

[swilton]

18. Can't rec this highly enough

Democrats have such a piss-poor performance vis a vis legislation - standing up for democracy that they now must resort to bashing the GOP as their sole campaign message.

[Solly Mack]

21. All about the rally cry.

The rally cry allows supporters to vent. Always - ALWAYS - direct (and it is very important that you do direct) the emotions of your supporters, be it anger or happiness.. or what have you. Direct the bad away from you (and onto the other side) and the good toward you and away from the other side.

This is true of any group, team, whatever. Nor does it preclude factual statements as a rally cry.(Teabaggers are crazy. George Bush was (is) dangerous for the country)

Course, then questions arise - sooner or later for some - like the one you have asked.

If you want me to believe someone or some group is crazy or bad or horrible for the country, why do you also want me to believe I can compromise/trust with such people? (or why should the group compromise/trust))... Or that such people have the best of intentions, or that, somehow, it's just a difference of opinion/policy when it comes to things like torture,"entitlements", food safety, job safety, fair labor laws, etc.. Areas that have far reaching ramifications or consequences and aren't normally seen as simply a matter of different opinions.

And the answer is...the rally cry. Direct the venting of emotions, be they positive or negative. If I think so and so is bad or such and such is bad and you validate my thinking by also saying it (agreeing with me) - and you're a leader of some kind and I look to you as a leader - then I'm gonna be more expressive in my emotion and I get an emotional release, of sorts. A positive experience. Mission Accomplished. That release? It can satiate and calm or satiate and rile..and any ties you may feel to a person or group is strengthened.

This also works when watching the other side speak as a group...you get angry or upset...or may even laugh at the ignorance...but in doing so as a group...you're validated and you get that release (ties to your peers)...and all someone with "authority" (however one defines it) on your side has to do is agree...even mildly...and the ties to the leader/larger group are strengthened.

I'll shut up now.

ETA: Within any group there can (does) exist sub-groups and sometimes the dynamic shifts to keep sub-groups "in-line" (not a phrase I agree with but one that does accurately reflect the sentiment of action) with the larger group...doesn't always work (schisms develop)...or to cast a more appealing light (varies depending on who/what is being appealed to) to those being appealed to... (think - the "extremes" argument of the middle ground or the GOP attempting to dissociate itself from Bush (but not his policies, of course)...teabaggers. etc..)

Now..I'll shut up.