Kerry transition teams taking steps to heal america
 

This is definetley going in the right direction

I know he's a dirty word to some, but this evokes memories of the Clinton Administration. We had, most notably, William Cohen for DOD. The nation is really fractured right now. I hope Kerry does this and that the Democrats aren't so petty as to hold a grudge.

I have high hopes for some level of unity from both sides should Mr. Kerry take the helm. But, I also feel it will be an uphill battle for a couple years, as we are so badly divided right now. Still....this is a good sign.

He has tight friendships with several high ranking Republican Senators. Luger, Hagel, Chaffe, Snowe and McCain.

That will at least help.

I'm not sure what I'd classify McCain as, but probly independent, not republican. He holds the views, but isn't what I'd call a member of the party.

I hope he does just as well as Clinton did, 1994 was a wonderful year.

Honest question. Is this sarcasm, or did something "good" happen during 1994 when Clinton was in power?


Mr Mephisto

Yes and yes.

administrative reminder: sarcasm does not function well here. in fact it is frowned upon because it has a deteriorative effect on mutual respect and collegiality
...

"I hope Kerry does this and that the Democrats aren't so petty as to hold a grudge."

Yes, absolutely.
This is crucial.
We are at a near crisis in our lack of cohesiveness and unity of purpose. We must rise above mere partisanship.
Thanks for the post, Superbelt.

He's referring to the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994.
Which had everything to do with a bunch of pussy democrats who wouldn't support the president from their own party. The ensuing gridlock gave the Republicans the opportunity to argue to the american people for a more efficient legislature.

Bush tried this, the democrats stabbed him in the back every chance they got.

The questions isn't if democrats will hold a grudge, the question is will republicans.

What Democrats were installed by Bush to high ranking positions? What Democrat interests were pushed during his administration?

I am more worried about after the past two years of being locked out of virtually all decision making, the democratic caucus sees Kerry installing several republicans in high positions in his administration as an affront. I would see it more as a healing process myself.
I am not too worried that the republicans will hold a grudge. For the most part the legislature will accept a transfer of power graciously in a smooth and decisive election, which we all have to just pray for right now.

Good discussion. Makes me want to resurrect the non-partisan/bi-partisan threads I started about midway through this.

I hope this tack continues through a potentially disputed election process, on through January, and into the next Presidency.

source Rolling Stone 11 Nov 2004, issue 961

They didn't ask about Ashcroft :|

I have to agree with Kerry about his assessment of bush's team. The only one i have any respect for is colin powell and they drained all of his standing with the infamous UN presentation

No child left behind (Teddy Kennedy got to write the damn thing).
Perscription drug act (that was their agenda wasn't it?)

No Child Left Behind, but no money to go with it.

Prescription Drug Act was a total perversion of what the Democrats wanted. That's like taking your car to a detailer and saying you want fiery flames painted on the side and you get it back with pink daisies.

Conversely, Clinton was a willing and active participant in Welfare Reform and Welfare to Work. It was a real compromise bill. It wasn't exactly what anyone wanted, but at least it signified progress.
Early in Clintons second term He and the Congress compromised and reduced taxes for most americans and at the same time they cuts spending and instituted reforms that produced a balanced budget.

Can you really come up with anything that was on par with what Clinton accomplished with a Republican Legislature?

hold a grudge? against what?

I said earlier:

it is also tactical, this move on kerry's part: seeking to make explicit alliances with older-school republicans, the moderates, and by doing so perhaps to marginalize the bush crowd--which does not represent the whole of the republican party.

more power to him--i hope it works.

No. What Bush tried was to tell everyone how much of a uniter he was going to be, push his conservative agenda, and let his worshippers claim the Democrats were stubborn and backstabbers because they didn't just go along with whatever the man said.

And he was able to do this because his party controls the Senate and the House - i.e. He doesn't have to compromise on anything or offer anything, but he can still pretend to claim the high ground.

This is like the sharks asking a few barracudas to join them to unite their cause. What about the rest of us fish?

It ain't gonna happen. You think we're divided now with Bush in office? Hah! If that traitorous piece of scum gets in, expect gridlock the likes of which we've never seen before.

As the saying goes: "Payback's a bitch".

How very helpful.

Thank you for helping me understand this issue.

Mr Mephisto


PS - that also was sarcasm.

Thanks for helping us step away from ugly partisanship.

I agree that Kerry needs to include Republicans. What he really should do is get a few cabinet members who are old school Republicans - conservatives who believe in fiscal responsibility, a realist foreign policy, the transatlantic alliances, and civil liberties. This country is extremely polarized, and a Kerry administration will have to govern a country in ruin with a likely hostile Senate and House. Uniting the "old guard" of the Republicans with Democrats IS possible, especially as a reaction that both have to neocons and the Bush administration.

I do say this as a bleeding-heart liberal. Personally, if I had my way, the most conservative members of Congress would have ideologies resembling Dick Durbin's. Nonetheless, I think that as leader of this country, Kerry would do well to try and unite it, even if it means staying a little too far to the right.

Why should the Republicans do that? The Democrats have been foaming at the mouth for the past 4 years. Why shouldn't the Republicans return the favor?

That's like an armed robber getting shot by his victim, and whining "why'd he shoot me? That bastard shouldn't have had a gun!!!"

I won't get worked up until AFTER the election ;)

Bush looses then we can talk about revenge, though I doubt the Republicans will give aid and comfort to the enemy, so Iraq should at least proceed.

Why shouldn't they give aid and comfort to the enemy? If Kerry wins, that'll show that the American people SUPPORT treason....

The Republicans control the Senate and White House...why the hell do you need "revenge?" People love to talk about liberal whiners, but most of the "permanent victims" that I see here are of the conservative stripe. If it isn't the media, it's the "tin foil hat" liberals all conspiring together. Can we get a little perspective?

Because the Democrats created a huge amount of gridlock, so turnabout is indeed fair game. That's not revenge, that's using the Democrat's stategy against them, which certainly IS fair.

In another thread you argued for gridlock so please spare us the crocodile tears.

"revenge"
"bitch"
"payback"
"why should we?"
"treason"
"tin foil hat"
"liberal media" (why is that a bad thing, any more than "conservative media"?)
"gridlock"
"turnabout"



It must be great to be a "compassionate conservative". I only wish I were so perfect, so above criticism, so confident in my righteousness... I'd love to live like that.


Mr Mephisto

My position is consistent. In the other thread, I argued for gridlock. In this thread, I'm arguing for gridlock. We're talking about the republicans "playing ball" with the democrats so that the Democratic agenda gets pushed forward. I oppose that, and don't think that the Republicans should "play ball".

Please quote where I've EVER said that I was a "compassionate conservative". I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from calling me names. My wife just walked by, read what you and I wrote, and said "When have you EVER said you were compassionate about anything???" Gawd, I love my wife... :)

Nope, in this thread you are swearing "revenge" on the Democrats for their tendencies that have contributed to gridlock. Shouldn't you be congratulating them?

Please quote where I used the word "revenge". I'd appreciate it if when you quote me, you actually "quote" me, if you know what I mean, rather than put words into my mouth that I didn't say. Thanks in advance. :thumbsup:

You're right, you didn't use the word "revenge" (that was Ustwo), but you did say:
"Payback" meaning, perhaps, revenge? I believe that the intent is clear.

Kudos to your wife. It sounds like she has a sense of humour!

Now, to the point you raised.

If you look carefully at the words I quoted, you will note that they include quotations from the posts of Ustwo. Ustwo described himself as a compassionate conservative, so I used that term (in quote marks).

It was an attempt to be concilatory actually. Many of you use the term "liberal" as an insult, though I personally wear it as a badge of honour (only in the US does it seem to be a bad thing to be liberal!). Conversely, and to ensure you wouldn't be insulted, I didn't use the general term "conservative", but the nicer phrase (if you will) of "compassionate conservative".

So, the quotations above were not only from YOUR posts, but many of your fellow board members. I think we all now accept you, personally, are NOT a compassionate conservative.

:)


Mr Mephisto

Pride in a lack of compassion. :rolleyes: How anti-human of you.

Yes, but you see - that's because Liberals are bad and Conservatives are not. Ergo, Republican-induced gridlock is most excellent, and Democrat-induced gridlock is purely vile.

It's all very simple.