Partisan? Bipartisan? Either answer means you don't understand the question

Partisan, bipartisan, nonpartisan. They're all equally suspect.

The entire issue needs to be reframed. If you think it's about whether to be partisan or bipartisan, you are falling into a trap.

It's about whether to listen to the will of the people or to ignore them.

Most Americans are concerned about health care and some are literally dying in the struggle to support a better system that takes the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies out of the equation. It is Congress, the President, and the aforementioned robber barons that are providing the obstruction. Not the American people.

Most Americans recognize Iraq is a huge mistake that is destroying lives, depriving the economy of billions, and sabotaging decades of priceless international good will, and they want to get our troops out of there is soon as possible. They don't want troop withdrawal to blow up in our faces, but they definitely want the troops out. It is Congress, the President, and the military industrial complex that are providing the obstruction. Not the American people.

Most Americans recognize that global warming is a real and serious problem and that we need to do something about it right away. They have concerns about the effect it will have on their lifestyle, but they don't want to leave their children with flooded cities and an uninhabitable planet. It is Congress, the President, and the fossil fuel giants that are providing the obstruction. Not the American people.

Most Americans recognize that NAFTA has been devastating, casting millions out of work or forcing them to work inferior jobs. Sure, they like cheaper goods, but not when they don't have a job so they can buy them or the time so they can use them. It is Congress, the President, and the greedy corporations that are providing the obstruction. Not the American people.

Some argue that a call for bipartisanship means capitulation, while others claim that continued partisanship will only serve to insure gridlock. Both groups are missing the point.

The fact is that much of America is already unified on these key issues and many more. It is Congress, the President, and the presidential candidates who are providing the obstruction. Talk of partisan or bipartisan is a diversion. It only makes the issue murkier and almost guarantees that things will get worse not better.

The question is whether our elected officials are going to serve the people or whether they'll continue to do the bidding of greedy corporations.

I'd like to see which side of that question each candidate is willing to line up on. We already know where most of the American people stand.

:thumbsup:

K & R!

:kick:

:)

labels (whatever they may be) are used to keep the people divided.

K&R

The ballot box was how we were supposed to maintain control over special interests manipulating our governemnt.

But now the special interests, through campaighn money, have gained control of the ballot box itself. No one can even get on a ballot anymore without more financial backing than any honest person could be comfortable with.

The Founders understood the importance of the press to such an extent that they initially created the United States Postal Service, not so people could send cards and letters, but so newspapers could be distributed to citizens cheaply and quickly.

They recognized that an informed citizenry was essential to the health of a democracy. Now that the sources of information are largely controlled by those who have a vested interest in maintaining a docile and uninformed citizenry, one less protection against tyranny has been severely weakened.

What no one has considered is the possibility that Hillary might name a moderate Republican to be her VP.

Don't laugh. Bill had no problems cozying up to Republicans when it suited his political agenda. He named Bill Cohen as Sec Def, which put him in line for the presidency.

Why would Hillary do it?

1. It would really offset her very high negatives among conservative independents and right-leaning Dems.

2. Left-leaning Dems would be pissed, but would again be bullied into "holding their noses" and voting, since they wouldn't vote for a Republican. (They're real suckers for that holding the nose thing.) Some might not vote, but at least they're not voting for the other guy.

3. She'd attract a lot of independents, which will be crucial to the race.

4. It would also be an attractive alternative for a lot of disaffected Republicans who are appalled at the train wreck that is their field of candidates, allowing them to cross over without feeling too guilty.

5. The corporatocracy would be as giddy as schoolgirls with this arrangement and the money would arrive in dump trucks, while the corporate media trumpeted the "reaching out" and "healing" nonstop for months.

The whole travesty would be sold as a "bipartisan" effort to put all the nastiness of the last seven years "behind us" and "move forward."

I predict that with a Hillary/Moderate Republican ticket, they could win in a landslide, leaving the GOP to the 29 percent of idiot/traitors who now support Bush.

Of course, at that point, the merger of the Republicans and Democrats into the Corporate Party would be almost totally complete, lacking only the name change. And who knows, this might have been part of the back-room deal that got Hillary all those millions of dollars from the Corporatocracy.

I can totally see this happening.

The whole country has been so utterly inculcated with the bipartisan meme by the corporate media (who obviously serve to gain from such a scenario) that the pundits would be falling all over themselves to refrain from standing up and cheering, abandoning what little journalistic integrity they retain. Not that many are holding them to any sort of a standard anymore.

The resulting "unity" would be the equivalent of media consolidation. Great for business. Horrible for democracy.