To meet somebody halfway, both parties have to walk halfway. This is not the first time that Republicans have proposed compromise. Each time they have backed away when the Democrats agreed to support them. After a while you start looking like Charley Brown and the football. It is my belief, that Republicans are more interested in looking reasonable than being reasonable. They don't fear Democrats as much as they fear the right wing of their own party. The only way to put fear into them is a loss in an election.
Instead of reaching across the aisle to Republicans who have little desire to reach back we need to be addressing the concerns of the 37% of the electorate that call themselves independents and selling ourselves to them. If we are successful in this then the dialogue you want with Republicans will naturally follow.

Jack

(I know, I know, they don't exist. But explain to me then how the Salazar-Alexander amendment got 10 co-sponsors in the Senate, and Lugar and Warner offered their own version)

Once again our D.C. conventional wisdom fount fires off like Old Faithful. Those amendments weren't serious attempts to change Iraq policy, but fig leaves to cover Republicans for the 2008 elections. They were toothless charades to give candidates who have failed to question Bush for five years on Iraq the ability to say in August 2008 "Well, I voted for the Lugar/Warner bill that would have started us out of Iraq." The fact that the bills contained giant loopholes that would allow Bush to maintain the current policy would, of course, be forgotten.

"But even with all that justified anger, we are going to have to find a way simultaneously to make common cause with some folks on the other side of the aisle who can help us get out of Iraq and stay out of Iran."

Were you not afraid of terrorist attacks/retaliation from Iraq when you supported the Iraq invasion? Why are you now wanting to get out of Iraq and why is Iran different than Iraq?

On another note, why are you giving to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns as you noted in the Washington Post? It seems odd to give to two competing campaigns, the two that happen to be in the lead. The only other people I know who do that are lobbyists who want to make sure they've backed a winner so they can get what they want. Just curious. I hope these questions aren't considered "road rage".

Ms. Slaughter:

When you can find 11 Republican Senators who are sufficiently "bi-partisan" to allow a vote on Reed-Levin, then your ideas will have some value.

But until you can do that, you are nothing but a blood-soaked bag of hot air who prefers to bloviate from her perch in the National Security establishment while Americans and Iraqis are being slaughtered....

Here is what this administration is doing while you dither --- we are supporting and training the same Baathist terrorists we were fighting a year ago to make sure that they can sustain a civil war in Iraq. And we are doing it simply because we don't want Iran to have a stable ally in Iraq.

Every day that we continue on this path only makes the inevitable bloodbath worse -- and the blood of thousands of Iraqis will be on your hands as you blather about "lets establish a bipartisan consensus" instead of screaming "STOP THIS INSANITY" at the top of your lungs.

On another note, why are you giving to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns as you noted in the Washington Post?

its called resume padding. She makes sure she's in with the most likely winners in the hope that she will be appointed to various commissions and study groups that she can include in her already inflated resume -- I mean, she's basically nothing more than a well-connected college teacher .... but you have to wade through lines and lines of verbiage to realize that is all she has ever actually accomplished.

Shouting "STOP THIS INSANITY" is not enough: we need a method for changing the actions of our government.

I agree that Salazar/Alexander was cover for WINOs mand unworkable but they were WINOs in the first place because they were under political pressure from home.

Ms. Slaughter is at least trying to find the votes to move our government to a sane course of action.

I would prefer to do this by replacing the current crop of Senators.

If any of the Senate WINOs are in good faith they could come over to the Democratic party and deprive Lieberman of much of his current power.

For the record one more time, I am as outraged as anyone about the things that this Administration has done in America's name.

I don't figure you're outraged enough to demand remedy.

But even with all that justified anger, we are going to have to find a way simultaneously to make common cause with some folks on the other side of the aisle who can help us get out of Iraq and stay out of Iran.

There's one of those "buts" again...

IMO, making common cause with them is what got us into Iraq.

Making common cause with them when we controlled the house and Senate is what destroyed the regulatory agencies, brought trade agreements that destroyed our trade balances and exported our industry and tax bases along with high paying jobs, allowed public property and goods to be usurped by crony capitalists using a lie called privatization.

It was ignoring the needs and hopes of the Democrat grass roots voters in favor of Republican and Republican lite policies that lost the House and Senate and lost Gore the 2000 election not Ralph Nader. The Democratic leadership’s sorry Republican lite policy drift for 20 years before 2000 is why the voter base slowly stopped turning out, then did not elect Gore who only managed to sound like a democrat AFTER he lost. The bulk of the Democrat voters were offered almost nothing to help their life styles by the Republican lite DC Democrat leadership for years.

Do you really want to keep singing the same song that allowed what is now happening to keep happening? Sometimes some of you folks sound like Ber Rabbit telling Ber Fox, "please don't throw me in the briar patch, anything but that briar patch."

More of the Democrat base turn out last cycle and gave the Democratic leadership the whip hand in the house and Senate to stop this nonsense but the Republicans still want the Democrat leadership to make common cause with their middle class and Construction destroying policies and the sold out fools in the leadership are doing it…and here you are encouraging more of the same lunacy.

If Reed, Pelosi and the other National leaders don't start serious investigations into illegal and unconstitutional behavior with the aim of not letting these criminals finish their corrupt terms in office the Democrat Party is finished and so very likely is democracy in America. And mark this, the fault will not be Nader’s he just tried to stop the rot more than eight years ago. With everyday that passes what Ralph Nader had to say about, how and the whys of who runs this country and how to stop it becomes more and more obviously true. Why blame Mr. Nader for telling the truth and trying to do something to do something about it?

The cave in on the FISA restructuring was the last straw for me. Did you know that under the old law the administration had there days to wiretap anyone before they had to apply for the warrant with a special FISA court. Prior to Bush a warrant had never been refuse and almost none of the ones Bush bothered to apply for were refused. Did you know that a federal court had ruled Bush misuse of wiretaps under the existing FISA law was unconstutional/illegal? Did you know that the reason the Bush administration did not obey the FISA law was because they did not want it to be known just whom they were spying on? Further that because of the court ruling they were about to be in big trouble. They were after political enemies…probably Democrats and the DC Democratic Party leadership just gave them a pass for past and future unconstituional activities against fellow Democrats and other Americans.

We need to move Reed and Pelosi out of leadership roles immediately then start impeachment hearings against Bush and Cheney the next day, as Reed and Pelosi are obviously compromised…possibly by illegal unconstitutional domestic spying.

Maybe what you should focus on is not so much bipartisanship as the central idea, but standing up for basic, non-partisan American values, and reaching out to all Americans irrespective of cultural or ideological orientation in moving legislation forward.

Bipartisanship is a frequent accident or side-effect of this strategy, rather than being the point or main theme of the strategy.
This is in fact largely what the current Dem leadership has been doing, as far as most legislation goes.

Iraq is its own beast because there are so many overlapping and interlocking waves of ideas and counter-ideas in the debate, which to some extent are addressing the situation at different levels, trying to solve different kinds of problems in policy, governance, domestic politics and international realities.

As well you have the shifting reality on the ground.

To steer the country as far as Iraq is tricky. Dems attempts to reach out have been used against them in a way destructive to American interests, simply because its such a hot button issue.

The media, blogs, pundits and insiders have in fact bashed Dems quite happily when they simply reach out.

Again, bipartisanship will inevitably be a side-effect of a winning strategy; you need the votes in the end.

But the actual strategy itself is more like walking effectively through a mine-field surrounded by snipers.

The kind of political leadership needed will call Americans to a common purpose, thus creating the basis for broad agreement, but will be assertive, leader-like, bold, tough, innovative, practical and savvy.

It will challenge politicians in living entrenched, narrow outlooks and not be afraid of having some people's buttons pushed.

Flexibility is required and permanently demonizing people is not helpful, but lacking clarity, being afraid to stand up or being chronically ambiguous are very serious problems.

Iraq and terror are not problems that will simply be fixed and go away, so an ongoing, dynamic, bold and creative leadership will be needed looking forward.

Sometimes the desire for bipartisanship can seem like wanting a happy 'ending,' but if the world is not getting less complex, then we should instead hope for a happy and viable future, even if ever-challenging, as we rise to the occasion.

I think most progressives simply want leadership that works, but are not at all opposed (and in fact want) a broad consensus moving in positive directions supportive of core American values.

After shrub attacks Iran and motor fuel goes to six dollars a gallon we'll see just how much redneck support they garner.
The only way it will work is if he times the attack so close to election day the sheeple don't have time to realize how it will effect them down the road.

For those interested in a psychological analysis of warmongering, I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It examines how the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives--concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq--or an attack on Iran--will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and how to counter them. It’s available for viewing HERE.

By the way, not a good idea to call Max Sawicky nuts when you're here indulging in all manner of conspiracy theory.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

You describe what Sawicky "sees as the entire American national security establishment," which implies you disagree with his characterization. Why, exactly, do you disagree? Name one thing Sawicky said about it that was wrong. It's not enough just to lob bombs at the guy.

Also, you might want to explain what this has to do with Nader.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Cheney is a cancer on the body politic.

Do doctors try and help cancer remain and help it get along with other cells? Let's see the result of such endeavors. Death, deficit, dishonesty.

Anyone who's sided with Cheney to the extent the GOP has is at the terminal stage already. As is Lieberman.

There are others who are at treatable stages. The condition has led to noticeable symptoms in pets, see also Blue Dog Democrats. It isn't too late for them.

How nukular do you have to go, what kind of chemotherapy will suffice? Bush wants to play mad doctor and go nukular on Iran. Too much.

We're not not talking depleted/desert storm syndrome levels either. The cure lies in same Chicago school these neocons were hatched, a war that didn't happen ago.

Well not in the school of Chicago, more like its 5th Federal District. Fitz therapy. Independent counsel. Narrow, powerful, targeted dosage. Let's cure these ills and end the war that didn't have to happen.

See also, lack of universal of health care.

And to be fair, I see that I have ascribed support for the FISA amendments, among others, to the "Democratic establishment," which isn't really accurate.

In fact, the D's congressional leadership have been mostly good on these issues, but they have been hamstrung again and again by Democratic "moderates" who defect at the drop of a hat, whether voting for FISA, cloture on Alito, or the like.

Which is rather my point.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Nader's attack on the major parties sank Gore and gave us Bush. Why does that suggest that an attack on the GOP consensus will harm America? If it "sinks" the GOP and thus ends the war, that'd be a positive, no?

For that matter, if Gore had indeed been indistinguishable from Bush, as many Nader supporters felt, than there'd indeed have been no harm in sinking Gore. Doesn't that imply, then, that you'd actually have to show that attacks on Bush's foreign policy are wrong? I don't hear any discussion of this. The blogosphere is notoriously bad at partisanship, in the sense of standing united behind the Democrats. But I think it's on to something that changes in the administration and the GOP have not brought us one step closer to peace anywhere.

Finally, if I follow this correctly, pointing out too often that the war in Iraq is a lousy thing and that war in Iran would be worse somehow would cause the administration to fire or sideline Gates and Rice and invade Iran. What?

Anyhow, I still wait to hear what the "bipartisanship" is other than a backing away from any stance critical of blind militarism and America first. As the Dixie Chicks didn't quite say, you make me ashamed to have gone to Princeton.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Isn't now usually the time in the discussion where Rachel Kleinfeld shows up to defend Slaughter and make references to Harry Truman?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Until moderate Republicans (once defined by Mark Russell as "those who use forks and knives") re-assert control over their party, bipartisanship is nothing more than a code word for appeasement.

Ann-Marie, you send conflicting messages.

Your major message is:
Democrats should join with those Republicans who have enough courage to recognize the error of the administration's ways. (And whom would that be?)

But then you say: Decent people across the political spectrum should stand up not for their party but for their country.

A lot of us see the latter as the more important. As Sawicky wrote: "Forget "bipartisanship." We need less Democratic Party syncophancy and more full-blooded anti-war commentary. To set the ship on a better course, you have to be ready to sink it."

Example: A major reason for "road rage" (your term) on the blogs is the recent vote on the unconstitutional FISA bill which received BIPARTISAN endorsement from 16 Dem senators and 41 Dem reps. Not nice.

Please decide on one message, preferably the "decent people" one.