Mark Warner decries partisanship in Washington

RICHMOND -- Outgoing Gov. Mark Warner thinks President Bush and the U.S. Congress could learn some lessons from Virginia, such as lawmakers putting aside partisanship to get the job done.

The Democrat, who leaves office Saturday, said cooperation has led Virginia lawmakers to improve the state's finances and enabled them to fund much-needed projects, such as the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay.

"In Washington, people are more interested in scoring partisan points than getting things done, and I think there is a real yearning in this country for action," Mr. Warner told The Washington Times when asked about the partisan atmosphere in Washington.

"To a degree, both parties are guilty," he said. "If it's not absolutely their way, they say they'd rather have no action than their ideologically pure solutions. I think that's crazy."

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20060108-104554-5706r.htm

... doesn't get it, does he? *sigh*

they are Republicans, but because they are a bunch of thugs, period. That is NOT partisanship.

Unfortunately, Republicans are mostly partisan. They would jump off a bridge, if Bush so ordered.

Democrats want their leaders to make modest compromises on their principles in order to win over voters from the middle of the political spectrum, while most Republicans want their leaders to stand firm on issues, even if it means losing moderate support, the poll shows. While 61% of Democrats agreed it was better to compromise to win broader support, just 44% of Republicans agreed. Independents, by a 58% majority, agreed that softening some ideological stances to attract moderates was the best strategy.

The survey showed that 93% of Independents, 63% of Republicans, and 79% of Democrats wanted candidates who were independent of party leaders and were willing to compromise to get things done.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1050

rather than pinning some of the blame on dems - would instead harken back to the era of real bipartisanship and efforts in the 80s. Why did we not see ths bush gone wild era under Reagan? Because there was a division of power (dems held House, and some of the time also the senate), and to get things passed there was bipartisan efforts.

To go on includes the difference of how the WH tags things bipartisan today (that is two dems = bipartisan); vs real bipartisan efforts; and the change into the winner take all political pointsmenship that began with Newt's assent into the GOP leadership, I believe back in the late eighties.

It isn't about "compromise" as much as it is about really working together - listening to the concerns of the otherside and then, policy wise, working for policies that address concerns on both sides.

Instead, in the DeLay era, you have a totally new phenom - of getting votes on bills in both houses, then creating a conference committee *which used to hammer out differences between the versions of the bills* that locks out dems from participating in the conference committee - totally rewrites the legislation (so that things that were in neither bill suddenly appear) and then giving almost no time for dem members of the committee to review before pushing it out of conference and back to both houses of congress for a vote. There is no place for compromise in this form of "bipartisanship" as their is no voice for dems in creating the final legislation. Ergo the only form of compromise becomes.... voting for it as is rather than rejecting the whole process by not voting for it. That is NOT how congress used to work.

Don't know how to boil that down into short snippets - but in my mind... that is a big crux of the problem and it is more about how the GOP has been running congress in order to prevent bipartisan efforts, than it is an issue of either side not being willing to compromise.

Warner is quilty of the "even Handed" condemnation that is so prevelent - even when the facts indicate otherwise. There is an administration who think compromise means do everything 100% there way because "elections have consequences". The latter is true, but winning 51% of the vote doesn't mean that not even a comma should be changed in the bills sent by the administration.

What bipartisan bills should they be working on that they aren't? Olympia Snowe and Kerry quickly had legislation to help small businesses affected by Katrina which was mainly written by Kerry. It passed the Senate with 96 votes, only after Kerry's name was removed as a sponsor. (This was done AS it was being voted on - this is truely petty.) There is no bipartisanship on things because the Republicans insist on things the Democrats can't accept.

In several floor speeches, Kerry has brought up how the Senate was always the deliberative body and that there was considerably less partisanship. He talked about how sad it was when a Republican Senator commented that he never saw a Senator do what Voinivich did in breaking with his party over Bolton. Kerry's comment was that this used to happen all the time and he lamented the RW attacks on Voinivich because of it.

Warner's comments bother me because he blames both parties. It makes him appear pompous in suggesting he's superior to these feuding legislators. It also is eerily similar to Bush's claim to the same thing in Texas. In both states, there was less "distance" between the 2 parties than there is nationally.

... and ram it up the Democrats' collective ass. That's what's been happening since 1994. And will go on happening as long as any Democrat thinks the Republicans won't do it or that that's what the public wants.

The polls have always suggested that the public--the broad middle--wants true bipartisanship, and yet, that middle has, in the last twenty-five years, generally sided with the Republicans when the chips are down. Those poll results simply bear out the point--who in 2004 did they believe would negotiate and compromise to get things done? The Republicans. It was all smoke and mirrors, but the public wanted Bush in charge because they believed, without any evidence at all that Bush was the guy to make that happen.

Back to basics--Grover Norquist it was, I believe, who said, "bipartisanship is the equivalent of date rape." He didn't mean that Democrats were raping the Republicans by that belief. Quite the opposite. Paeans to fellowship and comity fall on deaf ears these days. Until the Republicans are well and truly fucked forever in their attempts to take over the entirety of the government for the sake of the elite in this country, they won't stop at what they are doing. Any Democrat who believes the current crop of Republican voters (or independents) will respond to appeals to true bipartisanship and compromise is a horse's ass. That's a Democrat who will be used and abused, fucked in the ass in the campaign and discarded.

When Roosevelt was running for president in 1932, he put it plainly--he called the Republicans and their wealthy and corporate supporters "the great malefactors of wealth." He won by calling the bastards out, by defining them, pointedly and plainly, in terms that exactly described what they were. Democrats will not win, solidly, until they begin to speak truth to power again. Is that what Warner is doing by his appeal to a bipartisanship which is not deeply felt by both sides? No.

I think Ma. had checks and balances before the country did. we sure did not like rule by family birth (and still don't)

and I am starting to reject him. How come he already got asked to the Bilderburghers? He's looking a little too DLC for me. I do not want a move to the center, I want a clearly liberal Democratic candidate to come in and soundly and decisively beat the Republicans for their hard-ball, corrupt, crony ways. No more Republican lites. For the same reason I reject Hillary. I am now fairly certain that Feingold is the guy for me.

Take a lesson from the R's. Appeal to your core and the center will be dragged along - not the opposite. The opposite will cause a split and you'll find disgruntled people saying the hell with it and staying home or voting Green or something.

Although many people shy away fromn defining themselves as "liberal" these days, they are liberal when ut gets down to the nuts and bolts.

Bush tried to muck up Social Security and it came back to bite him in the butt. In 2004, many of the same voters in at least two states that went for Bush also voted to increase their state minimum wage.

We have to stoip thinking that fighting for liberalism is eitehr "partisan" or "uncompromising." It IS the center to fight for the principles of common-sense liberalism.

I absolutely do believe that the majority of Americans are fairly liberal in their overall outlook. We've all been marginalized and polarized by "wedge issues". I am beginning to believe that the issues that we seem to have irrevocable splits over - abortion, gay marriage mainly - should be split off as states issues. If this were to happen, I feel quite certain that the more liberal states in regard to these issues would be a magnet for population and business and the rigid red states would die of anemia and lack of new blood as their populations grow old and die with no one to replace them.

(I posted this - but I actually don't believe a word that I wrote - because the theory above DID NOT work when slavery was the issue, and there's no reason to believe it would work today either. But, I wish it would.)

Oh, wait, got ahead of myself -- that's tomorrow's pitch. Today's is the laudatory piece about Mark in the notably non-partisan Washington Times.

right on... But Id argue that the Republicans are much more infatuated with partisanship and 'winning elections' rather than doing what is best for the country.

If someone is beating you with a two-by-four, you don't win the fight by compromising and trying to fight back with a tothpick.

Compromise is a worthy goal. However, it only works when it is coming from both sides.

Warner and Kaine's success in VA is a prime example. The voters were tired of nasty campaigns, unwarranted attacks, and partisan gridlock. That is why they elected Warner and that is why Kaine replaced Warner. They took the high road. Who's to say taking the high road will not work for us?

Just throwing it out there...

There is a big diffrence between meaningless partisan "spats" that are purely oriented to trying to score political points and actually standing up and fighting for principles.

Democrats have given up on so many princples that their actual challenges come to seem like mere partisan infighting.

What the GOP stands for, and what is has ben doing, is clearly WRONG. Fighting for what is both decent and better for the nation IS the high road.

unwillingness to get along is mostly one sided and comes from the Republicans and from them holding a greedy majority.The arrogance of the Washington Republican office holders differs from those in VA, simply because they can hide behind and are further removed from the votes they cast and not held as accountable as local state government reps are.
Warner decries something that will change when we again have a "check and balance" system of government in Washington. Until then, it is important for the democrats to stand up for the people of this country. Obviously, we are doing something correct since we are now favored over Republicans in most polls.

Warner declines to criticize Bush on the bogus and disastrous Iraq mission, and agrees with Bush's call for the privatization of Social Security. Thus, on (for starters) two key issues on which the general public most definitely does NOT side with President Doofus, Warner calls for capitulation to His Moronhood's handlers' agenda.

That's not about setting aside "partisan gridlock" and taking "the high road." That's about being a quisling.

When did Warner say he was pro-privitization?

Warner just went up a few notches in my book!

from one of his nurses that he personally knows mark warner. he's a republican. so i asked him "what do you think of governor mark warner" he said "really nice guy, self made millionaire". he also said that he was at some event with warner and that "he can really work the room". said that his sister is good friends with warner. i asked him "would you vote for him, i know that you're a republican, but would you cross over". he hesitated and said he didn't think warner had enough experience as a one time governor especially with the way the country is right now (iran, etc.) he did say that he thought the republican candidate would either be guilliani or McCain. he said "mcCain is very popular with the people". i said "he had me fooled for years but not anymore". that was pretty much the extent of our discussion as he had other patients to see. but when i left i felt very sad. i really like warner. Oh, he also mentioned how much time clinton spent as governor and said that the people on the left don't like warner. I told him i was quite aware of that.

how many terms did bush spend as governor? i know it was 6 years, but was that one term or two?

Most of his second term was spent running in the Republican Presidential primary.

:boring:

John Kerry has mentioned the partisanship on the floor of the Senate several times, stating that he can not recall a time when things were more partisan then they are today in his 22 years there.
However, Warner doesn't get it, Washington and national politics is different than state politics. In this case it appears Warner is just "tooting his own horn". He has spent just four years in a political position in a state- as Governor of VA, and I fail to see how that qualifies him to make such broad statements about Washington politics. I also don't think it was necessary to include the Democrats in his assessment. This just smacks of political positioning- big time.

Oh, and as a Democrat, I too want to see things get done in Washington, but not at the expense of the Democrats not standing up for what is right and just. Warner would have us not investigate the intelligence and misconceptions that lead up to the Iraq war, thus leaving the issue behind and no one held accountable. What message does that send to future leaders of our country?

In other news, Warner sounds like a Pollyanna. And he sounds like he's trying to position himself as an outsider.

Is that his predecessor, a Republican, screwed things up so royally that even the Republican legislature turned on him.

the fact that warner wants to get things done, don't blame the democrats for the terrible things that are going on in washington. The Democrats don't control anything so the Democrats aren't putting out these radical terrible bills and judges. The Republicans are!

partisanship. I'm tired of all the boot lickers...and it's starting to sound like you're one of them.