• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Republican Legislators Specifically Told Not To Cooperate With Dems

The_Animus

Illuminator
The_Animus
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
3,582
So sometime in the last week or two I was listening to NPR or its Wisconsin/Minnesota state affiliates. The show had on a Democratic woman legislator (though I can't recall from where) talking about women in politics. She mentioned how she decided to e-mail all the other women legislators from both sides to meet and get to know one another better in the hopes of being able to find common ground, discuss womens issues, and find areas of compromise to move legislation forward.

The first meeting or two went well and so they wanted to schedule a dinner. However, she was informed that the republicans had a mandatory meeting at the time, and asked if it could be moved back an hour to accommodate. So she changed the time of the dinner only to find the leading republican had changed the meeting time so it would again conflict.

After about 2 more time changes it became apparent what was going on. She learned after the meeting that it had been called specifically to tell the women republican legislators to stop meeting/caucusing/collaborating with the dems.

I apologize for not having a link to the show as I can't seem to be able to find that specific one at the moment. Perhaps someone else knows what I'm alluding too.

In any case i always see or hear the GOP in the media with some soundbite talking about how they want to work with democrats but those darn democrats just won't do it.

What a farce.

http://www.wpr.org/listen/419486
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AlBell said:
Obama, Reid & Pelosi. Ever heard of them? Farce indeed.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. The level of bovine fecal matter from the GOP doesn't compare in the slightest.

It's time for the GOP to grow up and start acting like adults.
 
While there is enough data to investigate more, there is not yet enough data to draw a conclusion
 
Last edited:
It also doesn't strike me as unusual--or even necessarily problematic--that party leadership would ask for ("tell") its members to hold to the party line.

Having multiple independent negotiators, each pursuing their own goals without regard for--or knowledge of--the overall strategy is probably a recipe for disaster.

Though, mind you, I would certainly set up a series of innocuous, friendly "dinners", as a way to troll for as many naive, well-meaning freshmen in the opposition faction as possible, and pump them for as much information and awkward promises as possible.

Worst case scenario, their leadership reins them in before they can do anything stupid, and I get to go to the press and complain that the other side doesn't want to play nice.
 
The_Animus said:
So sometime in the last week or two I was listening to NPR or its Wisconsin/Minnesota state affiliates. The show had on a Democratic woman legislator (though I can't recall from where) talking about women in politics. She mentioned how she decided to e-mail all the other women legislators from both sides to meet and get to know one another better in the hopes of being able to find common ground, discuss womens issues, and find areas of compromise to move legislation forward.

The first meeting or two went well and so they wanted to schedule a dinner. However, she was informed that the republicans had a mandatory meeting at the time, and asked if it could be moved back an hour to accommodate. So she changed the time of the dinner only to find the leading republican had changed the meeting time so it would again conflict.

After about 2 more time changes it became apparent what was going on. She learned after the meeting that it had been called specifically to tell the women republican legislators to stop meeting/caucusing/collaborating with the dems.

I apologize for not having a link to the show as I can't seem to be able to find that specific one at the moment. Perhaps someone else knows what I'm alluding too.

In any case i always see or hear the GOP in the media with some soundbite talking about how they want to work with democrats but those darn democrats just won't do it.

What a farce.
Click to expand...

Vague Democrat makes vague claim against opposite party; loyalists stream to internet to express outrage.

In other news, sun to set in West tonight; water, wet.
 
NoahFence said:
You've got a pretty interesting definition of the word "vague".
Seemed pretty specific to me.
Click to expand...

Sure, my mistake. Unnamed woman from unknown state who is told by unnamed source that unnamed party leader told them not to do something.

Pretty specific? I think you totally undersold it! That **** is crystal clear.

:rolleyes:
 
16.5 said:
Sure, my mistake. Unnamed woman from unknown state who is told by unnamed source that unnamed party leader told them not to do something.
Click to expand...

What he said. However, even if the original post turns out to be completely true, well then, **** YOU guys anyway.
 
The_Animus said:
I apologize for not having a link to the show as I can't seem to be able to find that specific one at the moment. Perhaps someone else knows what I'm alluding too.
Click to expand...

My searching has produced no results, but I am not an expert searcher. In fact, I may even be a below average searcher.

At this point, it seems as if 16.5 has the most objective stance on the allegations.


ETA:
Now I am thinking allegations may be too strong a word here. "Rumors of accusations" seems more appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
My searching has produced no results, but I am not an expert searcher. In fact, I may even be a below average searcher.

At this point, it seems as if 16.5 has the most objective stance on the allegations.


ETA:
Now I am thinking allegations may be too strong a word here. "Rumors of accusations" seems more appropriate.
Click to expand...

Even accusations seems a bit strong, IMO. I don't think there's anything inherently objectionable about a party wanting to present a united front, and taking steps to do so.

I also don't think that there's anything inherently objectionable about the opposition faction doing whatever they can to cast such steps by their opponents in the worst possible light. But I do think we should take such allegations accusations rumors with a grain of salt.

These are, after all, politicians, on both sides of the aisle. As the old lay has it, "my first thought was, he lied in every word".

ETA: And I don't think 16.5's stance is particularly objective, since it assumes a priori that the claims, if true, indicate wrongdoing. As I've already indicated, I don't think wrongdoing should be assumed even if the claims are true.
 
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
So sometime in the last week or two I was listening to NPR or its Wisconsin/Minnesota state affiliates. The show had on a Democratic woman legislator (though I can't recall from where) talking about women in politics. She mentioned how she decided to e-mail all the other women legislators from both sides to meet and get to know one another better in the hopes of being able to find common ground, discuss womens issues, and find areas of compromise to move legislation forward.

The first meeting or two went well and so they wanted to schedule a dinner. However, she was informed that the republicans had a mandatory meeting at the time, and asked if it could be moved back an hour to accommodate. So she changed the time of the dinner only to find the leading republican had changed the meeting time so it would again conflict.

After about 2 more time changes it became apparent what was going on. She learned after the meeting that it had been called specifically to tell the women republican legislators to stop meeting/caucusing/collaborating with the dems.

I apologize for not having a link to the show as I can't seem to be able to find that specific one at the moment. Perhaps someone else knows what I'm alluding too.

In any case i always see or hear the GOP in the media with some soundbite talking about how they want to work with democrats but those darn democrats just won't do it.

What a farce.
Click to expand...

Soooooo? Just call me Quelle surprised!!!
 
Note, on this I'm gonna have to go with the politicians from the Rong side who are on camera saying they won't support/work with people on their own side who work with Dems for that specific reason. That by itself makes this easily believable.
 
theprestige said:
Who cares? Do you suspect it didn't happen? Would anything important change for you, on way or the other?
Click to expand...

I think bipartisan cooperation can be a good thing, and is often a necessary thing simply for the legislature to carry out basic necessary functions of government, like passing a budget each year.

Not cooperating on big new programs or laws that aren't strictly necessary is one thing; not cooperating on anything at all, even basic housekeeping matters like passing a budget and making sure the government can pay its bills and carry out its minimum necessary functions is another.
 
It wouldn't be surprising, but it'd be nice to have more than 3rd or 4th hand hearsay as evidence that it even happened. Eyewitness testimony, at the very least, might be called for.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Who cares? Do you suspect it didn't happen? Would anything important change for you, on way or the other?
Click to expand...

It would provide proof that the GOP line about the Democrats not wanting to cooperate is a pile of lies.
 
theprestige said:
Even accusations seems a bit strong, IMO. I don't think there's anything inherently objectionable about a party wanting to present a united front, and taking steps to do so.

I also don't think that there's anything inherently objectionable about the opposition faction doing whatever they can to cast such steps by their opponents in the worst possible light. But I do think we should take such allegations accusations rumors with a grain of salt.

These are, after all, politicians, on both sides of the aisle. As the old lay has it, "my first thought was, he lied in every word".

ETA: And I don't think 16.5's stance is particularly objective, since it assumes a priori that the claims, if true, indicate wrongdoing. As I've already indicated, I don't think wrongdoing should be assumed even if the claims are true.
Click to expand...


I also would not describe as wrongdoing, but if the described version were literally accurate, it does make the GOP higher ups look childish by moving around mandatory meeting times (off topic:how common are these?)

I greatly doubt that such passive aggressive tactics would be used by people powerful enough to call a mandatory meeting, but if they were, then people wanting to advance women's rights have a right to be upset over that type of internal politics.

...........
What are the current numbers for each side?
 
Sorry. I tried last night to find it but I listen to probably 2 hours of NPR a day, every day and can't for the life of me remember the name of the legislator. It would most likely have been MPR, or WPR between 4 and 5 central time but I can't be certain it want an archived show being rerun.

I'm any case it was a dem woman legislator who brought together 4 other women legislators from each party. It was also those republican legislators who told her that their republican leader forbid them meeting anymore.

I can understand wanting party cohesion, but not even allowing civil discussion on topics with the other side only leads to a partisan Congress unable to do anything as we've seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom