I mean, why wouldn’t this be their approach?
They watched Dems in 2000 and 2001 and 2002 and 2004 snuggle up to Bush in the hopes that his success would shine on them as well. When he failed, the Dems couldn’t claim they thought these were shitty ideas all along because the Dems had voted for them.
They approached it as a gamble, which is insulting since war and torture are actual, you know, THINGS, and then they bet wrong, so they were losing losers who didn’t even have the courage of their convictions to keep them warm at night. Republicans, natch, took a lesson from that. Not about the courage of one’s convictions, of course, but about never hedging your bets.
A.
The Goopers are just following the Dole-Gingrich template from the first two years of Clinton’s term. I’m working on a post called: Frak Bipartianship. If things go wrong, the Dems take the fall anyway so why share the credit if they go well?
Obama is pursuing a ghost, when he works to end the partisanship in Washington. There will always be partisanship because everyone in Washington wants to keep their job, and that leads them to be partisans. What Obama should be doing, and may actually be doing, is keeping open the chance that any Republican can express his opinion and have it heard on any issue.
If you will recall, Bush’s Congress closed the doors to Democrats, so none of them were heard on anything, and the bills that counted were passed under rules prohibiting any amendments being offered, let alone being voted on. If Obama just stops that part of partisan government that will suffice.
The problem now is that he allows the Republicans to water down his proposals, hoping one of them will vote for the watered down version, but none ever will. As John McCain (who???) said, he will not be a rubber stamp for Obama – meaning he will never vote for an Obama proposal.
I think it’s time for an open letter to the Democrats and to the media:
Dear sirs/madams:
We, the people, feel it is time for a dictionary lesson. Bipartisanship: In a two-party system, bipartisan refers to any bill, act, resolution, or any other action of a political body in which both of the major political parties are in agreement. Often, compromises are called bipartisan if they reconcile the desires of both parties from an original version of legislation or other proposal.
For your clarification, bipartisanship does NOT mean that one party gives in to every demand of the other party. It means that both parties work to achieve an agreement. If the party in the majority makes the effort to work towards an agreement, but the minority does not, that does NOT mean that the majority party is acting in a partisan manner. Quite the contrary: it means that the minority is acting in an overtly partisan manner.
When such a situation occurs, it is incumbent upon the majority to explain the situation to the public, making it clear that any legislation that passes does so in the form it does solely because of the actions of the recalcitrant minority. Any failures of this legislation should be laid at the feet of the minority, because of their unwillingness to work to improve the legislation. Any successes occur in spite of the minority, since they refused to offer any constructive support for the legislation.
It is equally incumbent on the media to report this information accurately to the public.
Any failures to do so will be met with sharp and profanity-ridden criticism from the people, every effort by the people to hold elected officials accountable, and every effort by the people to make the media suffer for their failings.
DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?!!!
What will happen this time when Karl Rove tells Congress where to stick their subpoena? Will they have the guts to issue a warrant this time?
well, at least the gnews still likes democrats w/ no spines.
It’s way past time for the President to step on Boehner like a cockroach, then walk into the GOP conference room and scrape the goo from his shoe on Cantor’s wingtips. The only actions the dopes in the GOP respect are the ones that leave them with bloody noses and broken ribs.
Once you bring them into line, they’ll shape up because they have no leader and I don’t see one anywhere.
This is actually the only serious thing I had against Obama from the first. It was as if he really believed that there existed reasonable Republicans who would listen to him and decide to do the right thing rather than whatever would rebound to their short-term political advantage. I don’t know where he got that idea. In the relatively short time he served in the Senate, he must have seen hundreds of proofs that there are no such creatures, and that the basic operating principles of the Republicans are to screw Democrats in every way possible and prove that government cannot work.
I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here and hoping that he is making an opening gesture, publicly soliciting Republican support on his bill, so that when they obstruct (and really that’s all they’re going to do, ever), he can point to his efforts and their response as a reason for refusing to consult with them or reach across the aisle to them again.
Hey, a girl can dream, right?