« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Bipartisanship Is Dead, Say Top Democrats

Bipartisanship, Obama hardly knew ye. Rest in peace.

President Barack Obama, who campaigned on the promise of changing the rigidly-partisan climate in Washington, has resigned from the prospect of bipartisan comprehensive health care reform, according to top White House aides.

Declaring war on Republicans critical of the president’s proposal, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel offers a far less rosy picture of Obama’s success in fostering bipartisanship than the image the Obama campaign created last November.

“The Republican leadership has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama’s health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day,” Emanuel said.

Democratic leaders say Republican obstructionism has forced their go-it-alone hand, but evidence exists to the contrary – namely the fact that off-message members of Congress have attested to the fact that Congressional Democrats were told, in no uncertain terms, to avoid bipartisan negations with Republicans.

Writing at The Huffington Post, Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper said: “And the White House released a statement praising this bipartisan leadership. In the House of Representatives, meanwhile, we are explicitly told not to work with Republicans.”

Like Obama in the White House and their colleagues in the lower chamber, Senate Democrats seem less than keen on bipartisan negotiations. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), in particular, expressed his aversion to such a bipartisan coalition of the willing when the bill was still in its infant stages.

“My goal is to write a good bill. My goal is not bipartisanship,” Dodd admitted in June.

Unfortunately, Dodd failed on both counts. And rather than concede that they failed in writing a good bill, frustrated Congressional Democrats are intent on characterizing Republicans as reflexively partisan, condemning them for putting the health care bill on life support.

Tense negotiations require courage to compromise and, if necessary, buck party leadership, but Obama possesses neither a genuine interest in bipartisanship nor the courage to challenge Congressional Democrats to pass health care reform. The fact that Obama, whose record on bipartisan compromise is virtually non-existent, has given up on negotiations should come as no surprise. What should be disturbing, however, is how coolly Obama deliberately misconstrues the situation.

“It’s a shame that the White House and their liberal allies are now trying re-write history,” said John Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. “From the beginning of this debate, Republicans have tried to work with the President and Democrats on real health care reform that reduces cost and expands access for the American people. Instead, Democrats played the old Washington game, bribing and log-rolling special interests to produce a plan that will cost at least a trillion dollars and just won’t work.”

Absent the ability to filibuster such a proposal, Republicans are not the enemies of Obama’s health care reform legislation – public opinion is. But if the President intends to pass health care legislation without Republican cooperation, he would do well to at least mediate the intraparty dispute over the public option currently stifling Democratic cooperation in this process.

The collapse of bipartisan health care reform negotiations rests squarely on the shoulders of the President. Obama has all the while maintained that his hawk’s eye for bipartisanship and his knack for finding common ground between competing interests would put an end to Washington’s partisan divide, but here we are, still faced with more Democratic doublespeak and hardball politicking. And there, health care reform lie dead.

Bipartisanship, Obama hardly knew ye. Rest in peace.

Cross-posted at Skepticians.com.

Follow James on Twitter.

COMMENTS

  • Finrod

    They have both Democrats and Socialists together on this issue, after all.

    • James Richardson

      House Democrats are revolting, and over 60 progressives said in a recent letter they will not support any legislation that does not include a public option. So they don’t even have their own house in order.

      • janis
        • WarEagle01
          • janis
        • WarEagle01
        • gazill

          you said it, they stink on ice

  • Big Apple Infidel

    With them it is all war all the time. Bush reached out to them after the contentious 2000 election and was rewarded with slam after slur. Since they took control of Congress, they have implemented rules designed to limit dialogue and speech from the right.

    They don’t want bipartisanship. They never wanted it. They want total control. In a sense, they act much like the islamo-fascists do. Negotiate when it is advantageous to them, but never stop trying to defeat the infidel. Conservatives are the infidels in the temple of secular progressiveness and collectivist belief.

    When will people on the right get this through their head and stop trying to engage these fascists in dialogue?

  • 10ksnooker

    — The Joker loves bipartisanship.

    The speed around the drain must be reaching dizzying proportions.

    Obviously, not enough stupid dumb Democrats, need to find some stupid dumb Republicans to reach the needed votes.

    The part the congressional clunkers don’t get is America is not a socialist shit hole, and as long as their are Conservatives, hopefully it never will be.

    • Ann_W

      They always do. Why are they Repubs. again?

      • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

        There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
        Will Rogers

      • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

        There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
        Will Rogers

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        I’ll bet dollars to shinola that they either pull a Specter and switch to dems (and hopefully take McCain and Grahamnesty with them) – or more likely they just get voted out of office and replaced with true conservatives. People are getting tired of being taxed to hell and back.

        • Marcus_Traianus

          However, if any of the party organizations give them financial support, it will be the coupe de grace.

          Maine constantly ranks near the top when polls are done about negative consumer confidence. Let’s hope these people figure out Snowe and Collins voted for the current misery in which they live. That will give us a chance to primary them out.

      • IJB

        This time, there’s nothing in it for them, for Collins and Snowe to defect.

        The Dems will be lucky if they don’t lose 10 on *their* side.
        They’ll get none from ours.

      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        Snowe(job) and Grassley… Grassley has already pushed the “Death Panel” (EOL – End Of Life counseling) provisions from Senate consideration… but this must NOT be allowed to be another Liberal Incremental-ism compromise – it must be completely DENIED!!! and only true Free Market solutions we as Republicans/Conservatives have tried to enact for decades to actually FIX problems in HC… This is the same, decades, old, Democrat HC TAKEOVER plan by any means they can widdle it through – even if piece-meal — and it is time it is NOT STOOD FOR in any way shape or form…..

        Party of HELL NO – Republicans must be the Party of NO [to Bigger Govt.] not the Party of SLOW[er Liberal Incremental-ism]

        and yes, you can quote me on coining the Gang Of Sicks ;-) lol

        • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

          so they (and others) can get more Ads on to counter: Harry & Louise want you to pay for their Head examinations?

        • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

          figuratively in the Political sense, of course… shame I have to even spell that out for the Politically Brain-dead amongst us.

  • Ann_W

    conservatives compromising their principles, never vice versa.

    People at town halls and other protests need to make signs like “We like the Republican plan for health care” or something like that. The MSM has gotten away with saying that there are no Repub. options. There’s at least the Patient’s Choice Act that Rep. Ryan from Wisconsin has been talking about. I’m sure there are more.

    • cclive

      The town halls have largely been portrayed as “angry mobs” and just opposition/obstruction. Where is the talk of Republican proposals like the Patient?s Choice Act? My concern is that Republican opposition has been defined and the Democrats still have room to maneuver particularly if they begin framing their position as a moral one.

  • dwintnf

    that people believed that candidate Senator Obama, who was rated the most liberal in the senate, was going to be bipartisan when he became president. Let’s not forget about that transparency thing too.

    Dw

    ***Obama lies and your Grandma dies***

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    Bipartisansship can be summed up by reference to Marx
    “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

    They are fighting a war and we are playing with tinker toys.

  • wgsampson

    If they pass this with no Republican support or input, then they will own the takeover of the Health Care, Banking, Automotive and Insurance Industries. They will also be responsible for the single largest assault on Small Business in American history. Conservatives will no longer be seen as the pawns of Corporate America. The Battle Cry for 2010 and 2012 will be simple, “Remember – We the People,” “Give America Back.”

    If Republicans are smart (as soon as this bill passes), they start campaining to overturn Obamacare, overturn Cap-and Tax, repeal Porkulus and give America back to the People.

    If they can figure that out, I don’t see how they lose.

    • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

      The Republican establishment?

    • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

      is that once they are given out, they can’t be taken back. Take medicare for example, Reagan was wise to warn against it. But no politician with any sense would campaign on the idea of ending medicare.

      ” If Republicans are smart (as soon as this bill passes), they start campaining to overturn Obamacare, overturn Cap-and Tax, repeal Porkulus and give America back to the People.”

      Once Obamacare is launched (IF it is launched) there will immediately be a sizeable chunk of people dependent on it, just like medicare, welfare, WIC, and other government programs. As far as porkulus, a chunk of that money is already spent. Gov. Jindal is requesting $300 million for a light rail to run between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. That money is coming from the Stimulus. This is the problem with so many of the democrat programs that force a portion society to become dependent on a socialist government. Once these things are given out, they can’t be repealed or taken away.

    • Vegas_Rick

      Each one, when enacted, will significantly increase the number of unionized government employees.

      Once that happens, the two party system is toast. The O knows this very well.

      • IJB

        Too many conservatives are assuming that enacting this program “ends the clock” and “it’s all over then”.

        Not this time.

        The difference is – SS and Medicare were actually *popular* when they passed. (That truth revolts me, but it is the truth.)

        Obamacare, OTOH, is already a bad odor with about 60% of the population, and that number is poised to go higher.

        If they succeed in enacting this via reconciliation, with about 218 and 51 votes, history will *not* repeat itself.

        It will result in 2010 being a political bloodbath of historic proportion (i.e. a blowout the likes of which none of us have seen in our lifetimes -it’ll make 1994 look like a piker), and the repeal of Obamacare will be so fast your head would swim.

        The problem with the Left is that they believe their own hype. If they try to go this route, it will end only with their political extinctions.

        But I guess you can’t tell a fool…

        • gensec

          It [enactment of Obamacare] will result in 2010 being a political bloodbath of historic proportion (i.e. a blowout the likes of which none of us have seen in our lifetimes -it?ll make 1994 look like a piker), and the repeal of Obamacare will be so fast your head would swim.

          Congressional districts are so gerrymandered into guaranteed Democratic and Republican seats, that the number of seats that can swing to either party in even the most sweeping landslide is extremely limited. In a very optimistic scenario, we could win a significant majority in the House (but not much better than 1994), and maybe a slight majority in the Senate given what seats are up for election this cycle.

          But there’s no way we would have enough to repeal Obamacare, requiring 2/3 votes in both houses voting to override Obama’s veto. The most we could do is try to starve the program by not appropriating as much money as it needs.

          But that tactic is tailor made for Democratic media spin. We’d see sob stories of suffering ladies on Obamacare needing a hip replacement or their arthritis medicine, but having to suffer excruciating pain because those heartless Republicans won’t appropriate the money. Eventually Republicans in swing districts and purple states (i.e. the ones who flipped the congress from Dem. to Rep.) would buckle under the pressure and vote the money to let the poor suffering lady get the treatment she needs.

          The best chance is holding our ground, stopping Obamacare now. Failure now makes any attempt to take back the lost ground a much longer shot.

          • IJB
          • OccamsRazor

            This is historically untreaded waters and I think the backlash will be as equally historical.

            Personally, I’m pissed that this country is having this discussion at ALL.

            Let us lock shields now however, dig in our boots, and push with all our heart. Let us move the Overton window as far right as possible.

          • IJB

            In fact, I agree with Dave_in_FL that it’s *already* buried, and the Radical Left & Obama just haven’t realized it yet.

            My original point was only that if the Dems pass this with no GOP crossover votes, and bare minimum majorities (losing even most of their own Dem “centrists” in the Congress on the vote), that the “this will never be repealed” meme goes right out the window – the people will *demand* that it be repealed under those circumstances. The Obamacare program will never even be implemented under that scenario – it’ll be strangled in the crib.

            (And for those that doubt this – look up the catastrophic medical plans that the Dems attempted to pass in 1988 & 1994. Never heard of them? Well, that right there tells you that not all government programs that are passed end up being eternal…)

          • OccamsRazor

            How much of the house is up for reelection in ’12? Maybe there will be less than in ’10. I dunno.

            Also, nightmare scenario (just typing aloud), picture a 2nd term BO with a majority. Point taken.

          • OccamsRazor

            Can you imagine what happens to your party if this scenario happens? Don’t use your imagination, just use reason. :)

          • gensec

            Because that what it will take to get the “repeal of Obamacare” that you expect. Obamacare will not be repealed unless 2/3 of both the House and Senate vote to override Obama’s veto.

            So is that what you base your claim on, that you think the Republicans will have 67 Senate seats and 290 House seats in 2011 if Obamacare passes now?

            No, don’t count on many “moderate” Democrats voting to repeal Obamacare after the 2010 election, In any major election sweep, the centrists/moderates/squishes of the losing party, i.e. the ones in districts/states that are at least somewhat competitive, are mostly the ones being displaced by winners of the other party. That dynamic is why the current Democratic majority has a hard time finding even a dozen Republicans to support their bills (while struggling to keep a larger number of their own squishes from defecting).

            If we get a big win in 2010, most of the Democrats you have any hope of voting Republican will have been replaced by Republicans. To get the 2/3 vote to override Obama’s veto, it will have to be done almost exclusively with Republican Senators and Representatives.

          • ColdWarrior

            Conservative? Want to have a revolution at the polls in 2010?

            Become a Republican Party precinct committeeman now.

            50 per cent of the PC slots nationwide are unfilled.

            Moderates control about 50 per cent of the elected slots, Conservatives the other half.

            Want to change that?

            Become a PC NOW. Get into the real ball game.

            Or stay on the sidelines as a bench warmer.

            Thank you.

            ColdWarrior

            www.theprecinctproject.wordpress. com

          • gensec

            but it’s not about how blue state and gerrymandered Democratic safe House seats vote in the general election. I’d love to see a conservative Republican unseat a clown like Graham in the GOP primary for a solidly red state like SC, but that doesn’t get us closer to a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

            Yeah, I know, the constituencies who keep electing the likes of Barney Frank and John Kerry are really dying to elect a Republican, but have been voting Democratic only because the Republican nominees haven’t been conservative enough. And if we could just get a true conservative as a Republican nominee for Senate in Maine, maybe we could flip that seat from Democrat to Republican.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            Remember that the Democrats still have a formidable machine, lots of money, the power of incumbency and are unscrupulous.

            At best I predict about twenty two seat pick up in the house, and maybe four Senators, not enough to really change the Democratic majorities but enough to make their attempts to change the country a lot harder.

          • IJB

            At least on the House side – the Democrats currently hold 71 districts with a Cook PVI indicating a Republican leaning district, and the Democrats currently hold 35 districts with PVIs of R+5 or more.

            Based on this, a 30-35 seat gain is probably about the minimum that I’m expecting (provided present trends hold up).
            (And it’ll be more than that if Rasumussen’s Generic Ballot holds up as R+5 or more by election day…)

            The Senate is a whole other kettle of fish that I’m not going to even try to make any judgment on until next Spring, at the earliest…

          • IJB

            You can easily veto something that Congress is trying to put into being.
            Trying to “veto” something that Congress is trying to extinguish is far, far harder.

            In this scenario, Obama would be trying to veto a bill that cuts off funding for a program that is ALREADY UNPOPULAR.

            If Obama shuts down the government over that, he’ll be looking at 15% popularity ratings in no time flat, and a permanent protest rally outside the White House.

            I *dare* him to try that.

          • gensec

            Further up thread I already made your point that Republicans could cut off funding for Obamacare with a simple majority, even if they didn’t have enough votes to outright repeal it over Obama’s veto. And I also noted how well that would play into the Democrats media game, finding the most telegenic suffering patients that are in excruciating pain, because those nasty Republicans are withholding money for the prescribed medicine that patient is still legally entitled to under Obamacare.

            There seems to be a recurring theme, that if we can just manage to get our butts kicked badly enough this round, that will set us up for some smashing victory down the road.

            There were at least a few I saw in 2006 who thought a Democratic victory in Congress would teach wayward Republican congresscritters a lesson, and with Democrats in power the public would see them for who they really are. That supposedly would result in invigorated Republicans storming to victory in 2008. And then a few pushed similar silliness in 2008.

            Now with Democrats firmly in control, we’re tempted to pat ourselves on the back for a “great victory” whenever the damage Democrats inflict can be limited to something better the worst case scenario.

            Sure I’m glad that another huge “stimulus” probably can’t happen, but the first one already has locked into place long term damage to our economy that will take many years undo. Sure, McCain probably would have appointed some airhead squish to the Supreme Court, but I still would have preferred that to Sotomayor.

            Defeating Obamacare now is the best chance, far better than hoping to undo it later.

            The problem with the mentality of “Lets get our butts kicked now so we can win big later” is that later keeps getting deferred, and we keep seeming to need more butt-kickings under that theory.

          • IJB

            I never said I wanted it to pass, something you’ve been ignoring for a while now.

            But, as you’re not really debating the points I’ve made, I’m moving on.

  • bobojake

    He has to have his way and try and make it look like a compromise. I learned long ago never, never negoiate with a left wing radical.

    Remember how he shoved the foney FRAUDULENT STIMULUS BILL through in the middle of the night.

    NOT AGAIN SUCKER

    • Achance

      You can do business with a rational, methodical, well-trained communist political organizer. The one you can’t do business with is the emotional true believer. That said, the only time the true radical WILL compromise is when he doesn’t have the power to force you to compromise. So-called leaders of the Stupid Party believe that compromise is a desirable end in itself. Consequently, they start out by bargaining against themselves and the radical just chuckles and gets what he wanted without ever even asking for anything.

      • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

        There are two kinds of leftists.
        You can think of them as good cop / bad cop.

        The bad cop’s job (radical true believer) is to make you think he is going to rip your guts out.
        The good cop’s job (artful compromiser) makes believe he is protecting you from the other loony.
        They are a team.
        The proof is the steady leftward progress we have been making for 100 years.

        How can you do business with evil without being contaminated by it?

        • Achance

          They’re there, and if you want to get anything done, you’ll do business with them. You should be at least as smart as they are, and if the business isn’t in your interest, you don’t do it. This stuff ain’t rocket science.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            don’t do business.
            I mean for example, when they propose a massive unconstitutional takeover of the health care system that serves most Americans very well, don’t meet them halfway. And own half the disaster.
            When they propose campaign finance reform that is entirely contrary to the rights spelled out in the constitution don’t compromise with them and accept a bill that is still dead wrong just because it could have been worse.

            There are absolutes of right and wrong.
            The constitution means what it says.
            When we do “business” with the left it almost always involves a compromise of these standards and absolutes.
            I am saying don’t do that “business.”
            Will they still do evil? Of course, that is who they are.
            We don’t need to own any part of it.
            That’s what RINO’s do.

          • Achance

            You’ve either never had your name on the door or didn’t learn anything if you did. Whether you like it or not, in government you WILL do business with entities and interests that you do not agree with and with some whose very existence you find offensive. As a Republican officeholder, no matter how you feel about unions, you have to deal with them because they have a legal existence and legal rights. You have to deal with EEO/AA even if you find it reprehensible. You have to deal with the “victims’ advocates,” and the poverty pimps because even though they hate you and nothing you can do will get their support, they have power and a voice that is often amplified by the usually hostile press.

            You can spout all this purist cant, but that sort of purism assures that there are only a handful of districts in the Country where you could get elected and those attitudes assure that if you held an elected or appointed executive position, you’d have a short and unhappy career.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            Against reading the other person’s post?
            Your post seems to ignore mine so you can reiterate what you have already said.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            Against reading the other person’s post?
            Your post seems to ignore mine so you can reiterate what you have already said.

      • IJB

        Sure, oftentimes, these guys will compromise for its own sake.

        But there comes those times when they realize their a**es are on the line, and then they won’t even do that.

        This is one of those times.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    The dems obviously do not adhere to it. And I would never vote for a republican who made it a habit of trying to please democrats.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    again, Bi-Partisanship has really been Democrats joining with Republicans – see here and here and (here again) Brian’s Dems join Rep on Ethics issues and How 32 D’s joined R’s on HR2346 How about Dem’s join Republicans to stand for FREE Elections in Iran view too the jackACES Act (Clean Energy) 44 Dems Against while only 8 Reps for plus so many other times I don’t have articles links to.

  • gensec

    … though it’s not the kind of “bipartisanship” that Obama had in mind. Obama’s idea of bipartisanship is Republicans falling into line behind his agenda.

    But now, if the Obamacare soap opera concludes with a victory for bipartisanship (and I’m cautiously optimistic that it will), it will be a bipartisan coalition in Congress voting against Obamacare, defeating an almost exclusively Democratic group voting for it.

    • diakrioi

      You are right, gensec. We just witnessed a bipartisan effort to reject HR3200. The partisan democrats failed in their effort to pass it.

  • sasulli915

    http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=1855

    Obama, Dems Prepare to Move Against American People on Health Care