At least according to the Republicans I have been seeing on the news programs today. On CNN earlier, and just now on Hardball on MSNBC, there were 2 Republican congressmen (Hey, media, where are the Democrats for balance?) talking about their meeting today with Obama on the stimulus bill. They liked him a great deal. But not the stimulus bill.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
They were very effusive about Obama, and his real desire to be bi-partisan. The problems with the bill are all caused by the evil Democrats in the Congress. They refuse to listen or do things the way the Republicans think things should be done.
So apparently, bi-partisan means, “Do it my way.” I always thought it meant, listen to both sides, be willing to compromise in areas you can, don’t compromise on foundations of your ideology. You know, things like, putting in large amounts of tax cuts into a stimulus package, despite the fact that the last round didn’t really work very well and they are not a core of Democratic policy.
The Republicans on the news networks kept implying, strongly, that if it were not for the congressional Democrats, Obama would gladly give them all the tax cuts they want. And drop all that stupid spending to create jobs.
This does not appear to me to be the reality we are living in. The elections last year seemed a pretty clear indication that the citizens of the USA are not real happy with the way the Republicans ran things when they were in charge, and they wanted something different. And Obama is giving us different.
I have a feeling that a chap named Montoya could give the congressional Republicans a small hint, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” On the other hand, I do not have much faith that they can take a hint.
Bipartisanship has nothing to do with standing frim to one ideaologies, directly.
Bipartisanship means not steamrolling your opponent simply because you have the power or votes to do so… that is partisanship… “We have the votes so we don’t need to listen to the minority”
It’s akin to running up the score. And that is exactly what Obama and Pelosi have done and continue to do.
Bipartisanship is taking minimal notice of Arlen Specter’s switch from Republican to Democrat as from a bipartisanship perspective nothing fundamentally has changed.
Yet, the not-so-bipartisan White House actively and recruited and then held a huge parade (called press conference) to commemerate the signing… er… switching of Specter from Republican to Democrat…
I won’t argue Republicans are any less partisan, but get off the false high horse that somehow Democrats, and more particular, the current White House is anything but partisan.
The true judge of bipartisanship will always, in the end, rest with the powerless minority, not the authoritarian majority. As even Queen Marie Antoinette considered herself bipartisan when she uttered the famous words, “let them eat cake”.
Does the King’s sword cut both ways? That is the question when it comes to bipartisanship, and I haven’t seen any Democrats going home empty handed in any of the congressional voting. 43% of America support conservative ideas, can you tell that from the bills being passed? Not in the least. That is an indictment of the partisan politics being played in the White House and Congress. But it is nothing new for Washington–from either Republicans or Democrats.
First off, let’s see what the definition of bi-partisan is supposed to be. According to Merriam-Webster, it is
(bold mine) Nothing in there I can see that says the party in the majority should refrain from trying to increase their numbers.
If you are really upset that Specter switched parties, maybe you should examine why he did it. Did he have a stroke of some kind that radically changed his personality? No, that would have been noticed. His voting records over the years show he has been pretty consistent on the issues, and apparently his constituents have liked the way he has voted, since he as been getting re-elected as a Republican in a predominantly Democratic state.
But he was not Republican enough, so the party he has been a member of for decades, decided to support someone more to their liking. Who most likely would have beaten Specter in the primaries. Then most likely gotten his ass kicked in the general election. In the long run, this would have been better for the Democrats. Rather then a moderate Democrat like Specter, they probably would have ended up with one a bit more liberal. Not a lot, but some. And someone that would have been younger, with more of a future in politics.
Instead, they got another blue dog Democrat, who will be called a DINO rather than a RINO. He will vote the way he has been, including against some things that most Democrats would like. But getting the Democratic Party together has always been like herding cats, so he will probably fit in better than he does the current Republican Party.
Frankly, the entire affair seems to be reinforcing what I said in the article. The current leaders of the Republican Party seem to have the mindset of “My way or the highway.” Being bipartisan requires compromise, and the people running the Republican Party can’t even compromise with their own moderate members, never mind the Democrats. Arlen Specter has always been a moderate Republican, but these days he is too liberal for them. Rather than getting upset that the White House and Democratic leadership are happy about gaining a bit more leverage in the Senate, maybe you should be upset that the Republican leadership is forcing out the moderates in the party, and leaving them no place to go but to the Democrats.