dagblog - Comments for "President Obama Killed Bipartisanship "

The whole fable of a golden

oleeb — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 05:40:45 +0000

In reply to President Obama Killed Bipartisanship

The whole fable of a golden era of bipartisanship is just that: a fable. There was never any such thing. Obama's bormides about bipartisanship during the campaign were naive and foolish and he has stubbornly refused, despite all evidence, to give up hope of returning to the mythical bipartisan golden age of DC and that stubborn naivete of his has caused tremendous damage to Democrats, progressives and Obama himself.

The times that some now nostalgically recall were when Democrats were so dominant that Republicans had no choice but to try and be reasonable or get completely left out of the picture. That's when Democrats still had a backbone. Alas, they no longer have a backbone and the compromises and capitulations of Obama that he believed wold be reciprocated only emboldened his critics because each time he was seen offering the olibe branch, the sociopathic Republican right sees such things as weakness. This explains why despite all Obama's offers the mighty right wing wurlitzer gins up the teabaggers to new heights of frenzied racist hatred.

Hi kgb, Not trying to engage

Jamie Friedland — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:12:29 +0000

In reply to See, I don't recall - at any

Hi kgb,

Not trying to engage in revisionism. As usual, You raise some great points. First, adversarial politics does run deep in our history. Obama touted his history of reaching across the aisle, but bipartisanship was not the running campaign focus. Yet it did rise to preeminence in the media narrative - conservatives obviously hyped it for the reasons you describe, but why did the administration buy in? There must have been a conscious decision there.

You and Articleman both made the valid point that this theory does kind of rest on Obama essentially overlooking the political ramifications of a major action, which does seem unlikely.

So why did he do it? It is so obvious that Republicans could simply withhold their participation to deny bipartisanship. Did Obama think the public would be angry about that? Judge them for it? Shame them into action?

I don't think this is the reason for, as you call it, "Democratic lameness," but I really am having difficulty figuring out what they'd hoped to gain and what equation they were looking at when they made this call.

To me, this is reminiscent of the administration caving on offshore drilling in advance of a climate/energy bill where - if we were willing to cave on that point - we could have gotten something in exchange as a compromise.

Both episodes appear to be exceedingly poor political decisions to those of us on the outside. Are they glaring mistakes or do they see something we don't?

See, I don't recall - at any

kgb999 — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:37:43 +0000

In reply to President Obama Killed Bipartisanship

See, I don't recall - at any point along the way trying to convince people to vote for Obama - saying to potential voters "Hey! Elect Obama, he'll make sure these morons who screwed up our whole nation will have an equal say in everything he does." That just wasn't the sale. The whole point of kicking the GOP out of office was that they weren't cutting it, why the hell would anyone want them mucking up the way forward? That doesn't make a lick of sense. No American who voted for Obama would ever want that to happen. That's WHY we have parties in the first place - if they're in bed with each other we're screwed.

To me, saying Obama "campaigned on" bipartisanship and making that the focal, or primary, promise of his campaign is revisionism of the highest order. Yeah bipartisanship became a demand and media focus ... mid-October when it was apparent Obama was going to win. If you are going to lose, doesn't it make a lot of sense to demand the opposition give you equal say? OF COURSE under those circumstances the GOP (and their media organs) will want to hype bipartisanship, and that's just what happened. What makes far less sense is actually allowing the opposition you just defeated to define the concept and then agreeing to make that THE objective of an administration - what the hell is the point of voting the GOP out in that circumstance? The whole idea falls under the weight of absurdity.

Bipartisanship is a bullshit construct created by Karl Rove - not something to "get back to". We've never had it. America from it's very foundation is an ADVERSARIAL system. That's what we have. The sides fight for what they want, and one wins while the other loses. If you aren't fighting, you just lost. The end.

The GOP announced early 2009 their plan to oppose anything and everything the Democrats did. Now, clearly Obama isn't stupid, so it's not like there was any expectation from his side that your nicely vectored Graph #1 would EVER be possible. And the GOP announcement was made well before any of the major policy debates even started. It defies logic to think Obama expected the GOP to behave any differently than they did.

What really happened is Obama grabbed the concept and has used it in the most cynical fashion possible to triangluate his own side. Knowing the GOP had a unified stance of obstruction, keeping Lincoln and Nelson in his pocket allowed him to wield effective control of the Senate filibuster. "Bipartisanship" then provided a built in excuse for not using his bully pulpit and actual power to help advance major planks of his campaign platform while Rham and Co. sold those planks off to the highest bidder. Let's face it he went to bat for both Lincoln and Nelson in a way he never has for any other Democrats - the liberals were "Fucking Retarded" for wanting to run ads pressuring Nelson, remember? If they were *really* opposing him, as the preferred Democratic narrative currently goes, why would he proactively support them so aggressively?

I think the whole idea of Obama's dedication to bipartisanship as reason for Democratic lameness starts from a false premise and goes downhill from there. Although, I think you pretty much nail the dynamics that we just went through and real impact it has had on our national well being - you make the mistake of ascribing to Obama a babe-in-the-woods naivete that just isn't plausible.

Things could have gone a

Jamie Friedland — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:08:16 +0000

In reply to He needed to use some of his

Things could have gone a little better...

I wish the voters would make

Jamie Friedland — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:07:00 +0000

In reply to Bipartisanship died a long

I wish the voters would make that demand, but at the moment it seems like extermists and conservative pundits are driving Tea Party fervor more than the public is imposing its will on Congress.

He needed to use some of his

quinn esq — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:05:01 +0000

In reply to President Obama Killed Bipartisanship

He needed to use some of his power to divide the GOP - to shatter some of its Congressional players off from others. He could have done it by investigating past misdemeanours, by crafting a handful of deliberately divisive proposals - and then, when there were key GOP players or policies that the saner individuals felt they needed to distance themselves from, by offering them significant wins/benefits.

Instead, it's felt/looked like the most ridiculously sophomoric approach - force-free. Absolutely absurd.

Bipartisanship died a long

NCD — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:37:36 +0000

In reply to President Obama Killed Bipartisanship

Bipartisanship died a long time ago. It certainly died with the impeachment of President Clinton, it died when the Republican led SCOTUS stopped the counting of votes in Florida, and it died with the hope of the GOP to drown the government in a bathtub.

Many who voted for Obama, and Obama himself, hoped that with the pressing problems the country faces and with the failures and fiascoes of the 8 years of the GW Bush administration, that politicians of both parties would face up to the fact that the government must act to address important issues.

The GOP refuses to look for solutions or for a way forward. To a large a portion of the electorate government has a no perceived role in their future, or the future of this country, beyond conducting perpetual war abroad, that is bankrupting the country, while also ginning up culture wars at home. Bipartisanship will come back from the dead only when voters of both parties demand a role for government in addressing and solving the daunting predicaments the country faces.

I'm worried, too, about the

worthlesscitizen — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:50:13 +0000

In reply to President Obama Killed Bipartisanship

I'm worried, too, about the precedent that this sets. This unfortunate change in the political meaning of bipartisanship can't be reversed, as far as I can see.