Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Newsweek - "Bipartisanship Is Bad" - Why President Obama Should Ignore GOP Calls On HCR.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 10:34 PM
Original message
Newsweek - "Bipartisanship Is Bad" - Why President Obama Should Ignore GOP Calls On HCR.
The media has been giving voice to calls by Republicans to open up the meetings to iron out differences between the House Bill and the Senate Bill, and allowing them to assert that they have excluded from the process. However, just a few months ago, the media narrative was that President Obama was getting heat from liberals for not railroading the Republicans and ramming a HCR bill through Congress with Democratic votes. Well, the fact of the matter is that President Obama tried to get support from Republicans, and it did not work. Thus, I hope President Obama does not repeat past mistakes, and give Republicans a second chance to try to torpedo health care reform.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212150


As fanciful beasts go, bipartisanship is more like a T. Rex than a unicorn—it actually roamed the earth once. Take 1965, for example. Lyndon Johnson had just clobbered Barry Goldwater by 16 million votes in one of the most lopsided elections in U.S. history; Democrats outnumbered Republicans 68 to 32 in the Senate and 295 to 140 in the House. Yet when the jewels of Johnson's "Great Society"—Medicare and Medicaid—came up on the congressional docket, Democrat Wilbur Mills sat down with rookie minority leader Gerald Ford to craft a compromise bill. Six months and more than 500 alterations later, the Social Security Act of 1965 arrived in the Oval Office with the support of 13 Republican senators and 70 of their House colleagues.

If that kind of cooperation sounds as anachronistic as a massive reptile, that's because it is. When (or rather, if) Obama's health-care-reform bill reaches the floor of Congress, he'll be lucky to get a single Republican vote. Predictably, this has attracted a lot of attention in the overheated halls of Washington from liberals who say that Obama should disregard conservative concerns, from Republicans eager to puncture his "postpartisan" aura, and from centrists who reflexively long for some imagined era of interparty comity. There's only one thing all three sides seem to agree on: Obama should care.

He shouldn't—and neither should we. Fact is, the sort of Republicans who voted for Medicare in 1965 no longer exist. Since the early 1970s, Democrats have drifted only slightly leftward. But thanks to realignment and redistricting—the practice of slicing the electoral map into ever more politically homogenous districts—a 2003 Republican House member with a voting record at the median of his party was about 73 percent more conservative than his Nixon-era counterpart. Which means he was about 73 percent less likely to reach across the aisle—no matter who was reaching out from the other side. And the odds are only getting longer. In 2006 the GOP lost most of its remaining moderates: Lincoln Chafee, Rob Simmons, Charlie Bass, Jim Leach. Three years later, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter defected to the Dems.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. He's not only ignoring republicans. He is also ignoring house dems and unions.
And me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. So to have nothing would please House Dems and the unions?
Sorry the senate is so right-wing, Obama can't control that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I Thought The Problem He Was Allowing House and Senate Dems To Dictate The Bill's Contents?
I was under the impression that the bills contents are to a large extent dictated by the need to garner 60 votes in the Senate, and to overcome Blue Dog opposition in the House. Heck, the supposedly liberal House Bill has even more strict anti-abortion language thanks to Bart Stupack. I have yet to see a more liberal bill that would must the necessary votes to pass both the House and Senate.

I know there are some folks who advocates of honorable failure. In other words, go for symbolism, and endorse single payer, even though there are not enough votes to pass it.

Sorry, but that sounds like California Republicans who sign no new tax pledges, and then refuse to engage in any serious effort to address the fiscal crisis facing California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The house isn't happy.
Edited on Wed Jan-06-10 11:13 PM by dkf
They aren't being allowed to make changes like taxing high wage earners instead of union benefits.

I've been seeing snippets of outrage from some reps. Especially some of the CBC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oh, it worked....
(time for my old stand by quote again.....)

Despite a drop in job approval, his PERSONAL numbers remain unscathed ... and this his public demonstration of "Trying to work with the GOP" is one of the factors in this phenomenon.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_limits_of_likeability

Or in other words...

“The public wants bipartisanship," he said. “We just have to try. We don't have to succeed.” - Rahm

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/02/090302fa_fact_lizza
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autonomy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
6. Dems do not have the option of ignoring Republicans
60 votes is not enough when a few of them defect. I doubt Obama has as much to do with the crafting of the legislation as people imagine. Cloture is not viable on this kind of bill, unfortunately. The supermajority is not so super.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
7. Who needs bipartisanship when there are Reaganites and Rockefeller Republicans
driving public policy within one's own party and administration!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Most excellent point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC