Bipartisanship robs voters of the chance to influence policy

[yurbud]

Poll question: Bipartisanship robs voters of the chance to influence policy

As Obama continues to say he will compromise even core Democratic principles to gain bipartisan support for health care reform, it occurs to me that beyond a certain point, like welcoming input from the other side that is in the same spirit and direction of your party's initiative, bipartisanship robs voters of the ability to influence policy direction.

During the Bush years, even though the GOP actively tried to exclude Democrats, Dems still voted for GOP initiatives including the worst and most destructive like No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War against a country that never was and probably never will be a threat to us.

While it was wrong for the GOP to actively freeze out the Democrats, I can't begrudge then aggressively pursuing their agenda (apart from the fact that much of it was unconstitutional, corrupt, and harmful to average Americans and the world). But if they had simply said ''This is our legislation, you can join us or let the voters judge your lack of support,'' that would have been proper bipartisanship and it would be proper bipartisanship if done now that the Democrats have the majorities, which they are doing their best to piss away by begging for Republican advice and consent.

Do you agree or disagree that compromising key principles and even good policy to get bipartisan support robs voters of their ability to direct the actions of our politicians?

NOTE: please do not insult my intelligence by mentioning the filibuster or any of that nonsense. When the Democrats had the supermajority, they pissed it away by pandering to their most corrupt members instead of telling them to behave on the big issues and in return we'd ignore their corruption on the small ones--or simply that we would out them as the corrupt pigs they are.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. Bipartisanship only works when you have two willing parties.

The Repukes have no intention of moving one degree to the left of their positions. That means they expect us to concede everything. Not that the DLC hasn't already done exactly that over the last 20 years.

[yurbud]

2. who unrec'd this?

[DailyGrind51]

3. "Elections have consequences."

[yurbud]

4. if the quote marks are ironic, I agree

[IndianaGreen]

5. We did not elect a coalition government in 2008, we elected a Democratic government

This bipartisan bullshit smacks of the stuff one finds in coalition governments, which only take place in parliamentary democracies which we are not.