Quote of the Day: Earth to Obama…Bipartisanship has Failed
In contrast to some who are arguing that President Barack Obama needs to win over the center and somehow shake some bipartisanship into 21st century America’s political culture, some others argue that bipartisanship has failed, Obama has hurt himself for coming across as a political wimp who’s easy to be rolled and that he has to start to show a more ideologically principled fighting side.
Which brings us to our Quote of the Day, an argument laid out minus typical blogosphere rage-speckled polemics by Nate Silver:
Obama–who, incidentally, is not only a former community organizer fully conversant in the history of social movements and the resistance to them, but a former constitutional law professor and student of presidential politics–needed to recognize from the jump that a supermajority-worthy personal and public campaign had to be waged on behalf of healthcare reform. A few heads should have rolled, a few prisoners taken. Rather than worrying as she was today about disgusting and devious wiretappers, Sen. Mary Landrieu–no Senate titan she–should have spent the past few months worried about the Wrath of Obama. Joe Lieberman, ditto.
Meanwhile, there should have been a rollout explaining that reform was not only good for corporate employers and thus American productivity, but also for worker and workplace performance and, thus again, American productivity. He should framed reform in those terms–rather than as a series of vignettes, true and as sad as they may be, about people with dropped coverage or bankrupting bills–and then publicly dared Republicans and their tea-partying conservative allies to vote against a bill that would make the American economy and the workers who fuel it more effective, more efficient, more productive and more competitive because we would no longer lose time and money and paperwork and missed work days to a cobbled-together health care system constructed more or less around the time The Edsel rolled out.
…… Obama should come out with guns ablazing. Hope, bipartisanship, compromise and listening are great while campaigning as a presidential candidate. But this is governing by the President of the United States and, more specifically, presidential governing within a political system and during a partisan era in which truly progressive reforms will always need to clear more and higher hurdles…as this President–of all presidents–ought to know.
So which advice is the best? Partisans will argue this week; historians will judge based on what happens after this week.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
77 Responses to “Quote of the Day: Earth to Obama…Bipartisanship has Failed”
Hi Leonidas.
You said, “He [McCain] was rejected for a very partisan teleprompter.” It is precisely that kind of remark that makes breaking the partisan logjam impossible. My view. That you dislike Obama, or disagree with him, does not justify referring to him as a “partisan teleprompter.” In fact, Obama, during the campaign was a well spoken (with or without teleprompter) skilled politician, and one of his “change” messages was to seek to be a bipartisan leader. That has not happened, and you have every right to point that out. But, the uncivil discourse is so unuseful…coming from either side.
Best.
Only Riff Raff knows for sure!
Looks like the Democratic Party is having a bit of a civil war, according to Politico:
Top Democrats at war – with each other
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32053…
Sometimes Him. Sometimes Her. Sometimes both.
“[M]oderate democrats[...] that remain like Evan Bayh are coming underfire from the progressives that took over their party.”
With some of them (as on Stephanie Miller's pre-teen show), it's a true insane asylum or Level 3 biohazard zone, as far as the diseased behavior directed toward him and others like him currently.
It's going to be interesting to hear the radio show “verdicts” and related remarks tomorrow about Obama's address tonight, especially after hearing what has been said already this week about it and about the President.
I have my opinion but to be honest that horse is so dead it doesn't even exist anymore, and it truly pains me to say that.
In one sense, I agree. I mean, I don't believe in rehashing a past grievance over and over, but on the other hand, I don't think one can gloss over the subject of political divisiveness, and polarized politics, and excessive ideological partisanship — IF it comes up — I don't think it makes sense to say that it's over and done with. It's not over and done with. Nothing like this ever is.
Invading the wrong country is a pretty divisive move.
There was no reason whatsoever to invade Iraq. Unfortunately, the weak democrats decided to tag along for the insanity. Except Obama – he recognized the insanity for what it was.
Bush did not come in as a divisive figure…
Excuse me, Leonidas, but he did. The way Bush came into office in the 2000 elections left the entire nation even more divided and polarized than we had been before that. I mean, that's not open to question. You can argue about why that was true, but not that it *was* true.
How is it that progressives have taken over the party even though they are the only ones who have made concessions on the reform bill, while people like Bayh, Nelson or that scum Lieberman have gotten everything they wanted?
Progressives have not taken over the DNC. Oh, and Lieberman was never a “moderate” democrat – he was just bought off in order to hinder legislation. Philosophy or moderation is not the motivation for blue dogs – careerism and cushy futures are.
After the Scott Brown lesson was taught, it will be really interesting to see if President Obama was truly listening. Tonights State of the Union may produce a glimpse, but it is what will follow that he will be graded on. the oral exam tonight is only a small part of the final grade.
GO
P-A-R-T-I-S-A-N!!
The “lesson” was in indication of how much people are disillusioned with the dems, but if the right reads that as an embracing of of the reps, then they are in for a “lesson” themselves. As Daniel Schorr said today, it's a pox on both their houses.
And by the way, the first step to resurrecting bipartisanship is to give remedial history lessons to all those who are so quick to jump forward and forget where much of this started. Only by understanding the past can we move forward.
“Top Democrats at war – with each other”
The “progressive” talk radio is particularly amusing right now. (Some still can't or won't face the reality, deny that the Dems went too far left, and insist that the “real problem” is that the Dems haven't gone far left enough! This lies at the core of much of the infighting currently.) It's more entertaining now than it was after the 1994 elections, Dem leaders “learning their lesson,” that “the era of big government is over,” and Al From told a resentful Jesse Jackson, speaking on behalf of the party's left wing, that there was no room for far-lefties like him in the party leadership. In a sense it's a weak echo now that there are signs of mainstream repudiation of the too-far-left stunts this past year. These stunts are behind the real division — the Dems, including Obama have been divisive for a long time.
“it will be really interesting to see if President Obama was truly listening”
I'm looking forward to the speech, but it's an overhyped show. (I'd have been impressed if Obama made it an informal session instead, not a prime time pre-emption, but just on C-SPAN [chuckle], or even a written report rather than a big speech, for a Change [tm].) Hopefully he will admit missteps (the best we can expect), and give us confident hints at sound changes he'll be making, and avoid anything stupid like blaming Bush (the below-IQ-50 option). Then comes the real test, the deeds to match the words. We want to see the Dems relive this past year, but do things better this time.
What's one thing we might look for, related to this? With Plouffe coming in to the administration, is Rahm Emanuel going out? (He could well leave before Geithner leaves; I suspect Geithner may leave after the November elections if the economy still falters or if there are more financial industry scandals.)
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archiv…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB200014240527487…
It's foolish if he or the Senate insist on “climate change” eco-socialist energy legislation. In addition to honoring a perverse political movement, it's at deliberate cross purposes to any economic revival he will promise.
“Only by understanding the past can we move forward.”
We're waiting for so many of you to start understanding and stop moving sideways or backward.
“The way Bush came into office in the 2000 elections left the entire nation even more divided and polarized than we had been before that. I mean, that's not open to question.”
At least this time the Dems didn't try to steal an election they lost, as they did in 2000.
We even were spared another lurid and disgusting spectacle (aimed at the low-IQ crowd) of the “conference call” (with collaborating liberal media obligingly broadcasting it to the public).
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showflorida2000….
Yer a fine one to be talking about “overhyped shows” my man.
“Tonights State of the Union may produce a glimpse, but it is what will follow that he will be graded on.”
Will there be more of the same Change like this
It's no surprise that activist CALPERS's rep defends this sickness. This is a hint (along with “social responsibility,” “Israeli divestiture,” and other BS) that we can expect if Social Security involved stock and bond investments.
SEC Votes for Corporate Disclosure of Climate Change Risk
“Investors have a fundamental right to know which companies are well positioned for the future and which are not,” said Anne Stausboll, chief executive of the California Public Employees' Retirement System, of Calpers, the nation's largest public pension fund.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487…
The biggest mistake the now overtly-audacious GOP keeps making is assuming that it can cover over people's growing and stubborn common sense with gibberish, doubletalk and spin.
It's common knowledge and people yawn when they talk about the 2000 “Election” as a coup, the stacked and prejudiced SCOTUS simply place our overlord over us just like they placed our new corporate overlords over us last week.
If there ever was a time to impeach a Justice or five it is now. “Overreach” doesn't begin to do justice to opening up our electoral process [our governance] to foreign interests.
Yeah the STOTU rebuttal was disgustingly canned. It was phony beyond belief. Was that a paid audience?
Unreal. Shades of Orwell 1984. These people are scary.
tidbits,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My comment wasn't intended to put you on the spot or extract an apology… I just wanted to make sure you understood what I'd said.
Regarding you question:
I don't know!.. The recent escalation of nasty 'partisan barbs' is why I've been taking a hiatus and why I didn't want my first comment here in a month to be misunderstood.
You and I have always done a good job discussing and debating the issues with both vigor and a respect in spite of our political differences and I hope (expect that?) we continue to do so.
Obama's State of the Union presentation went fine. He even managed to get in one or two shots at Dubya himself without being chumpish in how he did it. (High risk, but it succeeded and paid off.)
Meanwhile:
“Unreal. Shades of Orwell 1984. These people are scary.”
I didn't even bother to listen to the “opposing party response.” There's infinitely less need for this than for a State of the Union Message becoming a big political media (and campaign — how ironic Obama had mentioned Congress's being in “campaign mode”) event. There is no need or real use for an “opposing response” at all. (It would be different if Charles Hardin had his way [see below] but it would formalize and “enshrine” the Duopoly even more, which I would regret.) If the other party has something to day, it shouldn't have to wait to present it as a response (“rebuttal” often isn't earned) but should make a speech or presentation independently, whenever it wants. (Formalizing this would also further institute the Duopoly, though.) Given the current state of the GOP, why have a response, if they're no better currently than Maureen Dowd, i.e., they have nothing of any any real value to say?
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/17100
SteveK,
As you said, “You and I have always done a good job discussing and debating the issues with both vigor and a respect in spite of our political differences and I hope (expect that?) we continue to do so.”
Agreed, the sentiment is mutual, and thank you. I have found us, however, in agreement as well on many issues.
DLS,
Well, we agree. The “response” is an unfortunate (cold, perhaps even moldy) leftover of “equal time” policy, an absurdity we should not revisit or encourage.
Having found cause to agree with you, I can now saunter off to bed knowing that I will toss and turn all night wondering why I would do such a thing.
Sweet dreams, Tidbits.
Did anyone tell you your photo looks familiar nation-wide? Not on milk cartons…
http://jgb.invisiblefence.com/EnterZip.aspx?Red…
Fair enough, my remark was more aimed at the fact that all Obama had and has for a bipartisan record are some pretty speech words instead of the type of longstanding reputation for bipartisanship that McCain has of actions.
Sorry then, my bad. I thought even the progressives had abandoned and gotten over the Bush stole the 2000 election meme.
I read a direct quote from Obama admitting that he “took it too far” on NAFTA while in Ohio. Apparently your gut was good enough for you to believe he wouldn't do it, but a 30 year record on McCain wasn't enough for you to make the same kind of favorable conclusions…interesting.
I saw a YouTube vidoe of an Obama advisor in the UK telling a TV show that Obama wasn't really going to set a deadline…and this was before November.
We have more than our guts to go one…we have voting records. Actions speak louder than words. McCain had 30 years worth of actions to judge and trust, Obama had nothing.
I've never defending McCain for his lies…they all lie. You and the rest of the country chose to believe that Obama didn't…because he gave neat speeches. You basically had no proof that he was any different than the rest. That fact that Obama was even in the Senate means that he is a politician…just like the rest of them. You can't get to the Senate without lying, cheating, and stealing.
Has Hell frozen over?
Two pointless wars, a few trillion dollars pissed away, a drowned city, two missing towers, three thousand dead civilians on American soil, a second great depression, legalized torture, illegal phone tapping and a Supreme Court that has just repealed a century of law… Bush the gift that keeps giving.
With a record like that, we 're going to forgive and forget…