bi·par·ti·san: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties
The new meaning of "bipartisan," based on the actions and complaints of the Republican congressional leadership:
Compromise? Hah! Do it our way, or we're not going to vote for your package. And if you don't do it our way, you're not being bipartisan. Take that, Democrats!
It's become painfully clear that the Republicans have not realized that they lost the last election. They have reduced numbers in the House and Senate, and they no longer control the White House, because the majority of the American people did like the way they had conducted business over the last several years. That doesn't mean they should lay down and play dead - although I would prefer that - but it does mean that they need to compromise. President Obama, in my opinion, has been very accommodating to the Republicans, and very open to their suggestions. Which is why I completely reject the following statement in a New York Times article about the stimulus deliberations in the Senate:
But while the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, has sought to lower expectations in recent days, winning passage of the stimulus with just 60 or 61 votes would be a clear setback for Mr. Obama, who has pledged to bring about a new spirit of cooperation in Washington.
The Times seems to have bought into the Republican argument that it's President Obama's fault if the bill doesn't get bipartisan support - and that's just a load of crap, because, as the cliché goes, it takes two to tango. If the Republicans aren't willing to accept some things they don't like, then they are not compromising, unlike the Democrats, who have loaded the bill up with far more tax cuts, etc., than they would prefer, in attempt to win Republican support. So it's not a setback for Mr. Obama if he only gets 60 or 61 votes, because you can't play ball if the other team won't show up.
-EB
UPDATE 1:25pm: Just read an interesting post on Talking Points Memo about this same topic, and the four Republican Senators who seem to be willing to work with the President, while the rest are following Jim DeMint, who last night proposed an alternative stimulus bill, with absolutley no spending. None. Only tax cuts. Completely rejecting or ignoring (as Josh Marshall puts it) "what conventional macroeconomics suggests about how to combat the problem."
The new meaning of "bipartisan," based on the actions and complaints of the Republican congressional leadership:
Compromise? Hah! Do it our way, or we're not going to vote for your package. And if you don't do it our way, you're not being bipartisan. Take that, Democrats!
It's become painfully clear that the Republicans have not realized that they lost the last election. They have reduced numbers in the House and Senate, and they no longer control the White House, because the majority of the American people did like the way they had conducted business over the last several years. That doesn't mean they should lay down and play dead - although I would prefer that - but it does mean that they need to compromise. President Obama, in my opinion, has been very accommodating to the Republicans, and very open to their suggestions. Which is why I completely reject the following statement in a New York Times article about the stimulus deliberations in the Senate:
But while the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, has sought to lower expectations in recent days, winning passage of the stimulus with just 60 or 61 votes would be a clear setback for Mr. Obama, who has pledged to bring about a new spirit of cooperation in Washington.
The Times seems to have bought into the Republican argument that it's President Obama's fault if the bill doesn't get bipartisan support - and that's just a load of crap, because, as the cliché goes, it takes two to tango. If the Republicans aren't willing to accept some things they don't like, then they are not compromising, unlike the Democrats, who have loaded the bill up with far more tax cuts, etc., than they would prefer, in attempt to win Republican support. So it's not a setback for Mr. Obama if he only gets 60 or 61 votes, because you can't play ball if the other team won't show up.
-EB
UPDATE 1:25pm: Just read an interesting post on Talking Points Memo about this same topic, and the four Republican Senators who seem to be willing to work with the President, while the rest are following Jim DeMint, who last night proposed an alternative stimulus bill, with absolutley no spending. None. Only tax cuts. Completely rejecting or ignoring (as Josh Marshall puts it) "what conventional macroeconomics suggests about how to combat the problem."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment