The Myth of Bipartisanship

[Joanne98]

Given the consistent failure of compromise between Republicans and Democrats, it might be time to take away the minority's most harmful weapon: the filibuster.

Ezra Klein | February 9, 2009

The most important number in Washington this month is not the $827 billion price tag on the stimulus bill. Nor is it the eye-popping 598,000 jobs lost in January. Those numbers will change. The $827 billion will shift in conference committee, and January's job losses will amaze only until February's job losses are announced. You will not see those numbers again. They can be safely forgotten. Do not, however, forget the number zero. It will prove a frequent companion in the coming years.

Zero. That's how many Republican votes the stimulus bill received in the House. Zero. Not one. Not Mike Castle of Delaware, whose constituents gave 62 percent of their votes to Obama. Not Anh Cao of Louisiana, whose district went 74 percent for Obama. Not Illinois' Steven Kirk, whose district went 61 percent for Obama. Zero. A popular new president elected amid an economic crisis was not able to attract one crossover vote on his first major priority. In the more moderate Senate, Obama is expected to attract three Republican votes. They will have cost him hundreds of billions in concessions, and they will have cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs.

It is time to say this quite simply: There is no such thing in Washington as bipartisanship. This is not to say that there will be no such thing as bipartisan bills. Republicans will vote for Democratic initiatives when it appears to further their goals. But insofar as crossover votes have come to be seen as representative of an elusive character trait or political spirit known as "bipartisanship," it is time to let go of an increasingly damaging fantasy. And if we let go of the myth of bipartisanship and embrace the reality of continued minority obstructionism, that may also mean it's time to let go of the filibuster.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_bipartisanship

[ixion]

1. ya know, we were mad as hell when rethugs started talking about the "nuclear option"

which meant "nuking" the filibuster. We were furious.

And now, here we are talking about doing the same thing. I find this to be hypocritical in the extreme, and find the suggestion no more palatable now then when it was proposed the first time.

Rather than eliminating the tools of democracy, how about the dems just grow a spine and start fighting back?

[Stuckinthebush]

2. Yes, it is hypocritical

and foolish.

We will be in the minority again. The filibuster is a necessary tool of the Senate minority.

[tom_paine]

8. Well, if this thing turns out to be a Great Depression, we'll have a lot more things to worry about

than a fucking filibuster if the Bushies sweep back to power.

http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/021009church-manifesto.pdf

[tom_paine]

7. EXACTLY. n/t

[depakid]

3. Oh, there's such a thing as bipartisanship- but it's only for Democrats

when Republicans need their votes.

The difference is party discipline. Republicans have it- Democrats do not.

[Still Sensible]

4. The good news is polls show the public believes

President Obama is trying very hard to work with republicans. The same poll says the republicans are not trying. Even though we are not having kumbaya moments with the other side, Obama is winning the PR war. CNN's poll showed 75% of Americans believe Obama is trying, while only 39% believe republicans are.

The president really reinforced that last night when he talked about how many GOP praised the first draft of the stimulus package and said "Those tax cuts are still there... maybe I should have left the tax cuts out so they would get credit for putting them in." It was like saying to the public that everything the republicans have said since then is obstructionist bullshit.

[certainot]

5. talk radio monopoly makes bipartisanship impossible

not only has 20 years of a nationwide RW talk radio blanket purged the GOP of moderates it scares the crap out of any GOP rep when they think about voting against the party line.

when the demagogues get up there and tell how strongly their constituents are pushing against the stimulus, for instance, it's because they're going to GOP party functions and everyone there listens to limbaugh and hannity (like obama said). if that same rep went to the same fundraiser after limbaugh and hannity had mentioned his name as a traitor (the fate of snowe, collins, and specter), the same rep would feel the fury and the envelopes full of cash would have notes channeling limbaugh and hannity. or dead fish.

as the talk radio monopoly goes so does the GOP.

so when are progressive groups and american citizens who want democracy back going to start calling complaining boycotting and picketing the 1000 local RW talk stations that have been so instrumental in getting into this bush disaster and who will do the groundwork for all obstruction?

[LynnTheDem]

6. Time for the Republic Party's "nukular option".

UP OR DOWN VOTE, SWISS MISSES!

UP OR DOWN VOTE!!1!

[pipi_k]

9. I think there was no harm in at least trying...

I mean, of course, anyone who pays attention to the goings on in DC knows that bipartisanship is nothing more than a fairy tale.

But it didn't hurt to try...

And I do think that Obama had a pretty good strategy there. If he offers an olive branch to Republicans and they keep rejecting it, or worse, spitting in his face (so to speak), then at least he tried, and nobody can complain when, as may happen, Democrats tell the Republicans to piss off.

Also, if some Republicans do go the bipartisan route, it'll no doubt anger some of their crazier constituents, and cause further cracks in the Republican party Maybe Obama is hoping to cause the demise of the worst parts of the Republican party while holding on to the more decent parts.

Yes...I do believe in keeping checks and balances, and I would no more want to see a totally Democratic-controlled government than I would a Republican-controlled one. I think each party needs the other to keep this country on a (more or less) straight path. We just don't need the crazies from either side...

IMO

;)