Enough with the bipartisanship!

[ej510]

I started to laugh when I heard that Michael Steele was selected as the first African American to chair the Republican National Committee. I don’t think much of the “new” Republican Party, but then again, that doesn’t prevent me from writing about it.

But don’t get me wrong, I think that the former Maryland lieutenant governor was the best person available for the job. Then again, given the paucity of talent in that once venerable GOP, once the party of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, now the party of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber, it isn’t as if the bar was set so high in the first place. Among the contestants for RNC chair was a man who quit an all-White country club to run for the position, and another who distributed CD copies of the songs “Barack the Magic Negro” and “The Star Spanglish Banner.” And the other Black candidate stole the 2004 presidential election in Ohio for Bush.

For a party which has earned a reputation as a White Southern racist party - due in no small measure to the fact that it is primarily a White Southern racist party - the Steele pick was an attempt to put a new face on an old story. This cynical form of window dressing was a response to the election of the country’s first Black president, and an acknowledgement that shifting national demographics do not bode well for a party whose core supporters are limited to a sideshow of hicks, jingoists, bigots and homophobes, religious zealots, oligarchs and the chronically greedy. The Steele pick was more of a signal to the White Obama moderates and independents that the GOP is a safe place for them once again. This sales pitch will likely fail. And as for people of color, Don Cheadle said it best in the movie Rosewood: “We ain’t goin’ nowhere.”

After all, a front man of color does not translate into a new policy and direction. Ronald McDonald is the face of McDonald’s, but no one ever thought he was actually running the company. And it can hardly be said that Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales or J.C. Watts did anything to make the GOP a better, more hospitable place. To the contrary, they decided to go along to get along, helping to shepherd the same misguided ideas and heartless, if not criminal, policies. After he became RNC chair, Steele declared that the GOP does not have a message problem, that there will be no change in the party’s stance towards immigration, and that the Republicans should look back to the Contract With America for inspiration. Steele claimed that government jobs aren’t real jobs, and the only real jobs are private sector jobs. He even suggested that people such as Sarah Palin are the future of the party. Continued at the link

http://blackcommentator.com/311/311_col_bipartisan_nonsense.html

[msongs]

1. dems are Chamberlain to the repubs' Hitler - how did that work out? Well at least

the allies kicked Hitler's you know what, which is something that will never happen to the repubs based on present dems behaviors.

Msongs

[ej510]

4. Spineless dems.

[stray cat]

2. We work with the members of the GOP that we can - like Crist the Gov of FL

GOP govs seem to give a damn about their constituents unlike the GOP congress

[ej510]

3. Crist seems to be rational, but I will never trust a repuke again that is not named

Lincoln Chaffee.

[Raine]

5. Yup, tried it and it didn't work now we

need to go ballistic on them. :nuke: :-)

[ej510]

6. They call themselves the taliban aka insergents.

[Clio the Leo]

9. But was the goal to get the stimulus bill passed by a wide margin?

Or was the goal to win the next two elections?

It's clear from his speech tonight he is on the bipartisan train more than ever before. All the while, his poll numbers go up and the GOP's goes south.

Game ain't over yet kid. ;)

[Two Americas]

14. neither , I hope

For the sake of the potential success of the new administration, not to mention the party and the country and the American people, I certainly hope that neither of those are the goal.

[Clio the Leo]

17. huh?

You dont want the Stiumulus bill to pass and you dont want us to win the next to elections? I'm so confused.

[Two Americas]

18. those are not the two choices

The choices are not all-or-nothing, between for our team or against them.

We elect Democrats and pass bills for the purpose of relieving the suffering of the people, not the other way around.

I do not agree with this way of thinking about politics - that electing Democrats is the ultimate goal, and that everything should be subordinate to that. That thinking is widespread here.

[Better Believe It]

7. K & R

[ej510]

8. Thanx! This is a great article.

[1776Forever]

10. Rachel Maddow had a whole segment on this tonight. She thinks Obama's trying to be Lincolnesk

by doing the "bipartisanship" thing. I think she is on to something. She talked about how Lincoln let all the Confederate soldier free after the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln saying that "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?". Rachel went all the way back to the time Obama announced his candidacy at Springfield on the steps of the same building Lincoln once spoke at.

She agreed that this may not be the best strategy in this day and age, but after listening to President Obama's speech tonight one can see that he is on such a high level that we "normal" mortals may not be able to relate to his high level of "forgiveness". I myself think he should move on and let the Repub's come along if they want to live to fight another day. I think 2010 is going to be very harsh on the way they are acting today!

[ej510]

11. Let's hope so. The repukes continue to spit in Obama's face but he forgives them for their sins.

[Two Americas]

15. that is not what Lincoln did

Lincoln brought personal political rivals for the nomination from his own party in to the cabinet - Seward, Chase and Bates - and democrats Blair, Welles and Stanton.

He picked those men because they were all strong outspoken opponents of slavery over a long period of time. There was no cooperation, compromising, listening to, reaching across the aisle, or anything else of the sort with pro-slavery people.

I object to seeing the people as "mere mortals" when compared to any politician, including Lincoln. The alternative to mere mortals is gods, and I do not think we should see any leader that way. Let's wait about 50 years before we start deifying any contemporary politician - if ever.

Lincoln did not reach out to pro-slavery people. He took them on - strongly, unambiguously and relentlessly.

[1776Forever]

16. No you missed my point - "Mere mortals" like Gandhi, King Jr, etc - not Gods.

As for what I said tell that to Rachel Maddow - I was just stating what she said on the program.

I am not an "expert" on Lincoln nor do I profess to be.

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

12. Folks are looking so closely, they aren't bothering in stepping back

and looking at the whole picture. Sad, but expected after 8 years of reactionnary, uninsightful Bush at the helm.

The Political Implications Of The Stimulus
....
The left claims that Obama's bipartisanship has failed. They argue his "centrist" compromises, as well as the failure to offer a bigger initial package, will fatally weaken the stimulus effort. Republicans see "glimmers of rebirth" through their opposition to the Democrats' plans. But both groups are missing the larger context.

Progressives are in the process of winning a transformative political victory that may be the harbinger of a new era of activist government. For conservatives, their unity might be cause for celebration; but from a policy standpoint they have suffered a decisive defeat.

The most striking element of the revolution that is taking place in Washington is how quickly it has occurred. Four months ago, the Democratic standard bearer made the centerpiece of his economic message a decidedly, non-liberal, middle class tax cut. No one was seriously talking about a massive spending package to revive the economy and had Obama made such a proposal then we would likely be discussing the finer points of the McCain Administration.

The shift is a result, in part, of the worsening economic recession; but the specific solution being favored by Congress is more a function of the trust that Americans have in President Obama (as well as the advantage of a Democratic-controlled Congress).

...

At the same time, Obama has changed the national conservation about taxes, away from the usual conservative mantra of broad income tax cuts, which disproportionately helped the wealthiest Americans, and toward cuts narrowly tailored toward the middle class. Not only is this arguably better from a policy perspective, but it could lead to a more progressive and egalitarian approach to reducing taxes.

While conservatives are putting on a brave face, steadfast in their opposition, they seem oblivious to the fact that the debate in Washington is no longer between big government and smaller government; it's between big government and bigger government. By supporting a slightly smaller stimulus package - and empowering centrist Republicans by giving them the credit for shrinking its size -- Obama looks conciliatory, while actually getting about 80-90% of what he wanted in new spending and tax reductions. Republicans, by holding out for only tax cuts and failing to offer any compromise that included government spending have painted themselves as political losers - a situation that could get worse for them.

more...
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/12/the_political_implication_of_the_stimulus/

[ej510]

13. Great Frenchie Obama just ruin the repuke party for a generation.