Obama: obsessed with bipartisanship?

[CTLawGuy]

stimulus bill:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29179041

House 246 - 183. 0 republican votes in favor
senate 60-38. 3 Republican votes in favor(just enough to overcome the filibuster)

Obama signs it into law even though it got the bare minimum of R votes absolutely necessary to pass it.

heath care reform bill - final version

House 219-212, 0 R votes in favor(main bill); 220-211, 0 R votes in favor (fixes). http://thehill.com/homenews/house/88189-house-approves-senate-healthcare-bill-sends-legislation-to-obamas-desk

Senate 60-39, 0 R votes in favor (main bill) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act; 56-43 via reconciliation 0 R votes in favor (fixes) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/house-health-care-vote-co_n_514031.html.

Obama signs it into law even though absolutely no Rs voted for it.

financial reform

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16fri1.html

House 237-192, 3 R votes in favor
Senate 60-39, 3 R votes in favor, just enough to overcome filibuster

Obama signs the bill although it has token republican support.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does this sound like a president obsessed with bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake?

Or does this sound like a president who is doing what he needs to do to accomplish something positive for America?

In all three of these bills there was zero margin for error in the Senate and a small one at best in the House. What that says to me is that Obama and the Democrats got the farthest left bill they could while still being able to pass it.

The alternative I suppose would have been to veto everything for not being left enough, but who would that have helped?

[treestar]

1. The consequences of vetoing everything for not being enough

aren't considered enough around here, I agree.

It's just assumed that if Obama said he wouldn't sign it, that the Congress would have made it more liberal so that he would.

[suzie]

2. +1

[Cha]

3. The repukes say he's ramming through..who cares what

they bargle about? Others say he's too bi-partisan..President Obama is doing what he needs to do for what progress they've made.

[flamingdem]

4. This is a good response to those who blame bipartisanship

I hope they read this!

[NJmaverick]

5. K & R!

[USArmyParatrooper]

6. Excellent points! Rec

[tblue37]

7. The Dems in the Senate could have MADE the friggin' Republicans

actually filibuster--and be filibustering--against all the most popular aspects of the HCR and finance bills; you know, the parts that got watered down or completely cut out in order to garner those 60 votes that it isn't supposed to take to pass any but the most unusual legislation.

But instead, the Dem leadership let the Rethugs say, "Boo! Ima gonna filibuster that bill!" and just threw up their hands in defeat instead of actually making the Republcians go through with the damned filibuster, which would have been fantastic anti-Republican theater to make the American voters see who it really was that was preventing them from getting what they wanted from the government.

[indepat]

8. Hear, hear!

:thumbsup:

[killbotfactory]

9. Ahem

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

[harun]

11. Thanks for posting. way too many people still don't understand this.

[tblue37]

14. Then that makes it even more obnoxious that the weak-kneed Dems never bothered even to

slow down the awful legislation they allowed the Republicans to push through.

[niceypoo]

10. "The bill contains every republican idea"

He compromises with the GOP for nothing in return, that is the pattern.

[Jakes Progress]

12. He is a professional senator.

[mzmolly]

13. K, B

and R. Thank you :hi: