Wednesday, March 17, 2010

You Have Failed

Fail phone to Nancy Pleosi and Harry Reid: if you don't have the votes to get your legislation reconciled, you have failed. The GOP will come after you in November if you pass the bill or not, at this point.

No proceedural matter can save you now. You lose. You have failed.

That's what it means when you don't win enough votes. Please ask the GOP from 2006 and 2008 what it feels like to not win enough votes. As a matter of fact, don't worry about it, you will learn soon enough.

.

8 comments:

Dante said...

Is it just me or is there an inverse relationship between a Presidential candidate campaigning on bi-partisanship and actual demonstrated bi-partisanship?

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Sorry, "bipartisanship" means working together for solutions.

It does NOT mean pretending the GOP didn't lose elections in 2006 and 2008. There's a big difference.

I really don't see how the "partisan Obama" meme can be defended on any level, especially after the last 8 years in comparison. I mean, the Bush administration was so partisan, overpolticized every single thing and did so with such infuriating hyperbole that maybe the goalposts really have been moved.

Obama has kept Republican US Attorneys who are doing their damn jobs, he kept a Republican Secretary of Defense because he was doing his damn job, directed billions of the stimulus to states with GOP governors (who criticized the funds out of one side of their mouths while trying to take credit for the benefits), appointed professionals (not cronies) to lead key non-partisan government agencies, and maintained the GOP-preferred education reform models of his predecessor to name a few.

That's exactly 1,000,000,000 times more bipartisan than any Republican has acted in a generation.

He has encouraged and cajoled and scolded. He has not equated people that disagree with him poltically as "with the terrorists" or that their opinions "make America less safe." As a matter of fact, the most highly partisan rhetoric in this country still comes from the GOP and the right wing, contrary to every failed policy of the past 8 years.

Legislatively, which is, you know, a seperate branch of government over which the President has no control, the GOP did basically whatever they wanted to for about a decade despite objections from the other side. Yet now that the GOP lost two elections in a row for abject failure in all areas of government, we suddenly hear about the Democrats lack of bipartisanism.

Even in Obama's relations with said legislature, he did not push single-payer or public-option or advocate against Stupak (even though it was redundant), inserted as many GOP provisions into the reconciliation that his Party could deal with, all in order to make a bill more palatable to the party who lost - lemme say that again - LOST

L.O.S.T.

the last two fairly contested and certified elections.

I mean, at some point I have to ask where the "partisanship" comes from in this guy. Even then, I have an answer: Obama only qualifies as partisan if your definition of partisan comes from Fox News, or the right wing radio/blogosphere. That's it.

Under every normal definition, Obama is the most bipartisan President we've had in a generation.

Dante said...

Yeah, Obama didn't get rid of all opposing-party US Attorneys. So he's not Clinton or W. He did extend some bipartisanship by putting a Republican or two on his cabinet. He even demonstrated some tripartisanship by putting lobbyists in his cabinet, too.

"That's exactly 1,000,000,000 times more bipartisan than any Republican has acted in a generation."

Well any number multiplied by zero is zero so I'll have to concede your point.

"...maintained the GOP-preferred education reform models of his predecessor..."

You mean the No Child Left Behind Act? The one Ted Kennedy sponsored? The one that passed 384-45 in the House and 91-8 in the Senate? Now THAT is some bipartisanship. And Obama already has his eye on altering it.

Yeah, the GOP lost their majority and did so for all the right reasons. But Democrats assumed their election wins meant they don't have to explain themselves and that attitude has been disasterous for them. So much so that those guys we booted just a few years are asking "Miss me yet?" and we're answering "Maybe."

Obama isn't going to get anything done by bulldozing ahead with his agenda and throwing a few trinkets the GOP's way as long as Obama can't sell his own agenda. With Obama's near-right to be heard, he can't sell it to the American people. He can't sell it to Republicans. He can't sell it to his own Party.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

"Democrats assumed their election wins meant they don't have to explain themselves and that attitude has been disasterous for them."

Yeah, you got that right. We've agreed on that since 2006.

But that ain't Obama. He campaigned on bipartisanship, and he has attempted to deliver as best he can. As a matter of fact, he's delivered action on most of his campaign promises. As an Obama supporter who understood reality (as opposed to the "idea of Obama"), I knew he wouldn't change everything overnight.

It ain't his fault that the GOP (and a lot of Dems) are so entrenched and invested in bad policy at this point, they can't even negotiate.

I'm shocked that his respect for seperation of powers and reserved use of the bully pulpit is seen as both partisan and a bad thing.

Hell, I wish he'd get back into the game and start knocking heads like the "Chicago thug" narrative accuses him of doing. Like I said, most of the current partisanship still comes from the GOP and the right wing. I would love to see Obama absolutely dismantle the tired cliches the right calls "policy" these days.

But he doesn't do it, because he's following through on his bipartisan promises.

It sure would be good to see a little more "partisanship" from the President in calling out lunacy where it lives.

DADvocate said...

The irony of this is that virtually every American wants health care reform. That the Demoncrats have approached this in such a manner as to make staunch enemies out of the majority of Americans is a testament to their ineptitude, idiocy, and lack of minimally acceptable ethics.

Had they come up with a proposal that treated all Americans equally (unions, federal employees, elected officials, etc included), reformed torts, preserved our freedom to choose (more than just abortion) and showed promise of actually controlling costs, the Demoncrats would have a lock on re-election for a long time and been praised by the populace.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

+ 2 DADvocate.

This episode is further proof of three things:

One, Republicans could sell ice to Alaskans in the wintertime.

Two, Republicans could then convince the Alaskans that Democrats wanted government to take over the ice trade.

and

Three, Democrats couldn't give away freshly baked cookies and milk to the starving children of the world without making those children angry.

DADvocate said...

I'm not sure that the Republican Party is all that effective or could come close to selling ice cubes to Eskimos. But, they have a lot of help from conservative talk radio and others.

The current Democrats in power are just too far removed idealogically from the populace.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Or, I just could have been bamboozled like everyone else.