Obama Jettisons Bi-Partisanship?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Democrats, Obama, Republicans, Video

Not that I wouldn’t do the same if put in the position Obama is in on health care, economy, etc., but it’s telling that he’s being so blatant about it. The gloves are about to come off after the recess. I can almost guarantee it.



I’m sure in the coming years you’ll see more cooperation between the parties on some issues, but on the core ones I’m guessing that we’re going to see fight after fight after fight.


This entry was posted on Friday, August 7th, 2009 and is filed under Barack, Democrats, Obama, Republicans, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

10 Responses to “Obama Jettisons Bi-Partisanship?”

  1. SpkTruth2Pwr Says:

    Very true. I think it is blatant, but nonetheless I think he has tried, but at a certain point something has to fall by the wayside in order to note some progress or change. I guess some issues are just too contentious to convince everyone that one side of the field is better than the other.

  2. mw Says:

    “Jettison” implies that he was actually attempting to employ bipartisan efforts in a meaningful way. You could still use the word, but to be accurate, the headline should be “Obama Jettisons Bi-Partisan Rhetoric.”

  3. Justin Gardner Says:

    mw, yes, he was faking it completely. It was all a sham. He’s just a huge liar.

    Come on…

  4. Nick Benjamin Says:

    He did try. Very, very hard. He brought the GOP caucus in discussions on the stimulus. He incorporated many of their ideas. They said nothing, so he assumed they were happy. Then it came time to vote and each and every one voted against him.

    Given that evidence it’s pretty easy to conclude Boehner would vote down the Bill of Rights if Obama proposed it.

    BTW, is there a reason Donklephant hasn’t covered the violence at various health care forums? Given that fistfights and shouting people down are the ultimate forms of discourse this site seeks to eliminate I thought we’d have a thread by now.

    For the record my group has been involved in Dingell’s forum. It was pretty clear the anti-Obama folk were there to make sure the forum was ruined, and maybe provoke a fight. Check out the Youtube videos, particularly the first segment of the second forum. The redhead trying to speak is actually that short, and needs to use crutches if she wants to walk any distance, but that doesn’t stop a burly dude in an military-style black beret and a Harley T-Shirt from wagging his finger in her face.

  5. Nancy Hanks Says:

    Just for the record, “bi”-partisanship is still partisanship. The rift that we need to be concerned about is not the “rift” between the parties — that’s their game and that’s how they play their game. In my opinion what we need to be concerned more about is the fact that some 50% of the American people don’t vote because they don’t think it will make any difference (and they’re probably right), and almost 40% of the people who uncynically choose to participate in the political process self-identify as independents. And yet we have a Congress of “representatives” who overwhelmingly adhere to policy and political objectives that are set by self-interested clubhouses that were each established a century or two ago. Hmmm… what’s wrong with this picture?! – NH

  6. mw Says:

    @Nick
    You’ve got to be kidding me. Are you really that naive?

    The Stimulus Bill was drafted of whole cloth by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House of Representatives. This is a simple fact. She said so herself and barely acknowledged even taking input from the President let alone Republicans.

    There was a lot of White House rhetoric and PR photo-ops about bi-partisanship, but the bottom line from the president was to take the House bill or leave it. The only actual GOP concession in the stimulus bill came in the Senate, and it was the bare minimum set of changes necessary to buy off the three needed Republican votes (well – two since one of them was Specter).

    Claire McCaskill made it crystal clear what the final product was all about when she was trying to justify the minor changes made by the Senate to the rabid left and said “the Senate bill is 90% the same as House bill.”

    It is now clear that particular exercise of raw partisan political power was to no greater end than a display of political muscle and releasing the eight years of pent-up demand for pork spoils back to the Democratic party victors.

    Ed Morrissey nailed it:

    “It may not have been a deliberate calculation, but the disparity comes from the nature of the stimulus, and it shows just how political Porkulus was. It wasn’t a stimulus package at all – most of the money gets spent after the first year — but a collection of Democratic Party ideological wish lists and pork projects. Districts that voted Obama get twice as much money per person because Democrats controlled the pork projects and got the money into their districts. That’s not exactly rocket science, but it’s certainly revealing.

    The point is that it is now obvious that the stimulus package was not even vaguely similar to what Obama claimed it was at the time. More people recognize that, and as a consequence are less likely to believe his broad, sweeping, detail-free, fear-mongering rhetoric about the health care bill now.

    @Justin
    A liar? I wouldn’t call it that. I’d call it your garden variety old-style Chicago-style backroom strong-arm partisan politics. But that is me and my terminology.

    If I was using the same language and terminology on display here at Donklephant to describe similar deceptions and machinations by the Bush administration, then yes – using that terminology – It’s a lie.

  7. Nick Benjamin Says:

    There was a lot of rhetoric and PR photo-ops about bi-partisanship, but the bottom line from the president was to take the House bill or leave it. The only actual GOP concession to the House written stimulus bill came in the Senate, and it was the bare minimum set of changes necessary to buy off the three needed Republican votes.

    There were plenty of concessions Lots of specific provisions were eliminated after the GOP said they weren’t stimulating enough. Easier access to contraception was eliminated when the GOP objected. It’s not Obama’s fault that Boehner et al. kept demanding more.

    Granted he didn’t let the Republicans write half the bill. But if the GOP actually cared about any of that stuff you’d assume at least one guy would vote for the package.

  8. B. Drosser Says:

    Listen, Do you really think either of the parties have the people’s interest first and foremost at heart? Now we see the Clinton faction (the DP establishment) and Obama and his followers coming together (Bill bringing the American reporters home from Korea. Bill and Hillary countering the far right wing by reaching out to working people regarding the Health Care Crisis).

    How come? For the good of the country? I doubt it. No, the alliance is to destroy the Republican Party. Now, don’t get me wrong. That’s just fine with me – but don’t for one second think it’s about “we the people”. If the time comes when Hillary runs against Obama – so much for unity – it will be a dog fight.

    I respect Obama and I think he’s doing a good job – but he’s not our savior. What he is, is smart enough to know that independents elected him. And Hillary painfully and late in the game sees this too. Ok – if the DP wants to destroy the RP – it needs an alliance with independents to do it. Now if independents play it right – it will be an alliance that’s about “we the people”.

  9. Kyle Brady: A Blog - A Plea for Democracy Says:

    [...] having a Democratic Congress has nonetheless resulted in problems since President Obama wished to, until recently, include the ranting Republicans on policy.  By doing so, the self-appointed “party of [...]

  10. Donklephant » Blog Archive » The Audacity of Astroturf Says:

    […] We do requests: […]

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: