QOTD -- The Reset On "Bipartisanship"

 

"In the early morning hours on Friday, Senate Democrats passed a measure laying the groundwork to move President Biden’s big economic rescue package via the reconciliation process, by a simple majority. Republicans are already thundering with outrage.

"The move does indeed pose a serious challenge to Republicans. But it’s one that runs deeper than merely moving toward passing this one package without them. It also suggests a reset in dealing with GOP bad-faith tactics across the board — and even the beginnings of a response to the Donald Trump era and the ideology loosely described as 'Trumpism.'” -- Greg Sargent, on the reset by Democrats in dealing with the bad faith Republican tactics of dragging "negotiations" out in the name of bipartisanship, only to blame Democrats as failed unifiers when the time comes to move on without Republican support.  Good read.

Morning Reading

On the cusp of passing (we fervently hope) the health care reform bill this week with zero Rethug support, Robert Kuttner has today's perspective on the end (again we fervently hope) of the illusion that bipartisanship is possible, or is even an end to be desired.

Peter Beinart also chimes in on "the decision that changed the Democratic Party" - i.e., Obama's decision to ditch bipartisanship in favor of passing health care reform.

(Oh, yeah, and beware the Ides of March!)

The Perils of "Bipartisan Consensus"

The wonderful (ex-WaPo) cartoonist Ruben Bolling has this take on President Obama's seeming fetish for seeking "bipartisan consensus" when bold action is required (sorry - we love the guy, but he's not perfect). LOL the last panel...

For a serious examination of the problem, see Steve Benen's posting at Washington Monthly.

Quote of the Day

"You know, I'm an eternal optimist. That doesn't mean I'm a sap." -- President Obama today in a interview on Air Force One, when asked if he would be willing to reach out to Republicans in the future. No, Mr. President, we know who the saps are (see "Republicans," below). (h/t Huffington Post)

"Abandon Aggressive Bipartisanship"

In today's WaPo, Larry Sabato, Director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, provides his thoughts on "Judd-head" Gregg's withdrawal in a larger context, saying the time has come for the Obama Administration to "abandon aggressive bipartisanship." Agreed! Sabato goes on to say:

"...[P]leasantries should never be exchanged at the cost of an electoral mandate. Obama secured a higher percentage of the vote than any Democratic presidential nominee since 1860, save for Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Splitting the difference on issues of principle waters down his mandate and dilutes the changes his supporters expect him to deliver...Leave "national unity" governments to parliamentary nations, and let the American two-party system work."

This echoes what many in the Democratic party have been saying, particularly since the Rethugs have made it clear they have no intention of giving up partisanship. E.J. Dionne also made the same point in a WaPo op/ed "Lost in the Middle." Would that the Obama Administration would recognize there are times for bipartisanship, and times to fight back hard for your agenda. Now is the time for the latter.