The op-ed is his attempt to draw attention less to the spectacle and more to the substance of his comments. In his opinion, there aren't people on the other side of the aisle prepared to act in good faith. There is simply a party united in saying "No" and trying to reassign blame by blaming that the Democrats are acting with a spirit of bi-partisanship.
Now Ben has been saying for some time that the Dems should go it alone. He surmised some time ago that Repos weren't serious about being bi-partisan, they just wanted to look bi-partisan so they had cover when the voted "no" all the time. I was more moderate. I had hope there could be true bi-partisanship. I had hope that there was a middle ground and reasonable men and women could find it. I misplaced my hope.
I have seen President Obama, Sen. Reid, and even Speaker Pelosi try to find a middle ground. I have seen them offer to take up Republican ideas in major legislation, but the Republicans always wanted more. They wanted to govern from the minority. Guys (cause there aren't many women current serving as Republicans, Bachmann barely registers as human these days), you lost the election. You lost in 2006 and in 2008. Hell, you seem primed to under-perform in 2010.
This obstructionism wrapped up in false bi-partisan overtures is what makes Rep. Weiner so angry. It makes me angry. I just don't get to pound a podium on the House floor. Pity that.
1 comment:
As I have said before, I find bipartisanship to be hugely over-rated. As others have quipped, I think the Republicans would be well-advised to not just be the party of no, but the party of hell no. If I were GOP dictator/lead henchman I wouldn't want to tarnish the brand name by lending support to virtually anything Congress has passed over the last year and a half. If the Democrats think it is so great then they should pass it, embrace it and campaign on it.
Let's also remember that for all of the talk about GOP obstructionism that Democrats don't need a single GOP vote in the House to pass anything. Not one. They've already got the votes to do whatever they like. In the Senate they only need, what, two votes to break a filibuster?
The reality is the Democrats won the last two elections and have the votes to largely do as they please. If they think their agenda is so great for America they should be happy to campaign on it and criticize the GOP for not going along with it. One *almost* suspects that Dems are chiefly interested in Republican votes because they realize how wildly unpopular their agenda is and would appreciate some bipartisan cover.
Hell, you seem primed to under-perform in 2010.
Curious what your metric here is. What would constitute Republican under-performance? Intrade's odds for Republicans to take the House keep going up, up, up and are now over 60%:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TFWVr1MxnKI/AAAAAAAAOGk/2n50f895PmM/s1600/intrade1.jpg
Post a Comment