William McGurn examines how Barack Obama is trying to redefine bipartisanship so that his method of ignoring Republican ideas can still be portrayed as truly involving the Republicans in making policy.
The redefinition started during the stimulus debate, but it really picked up steam late last month with David Axelrod’s appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” There the president’s chief strategist explained that a bill didn’t need Republican votes to be “bipartisan”; it was enough if Republican “ideas” were included. A few days earlier, Rahm Emanuel had offered reporters another redefinition, suggesting that a bill was bipartisan if people merely “saw the president trying” to get Republicans on board.
The president himself endorsed this redefinition during Rose Garden remarks delivered after a Senate committee passed a health-care bill on a strictly party-line vote. Perhaps only someone who truly embraces “the audacity of hope” could see healthy bipartisanship at work in the complete lack of GOP votes. Here’s how he put it: “It’s a plan that was debated for more than 50 hours and that, by the way, includes 160 Republican amendments—a hopeful sign of bipartisan support for the final product.”
Let’s leave aside specific complaints from Republicans, who note that the “Republican” amendments the president cited are mostly technical in nature. The larger point is that the White House’s new definitions of bipartisanship are just like the fake “jobs saved or created” numbers Mr. Obama used to justify the stimulus at a time when the economy was in fact shedding tens of thousands of jobs. And the press should call him on it.
One more example of how the press treats the Obama presidency differently from the Bush one. George W. Bush was constantly being portrayed as a ruthlessly partisan leader while the media just seems to buy into Obama's self-portrayal as being post partisan.
Mr. Baucus is not the only one. Other Democratic pols, especially those from the more conservative states, do not relish the prospect of being on the hook for a health-care package that even the Congressional Budget Office says will raise health costs rather than lower them. Nor do they appreciate the ads the president is now running in their states via the Democratic National Committee. These ads target moderate Democrats in an effort to pressure them into passing the president’s health-care proposal quickly.
Back when George W. Bush was in the Oval Office, the press routinely characterized almost everything he and the GOP Congress did as partisan. While it’s true that some parts of his agenda were passed on a purely partisan basis—most notably, the 2003 tax cuts pushed through the Senate with the deciding vote cast by Vice President Dick Cheney—this was the exception rather than the rule. In fact, many of the most far-reaching bills pushed by President Bush—the Patriot Act, the war-funding bills, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug benefit, etc.—were in the end passed with a healthy number of Democratic votes.
In itself, of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with opting to forgo bipartisanship support for the sake of getting your ideas through. That, however, is not what Candidate Obama promised. And just think how the debate would change if the press were to begin describing Mr. Obama in a way that seems reserved for Republicans: a highly partisan president pursuing a narrow partisan agenda.
13 comments:
Actually, i think the WH has some justification for its redefinition. I dont think one can deny that Obama has made an heroic effort to reach out to the GOP, and he has listented to and supported some of their ideas.
But at the end of the day, if you are going to win some GOP votes, some members of the GOP must also act in good faith.
Unfortunatly, it is abundantly clear that the GOP has adopted a strategy of complete and total opposition to anything that Obama does. The hope being (and this is often actually expressed out loud!) that Obama fails. The consequences for the country seem not to be a concern.
The GOP had free reign for most of eight years, and they failed miserably. One of the worst presidencies ever, and an utterly useless Congress. They have nothing whatsoever to offer the American people, except, they hope, the failure of the Democrats.
I stopped at "...heroic effort." Plus other than changing his mind on various ideas that were presented as core beliefs during the campaign I'm at a loss, and I could be wrong, on how many Republican ideas has the President supported? How many have actually made it into a bill much less out of committee? Other than continuing the practice that was one of the causes of this interregnum being created.
Tom, just because Obama and Axelrod make claims that they are being bipartisan does not make it so. They and congress have, after giving lip service to "listening", pretty much ram-rod their bills through in their pure partisan form.
They've got an excellent messaging process at the WH to rope people like you into believing they are not only bipartisan, but competent (and honest!!). lol
Tom,
This is from Roll Call:
"The source added that the meeting then devolved into 'a cacophony of voices against bipartisanship' because Senate leaders could not reconcile how they could attract Republicans without sacrificing too many Democrats".
"However, the Democratic source said the leadership’s decision could backfire by alienating other elements of the Democratic caucus, such as centrists".
“'I’m concerned we’re going to be perceived as abandoning the Republicans,' the source said. 'The demands Reid is putting on some Democrats is going to make it harder for other Democrats to support this. ... Going the partisan route doesn’t get this bill done any faster.'”
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_3/news/36562-1.html
The meeting was between Majority Leader Reid, Senator Baucus, and other Democrats attempting to draft a workable health reform bill. It would seem that many Democrats, now that Al Franken is seated, feel they do not have to operate in a bi-partisan manner on an attempt to change not only the way we go about health care but also how an enormous part of America's economy functions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/health/policy/09health.html?_r=1
That "good faith" thing you speak of would have to work both ways if the intent is to draft a bi-partisan bill. Don't you agree?
Well Pat, you should just swallow hard, and march on past "heroic effort".
"That, however, is not what Candidate Obama promised."
He didn't promise it to you, however. He promised it to his supporters.
As long as the GOP continues to act in destructive ways, its voice and votes will be ignored.
It looks like the GOP is well on the way to fracturing into multiple self-interest groups - the evangelibans, the CEOs, the racists, and the Paleo-palins. At that point you become completely irrelevant to loyal, decent, hardworking Americans. So good luck with that.
Since Bill B managed to misrepresent Betsy's post I can only ask if President Obama was not promising bipartisanship, which with the prefix bi inserted, who exactly was he planning on be bipartisan with if not the Republicans? I'm unaware how you can promise something to your supporters only, as Bill B claims, and then not include the object of that promise. As to Tom, I asked a question and I think I now can assume that you cannot think of any Republican ideas included in any bill that would justify the claim of "...heroic effort."
Biddle,
For you it seems to always come down to the party first and foremost.
Though you may like to fantasize about it, the GOP is not dead, and someday, probably sooner than you think, that party will once again hold the reins of power. If government is charge of health care, as you would like, then the Republicans will be running it at some point.
Really, don't you think you would be better off without politics as a component in the determination of who will be treated and how?
Pat -- when candidate Obama promised his supporters that he would work in a bipartisan manner, he implicitly predicated that on receiving back similar goodwill, support, and inclusiveness.
Obama asked Republicans to offer constructive amendments to his budget proposals at the start of this year. None were forthcoming.
A second example: Republics' leaders' rejected the stimulus plan even before they met with Obama to discuss it.
At some point everyone has to recognize: the GOP has failed miserably. Its ideas are no longer relevant. It doesn't want to work with the President. Best thing is to ignore republics till the GOP tears itself to pieces on its own.
From the Politico before the stimulus bill was rammed through.
"But perhaps taking a cue from Obama’s “I won” line when Democrats were asked if they were concerned about Republicans blocking the package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a swift one-word answer: “No.”
"heroic Effort"? That's funny.
I dont think one can deny that Obama has made an heroic effort to reach out to the GOP, and he has listented to and supported some of their ideas.
Which GOP ideas has Obama supported, let alone adopted? If you ignore what he says and pay attention to what he does, it's hard to make the case that he's been bipartisan. Republicans have been excluded from the meetings where the numerous trillion-dollar-plus bills have been written. Their participation has been limited to after-the-fact amendments to bills they've not been given the chance to read. Democrats have killed over 90% of these amendments in committee, not even allowing them to be voted on.
But at the end of the day, if you are going to win some GOP votes, some members of the GOP must also act in good faith.
It's tough to act in good faith, when you're largely excluded from the process. For comparison, recall the approach of the previous administration, where Democrats were offered a seat at the table. This resulted in actual bipartisanship on a number of issues: the war, Medicare prescription coverage, AIDS prevention in Africa. Ted Kennedy *wrote* Bush's education bill.
Unfortunatly, it is abundantly clear that the GOP has adopted a strategy of complete and total opposition to anything that Obama does. The hope being (and this is often actually expressed out loud!) that Obama fails. The consequences for the country seem not to be a concern.
This may be "clear" to you, but it's demonstrably untrue. The GOP response to being squeezed out of the process has been to offer alternative solutions which are cheaper and which more accurately reflect Obama's stated goals (in the case of stimulus: targeted, temporary, and timely; in the case of health care: extending coverage to a larger population and actually lowering costs). These proposals do a better and more efficient job of realizing Obama's objectives than those put forth by Democrats *according to Obama's own numbers and modeling*.
For eight years, we listened to Democrats defend their criticisms -- which largely consisted of personal attacks -- by claiming that opposition is the highest form of patriotism. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they're suddenly not so keen on the idea. At least Democrats were given a seat at the table, and at least Republican opposition is largely substantive and on point.
Bill B's version seems to saying that Obama by making a promise to the Democrats binds the Republicans as well? That doesn't make sense on actual policy differences or on the kind of substatitive issues that are clearly delineated between the two parties. You can't paper over some issues by accusing one side or the other of not being bipartisan when their is a fundamental difference in outlook, promisisng to be bipartisan on abortion means what? That people that are unalterably opposed should accept some compromise that only kills half as many as before?
Plus I asked Tom, Freeven did the same, could either Tom or Bill take the time to show any result at bipartisanship that has ended up in any form in one of the bills that have been passed in the first session? I can think of three but I would like to see Bill show a little initiative for a change and Tom some by way of introduction and do a little more than platitudes cribbed from somewhere else.
Tom may be a new voice here, I gather from his style, rather than another sock puppet. I could be wrong - I lose track of all the hit-and-run commenters. But I'd be glad to get away from the predictablity of BB, TV, Jaw, etc., so I welcome Tom.
But really... Your statements ring hollow, as if you've no real idea what the opposition to Obama is about - who conservatives really are and what they stand for. From your post, it seems your information sources have been limited.
I dont think one can deny that Obama has made an heroic effort to reach out to the GOP
What makes you think "no one can deny it"? I'd call that an outright lie if I didn't get the sense that you might actually believe it. Don't believe it, Tom. Obama has proven he will always say one thing and then do the other. I can understand if you've not seen much accurate reporting of this phenomenon - there's been a lot of water-carrying going on in most major news outlets.
The GOP had free reign for most of eight years
No, the "free reign" lasted less than two years before Jeffords switched. Where do you get your information? If you're going to cite a statistic like "8 years", you should first double-check your facts (Or you'll look foolish and lose credibility. You don't want that to happen, right?)
The hope being that Obama fails. The consequences for the country seem not to be a concern.
Reconsider your premises, Tom. Try to understand: We feel that if Obama succeeds in getting his initiatives passed, it will doom the nation. This is an honestly held opinion and one I ask you and your friends to understand. Can you? Can you see how stupid and insulting that assertion is?
Plenty else to object to in your post, but anyway... Try to keep it mature and use your head, and we'll get along fine.
Post a Comment