Monday, July 25, 2011

The Obama bipartisan myth

The Los Angeles Times is concerned that all the back and forth over the debt ceiling will tarnish President Obama's "bipartisanship goals."
President Obama took office with a promise to unite warring political factions in Washington, but his efforts to forge a broad deficit reduction plan and avoid a federal default may make him another casualty of those same toxic forces.

Obama has pushed congressional leaders from both parties to set aside partisan differences. He has urged them to pass a sweeping plan that, he says, would cut trillions of dollars from the nation's debt and shore up Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare for years to come.

White House aides believed an achievement on that scale would prove that Obama could overcome the acrimony that has crippled the political process, and help his standing with independent voters who are at the heart of his 2012 reelection strategy.
Oh, donkey piffle! He's been riding that bipartisanship mythology since his speech at the 2004 Kerry convention with all his talk about purple America and it's never been who he really is. Was he a bipartisan when he was a senator? Not when he was opposing the increase of the debt ceiling when Bush was president. In fact, not in any real, substantive way as a state legislator or an Illinois senator or as president has he truly been bipartisan. It's all a pose, but that is enough for the compliant media.

If he were so concerned about bipartisanship, he wouldn't have pushed through the Pelosi/Reid pork-laden stimulus plan without incorporating Republican ideas. He wouldn't have used every legislative gimmick in the book to push through Obamacare after Scott Brown's victory meant that the bill couldn't be changed from the Senate version that had so many problems in it. He made his choice from the beginning to govern from the left based on whatever Reid and Pelosi wanted. He ignored the public backlash and had to see Democrats who'd voted for those programs go down into defeat in 2010 bringing in divided government.

And now the LA Times thinks there are strains on his bipartisan street cred. Give me a break! Where have they been for the past two and a half years?

No comments: