| 0 |
Subject: Post-Partisan
Posted by: Boldwin
- [251049519] Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 03:50
I'm sincerely trying to track down whatever genuine post-partisan moves if any were made by the administration.
For example stylistically the 'bipartisan' healthcare meeting with congressmen leaps to mind but can you point to any genuine nugget of bipartisanship that came from that. Did Obama incorporate any idea he heard from the right?
I'm really not looking for targets of snark opportunity here. Genuinely intelligent dem strategists I respect as strategists [certainly not as philosophers] seem to think there was something real beneath the attempt to project that appearance. And I am determined to suss out a real life example. What exactly is Obama's 'post-partisan theory of change'? |
| 1 | biliruben
ID: 34820210
Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 07:21
|
Dood.
Almost half the stimulus was poorly crafted tax-breaks in an attempt to reach out to conservative legislators.
The health care bill essentially left the system of paying for our care in private insurer's hands, dooming us to 25% administrative costs instead of 6% that a government run insurer does.
At every step, Obama has made far too much effort to cozy up with the GOP. Just because they ignored the overtures and saw it as weakness doesn't mean he didn't make them, over and over again.
|
| 2 | Boldwin
ID: 251049519
Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 09:26
|
1)I'll have to look at those tax breaks closer. I'll be honest that I saw the stimulous as handing out walking around money for the continous presidential campaign workers but maybe a good chunk of the tax breaks wouldn't work for that. A good starting place to look. Thanks.
2)Having trouble interpreting 'only taking baby steps towards marxism instead of giant leaps' as legitimately bipartisan or post-partisan.
3)'Cozy up' doesn't help me separate style from substance.
|
| 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 10:29
|
Don't forget: The reason the health insurance reform bill took so long is that Obama insisted, again and again, in getting Republicans at the table. They refused time and time again.
It is probably worth noting that this administration has actual Republicans in cabinet positions.
|
| 4 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 10:30
|
Having trouble interpreting 'only taking baby steps towards marxism instead of giant leaps'
and this is the problem. if you honestly in your heart believe this fallacy, then nothing the Obama administration does, in your mind, will be bi-partisan or post-partisan.
|
| 5 | Boldwin
ID: 251049519
Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 11:25
|
This reallyis the heart of my question. Is there anything real in Obama's 'post-partisan theory of change' other than his willingness to take the slow route thru the institutions?
|
| 6 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 13:28
|
Am I the only one that notices that in Boldwins post-partisanship world only the left is expected to compromise, despite controlling the WH and congress? You may insist that his measures were insufficient, but at very least there was more than the piss and vinegar the other side responded with at every turn. If both side participate, a twig can become a branch. Obama started from the point of including republican ideas In his initial proposal. The same people who originally floated them blasted them as socialism from the other sides o their mouths. And you're mocking the notion of Obamas post partisanship?
What compromises did the GOP offer? Committed blind partisanship is all I ever saw.
|
| 7 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 13:39
|
Am I the only one that notices that in Boldwins post-partisanship world only the left is expected to compromise, despite controlling the WH and congress?
of course not.
for Baldwin, Compromise from the left really means Capitulation from the left.
|
| 8 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 15:35
|
#5: Yes. I've given two examples myself.
The problem is that if the GOP doesn't want to deal (or even negotiate), then Obama is left with fewer opportunities to do so. Almost by definition, when Obama acts because the Right refuses to work with him on an issue despite overtures of bipartisanship, then the issue is taken on in a partisan way.
|
| 9 | Boldwin
ID: 01012615
Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 01:05
|
PD
Step back and consider it in the abstract. What choice do you have when dealing with someone who never gives back an inch but to make certain you never give up an inch?
|
| 10 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 02:08
|
When given the choice to make what they are going to pass less reprehensible, you suck up your pride and make sure the law isn't as bad as it would be otherwise.
Republicans have made the decision to put party over policy.
Virtually everything Republicans hate about the bills the Democrats put through would have been slightly less so merely by asking. The Dems were going to put them through anyway, so we've seen the pride of the Right get in the way of better legislation.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|