George W. Bush arrogantly governed by trying to will his agenda past the opposition. Barack Obama appears to have taken another track by appointing republicans to cabinet positions, and even holding closed door sessions with congress critters and the likes of Georg Will. Bipartisanship is a two way street and the republicns don't appear to want to extend a hand. Not one house republican voted for the stimulus bill and only three senators crossed the aisle for the good of the country.


Arianna Huffington Editorial.


Questions for debate:

1.)At what point should doing the right thing trump bipartisanship?


2.)What obligations to the republicans do democrats owe them? Shouldn't his be a matter of "to the victor goes the spoils"? Why or why not?

At what point would bipartisanship trump doing the right thing would be my question. Look, the Republicans have been pro status quo straight down the line, it costs them popularity so if they want to stone wall the voters can take that into consideration at the ballot box. I was no big fan of the stimulas plan but I think it would have happened whoever was in office, just not on Obama's scale and scope. The way they have stood against comprehensive health care is a disgrace and I think people finally get tired of it.




You don't get elected to reach across the isle, you get elected to push an agenda the voters support. Compromise and consensus are the nature of the beast in Washington but the real issue is what republicans are willing to bring to the table. I'm thinking comprehensive health care reform for reductions in military spending and someone needs to lead the way on a job creation agenda with broad base support.

Any hoot, that's my two cents

1.) At what point should doing the right thing trump bipartisanship?

I figure that point is when it is easily recognizable that the American people stand to benefit by the majority party's actions and that it is pretty clear that you're going to get no cooperation from the other side of the aisle.

2.) What obligations to the republicans do democrats owe them? Shouldn't his be a matter of "to the victor goes the spoils"? Why or why not?

At this point, I don't think the Democrats owe the Republicans anything. They have invited Republicans to participate in the process; the invitation was thrown back in their faces. Now it's time to get down to business.

The two recent elections indicated the choice of the voters for who was going to represent them. "To the victor go the spoils" is one way to look at it. The problem is it brings up the picture of the Number One predator eating his fill of the gazelle while the lesser predators look on and wait. As much as that might actually represent what goes on after an election, I would prefer to think that the majority party's decisions better represent the thinking of those who voted them in at any given time.

(Good to see you posting again, Nebraska29! It is curious, however, having a Republican start a thread that is "for declared Democrats only!" )

The problem with that reasoning is that there is seldom a large enough majority to really disregard the other side. Remember when Bush called his whisker-thin victory in 2004 a "mandate"? Clearly, he was delusional, and the Democrats should not have been shut out.

If I am searching for justification for, say, health care reform, I'd rather look for overwhelming poll numbers. They don't come up all that often, but they are there for health care (and for overturning the recent Supreme Court decision on corporate money). Those are the kinds of poll numbers that should convince the minority party that it is not only in the best interests of the country to support your popular measure, but it is also in the individual pol's best (re-election) interests to support it, too.

The Republican answer to health care reform has been to appear as though they, too, want reform, and put forth a plan so ridiculous that there is no hope of compromise with the Democrats, while at the same time spreading misleading information out to their constituents, trying to sell them on the Republican version of things. (Government bad, Big Business Good!)

Because of that disingenuous Republican response, I think the Dems would now be completely justified in steamrolling them on health care, because it could pretty safely be said that they were not representing the wishes of their constituents. But to steamroll on an issue where the American people have no clear preference is just wrongheaded power politics.

I guess what I'm saying is that ideally, politicians would vote to represent their constituents and not their party, and we would end up at the compromise position as a matter of course. If forced bipartisanship is the only way to get to that place in this present climate, then we should strive to do that. I just don't feel like many Republican politicians are truly trying to advance the interests of their constituents, and I don't feel like their party as a whole does, either.