Obesssive Compulsive Bipartisanship: Ben Nelson Says His Health Care Vote Contingent on GOP Votes

[babylonsister]

Obesssive Compulsive Bipartisanship: Ben Nelson Says His Health Care Vote Contingent on GOP Votes
by: David Sirota
Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 15:12



"Donny, these men are cowards." - Walter Sobchak

Here at OpenLeft, we've often discussed Washington's sick fetishization of bipartisanship. Whether it's pundits or politicians, the entire D.C. Establishment has made abundantly clear that it is first and foremost interested in bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake before it is interested in the ramifications of public policy. The logic (or, really, illogic) of this fetishization essentially posits that anything that can pass with bipartisan votes in Congress is good, and anything that can only pass with Democratic votes must be bad.*

There are numerous examples of this fetishization - but none have been as blatant as what we see today from Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (D). I would argue that the behavior exhibited in this New York Times article goes beyond fetishization and to Obsessive Compulsive Bipartisanship (OCB):

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, typically one of the hardest votes for Democratic leaders to corral, is looming as a particularly tough sell . "At the end of the day, I want to see everything before I commit to anything," said Mr. Nelson, who added that he would have trouble backing a bill that did not have some Republican support. (emphasis added)

This is stunning, really. It's one thing for a legislator to talk in platitudes about pursuing policies that could create bipartisanship. It's quite another thing for a legislator to openly say his vote will be explicitly contingent on the votes of the other party irrespective of the policy he's voting on. The latter takes bipartisanship from a mere fetish to an obsessive compulsive fixation, as if the legislator was elected not to judge policy, write legislation or represent constituents, but to only hand out his vote if the other party hands out theirs.

Based on this logic, a bill could meet every single one of Nelson's substantive policy demands, but if all Republicans in the Senate said they were going to vote against it, Nelson would probably vote against it (or, at minimum, he is saying "he would have trouble backing" it). That's beyond extreme - it's into the realm of what was formerly taboo.

more...

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15143/obesssive-compulsive-bipartisanship-ben-nelson-says-his-health-care-vote-contingent-on-gop-votes

[saigon68]

1. He is beyond hope

He should just walk across the aisle and service on his knees his masters

[dennis4868]

2. Can you imagine....

a Repub saying that during the Bush years when the Repubs controlled everything....NOT!

[bluestateguy]

3. Let him go

We can burn 10 votes* in a reconciliation vote, and I always assumed that Nebraska Nelson would be one of those 10.










*Assuming we promptly get a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts to warm Teddy's seat.

[babylonsister]

4. Did you see this? They're working on it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6577377&mesg_id=6577377

Mass. House Approves Senate Appointment Bill

[pdxmom]

5. Someone needs to remind Sen. Nelson, in no uncertain terms, that

his vote should be contigent on what is best for his constituency...and I don't think that the Republicans in Congress are his constituency.

[newfie11]

6. I do that often and I am ignored!

He must be owned by the lobbyists.

[babylonsister]

7. Are you kidding? I don't think he much cares about his constituents.

He's in the pocket of the health care industry; seems pretty obvious.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Mutual Of Omaha is his constituency. nt

[WI_DEM]

9. So Senator, instead of voting your conscience, you vote based on how many republicans will vote for

it?