Redefining Bipartisanship...

[vaberella]

Over the last few posts and my two years or going on two years here...I've come to one conclusion. When Obama uses Bipartisanship---I really and sincerely do not believe he's talking about Republicans. Or not the classic Republicans found in the Republican party.

I think he's sort of moved beyond them and realizes that they don't want him to be successful, he's come to terms with that. However, I think more and more he uses it towards the Blue Dogs (in the house) and the Conservadems (in the Senate). They claim democrat but I see them as wolves in sheeps clothing. Republicans passing off as Dems. So all this effort to get Bipartisan ship is a killing two birds with one stone.

You target the Republicans for their childishness or even accomodate them a time or two in reality Obama is not trying to accomodate those in the Republican----but really the Republicans in his own party. I've noticed more often than not that the Conservadems/Blue Dogs share in a lot of the same ideals as Republicans. "We want to balance the budget." "I agree with my friend across the isle that we need tort reform..." "Lieberman." And on and on it goes. They're really the problem and always has been. I've said many times that I think many progresses focus on Obama and not the real problem the Congress.

And I think Obama is dealing as best he can with a very shady Congress. However, what's more so is the shady characters in his own party. Many people will say Rahm is at fault for some of these people to be in office. While I'd like to state BlueDogs have been in Congress before Rahm and were probably causing trouble for far longer.

Yes it's the Republicans who really had the Obama admin at a handicap for his entire admin being hired. But when it comes to getting his policies pushed through or ruining his policies that might have been good---it's in the hands of some shady characters in his own party rather than Repubs.

[Clio the Leo]

1. It has nothing to do with ANYONE in Congress....

... and EVERYTHING to do with the American electorate.

We forget that political junkies like ourselves are in the minority in this country. MOST people do not get their rocks off watching political debate. MOST voters dont want to see the Democrats stomp on the Republicans or vice versa.

MOST Americans want members of Congress to put their partisan BS aside and make this country better.

THAT is who his message is directed toward, not to us. Sure, WE would all love for him to have swooped into town as a progressive savior and completely moved the legislative direction of this country to the left. But we are not the entire country and he cannot be elected or get his legislation passed with us alone. (This is especially true since we spend most of our time arguing with one another and less of it holding CONGRESS' feet to the fire like the teabaggers are doing.)

You will notice that ALL of his press interviews are done with the major networks, not with the cable networks. The Obama campaign realized that the bulk of the electorate doesn't sit glued to cable news like we do (this is also why you'll hear him casually brush off cable news "noise" from time to time.) MOST Americans watch the network programs and that's it. You'll remember when CNN/Fox/MSNBC was airing ALL of Palin's speeches in the fall of '08, the Obama campaign put up only a symbolic protest and, instead, focused on local events in key states that would be carried by the local 6pm news.

And they won.

I also think he has a genuine desire to see disagreements worked out by all sides coming to the table, everyone giving some of what they want so that everyone will get some of what they want. "Audacity" is replete with examples of this philosophy.

But I think the notion of bipartisanship is one of the most misunderstood concepts here at DU (in regard to the admin's handling of it.) But his still high personal favorability numbers are the fruit of this philosophy and I fear that those who are upset or bothered by his desire for bipartisanship are going to be upset and bothered for a long time to come.

[msongs]

2. most people want the elected winners to govern the nation, not appease the losers nt

[vaberella]

5. No it's not the American electorate. We're going to have to disagree.

It's not just them. Far from it. We have people who undermine the constituents as well. However, we have a Congress who will ignore their electorate to undermine our President---as seen with the Republican party. The Conservadems and BlueDogs are the same---it's not about the electorate alone at that point---unless you mean working to vote them out or unseat them.

[Arkana]

3. Redefine it as bringing Dems and Conservadems together.

Republicans have no actual interest in governing, so ignore them.

[vaberella]

4. Valid point. n/t