Bye Bye Bipartisanship

[babylonsister]

I just kind of liked the title. Dems tried. rethugs pushed their luck. Gloves off.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/20/rahm-emanuel-joe-barton-bp-apology_n_618646.html

Rahm Emanuel: Joe Barton's BP Apology Represents Difference Between Democrats And Republicans
Video at link~

AP/Huffington Post First Posted: 06-20-10 09:58 AM | Updated: 06-20-10 05:55 PM


WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's chief of staff is warning about what might happen if Republicans -- who have defended BP over the Gulf oil spill -- were to run Congress after the fall election.

Rahm Emanuel says the GOP philosophy is to paint BP as the victim, pointing to Rep. Joe Barton's apology to BP for what the congressman called a White House "shakedown."

"That's not a political gaffe, those are prepared remarks. That is a philosophy. That is an approach to what they see. They see the aggrieved party here as BP, not the fishermen," Emanuel said on ABC's "This Week."

Barton and Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul, who recently called Obama's criticism of BP "un-American," are a reflection of the Republican party's governing philosophy, Emanuel said. "They think that the government's the problem."

It would be "dangerous" if the GOP held power in Washington, Emanuel said.

"I think what Joe Barton did was remind the American people, in case they forgot, how the Republicans would govern."

Emanuel says Obama will make clear to voters the fundamental differences in how each party would govern, focusing on energy policy, Wall Street reform and economic recovery.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I believe it will be nearly impossible to ever re-establish bipartisonship.

Too much precedence with one party not working with the other whether it's a majority or minority.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. It can't be an end to bipartisanship...

Because there never was any in the first place.

The gloves should have come off a long time ago, thank you very much!

Highly recommended.

[Igel]

12. Sure, there was.

Kennedy found a way to compromise and get much of what he wanted while letting the other side get much of what they wanted.

So did Clinton. Even Gingrich. And the Bushes.

Reagan yielded a lot on some things, not much on others. As did Johnson and Nixon.

Early on those who won by widish margins said, essentially, that bipartisanship was falling in line and cooperating. As soon as things got rocky, most of them found ways to compromise to get some things passed on either side; the majority party still got more passed that they wanted than the minority party. More recently, bipartisanship has come to mean "do as I say, otherwise shut up." That's not bipartisanship. Never has been.

"Bipartisan" legislation used to mean most of one party and up to half--or even more--of the other. Now it's been redefined downwards to include all of one party and up to one--but often less--of the other, but incorporating a few trivial ideas presented by at least some people of the other party, as interpreted and altered by the majority.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. I meant in the Obama administration!

Sorry, I didn't make that clear...

You are quite right about the past.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. When they don't take the gloves off, they're bad

When they take the gloves off, they're bad.

The bullshit is endless here.

[TheKentuckian]

8. Who said it was bad? Somebody said it was way tardy.

That's not the same at all.

If I'm upset my deposit didn't post as expected and two weeks later when it finally hits my account, I say about time that does not mean that I'm upset that the money is now in the bank but hacked off at the delay.

It's real simple stuff, nothing in bullshit's ballpark.

[unblock]

4. it's a bit like mistaking "a state of war exists" for the start of a war

the start of a war is typically marked from the declaration of war, back in the days when states used to actually declare wars.
but the declaration of war was usually phrased as saying some like "given the recent events , a state of war exists between our nations".

thus it was never intended to be the start of a war, merely a recognition that the war had already started. the declaration was an honorable announcement that it was about to get more formally violent, and a call for allies to muster support.


in this case, outright war on bipartisanship began with obama's election, the republicans have been hell-bent on sabotage at all costs. the white house is only now recognizing the obvious.

[Historic NY]

5. add in Sen Whitehouse...that has ring to it, condemnation of ethical lapses.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/karoli/sheldon-whitehouse

[Stardust]

9. Amazing. Sen. Whitehouse is a treasure.

[saracat]

6. Blah, Blah, Blah! If he really meant that they would restore accountability to the Wall Street

Reform, and stop protecting CEO salaries. But they won't. Because there actually only seems to be ONE Party, the Corporate party.

[geek tragedy]

7. No two Democrats are exactly the same.

So, to claim that the Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same is obviously a false statement.

[saracat]

18. Merely in the sense of corporate support as currently practiced by the current

parties as the official practice they are the same. Both parties support the corporates over individuals.. Individuals may vary.

[rug]

10. 3 years, 2 wars and one Gulf too late.

[babylonsister]

11. Huh? 3 years of what? Two wars started by who? And the gulf?

Of course, that happened as a result of attempts at bipartisanship. :eyes:

[rug]

13. Three years ago he was in the middle of a campaign based on a false notion of bipartisanship.

One war has continued and another escalated after the success of that election.

Fifteen months after taking power, with off shore drilling policies unchanged, and one month after expanding those policies, the Gulf cracked open.

Why is that, other than the fruit of an odd misplaced notion of bipartisanship which drove an electoral campaign?

[JoeyT]

14. Long long long overdue.

And if this is actually the end of attempts at bi-partisanship it'll be great.

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. K&R..(nt)

[Clio the Leo]

17. As I sleepily watched Saturday's weekly Youtube....

... I demanded from the man on the screen to "TELL ME WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH THE REAL OBAMA!!!" :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktWiD6Jl9zs&playnext_from=TL&videos=Nke4Bn4hmto&feature=sub

[Raine1967]

19. Up or Down! Up or Down!

Where have I heard that before?? oh, yeah........ http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-05-15-oppose_x.htm