Rahm Emanuel: Bi-Partisanship is Dead

[NickCole]

Yikes!

Obama's promise to lead post-partisan politics is dead?

Republicans didn't keep the promise Obama made?

They're so mean!

 

[construct]

Rahm Emanuel is right. There's no sense in even inviting Republicans to the table. None.

 

[NW007]

"Bi-Partisanship is Dead": the only problem with this title is that it is false premise; because there never was any bi-partisanship on the Democratic leadership's part to start with. So you can't say something is dead that was never alive to start with.

 

[NickCole]

Why then have Republicans refused to support enhanced private co-op plans in Senate committees? I view them as an olive branch Blue Dogs have given to the Republican Party. But in return the Republican Senators just flat out refure to cooperate.

Republicans don't support them because Republicans are opposed to the concept. Calling it a different name doesn't change that for them.

And frankly it's just as well. The potency that a government public option would have, with the power of the US Government behind it, could influence the cost of private insurance to a more reasonable level, but there never has been a non-profit that had the power to influence corporate pricing of its product. And part of the value of a public option is to help take care of reigning in costs.

The private co-op plan is a stupid idea.

Something Obama has never understood, and I guess neither did his supporters who complained about partisanship and how voting for Hillary would continue it while voting for Obama would end it, is that partisanship isn't just being contrary, it's genuine disagreement about how to solve problems. And it's not going to go away. It's human nature. Hillary, having learned through experience, understands the value of both conciliation and consensus, and the essence of how to utilize power. Obama only understands seduction and bullying. He really wasn't ready yet to be President and lead these important initiatives.

 

[NW007]

^The concern that I have seen discussed is that these co-ops are just another route but perhaps slower way to eventually lead to single payer government program. There needs to more discussion of this option especially to see if it is even a viable method to make available.

 

[NW007]

^Are you implying that you don't want a critical thorough discussion of this option before it is touted as a possible part of the soultion. If so that is what is wrong with the current proposals, they don't pass the smell test or economic test for that matter

 

[justapixel]

Hillary would have had a baseball bat on the floor of the House cracking heads like watermelons aired live on CNN five months ago and we'd have none of this current nonsense.

So basically you are saying that instead of going bonkos in the congo, she would have gone bonkos in DC.

 

[NW007]

And how many people exactly are covered in the Swiss plan. A very small popluation sample. Plus these countries are much more restrictive in who is allowed in to their countries, so they don't have the illegal immigration issues that overwhelm the United States and its social service programs.

Not a good comparison to be comparing any Swiss plan to the U.S.

 

[NickCole]

^The concern that I have seen discussed is that these co-ops are just another route but perhaps slower way to eventually lead to single payer government program. There needs to more discussion of this option especially to see if it is even a viable method to make available.

The problem for Democrats is that the conversation has not been honest, and that's totally their fault.

Your concern is the concern that's made the public option a potent weapon for Republicans against health care reform.

If Obama et al were honest they'd have planned to address that forthrightly, because the truth is single-payer IS a logical end result of a public option or any variation like private co-ops. But Obama (and his cohorts like Axelrod and Emanuel) is inherently deceitful and so rather than coming up with a clear and effective response to your concern, which anybody with half a brain knew Republicans would raise, they decided to try to pretend it just wasn't an issue worthy of concern. If you look back over his career, Obama does this a lot; but usually he gets away with it.

Contrast that with Barney Frank's response to a similar concern yesterday:

Several audience members asked how they could trust the government on health care. Frank admonished "I never asked you to trust the government. The government is not your mother or father, or your doctor...No one should ever trust the government, people should use their rights as citizens."

Now, Obama can't use that kind of language and phrasing, it's Frank's style not Obama's, but the forthrightness of Frank's response is a win while Obama's (and other lawmakers like Arlen Spector's) have been losers.

 

[NickCole]

Compromise can be stupid. But, I don't like the all-or-nothing angle, that results in even less progress. If America did not elect Democrats in the majority that they did, we probably wouldn't be dealing with it at all. But that is the situation on Capitol Hill this session. As far as I know from Sibelius's comments, the Democrats are going to be giving up a lot of their agenda to make health care reform pass.

If they do that then they're failures.

Dems have the WH and Congress, and by no small margin. Giving up a lot of their agenda when they have that kind of power is frustrating beyond words for a citizen Democrat like me. Republicans have been in power for eight years and put through every bit of their agenda they could, which was a lot. This is a huge opportunity for my party and what we've worked and waited for, and Obama et al are squandering it with ineptitude.

I believe the Republican party should respond in kind and pass a health care reform bill in an overwhelming majority.

Well that's very sweet but it's not how the real world works.

Republicans don't want health care reform. Expecting them to pass it with an overwhelming majority is a fantasy. Much like the fantasies Obama sold during the campaign.

 

[palemale]

It's dead, alright. The dissent isn't about Republicans. It's about the health care bills and what's being proposed in them. Dems can keep up this charade that this is all a conspiracy against Obama all they want. Obama hasn't even read the fucking bills. He's going around talking about "choices" and how you can keep your coverage and meanwhile the bills say that this ultimately won't be true. Are Republicans taking advantage of the situation? Of course. Any party would. Are the responsible? No. The counter-position to these bills happens to be part and parcel to their core beliefs. Nothing wrong with that. The big lie is that Obama has any interest in bi-partisanship. One of his speakers said yesterday, "If someone has a good idea we want to hear it." No they don't. Ideas have been put forth and I haven't heard him embrace a single one from the other side.

Bi-partisanship died with the "Contract with American" and Newt Gingrich. Since that time, the Republicans have shown no interest in compromise, whether they are in the majority or minority.

 

[boogalee]

Bi-partisanship died with the "Contract with American" and Newt Gingrich. Since that time, the Republicans have shown no interest in compromise, whether they are in the majority or minority.

I totally agree and I call it "The Contract On America"...There is only one thing the opposition wants and that's for Obama to fail. They aren't concerned with the American People and they will use any falsehood to promote their agenda.

I ran across this article which I found well written and more than a little true. It relates to this topic and what is to be expected from the GOP...or rather what is not to be expected.

http://www.laborradio.org/node/11770

The Republican Party Is Turning Into A Cult
Johann Hari
Columnist, London Independent

Something strange has happened in America in the nine months since Barack Obama was elected. It has best been summarized by the comedian Bill Maher: "The Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved to a mental hospital."

The election of Obama -- a center-left black man -- as a successor to George W. Bush has scrambled the core American right's view of their country. In their gut, they saw the US as a white-skinned, right-wing nation forever shaped like Sarah Palin. When this image was repudiated by a majority of Americans in a massive landslide, it simply didn't compute. How could this have happened? How could the cry of "Drill, baby, drill" have been beaten by a supposedly big government black guy? So a streak that has always been there in the American right's world-view -- to deny reality, and argue against a demonic phantasm of their own creation -- has swollen. Now it is all they can see.

It goes on to describe how the right wing in America isn't well connected to reality (and why) and is very easily manipulated.

 

[JB3]

Rahm Emanuel is right. There's no sense in even inviting Republicans to the table. None.

If they don't invite them to the table (I'm not saying compromise, I'm saying inviting them to the table to begin with) they will lose big in the next elections. A large part of Obama's appeal in 2008 was that he promised he would change things in Washington, and try to work with the opposition. If republicans are not even invited to the table, he breaks that promise.

Starting to bypass Republicans at this point would not bode well for the president, even if it means his agenda could be passed more quickly.

 

[JB3]

You only crack your head against the wall so many times before you realize it's a fruitless exercise. Fuck the 'Pugs, and move on. How many times do you offer a hand out to a rabid pit bull? Time's up, game, set and match is over. We are kicking you out of the country club my dear 'puglicons.

Don't like it? Too bad you had your chance, it's too late. Deal with it 'pugs.

Then prepare to lose seats. The president is losing support of independents, and it will cost him dearly should he make any foolish moves.

 

[CoolBlue71]

I'm in agreement with Ralph Nader that President Obama's own party have been his worst enemies. The numbers, for Democrats, are there in both the Senate and House. And when these corporatist Democrats (yeah, let's call them centrists! …Bullshit) fuck over Obama, they're doing that to us. Obama needs to be tough; not just being a manager but a leader.

I'm going to try to be patient. But if defeat happens, whether it means entire health care/insurance bill, or that of a watered down bill, I'll know who to blame.

By the way: One thing to consider is whether members of the Senate and House just want "ordinary" people weighted down. Not to have medical coverage anywhere near the quality level they have, whether it's single payer, public option, Medicare. (Just a thought.)

 

[MystikWizard]

I'm in agreement with Ralph Nader that President Obama's own party have been his worst enemies. The numbers, for Democrats, are there in both the Senate and House. And when these corporatist Democrats (yeah, let's call them centrists! …Bullshit) fuck over Obama, they're doing that to us. Obama needs to be tough; not just being a manager but a leader.

I'm going to try to be patient. But if defeat happens, whether it means entire health care/insurance bill, or that of a watered down bill, I'll know who to blame.

By the way: One thing to consider is whether members of the Senate and House just want "ordinary" people weighted down. Not to have medical coverage anywhere near the quality level they have, whether it's single payer, public option, Medicare. (Just a thought.)

You are absolutely correct. Republicans are getting too much focus on this. The Democrats have the majority in BOTH Houses. So why isn't Reform getting passed?

It's because of the Democrats, NOT the Republicans. That is who the attention should be on at this time.

 

[construct]

You are absolutely correct. Republicans are getting too much focus on this. The Democrats have the majority in BOTH Houses. So why isn't Reform getting passed?

It's because of the Democrats, NOT the Republicans. That is who the attention should be on at this time.

So who do we need to pressure on this? Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin?

 

[NickCole]

Bi-partisanship died with the "Contract with American" and Newt Gingrich. Since that time, the Republicans have shown no interest in compromise, whether they are in the majority or minority.

How come Barack didn't know that? If it's been dead since then, and I don't disagree with you, Barack looks very foolish claiming he's going to usher in a new post partisan politics -- and so do those who claimed it was possible. Maybe should have voted for the person who was dealing with reality.

 

[NickCole]

Bi-partisanship would be much easier if people would stop using terms like Nazi and death panels. If people would cease to see the need to take fire arms to public events discussing health care, and any number of other measures it would speak measures. However, that not being the case how can anyone really expect bi-partisanship to exist.

Oh I see, Obama could have ushered in a new post partisan politics if it'd been easy. If all those people who'd been a problem before just suddenly stopped being a problem. Gee, he forgot to mention that part.

 

[letme]

So who do we need to pressure on this? Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin?

The Majority Whip's job is to this >>>>>>.

To whip the "abstainers that are out pace with the leader.