Quote:
Originally Posted by NJblue
...Obama has never tried to be bipartisan. Instead, Obama initially tried to push through a liberal agenda (the Pelosi plan) but it was stymied by the moderates and Blue Dogs. It was only then that he tried to placate both sides of the Democratic Party. Obama hasn't paid any attention to the Republican viewpoint except where it overlapped with that of the Blue Dogs....
|
There's no sense debating what the two guys said on TV this morning. Little to be gained, I think, in parsing the words they said.
On the issue of the Obama "liberal agenda", I assume you're talking about healthcare reforms. It's been pretty widely reported that the White House never really sent a detailed plan to the Congress, only a set of guiding principles (100% coverage, public option, preventive medicine, etc.). The various bills floating around have been created by the House and Senate committees in response to one another. Somewhere along the line, 161 amendments suggested by the GOP were accepted and became a part of the Senate Finance Committee's version of the proposed legislation. If that's not at least some bi-partisanship, I don't know what it should be called. But even with all that input, the leaders of the GOP caucus say their members will vote 100% NO to any kind of proposed reform legislation unless any new insurance provided to those not now insured will be provided by the for-profit insurance companies. There has been some discussion of an "insurance co-operative", but at last count the GOP leadership has said even that would be unacceptable.
What I think will happen is what the two guys on
Meet The Press said was possible--that the POTUS concentrates his efforts on getting agreement within his own party, then any form of the reform legislation desired by the Democrats can and probably will be passed. I wouldn't be surprised if most of those 161 amendments agreed to by the Democratic-controlled committees weren't stripped out of the final legislation as the result of the continued deep divide between the parties. That will set off another several weeks of moaning and wailing by the GOP, whose suggestions will probably be spurned.
If it plays out this way, I won't be surprised. From the GOP standpoint, the downside is that few of their ideas will be included in the final legislation. The upside, I suppose, is that the bill will be purely a Democratic product. They will be totally responsible for how it works out. The U.S. electorate can then decide whether they like it or not when making their voting decisions next year and in 2012.
The whole process works a lot better when there are some real statesmen in Congress. Where oh where have they all gone?