What happened to bipartisanship?

[CD]

Cafferty File: Tell Jack how you really feel Blog Archive - What happened to idea of bipartisanship? « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/06/what-happened-to-idea-of-bipartisanship/)

President Barack Obama has the biggest partisan gap in his early job approval rating of any president in the last 40 years. A new Pew Research Center poll shows 88 percent of Democrats approve of the president; but only 27 percent of Republicans think he’s getting it done. That’s a stunning 61 point gap.

Even George W. Bush only had a 51 point partisan gap early in his administration. Of course that was before 9/11 and the phony reasons for invading Iraq. President Clinton had a 45 point gap.

Researchers suggest this growing partisan divide is part of a long-term trend. Looking at early approval ratings for Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon, a majority of Republicans actually approved of Carter’s job performance; and a majority of Democrats backed Nixon at similar points in their first terms.

When it comes to President Obama, the partisan gap is especially curious since this is someone who won the election by forming a coalition of voters from across the spectrum. Then-candidate Obama promised to bring a post-partisan brand of politics to Washington; and since his inauguration, the president has made an effort to reach out to Republicans in Congress — meeting with them privately about the economic stimulus bill, inviting them to a White House Super Bowl party, and including them in various on camera meetings at the White House. But apparently it’s not working.

Here’s my question to you: What happened to the idea of bipartisanship?
I think it's funny that in this article, people were blaming the other side for the lack of bipartisanship. I personally have seen the divide getting bigger, but I think it has more to do with egos. As an example, most of us that frequent the EOTH, have strong opinions about a variety of topics (depending on how long we've been following that topic of course). Now when you have a group of people trying to determine how to best help this country, these strong opinions become almost pride in that they know whats best over anyone else. This leads to less listening to the other side, less considering the other side, and eventually less cooperation with the other side. My only fear is that this sense of what is best doesn't get in the way of the overall good, by refusal to communicate and compromise.

[fmb]

I think the larger issue is missed. Bipartanship requires some overlap on an issue; the overlap provides "give and take" on the issue at hand. Each side gives a little and gains a little. This way, the issue is addressed, hopefully resolved, and everyone wins (in some way or another).

Unfortunately, the Democrats have a vote proof majority. As has been demonstrated, any issue brought to the floor has a damn good chance of making it through, without any give at all. With the seat numbers the way they currently are, the Democrats have absolutely no reason to give anything.

What we have is polarization at its finest; neither side gives at all. The only real losers are the voters.

[CD]

I think the larger issue is missed. Bipartanship requires some overlap on an issue; the overlap provides "give and take" on the issue at hand. Each side gives a little and gains a little. This way, the issue is addressed, hopefully resolved, and everyone wins (in some way or another).

Unfortunately, the Democrats have a vote proof majority. As has been demonstrated, any issue brought to the floor has a damn good chance of making it through, without any give at all. With the seat numbers the way they currently are, the Democrats have absolutely no reason to give anything.

What we have is polarization at its finest; neither side gives at all. The only real losers are the voters.

That's been the case for a while. Someone always has the majority. But remember this, Democrats got put in office cause the majority of America was displeased with the Republican way. So in that regard, doesn't it stand to follow that the "average" American wouldn't mind the Democrats getting their way for a little while?

My opinion is that this country doesn't travel down the line it's supposed to. It veers off to the left a little, and then when it's too far left, the right side gets stronger and pulls it to the right and vice versa. As to how far left it can go before it has to detour, only time will tell. But I agree with compromise. If it's good with friendships and relationships, then there is no reason it shouldn't be a daily part of Washington.

So fmb, what is your opinion of Rush Limbaugh? I only ask cause he appears to be the Conservative spokesman, and he seems to think that bipartisanship is making the other party do what you want them to do. Hell, he even admits he wants the President to fail. How can anyone claim to love this country and want your own President to fail?????? I was not a huge Bush fan, but even I wanted the things he did to prove me wrong and make this country great. The only thing I can think of is that if Obama fails, then Rush is made to look correct in what he said, but if Rush's words cause people to make Obama fail... don't we have a pretty bad situation there?

[BackdoorJesus]

My opinion is that this country doesn't travel down the line it's supposed to. It veers off to the left a little, and then when it's too far left, the right side gets stronger and pulls it to the right and vice versa.

IMO that's how it's supposed to work, and what I have seen in action for a coupla decades now of personal existence.

As far as Rush goes, come on dude. He is not the spokesman for nor the leader of the Republicans, he is a radio personality. That's all just some BS spin that Carville & Emanuel and the like shat out there & the media picked it up & ran with it (big shocking surprise there).

[fmb]

My opinion is that this country doesn't travel down the line it's supposed to. It veers off to the left a little, and then when it's too far left, the right side gets stronger and pulls it to the right and vice versa.
The problem with wobbling down this path is the waste of energy, time, money, and other valuable resources when there is a correction to bring the country closer to following the line. Your analogy is a perfect example of why neither side should have a majority. Without a majority, both sides have to talk, negotiate, and give and take for bills to pass into legislation. This would keep our country closer to the line.
So fmb, what is your opinion of Rush Limbaugh? I only ask cause he appears to be the Conservative spokesman, and he seems to think that bipartisanship is making the other party do what you want them to do. Hell, he even admits he wants the President to fail. How can anyone claim to love this country and want your own President to fail???????
I believe anyone accepting a radio talk show host as THE leader of any organization has easily fallen for someone's red herring. Rush has a big mouth and an opinion... just like me. As have many others, it appears you may have fallen for the media's sound bite taken from his speech. Rush didn't say he wanted the PRESIDENT to fail; in his full statement he said he wanted the President's POLICIES to fail. There is a huge difference in the way these two situations are presented.
...if Rush's words cause people to make Obama fail... don't we have a pretty bad situation there?
With the Democrats having a vote proof majority in both houses of Congress, how can Obama fail? Are you saying Rush Limbaugh has the ability to influence a majority of Congressional Democrats to go against enough Presidential programs and policies to make it seem the President failed?? Rush has enough influence to destroy the Democratic party and presidency from within?? You are giving Rush way to much credit. I don't think the bastard has enough sense to change the oil in my truck.

[shiiboi]

... a perfect example of why neither side should have a majority. Without a majority, both sides have to talk, negotiate, and give and take for bills to pass into legislation. This would keep our country closer to the line.
Even this doesn't work, though. For example, look at any parliamentary government system with proportional representation. None of the larger parties gets a majority, so they have to form coalitions with nut-job minority parties who sell their cooperation in return for nut-job legislation.

[joerockhead]

Even George W. Bush only had a 51 point partisan gap early in his administration. Of course that was before 9/11 and the phony reasons for invading Iraq.

Sounds like this person is a hard core Dem.

President Clinton had a 45 point gap.

Before or After the BJ?
Maybe they should have gone Men vs Women on that one!! :mstad:

With the Democrats having a vote proof majority in both houses of Congress, how can Obama fail?

He can fail by going to far and not doing what Democrats normally do, SAVE money! he will not raise federal taxes on Pay, but taxes on everything else will go up, and after a few years, if it is not balanced, people will get upset.

[fmb]

Sounds like this person is a hard core Dem..
Possibly, but the author is pointing out the serious divide Obama is causing. Some political party bosses don't like it when someone looks behind the curtain..... This could cost him his democratic party card.

He can fail by going to far and not doing what Democrats normally do, SAVE money! he will not raise federal taxes on Pay, but taxes on everything else will go up, and after a few years, if it is not balanced, people will get upset.
Democrats save money? JRH, put that cold, frothy, adult beverage down and clasp your hands firmly on the counter...... Now that you have a grip, (:) )I'll remind you the Democrats traditionally pushed for a larger federal government and very large welfare programs. Those two items are EXPENSIVE! Republicans traditionally pushed for smaller federal government and lower tax rates.

I do agree with you that if Obama doesn't reign in his spending, some democrat supporters may stop supporting his agenda.

[bleh123]

That's funny that this is posted, but I was actually making my a visit here to talk about just such this thing. I wanted to say that I am disappointed with Obama's presidency so far. The only reason why I say that is because I wanted him to win because it seemed like he could be someone who could actually be a uniter. Other than that, he is doing...well, I don't know what to believe from what I read, but I hope it's for the best.

Allow me to explain:
A South Park episode (I think South Park should become a political party btw) basically sums up what is troubling me about the current political scene. Ever since the Vietnam war, it's either you are a liberal hippie Dbag or a right-wing Republican fascist (funny that Michael Savage cannot shut-up with trying to compare Obama to Hitler via youth squads). I felt Obama would be a much better choice than Hilllary because she was already considered the anti-christ by Republicans (a fact that is even known by foreigners, watch Top Gear when they visit the South) and that would only further inflame this seeming "dis"-unity that our country is having.

That jerk who calls himself governor of Texas is a POS for his barnstorming, self-aggrandizing threat of succession. His move just reeks of a political ploy to try to make him look good. Yes, I agree with some of his points (I have always found it funny that the fed gov't has so much more power than it was explicitly enumerated thanks to the power of the purse), but the timing of it and everything, it's just he did not do it for the betterment of Texas or anyone but other than himself and that is a problem with most politicians it seems. That is what made George Washington so great- he did not want to be President, he just wanted to go back to his farm. That's what made Lincoln so great, he saw a defeat in the Civil War not just as a bad stain on his tenure, but as a defeat for democracy and freedom around the world. (Remember, America was still considered an experiment by the rest of the world. If democracy failed in America, well, people would have a lot less freedom today, I don't think there is any doubt in that. Yes, i know about France and their little revolution, but at the time of the civil war, it was essentially an empire under Napoleon the third).


I'm sick of all the extreme partisanship I see. There is no point to me in debating with someone about political views because it is not a debate, I have never ever encountered anyone saying, "jee, you're right, maybe that is better." We need to seriously discuss what is best for this country (not best for the governor of Texas, I cannot believe he did that).

And maybe we actually are doing that because we have Obama who wants to do all these things for the betterment of America -- and we have opposition who says we're spending too much (and then everyone else in between). I really don't know which way is right at this point, who can possibly tell?

[licupssy]

I'm sick of all the extreme partisanship I see. There is no point to me in debating with someone about political views because it is not a debate, I have never ever encountered anyone saying, "jee, you're right, maybe that is better." We need to seriously discuss what is best for this country (not best for the governor of Texas, I cannot believe he did that).


By the quote below on a article published today on Obama''s first 100 days, there looks like little change in the bipartisanship in Washington. If his view of bipartisanship is I won so we do things my way, look for more of the same old, same old.

The divider: Yes, Obama has the high approval marks, but for someone who made bipartisanship a theme of his campaign, polls also show that Obama is "a polarizing figure in the mold of Bush," says RealClearPolitics. An ABC/Washington Post poll shows 93 percent of Democrats support his actions, while only 36 percent of Republicans do.

Pew Research Center finds that "Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades." AP reports that for every step toward bipartisanship by the White House, there has been one step back: Obama put two Republicans in his Cabinet, but when Republicans pushed for more tax cuts in the stimulus package, Obama replied, "I won. So, I think on that one, I trump you."

[CD]

I'm pretty sure if Democrats get together and form a united front, a Republican can get elected in 4 years to President, and he/she will have a worse polarizing ratio. It's not necessarily that he's doing a bad job, its just that Republicans seem to be betting with the "double or nothing" mentality. They can try to block everything and make the President look bad and win, or they can block everything and make themselves look like a bunch of partisan bitches, and crash and burn. It's a gamble that I think they are taking. However, I won't say which I think is the outcome.

I saw poll numbers as in 70% of America wanted a new direction for this country (while Bush was running things), and now that the country's "aim" is off to the right, instead of the adjustment to the left to get back center, Republicans have their panties in a wad that we aren't flying at 50/50 (which would be 50/50 on the right side).

I just think it's all a bunch of bullshit right now, considering all of the stuff that is going on and the timing of it. The tea parties, pushed by Fox News Agenda, were a demonstration about irresponsible fiscal policies and intrusive government. Guess what people, irresponsible government spending has been going on for quite some time. Hell, what made Obama's stimulus package that much different then Bush's? Both were used to bail out companies that shouldn't be bailed out! My roommate is a Republican and we get along great. But he hasn't seen his taxes go up any... and as we were driving by the Bi-Lo Center one day that there was a massive Tea Party protest, I think I said "Fucking Tea Party", at which point he followed up with "Fucking Douchebags." We were united in a common contempt for the assholes who think that Bush was a true leader who rolled out a $700 billion stimulus, and Obama is a tax hungry socialist who rolled out a $700 billion stimulus. Oh, and as far as government intrusion goes, what intrusion? I would like one Republican here to tell me how the Obama administration has been more intrusive then the Bush administration. I can look back on 1) illegal wiretaps, 2) ignoring Habeas Corpus, 3) giving the go-ahead to illegal torture... I'm not saying that Obama's term so far is perfect, but for some asshole in Texas to threaten to succeed, is not only treason, but highly, highly retarded. It's all about trying to look good, while the message itself has severe holes in it's logic... a partisan message at its finest!

[Krasch]

I'm pretty sure if Democrats get together and form a united front, a Republican can get elected in 4 years to President, and he/she will have a worse polarizing ratio. It's not necessarily that he's doing a bad job, its just that Republicans seem to be betting with the "double or nothing" mentality. They can try to block everything and make the President look bad and win, or they can block everything and make themselves look like a bunch of partisan bitches, and crash and burn. It's a gamble that I think they are taking. However, I won't say which I think is the outcome.

The only problem with your argument here is that the Democrats control not only the White House but both the Congress and Senate as well. If anything is getting blocked these days, you have to look to the Democrats breaking ranks with their own President for the cause. The Republicans have virtually no functional power in Washington at this point thanks to that new direction.

So now if Obama fails, it's all the Democrats own fault.

Might that change in the next mid-term elections? Maybe but not yet.

[CD]

The only problem with your argument here is that the Democrats control not only the White House but both the Congress and Senate as well. If anything is getting blocked these days, you have to look to the Democrats breaking ranks with their own President for the cause. The Republicans have virtually no functional power in Washington at this point thanks to that new direction.

So now if Obama fails, it's all the Democrats own fault.

Might that change in the next mid-term elections? Maybe but not yet.

Do you think that Republicans failed when they had total control for 6 years? Or do you view those years as a success?

[Krasch]

Do you think that Republicans failed when they had total control for 6 years? Or do you view those years as a success?

In many aspects I'd call those 6 years a failure.

That doesn't change the reality that the Dems currently hold all the cards that matter in Washington. The very type of failure that the Republicans suffered culminating in the 2008 election could be merely prologue to a Democrat reprise now that the shoe is on the other foot.

[CD]

In many aspects I'd call those 6 years a failure.

That doesn't change the reality that the Dems currently hold all the cards that matter in Washington. The very type of failure that the Republicans suffered culminating in the 2008 election could be merely prologue to a Democrat reprise now that the shoe is on the other foot.
And I won't defend the dems in office now for fucking up the budget. I've learned that being able to keep a budget is important, and I don't see why the government with their $billion/trillion budgets should be any different. And no, I wouldn't be surprised if the balance of power shifts in a few years...

[joerockhead]

Well, it is obvious that some people really hate Republicans.

I do not blame bush for all the wasteful spending at the end of his tour, he really did not give a shit (that was bad of him). He let Nancy and he boys push the Big ass Bailout #1 right on through ad did not fight it.

The one where Fannie Mai and Freddie mac (Democrats favorite contributors) get BILLIONS! and not account for any of it. And then FM and FM gave out huge bonuses to the senior Employees, and no one bitched.

But once it was AIG (Republican Contributors) got butt fucked and the guy that Congress asked to come back, got bitch slapped.

Now, that is Congress, and not the President. But it shows disrespect just the same.


AS for the Pres - Well, he sure does do a lot of Say one thing, then change his mind the next day.
The issue with the Water Boarding, What a BUNCH of SHIT! Yes, lets tell these people it is AOK to be fuckheads and torture the POS's, but then we will change the whole thing with a new Pres and screw them.

No, Maybe it was is not a good thing that we tortured these scum bags, but to now hold those people accountable and make it so public, is just wrong!

Bow to the Saudi Prince? Bitch!

I want to see if his little trip around the world, to apologize is going to be one of those things where he is just saying that to get these people on our side a little. Kind of like "Speak Softly, but carry a big stick" things.

Too Bad GWB Jr. fucked Iraq up so much.
I was OK with the invasion, but wish that there was a better plan for After we took over. Not occupy for ever!

Oh yeah, and today, the President bitching about how the creditors of Chrysler that did not want to play fair. Bush League!!! He should have let his Staff say that, not him.

And for the hatred of Fox News, this is proof that MSNBC is no different.
Laurance O'Donnel is as much of a wind bag as anyone on Fox!

0Sm8Os3mXv8