I think the president's recent rhetoric about 'bipartisanship' is mostly a challenge

[bigtree]

. . . to the republicans to put up or shut up. I really don't see anything concrete or specific (yet) which he's alluding to in his most recent comments about bipartisanship. I see his comments as more of a challenge for the opposition to either produce an alternative for public scrutiny or be reduced to merely being the party of 'no.

In addition, the president correctly senses some dissatisfaction with the results of his administration in this first year which cuts across party lines. It appears to me that he's just signaling that he's 'listening'. That doesn't preclude the president, however, from making judgments and being decisive about the initiatives he's willing to support.

from the news conference today: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/news-conference-president-2910

THE PRESIDENT: . . . I've already announced that in two weeks I'll be holding a meeting with people from both parties, and as I told the congressional leadership, I'm looking forward to a constructive debate with plans that need to be measured against this test. Does it bring down costs for all Americans as well as for the federal government, which spends a huge amount on health care? Does it provide adequate protection against abuses by the insurance industry? Does it make coverage affordable and available to the tens of millions of working Americans who don't have it right now? And does it help us get on a path of fiscal sustainability?

We also talked about why this is so urgent. Just this week, there was a report that Anthem Blue Cross, which is the largest insurer in the largest state, California, is planning on raising premiums for many individual policyholders by as much as 39 percent. If we don't act, this is just a preview of coming attractions. Premiums will continue to rise for folks with insurance; millions more will lose their coverage altogether; our deficits will continue to grow larger. And we have an obligation -- both parties -- to tackle this issue in a serious way.

Now, bipartisanship depends on a willingness among both Democrats and Republicans to put aside matters of party for the good of the country. I won't hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party, but I also won't hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that's rooted not in substantive disagreements but in political expedience.

. . . we have a package, as we work through the differences between the House and the Senate, and we'll put it up on a Web site for all to see over a long period of time, that meets those criteria, meets those goals. But when I was in Baltimore talking to the House Republicans, they indicated, we can accomplish some of these goals at no cost. And I said, great, let me see it. And I have no interest in doing something that's more expensive and harder to accomplish if somebody else has an easier way to do it.

So I'm going to be starting from scratch in the sense that I will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals. What I will not do, what I don't think makes sense and I don't think the American people want to see, would be another year of partisan wrangling around these issues; another six months or eight months or nine months worth of hearings in every single committee in the House and the Senate in which there's a lot of posturing. Let's get the relevant parties together; let's put the best ideas on the table. My hope is that we can find enough overlap that we can say this is the right way to move forward, even if I don't get every single thing that I want.

. . . here's the point that I made to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell: Bipartisanship can't be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in and want, and that's the price of bipartisanship, right? But that's sometimes the way it gets presented . . .

That's a far stretch from the capitulation described in many of the criticisms I've read of his recent 'outreach' efforts. It makes more sense to argue his specific initiatives and actions than it does to knock the president for demanding the opposition produce more than a 'no' vote. We will see what the republicans put forward (if anything) and then make our judgments on what's amounted to nothing in the past but obstinacy - That's what the president is going to ultimately do; and move forward, I believe.

[Snow Bird]

1. More 3 dimensional chess while they play

go fish?

[bigtree]

3. every strategy folks here proscribe involves politics

. . . to effect initiatives into action or law. Rhetoric is rhetoric. We should be arguing actions, not rhetoric which I believe is just designed to smoke out the opposition. It's not going to help for the White House to completely ignore the politics facing whatever they want to accomplish with the budget or other spending initiatives.

[rgbecker]

2. OOOBBBAAAMMMAAA!

[EFerrari]

4. If you just look at the psychology, every time he says the b word

the authoritarian Republicans are reminded they are in the minority. So, while it may be annoying at times to hear him say that, there is a case to be made for just saying it, over and over and over, because it REALLY bothers the Republicans on a different order of magnitude, imo.

[bigtree]

5. I think it's cute

. . . when they offer up one of their flimsy prop initiatives as argument . . . and get them thrown back in their faces by the president. I think this new tact has promise.