In your opinion WHY is it so important to the prez to get token Republicans for bills??

[polichick]

I would think that after the watering down of the Stimulus, lessons would have been learned.

But reportedly the prez is still trying to get Snowe and/or Collins to sign on to the healthcare bill, regardless of what we lose for it.

Why do you think this is so important to him??

(I was hoping he'd pressure people like Nelson and Lieberman to get on board for a strong Democratic bill.)

[valerief]

1. To serve the corporatocracy. nt

[Vincardog]

29. Bingo. Centrism and "Bi"partisanship are covers for Corporatism

[mitchum]

43. +1,000,000

[Powdered Toast Man]

48. No... For the same reason the WB has a black charactar on 90210

It looks good to have at LEAST 1.

And I used "black" because that is the most common reference. I could just have easily used Asian, Hispanic, Arabic...

[valerief]

55. That doesn't make sense. Look good to whom? To the working class who need jobs and healthcare?

That's crazy.

Or to the elites? If the latter, why do they want to look good to the elites? TO SERVE THEM!!!!!

[havocmom]

2. The mistaken notion that 'bipartisan' will mean less radical right noise and influence

It won't work and they bloody well should have that figured out by now.

[polichick]

20. Yeah, it's like trying to placate a school bully by doing what he wants...

Bullies are only emboldened by that.

[Enrique]

45. naivete is rarely a good explanation for Obama

he is a brilliant and experienced politician. He's not super-human, but he's at the very pinnacle among politicians. I'll buy a lot of these explanations, but not that he has a mistaken notion about anything.

[vi5]

3. To please the media and the beltway insiders...

..those are the only people to whom bipartisanship means anything, thus they could be the only possible reason why he is so hell bent on this. He wants a "win" with the media and their cronies.

Which I don't understand because Obama is not the consumate beltway insider having only been in Washington a few years.

But I just can't fathom any other reason to be so guns blazing towards bipartisanship at the expense of the actual quality and results of the bills in question (stimulus and now health care).

Maybe it's his advisers? Who knows. I'm not saying it makes sense to me, I'm just saying it's the only thing that makes sense.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. I have no idea. I think they should be totally ignored, like they did to the Dems when

the repukes were in control.

Beats the crap out of me why it should matter at all....
It is so obvious that the repukes, as a rule, consider any attempt at conciliation or "bi-partisanship" as a sign of weakness.
They either laugh at it, or look for ways to take advantage of it.

[polichick]

16. I agree, and think it would pay off politically too. The bills would be GOOD then! nt

[Eric Condon]

39. The Dems in Congress could ignore the Repukes completely, and the legislation still wouldn't look

any different. They both work for the same people, and it ain't us.

[Inuca]

5. I think that we are well past bipartishanship

for the time being at least. And unfortunately. IMHO one reason may be that Snowe and/or Collins may be easier to "get" than Ben Nelson and/or Lieberman.

[polichick]

18. You could be right about them being easier than Nelson and Lieberman. nt

[ClarkUSA]

6. You're missing the point. The appearance of trying is what's important.

:)

[Clio the Leo]

8. Time for me to whip my Rahm quote out again...

“The public wants bipartisanship,” he said. “We just have to try. We don’t have to succeed.”

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/02/090302fa_fact_lizza?printable=true#ixzz0Z1kkNwx7

[ClarkUSA]

9. Exactly.

:fistbump:

[polichick]

15. Not so. A lot of great stuff was stripped out of the Stimulus to get 3 votes...

That's way more than "appearance."

[ClarkUSA]

21. So what? 3 votes without which there would have been NO stimulus plan at all.

Not sure what you wanted, but I was on the side of passing a good stimulus plan ~ not the perfect stimulus plan ~
in order to jumpstart the recovery now under progress.

[Clio the Leo]

7. These are tokens....

These are obstructionists...





As long as you have the two obstructionists in the picture (and possibly more to help them) you need any vote you can get .... regardless of political party.

[vaberella]

10. Most people here are narrowed. What Clark says happens to be the case.

It's an appearance that they are trying. Keeps the independents, who may in some cases lean Republican, keeping siding Dems. It shows Republicans as meely-mouthed scum who obviously don't care about the American people when they struggle to get Bipartisan support. And when they get the one support it's enough to show that there are some Repubs who are not weak or controlled by the party and obviously the Dems are going in he right directon.


Basically it's a smart move and wholly political. It's not that hard to get. Too many on the left want to run roughshod it doesn't work that way in politics. Another reason I say this is because It's puts Dems in a safe place with teetering Repubs. An example is Graham joining Kerry on a Climate Change bill. Although he apposes most things Dems, he's now joining the fold since Dems keep th door open and don't stomp their way over people--ignoring the cries of "their base," which I agree with.

[niyad]

14. "running roughshod doesn't work in politics"???? then how do you explain the 8-year national

nightmare of bushco?

[vaberella]

66. Uh...and this is why Bush is hated not only in the US but in around the world.

He's seen as a criminal, not a hero, even by Repubs.

[vi5]

54. "want to run roughshod and it doesn't work that way in politics"

Hahahahahahahahaha...funniest thing ever on this board, unless it was posted by someone who was asleep or had no access to any form of news media in the past 8 years.

That's the problem.

No, I don't expect them to be as blatant and as offensive as the republicans were. But I expect them to fight fire with fire especially given the need and the limited window to swing the pendulum the other way, however temporary that may be.

[vaberella]

67. See post above yours. n/t

[vi5]

70. 2 things in response to that....

1) I don't want them to take it to the same degree and extremes that the repubs did. I truly don't. However they do need to be more aggressive in order to get things done and they do need to play hardball when that is what is being thrown at them.

2) Honestly, I don't care about whether Obama is idolized or loved or whatever. I really don't. I want him to do what I feel is right and the majority of people in our party think is right for the country. And the other key difference to this point is that what he says he wants to do with regard to health care is popular with the majority of the country. It's an idea accepted and popular around the world. The idea that playing hardball in order to get a result that is and will be popular with everyone except the hard right is not what Bush did and will not yield the same result.

Look at what happened with the stimulus. Rather than pushing for what was right and what the majority of the country wanted, he went for bipartisanship and half measures. Yes, it did half the job (slowing down the recession and stemming the bleeding) but it didn't do the whole job and it was and continues to be wildly unpopular despite being "bipartisan".

[Perky]

11. It is all about the miderms

A completely partisan bill gives the GOP a rallying point. Even token Bipartisan ship makes it a non-starter

[polichick]

24. I would think that policies and legislation that really served the people...

...would be the best preparation for midterms.

[Perky]

51. In Plato's Republic yes.

in the realm of American Politics...it does not matter one iota

[Enrique]

47. yes, and also about 2012

about independent voters.

[damntexdem]

12. It's not. Tokens aren't needed; and the GOP has blown any right to participate.

The only use for a Snowe or Collins is in case that they are less reprehensible than LIEberman or Nelson.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. He is trying to provide political cover for the Democrats voting for it

Many Democrats represent states where Republicans outnumber Democrats. It would be easier for them to vote for a healthcare bill if they could claim that it was bipartisan.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Because it would soothe some deep-seated psychological anxiety the President has

At this point that's the best I can come up with.

:shrug:

[polichick]

19. That's what I so hope is not true, but he does seem...

...a bit desperate about approval from the other side.

[DrToast]

22. It's not. Why do you think it is?

[jenmito]

23. It's important that he looks like he's extending his open hand only to be met

with a closed fist. And re: Snowe and/or Collins, THEY are more willing to work with the Dems. than Lieberman and Ben Nelson. He needs the 2 Repubs. to replace the 2 "Dems."

[polichick]

25. I really wanted him to muscle Nelson and Lieberman...

...but it doesn't seem he did that.

[jenmito]

26. All the "muscle" in the world won't change their minds...

they're too beholden to their OWN interests.

[polichick]

28. Wonder if Dems have threatened to take away Lieberman's chairmanship...

It's the least they could do.

[jenmito]

53. I hope they have. n/t

[boppers]

62. This. +1.

Expose bullies as bullies, by "trying" to work with them.

[ieoeja]

27. Show voters that Democrats are open minded. (nt)

[Occam Bandage]

30. Given that Lieberman and Nelson seem committed to opposing the bill,

we need Snowe/Collins or the bill dies to a Republican filibuster.

[polichick]

31. Do you think Lieberman and Nelson have even been muscled...

Dems could easily take away Lieberman's chairmanship and there must be a way to get Nelson on board - like the president getting in his face.

[Occam Bandage]

34. I have no idea, nor do you.

Nelson is from a deep-red state, and has managed to remain extremely popular in that state by doing what he's doing now--opposing Democratic plans and defending the insurance companies based in Nebraska. Opposing health-care reform is enormously good for Nelson's career; he has both Nebraskan businesses and Nebraskan voters on his side. Simply "getting in his face" won't be enough to change that. Frankly, I don't even think threatening to kick him out of the party would help; he'd win easy re-election as a Republican.

The Lieberman situation is absolutely incomprehensible from all perspectives. Tomes have been written about why Joe acts as he does towards the Dems and why the Senate Dems act as they do towards him, and I've never seen it satisfactorily resolved. All that can be said for sure is that Lieberman has played his hand, and it would be utterly out of character for him to play ball with the Dems now that he's made a stand.

Collins and Snowe, on the other hand, seem willing to play ball, and share constituents who would reward them for doing so. If we can't get the votes from Democrats, then our options are to either get the votes from Republican defectors or acknowledge that we are not capable of governing.

[polichick]

35. Didn't say I knew - but I sure will say they SHOULD be muscled...

If Lieberman keeps his chairmanship after this, Dems are idiots.

[Occam Bandage]

36. We don't know that they haven't been.

It may well be, for the reasons I just said, that even after all the muscling and carrot-dangling the Dems could muster, that Snowe and Collins are demanding less for their votes than Nelson and Lieberman are.

As for Lieberman? Sure, I agree, he should lose his chairmanship if he doesn't vote with us. However, I can understand why the Dems would want to let this play out a little longer before committing to sending Joe to the Republican caucus. Best to keep all avenues open for as long as possible.

[HillGal]

32. Honestly? they don't want to take the fall alone if this turns

into a debacle. Don't forget, and this may not be a popular view, but we need to be realistic, there's a chance that the mid-terms could see a lot of Democrats thrown out of office and you know the Republicans are going to be running ads pounding things like the stimulus, health care and even global warming is becoming an issue now, and if unemployment rises, the Democrats could be in trouble. I say screw it though, stand by your principles and take your chances, and if it doesn't work out? at least you didn't compromise.

[polichick]

33. And wouldn't a bill that's good for people pay off in the midterms...

...better than a lousy bill with very limited Republican support?

[HillGal]

40. We see this bill being good, but I've spoken to so many people

who don't want the Government in their lives and are against this bill, I've seen too many mainstream polls that show people don't want this, even the las vegas review has a poll in Nevada that shows the majority of people don't want this or the Government involved. That's why I say that Democrats should just vote their conscience and just let the chips fall where they may, but I don't see them doing this without some Republicans on board because they're scared and they don't want to be left holding the bag in case it doesn't work out. :(

[polichick]

42. Hmm...maybe you're right about political cover...

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[mkultra]

37. because the blue dogs mean he doesnt have the votes

he needs them

[karynnj]

38. It might be because it could be easier to get them than to get Nelson and Lieberman

Not to mention, think what it does to Lieberman's and Nelson's view of their power. If they know they are the only possibilities they will fight harder than if they are one of a few possible combinations.

[TheKentuckian]

41. I suspect in part to pass.

We have a few undercovers that might be at least as difficult as Collins or Snowe. If you can't get those two then you face almost the same issues with Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman, and Nelson. Then you have the group with jokers like Conrad and Baucus who are only slightly better.

Passing liberal legislation may well require another 5-8 liberals/at least actual true moderates (not the conservatives masquerading as such in our caucus).

[polichick]

44. I really hope some of these faux Dems are unseated next time 'round! nt

[Occam Bandage]

46. Some of them will be. And they will be replaced with outright Republicans.

Who will vote with us even less often. Not sure why that's something to hope for.

[polichick]

49. That's a very pessimistic view. I hope they'll be replaced by more...

...progressive Dems. I don't buy the red/blue state thing - Dems just need to sell our priorities better.

[Occam Bandage]

50. You can hope for what you like, I suppose.

And then be very, very disappointed when the results of the 2010 elections make it harder rather than easier to pass our agenda.

[polichick]

52. So you advocate running faux Dems instead of getting out the message...

...that Dems are on the side of regular people??

[cliffordu]

56. I think he needs to show throughout the process that he is the one reaching out

and they are the party of idiots and 'NO'

[branders seine]

57. you do what the boss tells you to do.

Obama is no different.

The boss tells Summers. Summers tells Rahm. Rahm tells Obama. Obama tells us.

[frazzled]

58. Because it can't go through without a Nelson or a Landrieu or Lieberman

Believe me: Nelson's abortion amendment won't pass. So he'll go with the Republicans in filibustering. That means we need to pick up one more senator from somewhere. Pro-choice Snowe or Collins are necessary.

Why do you people think fingers can just be snapped to get any bill through that you want. You've got to outgrow believing in fairy dust. This is hardball, and it ain't pretty.

[Hansel]

59. So he doesn't have to kiss Lieberman's ass ? nt

[branders seine]

60. it's a good excuse,

It's like needing 50 votes, er 60 votes, er more than 60 votes, er more votes than there are Senators to get anything done.

If you create the perception that there is a false and unattainable standard for whatever you are expected to accomplish, you have a ready excuse that relieves you of responsibility and allows you to pursue an unpopular agenda without worrying about being held accountable.

Face it. We have been sold out. This whole charade on health care, economic reform, foreign wars of occupation, climate, and civil liberties exists only to keep us preoccupied with the Potemkin facade and the false drama and to give DU mods threads to lock.

[Thrill]

61. It's not about Republicans. It's Centrist Democrats that they are

Trying to get on board. Republicans are irrelevant. Conservative Dems are the ones that make
them relevant.

When you hear them talk about bipartisanship. It's really about the Conservative Democrats

[burning rain]

63. Because it would look bad to pass basically conservative legislation with only Democratic votes.

Bringing a token Republican or two aboard makes it appear plausible that catering to Wall Street, pharma, or fill-in-the-plutocratic-interest-blank, was a sad and regretted necessity, rather than the president's own preference.

[girl_interrupted]

64. polichick....I think it's called 'covering your a***"

A politcal expression used by many politicans. Just in case something fails..you ain't the only one to get the blame! LOL!

[BR_Parkway]

65. Without "bipartisanship" what other reason could they give for compromising?

If they are going to pass something so watered down, they need to be able to "blame" the other side.

[rasputin1952]

68. The GOP should be ignored...

they are the minority, when they were the majority, they drove the nation into the ground.

Why listen to them at all? They never listened to D's when we were the minority.

Screw 'em, let them hoot and holler...they're wrong on damn near everything anyway...:grr:

[GTurck]

69. I really think....

this is Obama's attempt to be totally different from the repubs. For the past 2 generations they have existed as a party that believes that we do as they say not as they do. Bush/Cheney were especially bad at this.
I think this permeates everything about his administration including the health care reform debate. The more he makes Congress deal with it the less likely it is to be considered a Democratic thing but something that all Americans can accept.
At least that is my hope and my understanding.

[QC]

71. To give him cover when he signs essentially Republican legislation. n/t