Farewell to "Bipartisan for Bipartisan's Sake" -- Obama Administration: "Message Received" (Bloggers Respond)

by Damozel | At The Nation, Ari Berman says:

Barack Obama's fantasy of a bipartisan utopia inside the Beltway has been mugged by reality, to borrow a popular neoconservative expression, and not a moment too soon.

Right.  And as I already commented, an administration that admits its tactical errors and adjusts its strategy to reality is -- especially after the last 8 years -- an edifying spectacle.. 

Jane Hamsher gives Rahm Emanuel credit for putting the requisite stake through the heart of Bipartisanship.  If so, it was a mercy killing.  The GOP, cheered on by "the de facto head of the Republican Party" Rush Limbaugh, had already crushed and battered it beyond saving.

Hamsher and many others (including everyone here at BN-Politics) deserve to say "I told you so."  After all....yeah.

Think Progress tells the story of the GOP's undermining of all Obama's good intentions:

What Obama did: Trusted Judd Gregg when he indicated that, “despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace and move forward with the president’s agenda.”

– What Obama got in return: A “change of heart” from Gregg, who said that he “couldn’t be Judd Gregg” at Commerce.

– What Obama did: Reached out to have dinner with right-wing pundits Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and David Brooks.

– What Obama got in return: A ripping from his right-wing friends, who called it the worst in “galactic history.”

– What Obama did: Tried to work with the House GOP by preemptively including tax cuts, stripping stimulative spending proposals, and attending their conference meeting.

– What Obama got in return: Zero votes (and a bunch of false myths about his plan)

– What Obama did: Tried to reach out to John McCain to work together on “solving our financial crisis.”

– What Obama got in return: Nothing. McCain voted against the legislation, and even went so far as to call it “generational theft” and hypocritically complained that it contained “corporate giveaways.”

Ari Berman has the shorter version:

Obama repeatedly wooed House Republicans only to have them vote unanimously against his stimulus bill. He loaded up the legislation with tax cuts and cut popular spending provisions and still only three Senate Republicans voted aye. He named a conservative Republican as his Commerce Secretary--the third Republican in his cabinet--only for Judd Gregg to turn around and cite irreconcilable ideological differences, withdrawing without even giving the White House a proper heads up. The Obama team has finally learned their lesson. Remember when President Bush said "we can't negotiate with terrorists?" Well, the same goes for much of the GOP.

Hamsher:

I argued strongly at the time that prizing bipartisan "process" over substance (jobs creation) was a big mistake, and I fundamentally don't believe it's possible to work with the other side if they have no higher goal than to undermine you if you won't appease them by adopting the same policies that created the problem in the first place. It just isn't possible.

As she concedes, it was a nice and an inspiring message and a good idea in the best of all possible postpartisan worlds....which this is not.  

And so anyway:

When the president spoke to House Democrats at a February 5th retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia, he'd moved from courting Republican support to attacking them as obstructionists who clung to ""false theories of the past." (Huff Post)

Though, as previously noted, Rahm Emanuel probably needs to shut up.  ""I think Obama is actually adjusting rather pitch-perfectly to what the Republicans are throwing at him. He doesn't need Rahm out there announcing that his commitment to "bipartisanship" was just "for the sake of appearances."" (Jane Hamsher, FDL)

Big Tent Democrat:

This is good. Very good. Now, as Jane says, there really is no need to announce these things on the record, to assuage the peanut gallery (meaning people like me).

Ari Berman again:

The Obama administration keeps having to learn that bland centrism is not pragmatic, that it's not helpful in resolving a big crisis and that it certainly doesn't buy you any love," EJ Dionne wrote in the Washington Post this week. "Washington has become too concerned with appearances and with calculating the distance from some arbitrary midpoint in any given debate. The sensible center should be defined by what works, even if that means discovering that the true middle ground isn't where we thought it was."

Chris Bowers, who has not minced words about disenchantment with Obama's bipartisanship riff, also expresses relief.

Elitist (as in, only accountable to large donors), false (as in, doesn't describe any actual problems we face), non-transparent (as in not offering clear choices to the electorate), and right-wing (as in consistently thwarting progressive governance) are only some of the ways we have described "bi-partisanship" here at Open Left....

I am excited about this shift in focus, and eager to engage in the legislative battles that will take place over the coming months. What we need now is a populist, progressive President who offers a clear choice to Americans, and allows his activist supporters to place pressure on fence-sitters.

Libby sees a possible up side to the now shelved strategy.

Only time will tell if there was some long term benefit to the last few weeks worth of bipartisan outreach by President Obama. For myself, I think although the effort failed to acheive consensus, it succeeded in drawing a bright line in the public's mind between Obama's willingness to be inclusive and the GOPers stubborn refusal to admit any mistakes and the bad faith underlying their relentless obstructionism....

What's important is that he drives the narrative instead of allowing it be defined by the competing factions inside the Beltway.

As she says, the sense that the president is willing to be in charge is more likely to drive up consumer confidence than any spending. (The Impolitic)

Oh, FYI, DWT has a list of the Dems who voted "with the Republicans against America."

Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)
Pete DeFazio (pissed off populist-OR)
Parker Griffith (Blue Dog-AL)
Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)
Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)

You might want to think about that a bit.  Peter DeFazio presumably voted against the bill because it didn't allocate enough for mass transit spending." (dday)  But you might want to remember the rest of the names on that list.  DWT points out:

Soon the DCCC's Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be frantically and insistently begging for money from grassroots Democrats to "re-elect our courageous but vulnerable incumbents." High on the list of incumbents who could never get re-elected without massive infusions of cash from Democrats unaware these people vote with the GOP are Bobby Bright, Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, John Barrow, Harry Mitchell, Frank Kratovil and Chris Carney. When you get an urge to give to the DCCC, go right here and donate to the Blue America PAC instead. We'll be using it to defeat the enemies of working families-- on both sides of the aisle. (DWT) 

As for the Republicans, "it’s clear they are not going to participate in government, as opposed to playing partisan games, the President and his team are going ahead and doing what they want to do, and the hell with the Republicans. There’s nothing to be gained by offering them concessions."  (Mahablog)

Andrew Sullivan says:

This much is now clear. Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. (emphasis added)

dday says:

[I]t's hilarious that Republicans think they're winning. They think that Judd Gregg is a modern-day folk hero for realizing 9 days late that he's a conservative and Obama's a Democrat. They think they're gaining credibility with the American people by peddling lies on the floor of the House...and claiming that spending isn't stimulus. They actually think it's in their interest to sink the global economy....

They are bereft of ideas, especially in a crisis, and with a political climate that rewards day-to-day pugilistic nonsense over anything substantive, of course the GOP would measure themselves by news cycle wins and losses and roar like a bunch of LARPers any time their head halfling makes it to home base with the opposing team's flag. It is beyond perverse, but considering the posturing for the future, the ability to nitpick the economy over and over through united opposition, it's completely expected.

Liberal Values sums it all up in a piece called The Republican War on Obama (and America):

This is the politics of Nixon and Agnew. It is the politics of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. The Republicans have become an authoritarian movement which lacks both principles and any concept of actually governing. All they are concerned about is the accumulation of power and trying to destroy anyone who gets in their way.

More at Memeorandum

RECENT RELATED BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS

Congress Approves Stimulus Package; Specter Says Republicans "Didn't Want Their Fingerprints On It"; Obama Learns a Lesson

Friday the 13th Points...

Three Republicans Help Mess up Stimulus Bill

Fox News Presents GOP Press Release as a News Story?

Geithner "Plan" for the Banking Industry Provokes Sarcasm, Outrage, Despair, & Bitter PostPartisan Laughter

Senate Passes Stimulus Bill: Will Tax Cuts for Corporations and Wealthy Folks Work, and
What about Contractor Waste and Fraud?

Arlen Specter on Why He Supported the Stimulus Package; Ross Douthat: "Blame the Centrists"

Bipartisan for Bipartisan's Sake Part 2: Krugman & Others on What It Gets Us

Economists Want Stimulus Package Soon, "Free Market" Folks Flip-Flop Again

Bipartisanship for Its Own Sake: "Deal" "Reached" on Economic Stimulus Bill Following Free-Style Spending Cuts (News & Blogger Round-Up)

Record High U.S. Jobs Loss, Yet Republicans Want Tax Cuts for Wealthy Folks

Comments

[Charles]

Obama sees bipartisanship as a long-term need. If he can divide the Republicans enough, so that they separate into extremists and the rest, it will end Republican influence for a very long time.

[Southern (in)Sanity]

Obama would do well to remember the last time that the Democrats had this much "control"? Yeah, that's right. The Carter administration.

The President would do well to try and work with everyone. The various bits and pieces in this post represent the Democrats' view on the President's efforts to work with the Republicans.

This SPENDING bill represents the Democrats. If and when it fails, the Republicans will be able to say, "I told you so." If, by some miracle, it were to help, it would be a huge feather in the Democrats' proverbial cap.

Let's not forget that many of the Democrats who voted for this SPENDING bill helped create the mess that the country is in now.

[flowerplough]

Barack Obama's fantasy of a bipartisan utopia inside the Beltway was mugged by reality on December 23rd, by Massachusetts Democwat Bahney Fwank, the first House member to come out of the closet voluntarily, and also the first member of the House to be censured for providing the apartment out of which a gay boyfriend ran a gay prostitution ring. He said, "Oh, I believe that (Obama) overestimates his ability to get people to put aside fundamental differences." And no wonder. The worshipful national media carried Bammy thru his nomination to his election, no questions asked.