"What's Up, My Obama?"
Before I get into matters of style, let me give a shout out to reconciliation.
That is the process by which the President intends to get his major pieces of legislation (including health care!) through Congress without having to worry about a Senate filibuster. Fifty-one votes will do it which means the Obama program is going to happen. He's going to roll over Mitch McConnell like he doesn't exist (or Cantor, Boehner and Limbaugh either).
Thank you, God.
For the first time since FDR we have a Democratic President who wants to play ball with the GOP but, if they won't play, he'll pass his program without them. (LBJ believed strongly in the need to pass all his major bills with significant GOP support but, of course, a sizable chunk of the GOP of the 1960's was a loyal opposition that had the country's interests at heart. Not like todays Republicans).
Anyway, here is a great quote by Obama about why is going the reconciliation route: pure FDR. On his opponents (from today's WP). "They are gearing up for battle. So am I. They will fight for their special interests. I will fight for American students and families."
And this is from Politico's great special edition on the 100 days.
It's about how Obama's cool is playing in the country.
His style is "so hip that school kids in Albany, N.Y., coined a term for it: 'Baracking.' And it doesn't stop there. Those in the know at Albany High greet each other by saying:'What's up, my Obama?' and they respond to a sneeze with 'Barack you.' Misbehavior is peer-corrected with the admonition, 'Barack's in the White House' which translates, 'Show some respect.' "
Yup, he is too cool for school. And so is reconciliation. Reconciliation: a wonderfully ironic word for a process that is anything but.
Someone should put in one more earmark to buy clown suits for Mitch McConnell(R), Rep. Boehner(R) and the entire Republican caucus.
The actions and positions of the Republican Party are sillier than a barrel full of buffoons.
McConnell says if Obama does 'reconciliation' it will increase partisanship. This from the party that said the President consorted with domestic terrorists, wasn't a true American, represented a party that hated America, and a Party that didn't give a single vote for his budget.
Clown suits would suit them well, especially McConnell and Boehner. When the rapscallions aren't providing entertainment at Fox News, Tea Parties or Secession rallies they can visit hospitals here and in Iraq, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, unemployment offices, veterans hospitals and other locales to spread a little cheer to counter the destruction and failure of the administration they foisted on America and the world for 8 years.
April 25, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can the republicans possibly increase partisanship unless they decide to lead an armed rebellion against the Congress and White House? They have shown no, I repeat, no bipartisanship whatsoever.
April 25, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hear it for Reconciliation. I'm thrilled.
April 25, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone still crazy enough to believe in bipartisanship just needs to look at the lengths the Republicans are going to deny Minnesota voters the results of a fair election and two Senators in the US Senate.
April 25, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say bully for Obama! It's too bad he didn't realize what would happen in the bipartisanship department before the stimulus came up.
April 25, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's entirely possible that he did realize what would happen. At the outset of his administration, Obama said he welcomed constructive engagement. His message hasn't changed. Neither have his tactics.
Republican whining about being left out of the health care debate is both contemptible and disingenuous. Remember the way Medicare Part D legislation was rammed through Congess?
April 26, 2009 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
He ceded a lot to the republicans in the stimulus bill and I think he really thought he might get some cooperation. I'm delighted to see he's taking a firm stance now, whatever the reality was then.
April 26, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giving them a very public chance to be constructive was a politically necessary pre-condition to breaking out the sledgehammers. Obama's 68-69% approval rating, and the sub-30 approval rating for congressional Republicans, as well as the numbers showing large majorities saying he tried to be bi-partisan while they did not, are the direct, and intended, result of those efforts (though they would have taken constructive cooperation if, by some miracle, it had materialized).
If he had been seen as steamrolling his agenda over the Republicans without first giving them a chance to play nice, the Republicans would have been able to throw a gigantic pity party lamenting all the cooperation they would have given him if only he hadn't been so mean to them and so in thrall to the angry left. The Broderite MSM would have lapped it up like a dog on spilled milk. His political capital would have been a lot lower and the Republicans a lot higher which, in turn, would have increased the incentive of the Blue Dogs to engage in asshattery.
Though it seems obvious now, I recall that anyone who suggested he was making just such a forking move last February was met with a lot of sneering about "Kool-Aid" and "three dimensional chess."
April 27, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Yup, he is too cool for school."
TRANSLATION: Yup, he is too kewl for skewl.
April 25, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
LBJ wanted and had Republicans in part because there were a lot of moderates in that party and he knew that he could not always rely on the Dixiecrat wing. Now that the Republicans have starved or kicked out their Rockefeller wing and bought the Dixiecrats with race-baiting and Bible-thumping, only a few Blue Dogs have any overlap with the Republicans.
If the Republicans want to purify their party some more, that's all to the good for the Dems.
April 25, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've thought a lot about this too, as more than a few republicans have threatened 'all out war' should the Dems choose reconciliation on health care. By 'all out war', couldn't they as a cohesive unit try and filibuster any and every piece of legislation that requires 60 votes to pass?
There's a good argument to say that that they're already engaging in this tactic so what they call 'all out war' won't be much different. But could it not rile the party to become much more cohesive in their filibusters? Or will senators like Snowe, Collins, and Specter be inclined to ignore the war cries from the heads of their party and vote with the Dems if they see fit as they have in the past?
April 26, 2009 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
''the GOP of the 1960's [sic] was a loyal opposition that had the country's interests at heart.''
I seem to remember something about that, maybe from an old pre-Reagan history book. Before my time, though (I'm only 51).
April 26, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama understood perfectly that trying to be bipartisan would be met with opposition by the thugs. He did it to expose them and they have been exposed.
He;s wayyyy too smart for these guys.
April 28, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v p2v, hyper v integration services
March 30, 2011 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability database
April 28, 2011 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink