Friday, January 29, 2010
Why the Call to Bipartisanship?
I don't understand our President's recent call for bipartisanship--in either the state of the union address or today as directed to members of Congress (per this Reuters article). He doesn't need bipartisanship, since the Democrats have a majority in both the House and Senate--they can do whatever they want to do.
Or perhaps this is about the recent lost seat in Massachusetts? Could be. Perhaps calls for bipartisanship is really a lamenting the loss of a sealed super-majority in Congress? It's starting to sound like it. Whining about a possible filibuster attempt over ram-through legislation? Too bad--that's politics.
Let's take a look at where this problem really lies--within the divided Democratic side of the aisle. With the exception of votes requiring a super-majority (few exist), the Democrats have free reign over whatever comes to the floor. They can pass or deny anything! Why the whining about such a position? They need absolutely no bipartisanship whatsoever to accomplish their every whim.
And what does it really mean to have "bipartisanship" in the way the President is requesting now? I don't recall bipartisanship being so sought only a month ago when the Senate rammed through their astoundingly-irresponsible Health Care proposal on Christmas Eve (without even reading it, I might add). No bipartisanship desired or needed.
I can only interpret these calls for bipartisanship as completely disingenuous. It's like the Broncos blaming the Raiders for their loss last December! Like football, if the President wants to get his way in this contest, he'd better get his own team in order. Maybe that's too obvious?
Or perhaps this is about the recent lost seat in Massachusetts? Could be. Perhaps calls for bipartisanship is really a lamenting the loss of a sealed super-majority in Congress? It's starting to sound like it. Whining about a possible filibuster attempt over ram-through legislation? Too bad--that's politics.
Let's take a look at where this problem really lies--within the divided Democratic side of the aisle. With the exception of votes requiring a super-majority (few exist), the Democrats have free reign over whatever comes to the floor. They can pass or deny anything! Why the whining about such a position? They need absolutely no bipartisanship whatsoever to accomplish their every whim.
And what does it really mean to have "bipartisanship" in the way the President is requesting now? I don't recall bipartisanship being so sought only a month ago when the Senate rammed through their astoundingly-irresponsible Health Care proposal on Christmas Eve (without even reading it, I might add). No bipartisanship desired or needed.
I can only interpret these calls for bipartisanship as completely disingenuous. It's like the Broncos blaming the Raiders for their loss last December! Like football, if the President wants to get his way in this contest, he'd better get his own team in order. Maybe that's too obvious?
Labels: bipartisanship, Congress, democrats, Massachusetts, president
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]