Democrats & Liberals Archives

Who Wants a Bipartisan Bill Now?

President Obama and the Democrats spent more than a year seeking bipartisanship for healthcare reform. Did they get any? Nothing. Not even one Republican voted for the final healthcare reform bill. And Republicans are so proud of what they did - which brought them complete failure - that they plan to advertise their obstructionism in order to gain votes in November.

Poor Republicans. Now they must vote on a financial reform bill and they don't know how to proceed: cooperate or obstruct. If they cooperate with the Democratic "socialists" people may call them "socialist" too. If they obstruct and filibuster everything they antagonize the financial industry that supplies them with campaign money.

Read what Noam Scheiber says about this:

In the end, though, the most reliable guide to what’s likely to happen is discerning who has leverage. And, even once you strip away all the rhetoric and the personal narratives, it’s clearly the Democrats who have it. The outcome the industry fears most is that Democrats pass a tough bill on an overwhelmingly partisan vote, isolating Republicans as reflexive defenders of Wall Street. “Everyone in the industry, their line is very simple,” says another administration official. “They want a bipartisan bill.”

So in the end Republicans will work with Democrats to make sure that the financial industry does not suffer too much. Republicans will work hard to seek bipartisanship, something they are loathe to do.

Poor Republicans. All of a sudden, it's not Democrats but Republicans that are seeking bipartisanship. Believe it or not, the Democrats will have achievements to run on this November and Republicans will have nothing but hot air. Maybe they will elect Republicans with filibusters.

Posted by Paul Siegel at April 5, 2010 7:59 PM
Comments
Comment #298500

If our President had asked the Reps to negotiate in a bipartisan way on CSPAN, and then they played the partisan angle you’d have a point. Otherwise, they kept the Reps out because they could, not because the Reps kept saying no. Many on this blog have linked to the GOP and other links throughout the debate pointing out what the plans were, from many different parts of the Reps. Fact is that bipartisanship only happened after Brown and because they had to. I still don’t understand why, if what our President claimed was true, that this is what the American people want, that they even needed to have the TV broadcast healthcare summit? After all the poor Reps were wrong about public opinion. I somehow doubt you’ll be proven right in November.

Posted by: Edge at April 5, 2010 9:54 PM
Comment #298504

Edge,

What was Max Baucus doing last summer then if it wasn’t a bi-partisian discussion for HC reform?
Brown had nothing to do with bipartisianship in the HC bills; in fact his election signaled the end of bipartisanship because the Democrats knew that they needed reconciliation in order to make the House and Senate bills match.

Chuck Grassely, Mike Enzi, and John Barrasso all had a chance to be a substantial influence on the final bill, but Jim DeMint said the GOP would make the bill into Obama’s Waterloo and the Republicans adopted a policy of opposing any health care idea brought to the table by a Democrat, even if it had been an element of earlier Republican alternatives to HillaryCare or from RomneyCare.

I agree it’s a shame that Baucus had his discussions with Grassley & company without any cameras watching. That way, it would’ve been much harder for the right to construct the fictitious story that Democrats refused to cooperate with Republicans at the start. Those discussions between Grassley and Baucus should have been on C-SPAN.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 5, 2010 10:48 PM
Comment #298509

Paul
The Reps do have a strategy to defeat any real re-regulation of the financial sector. The are implementing it as we speak. Their Rovian plan is to charcterize attempts at regulation as just more Obama bailouts/favors to the unpopuler banking sector. Hard to believe,isn’t it? No one with half a brain would ever swallow it. Unfortunately that does not include the Republican base.

Posted by: bills at April 6, 2010 2:56 AM
Comment #298510

Paul
The Reps strategy to defeat any real financial reform is to try and paint re-regulation as yet another favor to big banks like another unpopular bailout. I know this is absurd and anyone with half a brain would see right through it but the Republican base does not fall into that category.
We need serious financial reform to protect us in the future. Millions of lives were shattered,billions of dreams lost. Without reform it will just happen again in a few years.
The Democrats do NOT need the Reps to accomplish reform. We need to do it because it is the right thing to do,just like HC where we also got no help. Futily looking for bi-partisan support is a waste of time and threatens to weaken any reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-you-cant-use-the_b_515354.html


“But even before the Democrats got to take a single victory lap they were already being warned not to get used to the feeling, and not to get drunk with power. I disagree. All you Democrats: do a shot, and then do another. Get drunk on this feeling of not backing down and doing what you came to Washington to do. “

Posted by: bills at April 6, 2010 3:22 AM
Comment #298513

Considering how incredibly ignorant and misinformed the American People are, I have no doubt the GOP will make gains in November.

Posted by: Henry Jones at April 6, 2010 6:08 AM
Comment #298523

No Henry I think the people are getting smarter and more informed. People aren’t as stupid as you liberals think they are.

Posted by: MAG at April 6, 2010 12:32 PM
Comment #298534


MAG: According to a Pew survey, Jan. 14-17,2010

32% know that 0 Republican Senators voted for the Senate health care reform bill.

26% think it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster.

39% know that Harry Reid is the Senate Majority leader.

32% know that Michael Steel is the chairperson of the RNC.

56% know there is more than one woman on the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the people are more informed on the issues. Do you think?

Posted by: jlw at April 6, 2010 3:36 PM
Comment #298541

How many states did BHO say there were while he was running for President? And he got elected, your right jlw there are a bunch of stupid people in this country and one’s in the Whitehouse.

Posted by: MAG at April 6, 2010 4:26 PM
Comment #298548
How many states did BHO say there were while he was running for President?

Obama said there were 56 states in the union because he was counting the number of state primaries, not states. The Democratic party holds primaries in territories that are not states such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, North Marinara Islands, and the District of Columbia.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 6, 2010 7:09 PM
Comment #298549

Whatever warped it was still a wrong answer so no points awarded.

Posted by: MAG at April 6, 2010 7:38 PM
Comment #298550

PS warped No excuses either.

Posted by: MAG at April 6, 2010 7:42 PM
Comment #298555


MAG, I don’t know man. Obama seems awfully intelligent to me. He has, almost single handed, taken over this country and turned it into a SOCIALIST STATE without even a shot being fired. And, he did it right under the noses of conservatives.

Posted by: jlw at April 6, 2010 9:44 PM
Comment #298560

Yea jlw smart enough to pull the wool over those that elected him.

Posted by: MAG at April 6, 2010 11:08 PM
Comment #298562


Yea MAG but, I never elected him. I didn’t even vote for him.

As a matter of fact, the ones who did the most to elect him were the Republicans. You remember the Bush years don’t you. I haven’t heard one person say he wished we had Bush back. Will you be the first?

Posted by: jlw at April 6, 2010 11:40 PM
Comment #298565

I have nothing but admiration for MAG…He is so highly intelligent and so politically astute, that he can call out the President as being ignorant and stupid…wow! That guy MAG is Gooood!

Posted by: Marysdude at April 7, 2010 8:40 AM
Comment #298566

The site lost my profile info, so am reinstalling…please ignore this message.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 7, 2010 8:42 AM
Comment #298571

No jlw but I wish Hilliary won instead of him. I even wrote Hilliary and asked her to run as an independent.

Posted by: MAG at April 7, 2010 9:37 AM
Comment #298613

My wife and I were both Hill backers…her, as a Republican, came to realize Bill had been good for the country, and Cheney/Bush, not so much. She may have had the ‘first woman President’ in mind as well…I, because, and I admit it is a shortcoming on my part, kept thinking of Bill as the ‘shadow’ President if Hill won.

I changed my mind after the primaries. Obama has made a much better President than Hill would ever have been, Before he leaves office, even Republicans will understand what a jewel he has become in office…they will never admit it, but they will know it.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 8, 2010 8:45 AM
Comment #298623

Yea a worthless flawed diamond.

Posted by: MAG at April 8, 2010 12:10 PM
Post a comment