Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 24, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


The Importance of Being Exceptional
Oil Boom Prompts U.S. to Push for Crude Exports






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

The Downside of Bipartisanship

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 22, 2009

By Marie Cocco

    As the nation celebrated a day of uplift, Wall Street delivered a brutal downdraft. Even as Barack Obama was taking the oath of office, the markets plunged—the Dow dropped more than 300 points and broader indexes slumped on jitters about shaky banks. It was the worst Inauguration Day performance in more than a century of trading.

    Wild swings on Wall Street are but one sign that no one really knows where we are economically, let alone where we are going. When Obama, known for his elegant optimism, spoke of “gathering clouds and raging storms” in his inaugural address, it seemed to be implied that not even he knows how to navigate them. If he meant to say we have nothing to fear but fear itself, it did not come across. We have, frankly, an awful lot to fear and Obama seemed to tell us that.

    Few analysts believe the perilous economic situation will improve anytime soon. The consensus is that we aren’t to expect anything resembling a return to economic normalcy—whatever that looks like without a housing bubble or a tech boom or loose credit—until about 2010.

    But beyond a mammoth economic stimulus package that is to be the first order of business for the new president and Congress, it is difficult to tell exactly what Obama plans. His campaign was a gauzy celebration of new-generation hope, and a recognition of historic racial progress. Yet above all, his election was a primal scream against the policies and legacies of George W. Bush.

    Obama’s own ideology remains obscure, wrapped in a youthful, congenial and confident persona. We do not yet know what, exactly, lies underneath. With so little time in federal office, Obama has scant history of taking tough stands or making difficult choices. He has not revealed an overarching worldview and bristles at the notion that he should. His transition to power was soothing, yet his insistence that he will engage with anyone who wishes to offer ideas is, in its own way, troubling.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
    The root of our financial crisis is that for much of the past three decades, we have implemented very bad economic ideas. Obama seems to get this—and not get it—at the very same time. The question, he said in his inaugural address, is not whether the market is a force for good or ill. He noted that “without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control” and that “the nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.”

    Nonetheless he keeps telling congressional Republicans that he will work with them—even though they are among the chief architects of this disaster. Since the Reagan era, Republicans have put tax cuts ahead of all other economic policies, and deregulation a close second. They have stuffed wallets that already were plump, left the broad middle class staggering and allowed the working class to become the working poor. If these politicians that Obama so fervently wishes to engage have such good ideas to offer, why have they not done so? In fact, there are few Washington traditions as annoying as the cultish worship of bipartisanship, for it ignores the simple fact that sometimes one party gets things disastrously wrong.

    Another is the mantra that “entitlements”—that is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—are costly, bloated and threaten the nation’s economic future. Obama already has pledged to undertake “entitlement reform,” a phrase that sends a shudder down my spine. With banks and other financial institutions now “entitled” to hundreds of billions in public money to bail them out of disastrous decisions, it is impossible to see why taxpayers who have paid for their future benefits through   their payroll taxes should not be “entitled” to receive them. Besides, since there is no immediate crisis in Medicare—and certainly not in the healthier Social Security program—there isn’t even a reason to mention this right now.

    The ease with which Obama glides through political rituals is amazing. So is his ability to soothe while talking about disturbing truths.

    Yet symbolism soon will fade as Obama becomes the decider. To decide is to disappoint, even anger, those who haven’t gotten their way and frankly shouldn’t. My hope for the new president is that he understands this, and is willing to take the hits. 

    Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com.

    © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By KDelphi, January 27, 2009 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

Howard Mandel—Good. You must have good health care (or must be healthy), and, must not know alot of people laid off and/or losing their houses, and, must support the “war” in Afghanistan….I dont.

Everytime Dems get a majority (a time like this may not come again in our lifetime), they want to be “bipartisan”. Good. But, John Boehner et al’s
“America” is a very dfferent America than most so-called liberals would be happy with. People are dying in the streets.

At least oxycontin fat assed LImbaugh was honest about it!

Obama may be better tham Bush (he is), but, to pretend that this has not been the most moneyed campaign in history, is silly. This campaign has been all about money. We need campaign finance reform. I am not one to decry money spent by GOP on moneyed interests , and, then, cheer when the same is done by Dems. (we need NO tax cuts—-we need to reverse Bush’s)

Obama has done some things that I am cautiously, very glad for. (we will have to see how they play out, and, whether he allows them to be watered down with “bipartisanship”). But, the military budget will go up (not down), troops strength will increase in Afghanistan, there are loopholes in everything. (this is “spirit of bipartisanship”, so beloved by pundits)P. Obama will have to stand up to moneyed interests to enact ideas that are even moderate, let alone liberal.

If we do not get universal health care, it may not matter much to me. My crappy Medicaid just dropped my family dr that I have known since grade school, and, had to go to hearings just to be able to use when Ohio Med went HMO—-now, I have no family dr and must go to a downtown clinic that, I would sooner go to a veterinarian. And, we have a Dem gov. now! (More money to states, for schools, health care, infrastructure—less tax cuts!)

The GOP is even fighting SCHIP for kids!!! Screw them!!! Gawd!!

A “reach across” to people like this, will just become reach around…they care about you and I, not at all.

Report this

By cann4ing, January 27, 2009 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

By Folktruther, January 25 at 1:09 pm #

But Cann4ing, Kucinich is not in power; Obama and his consverative cabinet is in power.  And they are continuing Busite policies.

________________

In his first week in office, Obama has issued executive orders reversing Bush’s policies on Guantanamo, torture, and accountability.  He instituted ethics rules that, if applied across the board, would shut the door to the lobbyist revolving door, imposed a moratorium on leases of western lands to the oil cartel, reversed Bush’s effort to block California’s more stringent fuel efficiency standards, instituted transparency in government and has taken steps to reinstate the rule of law.

There may be a host of issues, such as healthcare reform, where Obama’s plans fall woefully short—the only true reform is single-payer, so-called “universal coverage” is merely a scheme to subsidize the unnecessary parasites—for profit carriers and HMOs, or his misplaced faith in “free markets”—but that is miles away from your idiotic suggestion that Barack Obama is the reincarnation of George W. Bush.

As I have stated in the past, Folktruther, your problem is that like George W. Bush, you see the world through a Manichaen lens.  Within such a narrow outlook, one must agree with you on every issue or they are part of the opposition.

Report this

By Howard Mandel, January 27, 2009 at 8:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kdelphi:

“Howard Mandel—You will have to explain to me a little better, wtf you are talking about.”

The partisan model of politics has brought us to this point. And, its a game only the republicans are apt to play. Dems appear spineless because they are forced to hide their reliance on monied interests behind high-minded rhetoric. When its time to vote however, the money wins. Obama, for better or worse, seems to be going a different way (however marginally). I don’t know it it will work, but what choice have we got? After 30 years of the SOS, I’m willing to see how this plays out.

Report this

By KDelphi, January 27, 2009 at 12:02 am Link to this comment

Howard Mandel—You will have to explain to me a little better, wtf you are talking about.

Obama is NOT a “liberal” and, would probably consider it an insult.

The Dems may not be “liberal” (Obama has plenty of Blue Dog friends, who can be worse than GOP),but, if they can have majoritites in all three branchs, and stil accomplish nothing without GOP, why bother?


Its a big duopoly, and, you can buy into it if you like.
I’ll never vote for one again. You can dream your big ass dream. Its horseshit.

When to GOP “ruled” they didnt need a “consensus” because Dems CAVE at every opportunity! Theyre doing it again already. Then, the GOP, will get them to give up this, give up that, and, when it fails, they can blame Dems, and retake one house, in 2010. Then, the dems will be able to blame it on…its always something. When are you going to demand results?

Never. That is why they feel so comfortable in buying you off with $500. Dont spend it all in one place..

Report this

By Howard Mandel, January 26, 2009 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The Dems have control of ALL THREE BRANCHES!”

Dream your little dream Kdelphi. But we ain’t got shit but Obama. Democrats and republicans get their money form the same sources. So, there aren’t enough left leaning democrats to overrun the republican obfuscation machine. Spineless blue dogs will cave if one defense job or one pet earmark is in jeopardy.

When the republicans ruled they didn’t need consensus because they didn’t wish to accomplish anything. All they wanted to do was to tear everything down. In order to create lasting policies and you need to overcome the obfuscation with practical programs that can’t help but win support. Once Obama extends his credibility to a skeptical public he can blunt the criticism from the powerful commercial interests by delivering results.

Report this

By KDelphi, January 26, 2009 at 2:02 am Link to this comment

By cann4ing, January 24 at 5:51 pm #


“By KDelphi, January 24 at 11:56 am #

Well, there’s NAFTA, which proved Democrats could stand up to labor.”


I, apparently , didnt quote correctly or make it obvious. I didnt say that, I was quoting someone. (Frank of WSJ)

Frank said that that was CENTRISM’s achievement. I am against centrtism and “bipartisanship”.(whatever is meant by it right now) I proabaly wasn ot clear. But, please ,do not take me as beign PRO NAFTA!

I go to PDA all the time. They have great ideas. I wish that Dems would listen to them more often.

Report this

By GoldenT, January 25, 2009 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

“If these politicians that Obama so fervently wishes to engage have such good ideas to offer, why have they not done so?”

Unfortunately, this article’s author apparently missed Senator Bob Corker’s (R-TN) remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate on January 21, 2009, where he spoke of the U.S. banking system being “insolvent.” Mighty truthful language coming from someone who might otherwise be considered an obstructionist. As such, maybe the author’s conclusion is a bit harsh?

Report this

By Folktruther, January 25, 2009 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

But Cann4ing, Kucinich is not in power; Obama and his consverative cabinet is in power.  And they are continuing Busite policies.  Howe does supporting the Dems oppose the policies which increase war, class inequality, and a police state.  This can only be done by colectively OPPOSING the Dem-Gop bloc.

Report this

By cyrena, January 24, 2009 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment

Bravo JohnJR08

By JohnRJ08, January 22 at 1:10 pm #

“Rush Limbaugh’s obscene statement yesterday is a terrific example of how some political creatures have elevated partisan ideology above whatever is right for the country. In Limbaugh’s view, it’s more important for his ideology to survive than it is for Obama’s policies to work and pull this country out of its economic abyss. Limbaugh represents the very mindset that Obama’s election clearly repudiated…”

~~~

I’ve rarely heard it said better, and this is EXACTLY what is ‘in progress’. A repudiation of EVERYTHING that the neocon agenda of the past 8 years has symbolized. And that includes the virtual death of people like Rush Limbaugh, and the Propaganda Ministry to which he and his ilk have been associated.

In other words, (no pun intended) they are “in their last throes” and the same can even be said of the old-mold C-string team of so-called journalists like Miss Marie Cocco here. Since SHE still can’t figure out his plan, she just ‘assumes’ that he can’t either. The ignorant always figure that everyone else is as ignorant as they are.

But you’re right, the ignorance has been repudiated, and ‘we the people’ have embraced the notion of returning to the sanity of reason, logic, and cooperation in terms of the common good.

I don’t call this ‘bi-partisanship” I call it NON-partisanship. Meantime, we’ll see the likes of Limbaugh et al fade into obscurity. It can’t happen soon enough.

Report this

By cann4ing, January 24, 2009 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment

By KDelphi, January 24 at 11:56 am #

Well, there’s NAFTA, which proved Democrats could stand up to labor.
_________________________

No, what it proved is that corporatists, like the Clintons, willingly sold out their democratic base (labor) in exchange for Wall Street campaign contributions. They did so knowing that labor had no one else to turn to but the Democratic Party.  That’s the basic difference between “liberals” like Clinton and true progressives, like Dennis Kucinich.  True progressives have to courage of their convictions and will not be bought off.  That is why between now and 2010 those seeking meaningful change should join Progressive Democrats of America and become active not only in their push to elect progressive candidates but to press now for a true progressive, and yes partisan, agenda.

Report this

By KDelphi, January 24, 2009 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

If the “downturn” (ie depression) is to continue, we must use whatever resources we can steal BACK from the rich to shore up the people who need it most!

Let s NOT (and say we did?) “restructure ” social security or Medicare right now, ‘tards! Gawd, what a HORRIBLE idea?!

These neo-liberal economists have already “offered ideas” and implemented them—look where we are.

“...and certainly not in the healthier Social Security program—there isn’t even a reason to mention this right now…”

Only one—the beloved by pundits idea of “bipartisanship”, and, as more gifts to the rich.

Gawd, cann4ing—I quoted that, exactly, in a reply to you about 3 wks ago! (Krugman’s “Conscience of a LIberal”) In any case, I agree with you, on most all.I guess youre not reading my replies…lol. I dont blame you.

ender—“sure of passage”?? What the hell does that mean?

The Dems have control of ALL THREE BRANCHES! They need give nothing to any of these rich f*cks (of which many are a group) that helped get us where we are, unless…of course, unless…they really represent them(selves) more than they do the rest of us. Persident Obama actually wanted more tax cuts than the Dems were willing to give!

HOward—We havce already HAD “ideas” from George Will, Charles Krautthmer, Zach Wamp, GEORGE BUSHites!! See what it has wrought?! LIke it?~! OK!!

frem—Tax cuts—been there, done that!!Period.

Little Bro—“Or a “good cop/bad cop” routine.  Which is the good cop and which is the bad cop depends on the party preference of each observer”

“The real division is a class division.  Our Tweedledum/Tweedledee arrangement allows a political/military/financial Ruling Class to protect itself and extract maximum wealth and resources from ordinary citizens.  And provide citizens with enough political busy-work to give the impression that the system really works as advertised.”

One of the most articulate phrases I’ve heard all week.

The differences of the Right vs the Left are hardly “petty”.The Rights’ vision is one that does not include us at all. The “bickering” that people are sick of , is the bipartisan crap concerning trivia. The truth is, that, some of these issues are too important to the future of the country to barter with.

79% of the pop. is “optimistic” about the country under Obama’s direction—no one has had support like that in recent history. As I asked before, will P. O. be FDR or Reagasn—it is fully his choice, considering the cult of the presidency that has developed since Reagan,

As Thomas Frank wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

[T]he real-world function of Beltway centrism has not been to wage high-minded war against “both extremes,” but to fight specifically against the economic and foreign policies of liberalism. Centrism’s institutional triumphs have been won mainly if not entirely within the Democratic Party. Its greatest exponent, President Bill Clinton, persistently used his own movement as a foil in his great game of triangulation.

And centrism’s achievements? Well, there’s NAFTA, which proved Democrats could stand up to labor. There’s the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. There’s the Iraq war resolution, approved by numerous Democrats in brave defiance of their party’s left. Triumphs all…

Report this

By Mike3, January 24, 2009 at 3:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A very good article, considering America has just had one of the most partisan presidents ever to sit in the Whitehouse; I don’t see why Obama should extend a hand now to Republicans. And this current gang of Republicans won’t give anyone the dirt from their fingernails, not that they do any work mined.

Morally, Obama is head and shoulders over most in Washington, (well, my cat is morally superior to most in Washington), and I think his competence and knowledge of America’s financial crisis is very good. He understands that if you destroy your middle and working class, (i.e. take all their money and give it to the rich), you destroy yourself, your own country. He is in fact doing what the British writer Will Hutton has long suggested: Radical Keynesianism.

Report this

By Folktruther, January 23, 2009 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

“Bi-partisanship is a codeword for the subversion of meaningful change.”

You have a way with words, Cann4ing.

“our nation, having taken a giant step away from our decent into fascism…”

Not so good with ideas, though.

Report this

By cann4ing, January 23, 2009 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

In “Conscience of a Liberal” Paul Krugman forcefully argues:  “The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose visions of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement.  Because of that control, the notion, beloved by political pundits, that we can make progress through bi-partisan consensus is simply foolish.”

The American working class has been at the receiving end of a global class war launched by those devoted to inequality; who place individual greed of the few above the needs of the many.  Bi-partisanship is a code word for the subversion of meaningful change.  Consider, for example, health care.  Obama has openly acknowledged that a single-payer system—one that would eliminate the parasitic middle men (for-profit carriers & HMOs) which account for 31% of health care costs (as compared to administrative costs of 1% to 2% in single-payer countries) would provide the ideal, yet his desire to secure bi-partisan consensus leads him to the sham of “universal coverage” that would have our tax dollars subsidizing these unnecessary parasites.

Our nation, having taken a giant step away from our recent descent into fascism, complete with recent revelations that the NSA ability to capture all forms of electronic communications was directed at all Americans in general and the media in particular, must now move forward in a truly partisan fashion—pressing a truly progressive agenda and rejecting the sham that is “bi-partisan consensus.”

Report this

By ThnkUBush, January 22, 2009 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment

JohnRJ08,

I was not arguing for anything Rush Limbaugh said. Nor was I employing a counter attack. I was conveying that I felt as you do. Albeit from a different perspective.

Report this

By JohnRJ08, January 22, 2009 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

ThnkUBush—Citing a group of blowhards in the other party is hardly a good argument for what Rush Limbaugh said. Your out-dated counterattack is remarkably consistent with the point I made in my earlier post.

Report this

By Folktruther, January 22, 2009 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment

An interessting comment, Howard Mandel:  The
Chinese have concentrated on building reads, bridges, etc and they were amazed by the response of the rurual population in creating businesses.  They didn’t expect or plan on it.

Now they just build and expand cities with enormous vacancies for a short time, in the expectation that they will soon be filled.  they have about 150 cities of over a million people.  the US has 9.  Europe east and west has 36.

their economy has been expanding 10% a year for a half century. Historically unprecidented.  see Ted Fishman’s CHINA,INC.  What is downplayed in the American media is that the state owns all the major banks and a third of the economy.

Report this

By ThnkUBush, January 22, 2009 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment

By JohnRJ08, January 22 at 1:10 pm #

Please allow me to flip your premise over by replacing the names…..

Tom Dashel’s, Harry Reid’s, Nancy Pelosi’s and Keith Olberman’s obscene statements over the past 6 years are terrific examples of how some political creatures have elevated partisan ideology above whatever is right for the country. In the above’s view, it’s more important for their ideology to survive than it is for U.S. policies to work

Report this

By JohnRJ08, January 22, 2009 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

Rush Limbaugh’s obscene statement yesterday is a terrific example of how some political creatures have elevated partisan ideology above whatever is right for the country. In Limbaugh’s view, it’s more important for his ideology to survive than it is for Obama’s policies to work and pull this country out of its economic abyss. Limbaugh represents the very mindset that Obama’s election clearly repudiated. If the RNC listens to Limbaugh or people of his ilk, it will not exist as a political force in this country within ten years. He is like a dinosaur jumping into a tar pit to devour a smaller animal stuck in the mire.

It does not surprise me at all the Reid and Pelosi are not in “lock-step” with Obama on every single issue. It would be more worrisome if they were. Of course, I’m confident that both senators will soon realize in dealing with the new president that they are way out of his league. They’ve both been fighting the partisan wars in the senate for so long that they don’t know of any other way to work. They’ll get over that.

Report this

By Howard Mandel, January 22, 2009 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Clearly “frem” is not a business owner.

“Obama must realize that it’s the corporations that offer the best possibility for employment and recovery”

Not a single sustainable job has ever been created by a tax incentive. They are corporate giveaways to reward donors. The only thing that creates jobs is better infrastucture. If you improve our cities’ and towns’ ability to host and sustain larger populations and industries, then economic opportunity will follow suit. The only incentive corporations need are resources and customers.

Frem displays the outmoded free market dogma that got us into this mess.

Report this

By Little Brother, January 22, 2009 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

I concede that this point will instantly fizz into nonexistence in the warm and bubbly waters of this week’s irrational exhuberance, but it’s both amusing and exasperating to see how readily people still buy into the fiction that Amerika is governed by two distinct adversarial political parties that vie for control of the electorate.

Our duopoly—which, remember, was never proposed or advocated by the Founders, who wisely scorned “party” and “faction” in government—is at best a pair of conjoined twins who argue a lot.

Or a “good cop/bad cop” routine.  Which is the good cop and which is the bad cop depends on the party preference of each observer.

This is not to argue that the parties are “the same”, a dumbed-down, straw man interpretation that facilitates glib and superficial talking points emphasizing the striking differences between Republican and Democratic positions.

Of course the parties have to make a convincing show of being what they pretend to be; moreover, I expect that many politicians actually believe in the illusory division between the two anointed parties.  Such self-delusion makes for a more convincing performance.

The real division is a class division.  Our Tweedledum/Tweedledee arrangement allows a political/military/financial Ruling Class to protect itself and extract maximum wealth and resources from ordinary citizens.  And provide citizens with enough political busy-work to give the impression that the system really works as advertised.

Report this

By P. T., January 22, 2009 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

For the Republicans, bipartisanship means giving the rich something they want.

Report this

By frem, January 22, 2009 at 11:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Not too surprised that there is infighting among the DemoCRAPS. As far as repeal of Pres. Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthy, Obama must realize that it’s the corporations that offer the best possibility for employment and recovery. Take away their tax breaks and you will see more and more closures and layoffs. Pelosi doesn’t seem to understand this. She is hellbent on destroying anything that may have the slightest imprint of an elephant on it. As far as she is concerned it’s her way or the highway. It isn’t political, it’s her personal vendetta. She needs to keep to the business at hand and let the President do what he thinks is right.

Report this

By Jim Yell, January 22, 2009 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am pleased with the news today, which show that Obama is moving to address the horrible crimes of the Bush/Cheney Administration, if not the people who commited them.

I have felt that the past 8 years were facilitated by many in the Democratic Leadership who under cover of Bi-partsianship had abdicated their responsibilities to be the opposition. Too many times caving to the most obvious criminality of this mercifully past administration.

In anycase I was lifted up by the remarkable elegance and clear and dignified speech of Obama. Let us all hope he will have luck on his side and help clean us of the Shame of 8 years of Bush/Cheney.

Report this

By Howard Mandel, January 22, 2009 at 8:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s not “bipartisanship” but post-partisanship (or non-partisanship, if you prefer) that is at play in Obama’s rhetoric and action. The past ideas of bi-partisnship led to ineffectual triangulation, where everybody got something to shut them up and the resulting legislation did nothing. Embracing people from all over the ideological spectrum Obama hopes to build non-dogmatic, passable and effective legislation behind the scenes, rolling it out prevetted. This guts the petty public squabbles that have for so long benefitted only the obstructionists, and shifts power from the edges to the middle.

Report this

By RdV, January 22, 2009 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

Well said.
My sentiments exactly.
Obama’s, perhaps well-intentioned impulse at “unity” sometimes smacks of either naivete or feel good pep-rally rhetoric as cover for centrist posturing.
Hard to say—but sometimes it is important to make a courageous stand in opposition—and at a time when Republican credibility is less than zero- it shouldn’t be that hard of a case to make.

Report this

By ender, January 22, 2009 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

We’ve already seen Limbaugh’s Call to the Clones to oppose the success of Pres. Obama’s plans for overcoming the horrendous mess that eight yrs of gov’t of the Corporation, by the Corporation and for the Corporation has left in his lap.  I know its normal in Congress, but I’ve seen Republican Congressmen using their time at the podium to blast the new direction, even if they have to go off topic to do so. 

The author is correct.  There will come a time, and I hope it is as soon as Franken is seated, and the Democrats can be sure of passage, that they marginalize the hard right conservative faction of the Repugnant party and pound them soundly into place.  The Repugnants did it for seven yrs.  The Democrats need to do it quickly and effectively so the changes Pres. Obama is pushing for do not get watered down in effectiveness nor bogged down in passage.  There are enough Republicans whom have read the writing on the wall and will vote with most of the Democrats if the Dems have the courage to say to the nation, “This is a Democratic initiative that some enlightened Republicans support.  It is on our shoulders and we do not intend to water this down so the Reichwing will vote for it and claim some small victory.” 

Unfortunately the Democratic Party was marginalized and must quickly learn to reassert itself even if, or especially if, that means marginalizing their opposition.  That opposition will soon learn, as did the Dems, that if they want to participate and take home any pork bones that will get them reelected, that they need to support the President on important issues.

Now is the time when the Democrats either show themselves willing to take the reigns of power and help a President with a mandate lead the nation, or relegate themselves to being the slimy political hacks they’ve been viewed as for the last eight yrs.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook