Ever since the Massachusetts election, Barack Obama has been asking Democrats and Republicans, "Can't we just get along?" It seems he thinks if he just asks hard enough or wishes intensely enough that the Republicans will finally play fair.
They've voted no on everything and given him absolutely zero votes on most pieces of legislation. Obama has already tried inviting them over to the White House, negotiating with them, implementing the policies they asked for (deficit reduction commission was the perfect example) -- and they still gave him no votes. Apparently the Rodney King strategy is not cutting it.
I understand the political value of reaching out to the other side. You appear reasonable and centrist, which in this case Obama actually is, to a fault. But there has to be a limit to it. Because right now Obama is caught in a no-win situation of his own making. He promised two seemingly contradictory things -- that he would get beyond the partisanship in Washington and at the same time he would bring real change.
It takes two to tango on bipartisanship. So, if you can't get the other side to play ball and you still want to bring real change, you only have one choice. You have to bring out the pliers and a blowtorch. You have to put the other side on the spot and call them out if they block the change Americans voted for.
But if Obama does that now, they'll say he didn't change the tone in Washington and he's being too partisan by attacking the Republicans. So, he's in a lose-lose situation. If he doesn't put the Republicans on the spot he can't deliver on the change he promised, but if he does attack them then he didn't deliver on getting beyond partisan bickering.
But he can turn this around to a win-win. How? By setting a deadline. He can say that he is willing to do the concessions he has already promised the Republicans and list what those are. But if they still refuse to vote with him by a certain date, then he has no choice but to call them out. At that point, it is his duty and obligation to point out to the electorate who blocked the change they voted for.
In the words of John McCain, he should make them famous and we should know their names. If Chuck Grassley votes to kill health care reform, then every person who is denied health care in Iowa because of a pre-existing condition should know it was Grassley who did it. Every person that loses a family member because insurance dumped them after they got sick, they should know that their loved one died because Chuck Grassley played partisan politics. Grassley filibustered while people died. These are the men who killed health care reform and these are the men who killed your family.
If President Obama does this, then he can credibly say he reached out and gave the Republicans a chance to be bipartisan along with him. If they refuse, he'll have no choice but to unleash his political wrath on them. This shifts the responsibility for bipartisanship from Obama to the Republicans. He did his part and they didn't, so there had to be consequences. Everyone can see the logic in this. People understand that you have to make your case and put your opponents on the spot. The Republicans are never shy about doing this, so it should come as no surprise to them.
Offer them an olive branch, but if they slap it down, roll up your sleeves and deliver the ass-kicking of a lifetime. That would be the change we can believe in.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Dr. Elaine Schattner: Getting The Right Medicine
What's missing is a solid discussion of the type and extent of treatments people would want if they were sufficiently informed of their medical options and circumstances.
Your suggestion sounds reasonable. Maybe President should try this strategy for change as every effort has faced deadlock.
Does he intend to run for re-election as the candidate of the Bipartisan Party? The Mr. Nice Guy Party? The We Asked Nicely (Too Bad It Didn't Work) Party?
We need a strong leader working day and night to enforce the will of the voters as expressed in 2008. It's quite clear that Barack Obama is either holding back--or never was the right Democrat for the job.
He can hold bi-weekly press conferences. He can twist arms in the House and Senate. He can replace miscast, mediocre players like Emanuel and Geithner with smart, effective ones. Will he?
When a team keeps losing, it needs to replace the quarterback or fire the coach. Obama has been neither a good quarterback nor an effective coach--so far. The question is "Can he be?" His declaring that deadline would improve matters greatly. Good thinking, Cenk--but let's just see what Obama does.
It's the reality of the situation. Even with Democrats in control, Congress isn't as liberal as people on here are assuming, and it's funny to see people still not see this.
Blue Dog Coalition: 54 members of Congress
New Democrat Coalition: 68 members of Congress
Progressive Caucus: 83 members of Congress
House Republicans: 178 members of Congress
If the game that people want to play is the race to 218, there's a lot of room to float.
In that case, I'd assume that the same criterion would hold to the House or Representatives, regardless of what side they are on, correct?
If the House Democrats, in the case of healthcare, say that they won't pass the Senate's bill, while knowing that the "patch" is on its' way, would you then go to every member in the House's district that voted against the bill, and tell their constituents that people will continue to be denied coverage, due to pre-existing conditions, because the bill that came out of the Senate, which would do just that, wasn't to their liking?
If, by some miracle at this moment, the Senate is able to pass a cap-and-trade bill, would you go to the districts of members of Congress who vote down an actual cap on carbon because nuclear
power was part of the legislation?
If that' the case, do whatever you want; just know that you're going to be doing a lot of traveling and shaming.
The fact of the matter is the goal should be to pass legislation that moves the process forward, in big steps or small steps, on a host of issues that Democrats have tried to fix for years. And the way Congress is set up, compromise is inevitable.
Oh, Amen, brother! Republicans have shown that they have no respect for the President on every opportunity. No more Mr. Nice Guy....
in the House for the whole of this year. Republicans numerically could block nothing!
So why do we continuously hear about the Party of no. If everyone of the
Republicans vote no, then they still lose to the majority, or in the case of the
Senate, the super majority.
Numerically Republicans' no meant nothing.
NO!
President Obama's fight is not with the Republicans, but with his own party that did not back him.
The next elections will not be kind to them. People want a change but not a change to a marxist country.
Obama's idea of bi partisanship is agreeing with him. Republicans don't and more and more independents don't either.
Conservatives do not want what Obama is selling and the Republicans had better not give him any votes on anything.
And, secondly, today's Republicans and Conservatives are NOT the same thing.
Just wish he could be -our- buddy. ^^
You advocate we don't get along, maybe the LA riots should have been worse and Rodeny should have called for the city to be burned down. Why I wonder is it animous, or is it the careless ignorance and lack of thought that has been so apparent in your recent posts.
Happy Black History Month thanks for kicking it off with such a bang.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, cannot be admired for similar naivety. He should know better than to think that there is any way to "get along" with Republicans, and anyone who knows their true motives would understand that.
Either Obama understands that Republicans' aim is to concentrate as much wealth as possible into as few hands as possible or he's too stupid to be our President. He should quit coddling them and hoping that they will suddenly become interested in the welfare of their fellow citizens.
Cenk merely used an easily accessible cultural reference to illustrate the error of Obama's strategy. It is no more likely that Republicans will want to "get along" with people who wish for a peaceful and prosperous community than it was for the rioters to want to "get along" with those same people. After all, the rioters did no damage at all to the establishment against whom they were supposedly protesting. All they did was burn down their own neighborhoods.
Let's hope that we can stop the Republican from doing the same by understanding that Obama's "Rodney King" strategy is just as hopless as Rodney King's plea.