wherein we’re mature enough to realize that in the adult world, the goal isn’t merely having everyone agree, but going forth with the best possible plan

If Senator Specter is to be believed (and on this point, I don’t see why not), the Republicans do actually agree with the broad strokes of the stimulus plan.  They just wanted to vote against the bill so that the President wouldn’t get credit for creating a popular, bipartisan economic rescue. 

And therein lies the problem with defining “bipartisan” as a goal.  The Republicans get veto power over whether or not you succeed.

If Americans wanted “bipartisanship” that would please Republicans, we’d have all voted for McCain.

OK, but there’s never been a reason to trust the Republican Party. Why it’s taken anyone this long to figure that out is a complete mystery to me.

You know, there are some days I can see that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is more about how we think certain goals should be achieved, rather than some kind of fundamental difference in worldview.  As I once put it, “Democrats want to make the world a true meritocracy.  Republicans think we’ve already done that.” 

But right now, it’s pretty obvious to me that the Republicans are acting in bad faith, plain and simple.  They actively want to destroy the country, in the interest of big business and the very wealthy.  They want the US to be a third world oligarchy, or even better, a feudal state.  They’ve stopped even pretending that they want the things that people who believe in democracy want.  At this point, I’d doubt whether they even want the things that people since the Enlightenment have taken for granted that everybody wants. 

I might “trust” the Republicans, in a manner of speaking, if they were ever willing to compromise.  If they showed any sense of wanting the best for this country.  If they did anything but sabotage democratic ideals.  But right now they’re pretty distinctly not doing that, so I have a really hard time seeing them as a legitimate democratic opposition to be humored on occasion, if rarely agreed with.

Also, WHEN is firefox going to add Obama to their spell-check dictionary.  This is getting embarrassing…

You can add words to your Firefox spell check manually by right clicking and choosing Add to Dictionary.

Outside of the pundits, Barack Obama, and a few members of his inner circle, which voters, exactly, are clamoring for “bipartisanship”? Doesn’t anyone know any of these people?

On the other hand, in the win-win world, I can see that what Obama is doing may well win over a wide swath of people, which would in turn eventually change the way the Republicans are operating.

By doing truly bipartisan things, including Republicans in planning, nominating them for the cabinet, and so on, and getting it shoved in his face, he can then move to a backup method, get the same thing done, and short circuit what would have been the inevitable accusations of playing by the old rules.

The Republicans are setting themselves up for looking like the kid who holds his breath when things don’t go his way. And while Obama still has all the shiny new points from his election, and the majorities he has, people are definitely noticing that he has the power to do things unilaterally - and is willing to use it, but only after the consensus building fails.

“Outside of the pundits, Barack Obama, and a few members of his inner circle, which voters, exactly, are clamoring for “bipartisanship”?”

I don’t know if you’re including the Villagers under the name “pundits”, but it’s clear that it’s the Washington political press who are the main cheerleaders for “bipartisanship”.

When they’ve decided something — like the value of bipartisanship, the importance of not pulling out of Iraq, not closing Gitmo, not investigating the crimes of the Bushites, etc. — it’s very difficult to get the politicians to go against that tide.

Ultimately it all ends up with “it’s better to look good than to feel good…”

I do still believe Obama is playing a long term strategy and that it will end up better than it looks now.  That said, however, I think it’s critical that we don’t keep quiet about what we want.  If we’re going to get any grease, we better squeak like crazy…

I think Obama has finally seen that Republicans just aren’t going to cooperate. He is already starting to go over their heads by going into campaign mode.

I don’t know why he even tried, though. Look at what they did to Bill Clinton—they tried to destroy him from Day One. Why did he think they would treat him any differently?

You can add words to your Firefox spell check manually by right clicking and choosing Add to Dictionary.

Yeah, but that’s beside the point.  The fact that web browser spell-check systems don’t include the friggen Leader Of The Free World in their dictionaries by default is annoying.  (This has been a subject of periodic discussion here in the Pandagon comment threads, btw.)

I know a fair amount of people that would like to see bipartisanship. They’re relatives and such who don’t read blogs like this. Some voted Obama, some McCain (like The Catholics I know who couldn’t vote for someone who is pro-choice, but do like Obama nevertheless).

They do want it, but they have also seen that he is trying and its not his fault. So they’re not upset with him for it not happening.

This is what I learned at a big family gathering last night.

They actively want to destroy the country, in the interest of big business and the very wealthy.

Oddly, they seem to be doing this out of pure partisan spite, not out of their love for plutocracy.  Big business groups, like the Chamber of Commerce, and other manufacturing and trade groups have been spitting nails over Republican opposition to the stimulus.  They needs a major injection of demand into the economy as much as anyone.

Of course, I’m expecting that they will kiss and make up as soon as we start to debate Employee Free Choice.

I know a fair amount of people that would like to see bipartisanship. They’re relatives and such who don’t read blogs like this. ..

They do want it, but they have also seen that he is trying and its not his fault. So they’re not upset with him for it not happening.

This is what I learned at a big family gathering last night.

Thanks for sending us your reports from the outside world. Obviously some people loved Obama’s lines about bipartisanship, otherwise he wouldn’t have gotten elected. Outside of pundits and maybe a few stray blog commenters, I had no idea who these people were. I could find you more partisan Republicans in my social circle than I could bipartisan unity mongers.

Ben,
Obama tried because he’d said he would, and so it was required of him. I think he’s playing a long game here—he goes to Republicans, they spurn him, he goes on the trail and wins. They wind up looking petulant. And I don’t know if there are enough brains left in the Republican party to figure out how they’re being played.

I have this fantasy of him issuing a signing statement with this bill saying “I’m the President, I can do what I want. 911, bitches!”

As Fauxbama said yesterday, there is absolutely no reason to trust the Republican Party right now - none.  I think that it’s an assumption that’s safe to run with right now.

Hold on - we’re calling Steele Fauxbama now? I thought that was Jindal’s pennant - did I miss a memo?

The Republicans haven’t been negotiating in good faith since at least Gingrich, and probably earlier. Whether the Villagers are honestly too stupid to have noticed, or are using “bipartisanship” intentionally as cover to push through conservatism… well, we’re back to the stupid/evil question.

>>The entire problem with the bipartisan-worship crowd is that it views the act of >>agreement as more vital to governing than actual governing. 

Yes, I think this kind of simplistic sentiment is out there, but Obama is looking for much more than this. 

Lymis is terribly cynical, but his/her point about “bipartisan things, including Republicans in planning, nominating them for the cabinet, and so on” IS more of the point.  Obama is about making sure Republicans feel they have had every chance to affect the outcome, to present their concerns, to participate in the debate.  And that is absolutely part of democracy.  Lani Guinier writes brilliantly about this in her _Tyranny of the Majority_ - when you’re the minority, you know you have no ultimate power, and it’s real easy to just tune out of the process altogether (like the kid holding his breath).  But when the majority makes legitimate efforts to hear/include/respect the minority, then the minority is motivated to keep playing. 

Obama wasn’t looking for 95% agreement…he was looking for maybe 65 ON THIS (admittedly complex) ISSUE.  And the next time around, he might seek a different 65 on a different issue.  He’s trying to shake loose simplistic party affiliations in favor of issue-oriented groups.  Certainly, it’s an uphill battle—this would be a lot easier in other countries’ forms of multi-party democracy, where smaller parties HAVE to coalesce in order to get things accomplished. 

And for another thing, I don’t think it’s that surprising that Republicans haven’t responded well yet.  But Obama is setting up a really strong model, and if he keeps it up, I still think there’s a chance Republicans may respond after a while…. the stakes are just so high right now, I think we’re all a bit premature in calling it….

s.

I loved watching Jon Stewart rip John Sununu a new one over the stimulus plan and Republican obstructionism on The Daily Show Thursday.  It’s sad when the host of a “fake” news show does what the MSM refuses to do.

Yeah, but that’s beside the point.  The fact that web browser spell-check systems don’t include the friggen Leader Of The Free World in their dictionaries by default is annoying.  (This has been a subject of periodic discussion here in the Pandagon comment threads, btw.)

Here’s the history of that bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=434915

I’m not happy with their handling of it, but my disappointment is somewhat mediated by the fact that most of these people are unpaid volunteers and there are usually pressing security issues that need to be fixed yesterday.

BTW, you can make an account there and vote for the bug. In theory that should bring more attention to it.

Outside of the pundits, Barack Obama, and a few members of his inner circle, which voters, exactly, are clamoring for “bipartisanship”? Doesn’t anyone know any of these people?

They exist, but the reasons for their desires for “bipartisanship” aren’t very good.  Mostly, they are comprised of the most politically unaware people in America, folks who really don’t have much of a strong grasp on policy positions and the bigger issues.

They’re the ones who voted for Reagan in the 1980s, Clinton in the 1990s, Bush in the 2000s, and Obama this year.

The one thing they all share in common is that they are all clueless about political issues.  I’m glad she voted for Obama, but she did so with no real knowledge of where he stands on anything - she told me she chose him because “Bush wasn’t very good and the country needed to move on to someone different.”

While that’s very true, it’s the exact same reason she gave everyone when she voted FOR Bush in 2000 instead of Gore after 8 years of Clinton.

These are the folks who have no idea who the current Secretary of State is at any given time in history, nor do they have any idea what a SoS even does.  They often don’t know who their own Senators or Representatives are, either.

The truly clueless voters.

Here’s the thing:  in the Washington establishment, “bipartisan” has a very specific meaning.  It means to give the Republicans everything they want.

Out in the rest of the world, “bipartisan” means having the two parties work together to find a workable compromise between their positions.  I doubt anyone in the Obama administration thought they would be able to get every Republican to vote for them, every time, but every Republican has at least one pet project that strays from the party line.  They’re probably hoping to get, say, some Republicans from Western states to get on board with environmental regulations that would protect hunting and fishing areas or border state Republicans to help out with immigration reform.

I think the Republicans will stick together indefinitely because they’re more interested in power than in actually getting anything done, and having the ability to veto anything your opponents want is a form of power.  They’re going to need to be careful, though, because if it starts to look like the Democrats are getting things done while Republicans are sitting around with their thumbs up their asses, the electoral picture is not going to improve for them.

Shite… I meant to mention above that my aunt is among the worshippers of “bipartisanship”, and she is the she that I’m referencing in my 3rd paragraph above.

I doubt anyone in the Obama administration thought they would be able to get every Republican to vote for them, every time, but every Republican has at least one pet project that strays from the party line.

As for Sens. Specter, Snowe and Collins, I’d have to guess that the pet project on this particular bill was, umm… keeping their jobs.

Pennsylvania and Maine are two states that probably weren’t too keen on having their senators standing in the way of this bill.

They do want it, but they have also seen that he is trying and its not his fault. So they’re not upset with him for it not happening.

This is very much consistent with what polls are showing.

We all know that if the republicans want anything, they can go to hell. 

HOWEVER there are a number of end games that are served by attempting to appear “bipartisan”.  The first is preventing these wackjobs from playing the outsider game in the next election. So much better for them to be seen as contrarian, wasteful of opportunity, and ineffective in office at advancing the agenda of their constituents.  The MoveOn folks are already passing the e-hat to fund ads in their districts clearly outlining how they voted against the interests of the people who elected them to office.

The other is to bury any doubt that the bipartisan game is possible by frontloading the shenanigans.  Then they can move forward on other items while ignoring the rethugs who don’t play nice, and still play the “it’s them and not us who won’t play nice” card with the American public.  Those that do play nice will sit at the grownup table and not the kid’s table.

What the polls seem to be suggesting is that not a lot of people in the Real America (ahem) are listening to any of the villagers at this point. And that’s something that could have a tipping-point effect later or sooner. Right now it’s still necessary for sane people to act as if the former emperors’ lackeys are merely wearing ugly clothes and take down their batsh*t crazy arguments one at a time. Another few rounds of complete contrary-to-reality behavior, and it’s going to be “X was last right about something when, in 1997?”

John Cole pointed out that you can’t be bipartisan when one party is completely fucking crazy. And I agree. Something like 36 of the Republicans voted for an alternative measure that would have changed all stimulus to tax cuts.

Because, as you all know, tax cuts make profits appear where there are no profits, make people spend money they don’t have (and can’t borrow, etc.), and so forth. There’s always huge, huge, huge gobs of money flowing in the private sector, even when there isn’t.

No, there can’t be bipartisanship because one party is locked into partisan mode.

(And as a side note to the trolls, yes, it *is* the Republican Party. No one fought against any provision of the bill because it was suggested by, or favorable to, Republicans. The reverse is not true.)

Let’s see:  The Democrats control the executive branch and both houses of Congress.  I’d say that’s a pretty accurate barometer of the feelings of the majority of the American people toward bipartisanship.  They have rejected it.  It’s only pundits and politicians and other sorts of people isolated from reality that are fixated with it.

The Message people in the White House need to stop using the word “bipartisan” and start stressing civility.  The oft-repeated line of “We can disagree without being disagreeable” is what Americans are looking for.

This.  America doesn’t like partisan bickering but the types of policies we want right now are overwhelmingly the Democratic ones.  Sorry Republicans (strict fathers), but the kids have chosen and they want to go with the Democrats (nurturing parent).

DonnaDiva:

the republicans may pretend to be strict fathers, but they’re actually the drunken abusive kind who take the rent money and blow it at the track. Then they complain that there’s no money for a civilized bottle of whiskey because those damn kids insisted on shoes without holes in them.

Nice sketch.

Obama has done his good faith effort. He’s also gotten the Rs signing their name to no votes, very handy for the next election should the stimulus package help. Now for the real business of governing.