Thursday, May 13, 2010

If This Is "Post-Partisan", I'll Take What We Had Before

The polarization The (Washington) Post editorial board decries is a reaction to the radical agenda Obama is pursuing in our nation’s capital. Obama has eschewed the bipartisanship pursued by his predecessors, President Bush (No Child Left Behind) and President Clinton (NAFTA, welfare reform), in their first years in office. Instead, he has pursued a maximalist liberal agenda and refused any real compromise. When you pass a radical overhaul of health care along strict party lines, using clever parliamentary tactics to avoid compromise with the other party, it’s going to have a ripple effect across the electorate. link

The Washington Post is not known for its conservative leanings.


Unknown said...

There was tons of compromise, the passed bill wasn't his vision, it was what the majority was willing to do. The Republicans wouldn't compromise in any measure of being reasonable so Congress took action and a majority of both houses passed a bill. Stop the revisionist history in the making.

allen (in Michigan) said...

I think the Post is determinedly missing the obvious: the nation's moving, has been moving for some time, to the right. Necessarily, the middle's moving with it so a moderate Democrat is now a left wing Democrat and a moderate Republican's now a RINO.

The left can no longer afford to tolerate, to the degree they ever did, idealogical impurity and the right doesn't have to.

Darren said...

Those were the words of the Washington Post which, as I said, isn't known as right-leaning.

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, Ronnie. Take off your rose-colored glasses about this guy.

Unknown said...

My entire point was it's an issue of who is responsible for what. Congress passed the health care bill, Obama didn't write it or get to choose a version of it. Anyway, if you post it on your blog without condemning it then I assume you agree with it and want the information spread, which is why I call you out on poorly chosen article quotes. I know you can find better.

neko said...

There was tons of compromise,...

Tons? Really? The Republicans were completely shut out of the entire process... that was, until the "Healthcare Summit" held a few days before the final vote. When it became obvious that the Republicans actually had reasonable ideas about how to reform healthcare, Obama made some lame excuse that the bill had ideas both parties could agree on and ignored all other suggestions.

The Republicans wouldn't compromise... so Congress took action and... a majority of both houses passed a bill.

Do the math. Until the special election to replace Kennedy, the Republicans didn't have the numbers to stop anything. The Dems had all the votes they needed to pass this without a single Republican vote. Why didn't they? What stopped them? It was in party fighting. They were afraid to pass it and used the GOP as a scapegoat. It was Dems who had to be bribed to get support for the bill, not Republicans.

Stop the revisionist history in the making.

Sorry, but Darren is not the one revising history here.