An end to the myth of Obama bipartisanship?

[myboynoah]

Gregg is gone, unable to reconcile his disagreements with Obama on fundametal economic and political issues.

Dems are ramming the "stimulus" package through with no significant Repub input or support.

Many Dems are now saying let this end; but when did it start? When Obama had some Repubs over to watch football? When Obama went up to the Hill to meet with Repubs, only to let them get railroaded by Pelosi and Reid?

In principle, I think Larry Sabato (Director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics) has it correct:

The Gregg withdrawal can be a watershed. It's been a grand and noble experiment, but now the Obama administration should abandon aggressive bipartisanship. The president deserves great credit for reaching out to Republicans in Cabinet appointments, frequent consultation and some substantive compromise on the stimulus bill. President Obama read public opinion correctly: Americans want civil debate between the parties, and that aspect of bipartisanship should be continued.

Yet pleasantries should never be exchanged at the cost of an electoral mandate. Obama secured a higher percentage of the vote than any Democratic presidential nominee since 1860, save for Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Splitting the difference on issues of principle waters down his mandate and dilutes the changes his supporters expect him to deliver. We have a two-party system, not a one-party scheme, and the fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans create clear choices for the electorate. Obama should succeed or fail based on enactment of the Democratic platform. Voters will be the judge of Democrats' handiwork in 2010 and 2012. Leave "national unity" governments to parliamentary nations, and let the American two-party system work.

To the victor goes the spoils. Quit talking Obama; just take the ball and run with it.

[il Padrino Ute]

To the victor goes the spoils. Quit talking Obama; just take the ball and run with it.

I agree. The sooner the Dem's agenda fails, the sooner we can get them voted out of office.

[myboynoah]

I agree. The sooner the Dem's agenda fails, the sooner we can get them voted out of office.

Or if it is successful, then let the Dems take the credit.

I find it interesting that it had become fashionable to say that there were no differences between Dems and Repubs, yet we now find out that there really are.

[il Padrino Ute]

Or if it is successful, then let the Dems take the credit.

I find it interesting that it had become fashionable to say that there were no differences between Dems and Repubs, yet we now find out that there really are.

Yes, if it works, the Dems should get the credit for it.

Bush was a lot more like a liberal than a conservative in his last term and the Repubs in both houses did as well. But now that Obama has shown that he's as far to the left as Pelosi is, the Repubs look like their starting to realize that they can't pretend to be that far left, for whatever reason. I'd like to think that it is because they've decided to return to their conservative roots. But if it's only because they'd rather be impotent and count on Obama's policies crashing and burning, I'll take it.

[Hallelujah]

Yes, if it works, the Dems should get the credit for it.

Bush was a lot more like a liberal than a conservative in his last term and the Repubs in both houses did as well. But now that Obama has shown that he's as far to the left as Pelosi is, the Repubs look like their starting to realize that they can't pretend to be that far left, for whatever reason. I'd like to think that it is because they've decided to return to their conservative roots. But if it's only because they'd rather be impotent and count on Obama's policies crashing and burning, I'll take it.

Bush may have been a liberal, these clowns are socialists!