Doing it your way is not bipartisan

The President asked republicans in Congress to get together with him and have a meeting at the White House on February 25 to talk about Health Care. He wants them to come together so they can have a Bipartisan Bill.

Of course you and I know that when a sitting President comes out and says he wants more bipartisanship, that what he really means is give in and do it my way. That's what it means.

It's kind of like my wife emailing me recently and telling me she thinks we need to be on the same page when it comes to discliplining our kids. She's upset that I let the kids eat in the living room. Yes, I let the kids eat in the livingroom. Not liquid stuff, but stuff like dry cereal and popcorn.

So she gets upset about this. I don't see a problem with letting my kids eat popcorn in the living room. So, she sends me this long email about how we need to be on the same page. Yet I know what "being on the same page" means. It means me doing it her way. And when I decide to disagree with her, because I see no problem with eating popcorn in the living room, she calls me "ugly."

That was just a typical man -vs woman disagreement. Although the same thing rings true in politics. When liberals write a bill, and conservatives had no say in the bill, and liberals need conservative support for the bill to pass, liberals call those conservatives (republicans) and say we need bipartisan support.

Yet, why would republicans want to support a bill that was written by liberals and is against every grain of principles conservatives stand for. It's unconstitutional. It's too risky. It's a bad idea. So why would republicans want to jump in and support this bill? Why?

It's almost unreasonable for Obama to ask for bipartisanship, especially when he knows it's his bill. There wasn't one republican verse in this bill. There was not one republican idea that was put in this bill. Dems say this was because repubs offered no ideas, but you and I know that's not true Repubs offered the idea of allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, and tort reform. Yet dems don't view those as change, or as reform.

So now Obama wants bipartisanship. He wants repubs to perhaps negotiate to get some of their ideas in this 2,000 page unconstitutional bill that will balloon the size of government.

I say, be the party of NO. Do not support this bill. Oh, definitely go to the White House, but make it clear to the President that the only way there will be "Bipartisanship" is if it's real bipartisanship. A Bill should be written from scratch, with ideas from both sides of the table. Kinda like how the Constitution was created. The great compromise.

But I don't' think there needs to be a sense of urgency here. Despite what some dems claim, that doing something is better than doing nothing. The truth is, sometimes, doing nothing is better than doing something stupid.

Sometimes, it's okay to be the party of no, especially when yes means the destruction of democracy, and the destruction of our natural, God given freedoms.

No! Doing it your way is not biprtisanship at all, it's doing it your way.

I think Rush has it right when he says Obama wants a picture he can present to the media that says, "See, It's the republicans who are obstructing this. I tried, and they didn't want to compromise."

However, the real obstructors are the democrats themselves, because they had complete control of Washington, and repubs were completely irrelevent, and they still couldn't get it passed.

Thankfully repubs vote no on anticapitalism

This is exactly the headline I wanted to see really bad: "House OKs $819B stimulus bill with GOP opposition."

There is simply way too much pork in this bill that has nothing to do with recovering the economy. And there is way too much spending that won't even take effect until 2010, at which time the economy may well be recovered by then.

So then you'd have all this government spending occurring to save the economy when it's no longer needed. However, that -- I think -- is the whole point of this bill in the first place: the recession is merely an excuse for democrats to create more government programs to trap more people in poverty, because people in poverty (needy people) tend to vote democrat.

When republicans are in office, they do the opposite in an attempt to create wealthy, prosperous people who will, in turn, vote republican.

Which tells you a lot about both parties. Republicans want you to succeed, and democrats want you to fail.

And that is exactly why I think it's important for republicans to oppose this bill. When it fails, which bills like this historically do (I can think no example of which government spending has ever ended a recession), repubs will have the ammo they need to win senate and house seats in 2010.

Realize here that I don't care whether repubs or dems are in power. What I want is people in power who respect the constitution and capitalism.

So much for Obama being a bipartisan president.

Obama tries to define change as bipartisanship???

The 7-10 Palmer on Politics blog (great blog by the way) writes that Obama is trying to be more bipartisan by garnering more republican votes for his economic stimulus package.

He also writes that Obama never really defined "change" and states that his definition of change might actually be an attempt at being more partisan.

He wrote:

"Obama is showing that he does not want the minority to be irrelevant even though they launched every charge under the sun at him during the campaign. This magnanimity buys him political capital with moderates and persuadable Republicans and could certainly be construed as "change" compared to the Bush administration that tended not to seek compromise. It allows Obama to prove that he really does want to lower the partisanship in Washington and end the era of perpetual "political payback," another "change."

In response to this, I humbly wrote:

"Hold the phone. The Bush administration DID seek compromise. It adapted many programs that were written by democrats. And Obama said he's a man of change, but he's being very partisan, particularly by telling republicans if they listen to democrats they won't be able to deal with democrats. Republicans want more tax cuts, I bet Obama won't budge on that.

Basically, bipartisanship, as defined by liberals is this: Conservatives have to give, liberals do not."

He went on to write, and rightfully so, that Obama wants republicans to sign on to this bill because if the bill fails he will take republicans down with him. If the bill fails and republicans he got the bill through Congress and the Senate (of which he has the votes to do so), and he does not have the support of democrats, then the "republicans will run against" this bill in 2010, and have a good campaign slogan.

In response to this I wrote:

Personally, I hope the republican don't sign on to this bill. Doing so would mean they are putting popularity ahead of politics -- something Bush did not do for much of his administration (although he did do some, i.e. no child left behind, prescription drug program, and his last stimulus package to name a few). So, in that sense, "change" appears to be defined as liberal partisanship in the name of bigger government, more taxes, welfare checks going by the name of taxes, and telling repubs who not to listen to. And repubs being called partisan fools if they fail to accept that Obama won the election. Hence, Obama responding to repub chants for more tax cuts in his stimulus package by saying 'I won'"

Well, I suppose, as the old saying goes, you decide.