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.

Partisans need to find "Common Ground"

Nancy Pelosi's latest outburst couldn't have come at a greater time for this columnist, considering he was planning all along to write about partisanship versus common ground tonight.
This is what she said that has some heads spinning in Washington:

"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject. (He is) challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again."

If that's not partisan I don't know what is.

Cal Thomas & Bob Beckel, in their book "Common Ground" write that there used to be a day when republicans and democrats would sit together, even with different goals for the country and different views on the issues, and call each other friends, and compromise on issues that are most important to the nation.

In the past 30 years, they write, we have gone from a nation of compromisers to a nation of partisans. However, partisanship only goes as far as a few politicians in Washington, because the majority of Senators and Representatives, and a majority of Americans, are not partisan at all.

However, politicians have slowly learned that if they can incite anger and fear on the issues, they can more easily get people excited about the issues, and thus make more money.

That's why we hear things like this from partisans like Ann Coulter, as written by Thomas/Beckel:

"'Godless, unpatriotic, pierced nosed, Volvo-driving, France-loving, left-wing Communist, latte-sucking, tofu-chomping, holistic-whacko, neurotic, vegan weenie perverts.' ...Democrats are the liberal party... pro-union and anti-business, pro-abortion and pro-gay rights, including same sex marriage... for big government, love welfare, love welfare programs, and oppose foreign wars and maybe even God... against free trade, favor high taxes, and are isolationists."

Or like this from partisan liberals like Maureen Dowd about republicans:

"Republicans are pro-business and anti union... favor the smallest government possible with the fewest regulations, and they believe in using the military to exert American influence around the world, in the process getting us into wars we have regretted. They oppose tariffs, dislike government regulation of business, and favor lower tax brackets, which disproportionately benefits wealthy Americans. (They are) against all abortions, and opposes gay unions and legal benefits for same-sex couples. (They) want to seal the borders to keep immigrants out and open the church-state border to let God in, making them religious fanatics..."

Some polarization is good. As Beckel/Thomas write, "Our country and our democracy were born out of polarization between the colonies and Great Britain over taxation and home rule. It was polarization between the North and South over slavery that led to the Civil War."

Today, however, "polarization has become more than the product of opposing ideologies... it has become an artificially stimulated environment for the sole purpose of retaining political power, raising money, or making more money." It works to the benefit of money interests, party operatives and bottom feeders, at the expense of the country as a whole.

The country loses out because the few partisan politicians refuse to compromise with the other party.

Here's a great example. The events of 9-11 made us aware that we had a weakness at the borders of this country, while it's easy for good, honest, hard working people to cross the borders, it's also easy for terrorists plotters to come in too.

In the old days, as what occurred during WWII, Washington politicians compromised to make progress to the benefit of the nation as a whole. Republicans supported the war effort even though doing so may have helped FDR get re-elected.

In the era of partisanship, no deal has been made regarding our borders. The events of 9-11 happened almost seven years ago, and we still don't have a deal. As far as I know, poor Mexican immigrants are coming in illegally as I write this. And, who knows, maybe even a terrorist or two.

This is unacceptable in my book. I'm not a fan of amnesty, but our borders need to be protected, and our laws enforced. We need to prevent people from coming into our country illegally. We need to keep us safe.

President Bush is not innocent himself. Likewise, I don't mean to imply that Nancy Pelosi is alone in her partisanship, as there are many other democrats (Harry Reid, Bill Clinton) and republicans as well (Newt Gingrich, George Bush). I'm just naming a few here.

But as Bush called on Congress to make a spending bill for him to sign. Democrats don't want to negotiate with republicans and vice versal. But it's democrats who control the floor. That's the bottom line. The partisans in the democratic party are leading the charge today. And it was only fitting for Bush to call on them for action.

And, need it be said, Nancy Pelosi is the queen of denicratuc partisans and Reid the King.

I'm not implying that people should give in on their values and principles, but when you are a representative of the people, and the people are demanding changes for the benefit of the Country as a whole, those representatives shouldn't be calling each other names and screaming at each other.

They should stop the character assassinations. They should stop being arrogant. Stop the greed and corruption. Stop the pork-barrel projects "that help some politicians on the other side of the country get re-elected."

It's one thing that this is done in the blogosphere and on the radio and opinion columns, but it should not be happening in Washington. Politicians need to put their partisan bickering on the side table, and step up to the table like mature adults and get something done.

I guess you can put it this way: The goal of partisanship is to get re-elected. The goal of bipartisanship is to benefit the nation as a whole.

It's time we revert back to a time when Congressmen referred to their co-Congressmen as "friend" out of respect, and start talking and acting as they respect their friends, talk as friends, meet somewhere in the middle, and get something done.

Personally, I have many friends who are democrats, and some more who are strict liberals, and I get along with each and every one of them just great. We may have fun debates about politics from time to time, but we almost always laugh off our disagreements. We smile. We remian friends.

Why can't our representatives in Washington behave the same way you and I behave when it comes to politics? People are simply tired of the political bickering.

Thomas/Beckel write that, "To enhance this message, candidates reached out to the two most exciting and sought-after politicians in the country... Senators John McCain and Barack Obama... both made the evils of polarization a central ingredient of their message."

Now, coincidentally, these two are the (probable) party nominees. It seems the authors may have been on to something here: America is tired of partisanship.

It also may be more than coincidence that in the 2006 mid-term elections an increasing number of moderate democrats were elected. It's too bad they are being led by the King and Queen of Democratic partisans in Pelosi and Reid.

The problem with those who want to get out of the "tangled web" of polarization, is that if they oppose it, they may not get re-elected. I remember Bill O'Reilly wrote about this once, and said that if he were to run for president he never would get re-elected because he would do what he thought was right, as opposed to what would get him re-elected.

That's how I think I would act if I were president. We'd be one term presidents. Actually, since we'd be doing the right thing, we would probably be popular enough get re-elected. That's why it gets so frustrating when politicians follow the money instead of their hearts.

That is the bipartisan thought of the day. Tell me where I'm wrong -- or right.