You'd think Obama would drop the bipartisanship crap especially after it has proven to be singularly ineffective judging by his first year in office which was almost wholly devoted to a bipartisan approach to health care. But after the Republicans used Obama's bipartisanship to water down, delay and eventually defeat the health care reform initiative, Obama seems more determined than ever to take the bipartisan road. The alternative would be to abandon his failed policy of bipartisanship and instead muster all the political power of which majorities in both Houses of Congress are capable and ram through his agenda. But no, Obama is still talking bipartisanship giving Republicans renewed opportunities to run a government that the Democrats seem incapable of running. Obama is still trying to placate and even appease Republicans.
Obama's latest thing is another "bipartisan" jobs bill which will consist almost entirely of what the Republicans want: tax cuts. Of course his first jobs bill was heavily laden with tax cuts. Obama seemingly has almost entirely capitulated to Republicans after being given an overwhelming mandate by the voters to govern as a Democrat. In this he is following in Bill Clinton's footsteps. Clinton famously "triangulated" with Republicans in order to get anything passed at all, but in Clinton's case Republicans controlled Congress. What's Obama's excuse? Obama is just too timid to actually take on the Republicans and get his agenda passed despite their overwhelming opposition. He's no FDR. FDR rammed his agenda through Congress and created millions of jobs within a few short weeks of being elected. He denounced the Republicans as "economic royalists." Obama instead bends over backwards to accomodate them, and they in turn bend over backwards to accomodate their paymasters - the corporations - Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Media, among others.
Obama's trying to change the tone in Washington to be more civil. He's afraid that if he really confronts the Republicans, they will go bananas and create an "uncivil" tone. But lawdy, lawdy, does he have to make civility the hallmark of his administration at the expense of passing his actual agenda? He can still remain civil even if the Republicans go apeshit. The problem is he's at the Republicans' affect. He won't do what he knows he should do because the Republicans will react negatively and he's letting that run him. But how much more uncivil could Republicans even get compared to how uncivil they've been to him already. It's better to fight and win than to sacrifice his whole agenda on the altar of civility.
Obama's Presidency is a huge disappointment, a capitulation, fast becoming a total charade. His single-minded pursuit of bipartisanship in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Republicans are not interested in reciprocating his overtures will turn the disaster of his first year in office into a continuing and worse disaster in his second year. The disaster will become almost complete when the 2010 elections give control of Congress back to the Republicans. What will Obama do then? All his initiatives so far have been failures even when the Democrats controlled both Houses. What's going to happen when the Republicans take over? So far the disasters have included banking reform, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, student loan reform, health care reform, mortgage modification, global warming initiatives such as cap and trade, the Israel-Palestine peace initiative and on and on. He's got an army of lobbyists working on Congress and an opposition party in bed with the lobbyists. The Congressional Democrats aren't immune to lobbyists' implorations either.
The issue isn't whether Obama can give a good speech. The issue is whether or not the Democrats can use the political power that they still possess to pass their agenda into law. It's as simple as that. Actually, it isn't all Obama's fault. It's the fault of the Democrats in Congress as well. But Obama sets the tone for Congress. If Obama said he wanted Congress to ram his agenda through despite overwhelming Republican opposition, they could damn well do so. But that's not the tone Obama sets. Instead he sets the "bipartisanship" tone so what are the Congressional Democrats supposed to do? He gives them no encouragement to get tough. Instead, having fallen into the Republican trap big time, having been led down the garden path by Republicans, having been sold a bill of goods, he continues to buy into the failed policy of bipartisanship.
Among the tactics and techniques Republicans have used are to vote for a bill in committee after having tied it up for an extended period of time and then vote against it on the Senate floor making it obvious that their initial support was insincere. Some tribute to bipartisanship! Richard Shelby in the Senate has unilaterally put a "hold" on the seating of some 80 Obama appointees until he can get a piece of pork for his state of Alabama, but still nothing is done to deny him his right to pull this outrage. Republicans voted unanimously against Obama's jobs bill, and then went back to their home districts and had photo ops with their constituents holding up a big fake check as if to say, "See, I delivered for you, I brought home the bacon!" The Republicans will unanimously vote against every initiative which they don't completely dictate to Obama, and, if you think this is outrageous, you ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait till after the 2010 elections! Obama will then be in Clinton's position: if he wants to have anything to say about his accomplishments in office he had better pass the Republican agenda and then hope against hope that it's not as disastrous as some of Clinton's Republican lite "accomplishments."
Clinton was responsible for setting in motion the exodus of American manufacturing with his NAFTA and other initiatives that have resulted in globalization which means that US corporations have been encouraged and enabled to move plants, equipment and jobs to China where labor is cheapest. Clinton was also responsible for the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which deregulated banking, repealed the New Deal era Glass-Steagall Act and led directly to the financial meltdown of September 2008. In short Clinton's "triangulation" strategy was a total disaster not only in terms of the Democratic agenda but in absolute terms. Now Obama is heading down the same road only worse. This time he is capitulating right out of the box. He will not triangulate; he will just totally give in to Republican demands. The Republicans have him on the run and they know it. They have already stated that their goal is to destroy Obama, to ruin him, and they are largely succeeding. Obama has already met his "Waterloo," as Republicans so pithily put it, with health care reform. Chalk up one big win for Republicans, one big loss for Obama and, by the way, the American people.
The amazing thing is that Obama still thinks he can get somewhere by being nicey- nice to Republicans. They will just make mincemeat out of him as they have largely done already. They will continue their tactics of delay and water down and then vote against. They will play make believe bipartisan just so they can draw Obama into a trap, make him waste time and political capital as they did successfully with health care, and then at the last minute completely oppose him. The lesson is that you can't be bipartisan if the other side doesn't at least meet you half way. You can't be bipartisan if your extended hand is greeted by a slap in the face. You have to ask the question: what is Obama thinking?
Obama may be starting to wise up to the game Republicans are playing, but the question is what is he going to do about it? Reconciliation bills and an attack on the filibuster rule are the only two things worth talking about at this juncture. All the rest is a sideshow and a waste of time.
