Here's a really, really short post this morning which might generate a little discussion. I will be addressing this topic a great deal more between now and November (and probably long afterward).
I was flipping between MSNBC's Morning Joe and Imus in the Morning (on RFD-TV) when I happened to catch Mika's interview with Senator Joe Lieberman. I was instantly reminded as to why I like the now Independent Connecticut Senator so very much.
Senator Lieberman made a statement with which I totally agree. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the single most important issue this fall was partisanship. We cannot solve health care, or the economy or the environment until we can resolve the increasingly polarizing effect of partisanship in Washington.
I agree completely.
Lieberman made the point that both Republican candidate McCain and Democrat candidate Obama are campaigning on "reaching across the aisle" to solve America's problems.
Of course Lieberman feels McCain is better equipped to accomplish this and has a better history of bipartisanship.
While I cannot disagree with Senator Lieberman's observations, Senator Obama does make a strong case for changing the way Washington works and I believe he intends to try.
The big question in my mind is do Obama's supporters want bipartisanship? Or are they merely interested in gaining control. Absolute control if at all possible.
I've written elsewhere I believe the Democrats will have a bulletproof majority in the Senate (over 60 Democrat senators). Bipartisanship might not be necessary if Obama wins.
This worries me greatly.
12 comments:
Stop worrying, Wizard. We need a very big course correction. We are off the rails and headed toward the cliffs. I don't think McCain has any desire to change that course. And as for Leiberman? He can go fuck himself as far as I'm concerned. Sorry if this is a swearing free zone. Why doesn't the man just declare himself a republican and get on with his single minded Zionist agenda.
Utah Savage, You are always wecome here and there are no language restrictions.
It is important to me that you make your point however forcefully you feel is necessary.
Utah has a valid point on Lieberman, Wizard.
I can offer you a very good pair of reading glasses I purchased over the counter at my local Rite-Aid. I extend this offer because I am concerned you are not reading as carefully as you used to. If you were, you would have realized by now that, far from being bipartisan, Lieberman is only a DINO. He is an ERIP (Extreme Republican In Practice). So his pretense to bi-partisanship disingenuous.
The other thing I would say, Wizard, is that because of your relative youth, you do not remember that it was Will Rogers who discovered that the Democratic party is not organized. While the republican Party is made up of sheep, the Democratic party is composed of dogs and cats. The latter cannot be herded. Therefore, you should rest assured that a Democratic majority will not behave like the recent Republican majority has.
Just send me your address and I'll mail you these glasses!
And furthermore, Cf. The Broken Record that is the Republican Party.
Bipartisanship, by defination, means to talk to and compromise with your opponents, not bludgeon them into submission.
There was a time when the Democrat Party welcomed those of differing opinions.... that is EXACTLY what Will Rogers meant in his famous discussion and oft repeated quotes.
Today the Dems will not even tolerate their past Vice Presidential candidate because he actually has the courage of his convictions.
I agree, Lieberman ought to officially join the Republican Party..... just not for the same reasons you make the suggestion.
I will have a lot more on this in future posts.
Wizard, read all of Arianna Huffington's huff: Bi-Partisan Scam. It's a riff at the expense of John Harwood and Gerald Seib in the WSJ about the GOP wish that America in 2008 is racing to the middle. That's the last gasping and grasping mythology for Republicans. Arianna cites the WSJ mythologists, and then warms to her rant:
... the cause of this hunger is the fact that "the two parties have moved further apart on the ideological spectrum," resulting in "party fatigue."
... Excuse me? The reason 82 percent of the public thinks the country is on the wrong track is because of "party fatigue"? This is beyond parody. Might it not have something to do with the Iraq war, the sputtering economy, the price of gas, skyrocketing foreclosures, and the way the Bush administration has systematically shredded the Constitution and abandoned the moral high ground?
Wasn't the Iraq war the crowning example of bipartisanship during the Bush era? And we know how well that bipartisanship worked out. Actually, what is tragic is that in the run-up to the war we didn't have more of the "gridlock" .... A lot of people are dead because of the bipartisanship .....
Thankfully, Democrats seem to be coming to their senses -- finally -- and rejecting the notion that joining hands with Republicans and racing to what the Right wants us all to believe is the middle is sound political strategy. The problem with Washington hasn't been gridlock, it's been Democrats' willingness to buy into the conventional wisdom and cave in on issue after issue in the name of bipartisan comity.
The road to victory in 2008 doesn't run through a mythical middle that has been dragged far to the right over the past 7-plus years; it runs through the actual mainstream -- the place the majority of Americans inhabit. The center that opposes the war, favors economic fairness, knows that climate change is real and a crisis, wants to take care of our veterans, and believes in the right to universal health care.
As for the media, Arianna wants to send them to "reporter rehab".
I love you as a friend Wizard, so I am confident that it won't dent or flatten the pointy tip of your cap to hear that I agree with the Greek-American Goddess: This individual column of yours is "beyond parody".
Vigil, can you hear my applause?
Vigilante, My thanks to you and to Arianna Huffington for answering the question I posed in my column. Clearly the progressive left is NOT INTERESTED in bipartisanship. Bludgeon the Republicans is the order of the day.
But I don't believe Barack Obama is on the same page with you and Arianna.... at least he claims he isn't on that page. He claims to want to take the partisanship out of Washington.
Should I believe him or is Obama himself a trojan horse?
Wizard, as you well know, I try to be bipartisan: once a week I go out of my way to favor or celebrate a Republican. So don't talk to me about not trying to be bipartisan. As for Obama, It's my expectation that he will be faitful to what my Greco-American Godess calls
... the actual mainstream -- the place the majority of Americans inhabit ...
Irrespective or parties. (What part of Huffington did you not understand?) It would be further my hope that Obama would educate the American people more than our current administration has. That's what I would call transformational leadership.
vigilante, I understood you and Arianna perfectly.....
"transformational leadership"
Yes, that's what I meant. "transformational leadership"! Thanks for the correction!
Glad you got Arianna's point: bi-partisanship without a moral or legal compass is what got us where we are today.
Post a Comment