Time to End False Bipartisanship by Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation

[Better Believe It]

Time to End False Bipartisanship
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor
The Nation
June 28, 2009

God I hope David Broder is wrong. "The President has told visitors," the Washington Post columnist wrote last week, "that he would rather have 70 votes in the Senate for a bill that gives him 85 percent of what he wants rather than a 100 percent satisfactory bill that passes 52-48." The good news is that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is now talking about how bipartisanship may need to be redefined downward if the Democrats are going to pass meaningful healthcare reform. In a meeting with journalists last week, Emanuel proposed that healthcare legislation could be bipartisan without Republican votes. "There will be ideas from both parties, and individuals from both parties, in the final product," he said. "Whether the Republicans decide to vote for things they promoted will be up to them." ( David Axelrod seconded the emotion in his appearance on ABC's "This Week.")

The trick now is to ensure that "centrist" Democrats (who, as Paul Krugman notes, "are in fact way out in right field") pay more attention to the broad majority favoring a strong public option than to the wads of dough lavished on them by big Pharma and insurance lobbyists. As Joe Conason put it in his invaluable New York Observer column, "If Congress fails to enact healthcare reform this year---or it enacts a sham reform designed to bail out corporate medicine while excluding the 'public option'---then the public will rightly blame Democrats, who have no excuse for failure except their own cowardice and corruption." Blame could well be registered in ugly midterm election results in 2010.

It's time to part ways with obstructionist Republicans and pass a strong healthcare bill with a majority vote, which is possible if efforts cease to get a handful of Republicans to cross over. Redefining bipartisanship at a time when the GOP has become a male, pale and stale party committed to deficit demagoguery and fearmongering is the common sense and, I'd even argue, pragmatic course. Instead of wasting time on recalcitrant GOP holdouts, do what Drew Westen, author of the terrific book "The Political Brain," advises to pass meaningful healthcare change: "Focus on principles, tell compelling stories, move people emotionally and send clear messages."

Congress is, of course, usually pretty skittish about reform, but with a President with high approval ratings and an historically unpopular GOP--if this isn't a time to pass sweeping reform with a strong public plan, then when is?

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/446851/time_to_end_false_bipartisanship

[Joanne98]

1. *&^%$#

:mad: :mad: :mad: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[pleah]

2. K&R

[Better Believe It]

3. We need 51 Senate votes, with or without reconciliation, to pass universal healthcare

[rurallib]

4. repugs define bipartisan as Dems voting with them

and that is the ONLY way they play the game.

[Better Believe It]

6. That's exactly right! You hit the nail on the head.

And some Democrats, so-called "centrists", also define bi-partisanship as Democrats voting with Republicans.

And we saw far too much of that bi-partisanship during the Bush government!

[ramapo]

8. Disgusting, isn't it?

This is my make-or-break issue with the democrats. I've waited pretty much my whole life for a government seemingly aligned to doing the business of the people. Now in a few short months we are seeing that the only people that mean anything are the ones toting bags of money.

[sisters6]

5. Off to the greatest:-)

[bvar22]

7. WTF ?

"he (Obama) would rather have 70 votes in the Senate for a bill that gives him 85 percent of what he wants rather than a 100 percent satisfactory bill that passes 52-48."

Again...WTF?

Obama would rather be a "nice guy" than do the right thing?

[Writer]

9. Time to end "false bipartisanship..."

and reinvigorate ideological warfare based on phony binary arguments.

It's the solution, not the philosophy, Katrina. Get a clue.

[zulchzulu]

10. Agreed...

While I'd love to have Obama show up and tell all the Repigs to f*ck off, that's not how politics works in DC.

It is a battle of give and take and unfortunately, incremental change is how it gets done in the long run anyway. If Obama wants to draw a line in the sand and do battle with the Republicans with a "my way or the highway" approach, the Republicans would get EVEN WORSE than they are now.

There are a lot of other things that need to get done and imagine the Republican party actually getting even worse than they are now.

That said, some things need to get passed, like the Public Option. It's up to the people to contact their reps and senators and make sure what nearly 80% of the people want gets passed.

Ripping up the "bipartisan" card this early in the game would be foolish.

Surely, some people will react that we need to shove stuff through now before it's too late. Well, it takes time for legislation to pass and jumping the shark this early will only lead to getting a lot less done in the final analysis.

[Better Believe It]

11. Senator Jay Rockefeller certainly understands how politics works in D.C. He disagrees with you.

Would you agree that Senator Jay Rockefeller understands how politics works in D.C.?

If you do, pay attention to what Senator Rockefeller said this past Thursday about how things actually work in Washington.

"There is a very small chance any Republicans will vote for this health-care plan. They were against Medicare and Medicaid . They voted against children's health insurance.

"We have a moral choice. This is a classic case of the good guys versus the bad guys. I know it is not political for me to say that," Rockefeller added.

"But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health- care plan? That is the choice."