Obamaspeak: redefining “bipartisan”
Anyone who really believed Obama’s campaign rhetoric that he would govern in a bipartisan manner wasn’t paying attention to anything but his lofty words. Unfortunately, far too many of the voters fit that description.
I didn’t believe Obama, but I retained hope. Yet when I looked at his record, all I saw was a man with a liberal/Left agenda who might be good at pretending to listen to other viewpoints but was likely to do exactly what he’d wanted to in the first place, if he got the power. And the election gave him the power, not so much because he was now president, but because the makeup of Congress became so heavily and resoundingly Democrat.
And now we hear the Orwellian spin: it depends on what the meaning of “bipartisan” is. Dummy me, I always thought it meant not only listening to the suggestions from the other side, but putting in place some sort of compromise on the specifics of one’s agenda in order to get their support.
But how does “yes, we can” Obama define bipartisanship in his administration? Here’s a good summary from an editorial in today’s WSJ:
The redefinition [of bipartisanship] started during the stimulus debate, but it really picked up steam late last month with David Axelrod’s appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” There the president’s chief strategist explained that a bill didn’t need Republican votes to be “bipartisan”; it was enough if Republican “ideas” were included. A few days earlier, Rahm Emanuel had offered reporters another redefinition, suggesting that a bill was bipartisan if people merely “saw the president trying” to get Republicans on board.
The president himself endorsed this redefinition during Rose Garden remarks delivered after a Senate committee passed a health-care bill on a strictly party-line vote. Perhaps only someone who truly embraces “the audacity of hope” could see healthy bipartisanship at work in the complete lack of GOP votes. Here’s how he put it: “It’s a plan that was debated for more than 50 hours and that, by the way, includes 160 Republican amendments””a hopeful sign of bipartisan support for the final product.”
Let’s leave aside specific complaints from Republicans, who note that the “Republican” amendments the president cited are mostly technical in nature. The larger point is that the White House’s new definitions of bipartisanship are just like the fake “jobs saved or created” numbers Mr. Obama used to justify the stimulus at a time when the economy was in fact shedding tens of thousands of jobs. And the press should call him on it.
The article goes on to say that conservative Democrats from Obama’s own party are very upset about the President’s refusal to allow the inclusion of some policies would give the bills some Republican votes, and therefore provide a bit of Republican cover for their own support. It also mentions that Bush, who was derided for his partisanship by the press, actually passed most of his agenda with solid Democrat support.
Of course, that’s because he usually needed to. During the Bush administration the Republicans never had the sort of majorities currently held by Democrats in Congress.
Now, it’s certainly possible that most presidents would do what Obama is doing right now and pass their agendas with the support of only one party, if they had the numbers to do so. But to pretend this is actual bipartisanship is disingenuous and hypocritical. But hypocritical disingenuousness is exactly what we’ve come to expect from Obama, as well as the Orwellian redefinition of key terms.
[NOTE: In case you think these tendencies (hypocrisy, disingenuousness, and Orwellian speech) were not already quite clear even early on in Obama’s campaign, see this, this, and this.]
wasn’t paying attention to anything but his lofty words.
He’s on record for what he’s said, this was all before the election, it’s easy to say nana now — if not just about all we have is our own prejudices and solipsism.
And now we hear the Orwellian spin: it depends on what the meaning of “bipartisan” is. Dummy me, I always thought it meant not only listening to the suggestions from the other side, but putting in place some sort of compromise on the specifics of one’s agenda in order to get their support.
You got that right!
I mean, yes, it is about listening to the suggestions from the other side, but putting in place some sort of compromise.
Obama made clear his definition of bi-partisanship when he asked for cooperation on the stimulus package and responded to complaints by saying “I won.”
As always, the definition of “fair” — which, if I’m not mistaken, is what “bipartisanship” is supposed to represent — is to turn things around.
Suppose President Bush had had the votes to pass a bill that most Democrats were dead-set against. Suppose that, with all Republicans and all Independents voting the President’s way, the Democrats had no say in the matter. Would Democrats accept that as “bipartisan”, because Democrats were able to speak out against the bill before it passed anyway?
No, I don’t think so.
Not all issues can be turned around this way. (Issues of race, for example, are not symmetrical.) But many can be, and the results are pretty clear: President Obama can get away with things that President Bush would have been pilloried for doing.
Heck, given that some of President Obama’s policies are continuations of despised Bush policies — Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, warrantless wiretapping, and so on — the double standard becomes glaringly obvious.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Maybe we should have the president also swear an oath to uphold the meanings of the Webster’s Dictionary.
President Obama is not merely contradicting what he said during the campaign, but is also contradicting what he has said, on videotape, during his Presidency. One example would be his current disavowal of earlier promises that the stimulus would provide immediate economic relief.
He is Obi Barack: Those were not the stimulus promises you think you heard. Supply side did not work for Reagan (Barack said this, calling it “trickle down” only a week or so ago). Tax cuts did not work for JFK, Reagan, and GWB. Nuclear proliferation did not help bankrupt the USSR and win the Cold War. Iranians are conducting a “debate”. That really was a military coup in Honduras.
These are all things Obi Barack has said since being sworn in. There are more.
Some of the above are things Barack has implied in his statements. He has not directly said all those things, although he has directly insinuated them.
actually, “directly insinuate” is a contradiction. So, I hope you know what I meant, and I shall hush up now.
Umm, so if Obama isn’t operating in a bipartisan fashion, does that not mean he has no sensible opposition to work with?
Seems so. Then again, the modern GOP is a paragon of intellectual heft — cue Palin, McCain, Bachmann — a bastion of ethical and moral standards — cue the whole lineup of lying, adulterous hypocrites who cleave Jeebus to their hearts and their mistresses to their loins.
We have an opposition party of no plans, no ideas, no solutions and yet, it’s Obama’s fault this clown car collective of war-mongering chickenhawks can’t offer even a simple alternative to the plans the administration puts forth.
Got it. You guys stick with that plan, it’s working so well for you.
Palin/Bachmann 2012!
The greatest tragedy of the election was not that BHo was elected president, it was that he also was given a super majority in both houses. This is not the Democratic party of even 15 years ago. It is a radical left party still assuming the name of Democrats. Why should an ideologue try to be bipartisian when he will get everything he wants by simply asking for it. Just think what a few extra Rep. seats in the House or Senate would have saved us.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,'” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,'” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
You think WE feel betrayed? Imagine how Tony Rezco, Hot Rod Blagojevich, and Jeremiah Wright feel!
It’s a straw man to assert that human perfection is a Christian standard. The opposite is true: the reality of human imperfection is a Christian standard. If humans could be perfect, then Christianity would not exist.
One of Saul Alinsky’s rules: hold your opponents to their standards.
You are trying hold us Christians to a standard: human perfection, which we do not believe in. Here’s a standard we do believe in: forgiveness.
http://patterico.com/2009/07/21/state-medical-associations-oppose-obamacare/
17 State Medical Associations oppose ∅bamacare
Dr. Helen gives comment about ∅bama’s take a pill quote. Are we living in a dream???
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2009/07/maybe-youre-better-off-not-having.html
I’d like to think a conservative republican president could just get a lot of democrat support because the policies would be more mainstream.
Mrs. Whatsit is on the case, as usual.
We all need more handy Alice resources, so here they are: http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/
from the home page:
“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”