Can Republicans Work With Obama After Everything They’ve Said?
Out of everything said yesterday this one passage stood out to me:
So all I’m saying is we’ve got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality.
I’m not suggesting that we’re going to agree on everything, whether it’s on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me.
I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, “This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”
So true. And the biggest problem is that Republicans have turned rhetoric into GOP reality. Seriously, how would they justify compromising and working with a man their base considers Hitler? That’s a pretty big about-face, and one that can only be achieved if Republicans tell their base that they were, well… wrong. How do you take someone you painted as a threat to everything you believe and then say “just kidding.”
Whoever came up with the “party of no” platform did the GOP no favors. They are boxed in – to the point where voting with the President will be viewed as making a deal with the devil. Of course, they have no one to blame but themselves. They limited their own options. Keep voting “no” and keep the base with you in November, compromise and lose the base in the hope of wooing Independents. Truth is, Republicans, like Democrats, need both groups. Actually, the GOP has an added burden in the form of tea partiers, who wallow in rhetoric and hyperbole. Attempting to take away the Tea Party’s favorite Hitler action figure without causing a major temper tantrum strikes me as political suicide. But so does the path they’ve chosen – mainly because Obama, during his SOTU and again yesterday, dragged the Republicans out of the bleachers and onto the field of governing.
I admit I was upset when Dems lost that 60th vote, but lately I’m wondering if that wasn’t good thing. 60 votes allowed the “party of no” to obstruct without consequences. After all, with 60 votes Dems shouldn’t need their votes. I’m also beginning to think that if Democrats had no plan B for a Massachusetts loss, the Republicans didn’t have one for the win.
Frankly, I don’t see the GOP changing their “no” strategy, mainly because there’s no way to change it to their political advantage. And while moderate Republicans may want to reach across the aisle, the fear of being primaried by a Tea Party candidate or having their base sit at home on election day, should be enough to make them think twice. Of course, all or nothing stances tend to result in all or nothing.
What I do see changing is the lack of consequences to obstruction. Suit up, guys, you’re now off the bench and in the game.
I was wondering yesterday if this is why the Republicans were acting so crazy recently. All in one day, Obama changed the narrative. Before this, Republicans paid absolutely no consequence for obstruction and had no reason to cooperate at all. A poll released yesterday found that only 26% of voters knew that it took 60 votes in the Senate – so no wonder Democrats were suffering (wounds of their own making).
Obama changed the narrative with a soundbite worthy quote – (paraphrasing) Americans want us to worry about their jobs not our jobs. You can tell that Republicans are smarting from the “party of no” criticism because it was the one they were trying to refute most in the Q&A session. Of course, Obama busted them about “sound bites” and “politics.”
I really do see that Republicans are rapidly coming to a place where they must choose. They can go down the teabagger path or they can step back from the brink. Personally I think they’ll go down the teabagger path because this gives them more short-term gains though it’s a big loser in the long run.
We (Democrats) should also make an effort to reach across to Republicans, as opposed to tea baggers, in an effort to rescue an opposition party from a wild-eyed revolutionary mob. I think this is what Obama was doing yesterday.
For better or worse, the US is a two-party democracy. We have room for small fringe/radical parties (third, fourth, fifth, etc.), but what we need is two major parties that oppose each other on substantive policy questions and hammer out a compromise path.
One party rule is rarely productive. We saw that for part of the Bush administration. And two parties unable to work together is the problem that we face today.
So, while I really admired Obama as a political stud for what he did yesterday — lion’s den, hundred-to-one, smack-down, etc. — what’s most important was his basic message.
We have to work together.
Can Republicans Work With Obama After Everything They’ve Said?
Of course not. Now, what is Obama planning to do about it?
an effort to rescue an opposition party
It is like watching Batman offer the Joker a hand to lift him up from the edge of the skyscraper he is hanging from by one hand. You just know in the next frame the Joker wil be on the roof and Batman will be hanging by one hand.
As much as all the talk of bipartisanship drives me crazy, what happened yesterday, and why it was so effective, was due to Obama’s insistence of reaching across the aisle.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this was Obama’s big plan. What I am saying is that he has an uncanny way of turning the tables. Does he believe Republicans will work with him? Of course not, and I doubt he ever did. Did he run, and win, on changing the tone in Washington? Yes. Did that box him in? You betcha. Where that goes from here is anyone’s guess. And as far as the Batman example… it’s quite interesting, if you move it beyond the helping hand scenario and into everyone knowing who the “villian” is and why Batman shouldn’t trust him.
Of course, Republicans will do what they want, but after these last few days I’m not sure the narrative will suit their goals.
i think he should drop them. Obama is not dumb, and his interests are with the American people…. ir if you want to get cynical, his interests are in advancing his agenda. Either way this is his chess move. He is offering the republicans the chance to lay down their king and surrender with a little dignity left. He is doing this knowing full well how republicans wage war.
While I think a.price may have a point, I will say that the Batman analogy is, I think, an example of reducing politics to cartoon terms and that is not the approach that we should take.
Actually, I think there is room for *some* of us (in the peanut gallery) to reduce our opponents to cartoon characters; that’s part of the culture of polictical give and take.
My point is that the *leaders* of the parties, and of the nation, should not treat each other as cartoon abstractions.
My point is that the *leaders* of the parties, and of the nation, should not treat each other as cartoon abstractions.
“Republicans aren’t really bad – they’re just drawn that way.”
While we should not reduce our political opponents to cartoons, it would be equally harmful to attribute them with moral or rational qualities they do not possess.