Does Health Care Reform Need To Be "Bipartisan?"

The National Journal Weekly Bloggers Poll asked:

Politically, how important is it to President Obama that health care reform be bipartisan?

My answer:

"Bipartisan" health care reform would not be health care reform. It is important that health care reform not be "bipartisan."

What do you think? Take the poll. Speaking for me only

< AZ Local Minuteman Leader Arrested in Double Homicide | Judge Rules Jose Padilla Can Sue John Yoo in Torture Suit >


Politically, how important is it to President Obama that health care reform be bipartisan?
Very Important 4%
Somewhat Important 7%
Not very important 3%
Not important at all 31%
Important that it NOT be "bipartisan" 53%
Other 0%

Votes: 64
Results | Other Polls
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    given that we have large majorities (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Turkana on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 03:01:26 PM EST
    wide public support, and a very popular president...

    it's so very very important that we be bipartisan, lest david broder write something mean about us.

    We have (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 03:18:02 PM EST
    a personally popular president - his policies - not as much. (See recent polls on his handling of the economy, jobs, etc.)

    We need complete reform, so whether it's bipartisan or not, the American people don't care.  But Obama and the Dems need it to be bi-partisan because they want plausible deniability when they screw it up, because depending on how badly they screw it up, will determine how many Dems (including POTUS) will lose their jobs in 2012.


    Bait and Switch (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Coral on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 04:28:00 PM EST
    I'm beginning to feel like all we're going to get is a mandate to buy private insurance and maybe some subsidies for lower income folks, which will do very little to help things, and may actually cut back the programs we have, like Medicaid and Medicare.

    It feels like the Democrats have pulled a bait-and-switch. Lots of empty promises for us, and legislation that satisfies the Big Money players.

    I'm demoralized. And Obama, for all his talk, has not really come out fighting for a public plan. That's what will get him the cost savings he's pushing so hard.


    Obama doesn't fight (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 07:56:13 PM EST
    He believes in watering things down for the sake of post-partisan whatever.  What's best for the country is second to what is best for the Washington political environment.  If it makes him get too passionate or righteously angry, forget it, he checks out.  Unless, of course, he's just campaigning.  Then, all bets are off, and the bold Obama appears.  Or so it would seem at this point.

    And this is news to you? (none / 0) (#49)
    by KoolJeffrey on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 08:20:01 PM EST
    Obama won in large part because of his promise of bipartisanship. Is he now supposed to pull the old bait and switch? If so, that sounds an awful lot like "compassionate conservatism" to me.

    Even worse than that (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 09:00:56 PM EST
    Even accepting their premise for a minute that it must be done in a bi-partisan way, why does The White House not take the next year to craft the best possible plan (a good single-payer plan IMO, but a plan with a strong public option would be the next best thing) and build support for it?  Obama could do a town hall a month explaining it, and I bet he could bring people on board if he explained all the benefits and swatted down all the myths.

    But instead they want Congress to craft it, and to rush something half-baked through in the next 8 weeks.  Why? Because they abdicate the thought of doing anything constructive in the 2010 mid-term election year. So the so-called defining initiative of his presidency is going to be done on the fly by a disfunctional congress in the next 8 weeks, for purely political reasons. There is absolutely no chance of a good outcome.  


    The problem is that you'd have to (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 09:59:28 PM EST
    first believe that the WH - Obama - is interested in the best possible plan, and I don't see any indication that he is.  He's in love with the idea of computerizing health records - he practically has an orga$m whenever he talks about it - but that seems to be the only thing that gets him worked up.

    And in order for Obama to explain a really good health plan, he'd actually have to understand health care from all angles, and I don't think he does.  I think he knows major talking points, and most of those are being fed to him by industry lobbyists.

    It is neither Obama nor Congress that is crafting health care reform: it is the insurance industry along with their pals in the pharmaceutical industry and the AMA and conservative think tanks that are crafting "reform."

    This is about protecting turf; the last thing it is about is improving access to and delivery  and coverage of actual care.  The industry does not want a public option because they are afraid it might work better and be less expensive than what they can offer, and millions of people will desert them for a program that actually works.

    Obama has disappointed on issue after issue, running away from real progressive ideas and sticking with the safer and mushier middle and moving to the right where he seems to be most comfortable; health care reform will be no different.


    The irony? (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 09:58:37 AM EST
    He's in love with the idea of computerizing health records - he practically has an orga$m whenever he talks about it - but that seems to be the only thing that gets him worked up

    Great place to start, computerizing health records - but it isn't the end of the story, but only the beginning.  But, as with most of his ideas, (and contrary to public opinion that Obama is novel and fresh thinker), this was first introduced by....wait for it..... George W. Bush in 2004. Who was against this idea?  John Kerry.


    Ugh (none / 0) (#50)
    by KoolJeffrey on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 08:21:36 PM EST
    Please don't remind me of John Kerry. That was the toughest vote I had to make since Jimmy Carter.

    Neither (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by koshembos on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    We don't need reform, we need health care revolution. The old edifice of heath care for all that can pay a lot of money and for those lucky enough not to be too sick and for physician that have rare specialties is broke and works for the few healthy and the wealthy and the CEO is like France of Louis XVI - it has to be executed.

    Interesting wording to the question (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 03:24:06 PM EST
    I think it is very important to Obama that reform be bipartisan - he has said that he would rather get something like 60-70% of what he wants with the votes of Republicans than pass 100% of what he wants with no Republican votes.  Guess it doesn't matter to him what Democrats want, and he's willing to give and compromise and surrender on what may be some important elements just for the sake of Republican support.

    Left out of that equation are a couple of things: (1) what about what the people want, and (2) is Obama's starting point a plan that will actually serve the people?

    From what I have seen - even going back to the primaries - I don't even think Obama's starting point is acceptable, and it goes downhill from there.  You have to ask why it was/is that single-payer advocates have only in recent days been given the teeniest-tiniest seat in the room, and while they may have sat at a table, there has been virtually no coverage of single-payer at all.

    I see a concerted effort to maintain as much of the status quo for insurance companies as possible, and this is indicative to me that we are not likely to get the kind of reform we need.  I commented the other day at Corrente that disturbing the status quo is what real reform is all about, but Obama and Baucus and the GOP seem more interested in just rearranging the furniture and not pitching out the stuff that doesn't work and bringing in things that will.

    Obama's not a fighter, he's an organizer, and he thinks that the absence of conflict equals success - but while the pols may be high-fiving and back-slapping, the people who have to deal with the result may not be any better off than they were before.  Measuring success by the Beltway crowd's response does not mean that you have done a good job or that what you have done truly serves the people.

    I don't see him changing - so that means we have to make the Congress do the right thing, and that is so far proving to be a Everest-sized uphill battle.

    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 06:40:48 PM EST
    Obama's not a fighter, he's an organizer, and he thinks that the absence of conflict equals success

    Obvious all through the primaries with all the talk about Republican ideas, etc.  But the biggest clue was the story that broke during the primaries about the Roberts confirmation.  It never, not once, occured to Obama that a Roberts court could be damaging to the public interest.  He was dissuaded from voting for Roberts only when told that such a vote might be politically damaging.

    I still believe that single story foretold what we could expect from an Obama Presidency.

    I don't believe we'll see any meaningful reform.  The very act of seeking some GOP support dooms the policy to failure.

    But, as Anne says, it'll be billed as a success.  Efficatious policy in this administration is NOT a goal, only some childish notion of comity.


    Politics is the art of compromise (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 04:07:17 PM EST
    and there will have to be more compromise with some of these so-called Dems than is good for the country.  

    Bipartisanship means even more compromise than that, and with even more pols bought and paid for by even more big corporates that have screwed us for so long.

    No thanks.  What was that Obama said, early on in his administration, when faced with resistance from Repubs?  Oh, yeh:  "We won."  May he remember that as we head into the major issue that will define his administration and that really could put him in the history books.  If he wishes.  We will see.

    Things to remember...... (none / 0) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 07:00:28 PM EST
    Reforming the health care delivery system is a monumentally difficult undertaking, even if a huge majority is for it.

    "Is bipartisanship necessary?" is a silly question to ask. It's silly because, in order for there to be bipartisanship, A.) The Republican Party would have to cease to exist and B.) All the Democrats who love campaign bribes more than their children would have to join them. (Hint: that's most of them. Check out the homeowner "cram down" defeat.)

    It can be done; facts and logic are on our side. But it would take a post JFK, LBJ type commitment.

    BHO is no JFK, nor LBJ.


    The Democratic Congress (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 04:35:05 PM EST
    is "blue-doggy" enough that if we get 52% of the vote for healthcare, it'll be a bipartisan plan....

    Obama is wrong.  To get something that 70% approve, we get nothing at all -- or maybe we get a giveaway to the insurance companies and a few bones for us.  This notion is about giving us nothing, while saying "we tried!" LOL.

    To get something that is REALLY good, we tell the blue dogs and the Republicans to take the day off and the remaining Democrats and Bernie vote on it without them ;-).  I know, I know.

    Excellent point (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Spamlet on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 05:10:30 PM EST
    The Democratic Congress is "blue-doggy" enough that if we get 52% of the vote for healthcare, it'll be a bipartisan plan

    It's compromise, not bipartisanship. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by steviez314 on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    Bipartisanship is a silly goal.

    Thought exercise:  if the Senate had 99 Democrats and 1 Republican, would the Republican have to vote for it for a bill to be truly "bi-partisan"?

    It's getting 60 Democrats to agree that seems to call for some compromise.

    Only (4.66 / 3) (#21)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 06:51:25 PM EST
    51 votes are required for this particular measure.

    The Max Baucus' in the Senate can easily be bludgeoned into support of a proper efficatious plan.

    But that's what a leader does and unfortunately ...


    I really hope the only (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 05:16:17 PM EST
    Compromise is.NOT; let us tax employee health benefits pd. For by employer.

    We had enough bipartisanship ... (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 05:51:54 PM EST
    when Bush was President. Bipartisanship in today's Washington just means that Democrats vote for what Republicans demand (as Greenwald has so amply described).

    Now that we have a Democratic President and strong majorities in both houses of Congress might we just once or twice do something without having to do it the Republicans' way?

    Gasp (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 05:55:13 PM EST
    Clutching your pearls? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Spamlet on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 08:10:46 PM EST
    Good to see you again, o (none / 0) (#28)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 08:17:42 PM EST
    I had hoped I might catch you at the Verdi Requiem. Did you come up as you said you might?

    I did and really enjoyed thw so (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 03:11:30 AM EST
    very operatic performance. Sorry I didn't arrange to meet you. I was with a friend and trying to. stay avail to see my daughter. Next time.  

    No worries (none / 0) (#40)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 09:14:36 AM EST
    Overall I enjoyed it very well. I very much got into the mood of the occasion. People were eager to hear the work, and especially to hear the work in an opera house-- to appreciate the specifically operatic qualities of this non-opera. And I thought Michael Steinberg's excellent program note really explored this theme in satisfying depth. And on a personal note I was attending with a friend whom I used to regularly go to the opera with but had not for almost 25 years.

    Musically I found it good enough-- good enough that I could thoroughly immerse myself in the piece. But there were many passages throughout where I could imagine the satisfaction of hearing it done with greater polish from orchestra and chorus-- across the street in Davies Hall.

    Of the soloists, only Stephanie Blythe seemed completely on top of her material. The tenor was underpowered in the Ingemisco. I had previously heard the bass as Fasolt in Das Rheingold. It's a really strange sound he has, but he got the job done. And the substitute soprano was quite good I thought, falling short only in the final pianissimo of the Libera me.

    The perfunctory standing ovation annoyed me as usual. And though I much admire Runnicles' contributions to the company and wholeheartedly support the conferral of the SF Opera Medal, did it have to be that night? The speeches were more numerous and long-winded than is typical of such events. And all the gassifying from the bigwigs had the net effect of deflating the post-performance mood.

    I know I'm being a little transgressive going off-topic in BTD's thread. I hope it will be excused on the ground of it being more than 16 hours since the story was posted, so I'm not really undermining an ongoing discussion.


    At this point (none / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 06:42:07 PM EST
    if the Democrats and Obama don't do it, they don't want to do it.

    As far as I'm concerned, it's unambiguous, unquestionable.  They aren't interested in working for us.  Period.

    And as someone else called the DOMA business on another blog, it's 11 dimensional corn***ling.  But I am quite naive and I'm sure I have no idea what they meant.  But I know someone will photoshop it for me....I just have to be patient (using the 11 dimensional chess patience excuse LOL).


    I, for one, misread the poll (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 08:01:03 PM EST
    Didn't even catch the "to Obama" part.  Obviously, to him, it seems to be all that matters.

    I did also (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 08:32:44 PM EST
    if he doesn't have the republicans hi-fivin' him over the bill . . . . we won't get HCR, which actually may be the better option.

    Me too (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 03:54:28 PM EST

    This wildly popular president (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 09:08:49 PM EST
    won't risk one iota of his popularity really selling and putting his stamp on a health care plan. Not going to fall into that 'clintoncare' trap, no, not him.  He has left it mainly to Congress. But there is no one in Congress right now who can sell real reform like single-payer, or even a strong public option,  to a nervous populace. Obama has to take ownership of this, whether he wants to or not.

    Does he think he gets to keep political capital in a bank or something?  Maybe he does - I'm starting to wonder about his plans for after the presidency.

    The debate on healthcare (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 12:37:08 AM EST
    as conducted so far by the Obama Administration is not I think especially commendable.  Pragmatic seems to mean variously that Obama's finger is to the wind or that Congress is free to f*ck about (and why is that wise?  Who has the higher approval ratings...Congress or the President?)  Digby posted about this earlier:

    John Amato caught Chuck Grassley letting the cat out of the bag:
    "Sen. Grassley, the Mad Twitterer, was on with Andrea Mitchell and she asked him about the public option. She didn't bring up his tweets, unfortunately. He said that he was against the public option because a think tank study told him around a hundred and nineteen million people would opt out of private health insurance and join it."

    Can we please attack Grassley for this...please?  Bipartisan love fest means missing opportunities to attack your very real opponents.  

    The Administration should show some willingness to embarrass Senators who really don't give a rip about whether more people are covered or not.

    Like civil rights, and pretty much every (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by pluege on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 12:43:31 AM EST
    other area, its clear that obama is working OT to fool progressives into thinking that he's with them, while what he really is doing is providing cover so the healthcare avoidance caucus, i.e., most of Congress moves the legislation into the corporate welfare column, like everything else they do.

    Clearly any "healthcare" reform pig (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by pluege on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 12:38:41 AM EST
    that satisfies any republican (or any blue dog/bayh dog/Vichy dem) enough to vote for it surely has some gawdawful lipstick on it.

    Healthcare reform that a republican (or DINO) would vote for is by definition not healthcare reform. What it is, is nothing more than more sop to the medical insurance corporate sow so they can further rip people off providing healthcare avoidance, while taking everyone's money.

    Wrong last letter (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by lambert on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    Not "bipartisanship" but "bipartisanshi*".

    I'd rather have nothing than condemn this country to another massive FAIL like these guys are proposing.

    With the final insult being (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 02:37:19 PM EST
    taxing the health care benefits we already get. If I'm not mistaken, this is the McCain health care plan, pretty much down the line.

    Obama opposes this (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 02:44:00 PM EST
    according to the Secretary for HHS Kathleen Sebelius.

    Sure, but would he sell out on it to get the bill? (none / 0) (#51)
    by lambert on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 07:39:25 AM EST
    In a heartbeat.

    I oppose taxing health insurance, but ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 04:53:44 PM EST
    ... there is nonetheless a difference between

    (1) doing so as a means of funding expanded coverage by some other mechanism, and

    (2) doing so on the theory that health insurance is overused and that taxing it will lead the invisible hand of the marketplace to make everything all better (i.e., the McCain "plan").  

    I mean it's a bad idea, but there are bad ideas and then there are bad ideas.


    should not be bipartisan (1.00 / 0) (#33)
    by diogenes on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 09:22:30 PM EST
    That way the trillions in cost overruns can be added to the coming overruns on the takeover of GM, etc and be the responsibility of the party that proposed them.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 04:20:41 PM EST
    That in that poll 74% of Democrats and only 70% of Republicans say that it is either somewhat important or very important that health care reform be bi-partisan.

    Looks like you're in the minority, BTD.

    The question isn't whether it is (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 04:47:51 PM EST
    important that reform be bipartisan, the question is:

    Politically, how important is it to President Obama that health care reform be bipartisan?

    I know that it is important to me that whatever the plan is, it be one that will provide the best chance of our getting batter access to and coverage for health CARE; I think the likelihood is that a plan that would accomplish that would not have the support of Congressional Republicans - or a fair number of Democrats for that matter - because the insurance industry and the drug companies and the AMA have not been pumping gazillions of dollars into pockets on both sides of the aisle only to have the recipients ignore their demands.

    The insurance industry does not want a public option because they want to be the ones to reap the benefits of insuring the 47 million who aren't currently paying premiums to any company.

    If I were running the show, the last people to be invited to sit at the table and be heard would be the companies and industries that have had a stranglehold on the system; I'd be talking with real people, and those in health professions who had other ideas about how to change the system to better serve the people. Instead, those who want real reform have been all but shut out of the discussion.

    I think the question is less about health care reform and more about the politics of reform and whether Obama's political fortunes require that reform be bipartisan.

    An altogether different question than whether the reform itself needs to be bipartisan.


    You should look again (none / 0) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 04:29:47 PM EST
    Not very important and not important at all have about 57% of the vote.

    No (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    Look at the link for "Insiders".  The breakdown is this:

    Democrats (88 votes)

    Very important       27 percent
    Somewhat important   47 percent
    Not very important   22 percent
    Not important at all  5 percent

    Very important

    "This is not an issue that Obama at his mightiest can do just with Democrats: Ask Truman and everyone since."

    "Reform of this magnitude requires more than the votes needed for passage; the government and private sector need to be invested in its success rather than its failure."

    "If he allows this effort to be partisan in any way, he will only get incremental change."

    Somewhat important

    "Only to show that he can work across party lines and set up the coalition to pay for it."

    "It will be somewhat important for Obama to pass a bill that will not arm the Republicans with the scary arguments that could be useful to them in the next election."

    "Getting any kind of meaningful Republican support would take the edge off of the 'socialist' charge in 2010 and 2012."

    "Far more important that it pass and that it works."

    "The real bipartisanship has to be between the liberals and the moderates within the Democratic Party."

    "If the Republicans play 'Dr. No,' it will hurt the GOP more than the president."

    "Collaboration and compromise comfort the public--but not at the expense of getting something done."

    Not very important

    "It is only important that it get done; this is what Clinton lost on last time."

    "This isn't the time for half-measures we say are real health insurance."

    "Success will be measured first by success itself, then by results. Bipartisan support affects neither."

    Not important at all

    "Americans just want health care and cost containment. Only people in D.C. care about the process."

    Q: Politically, how important is it to President Obama that health care reform be bipartisan?

    Republicans (85 votes)

    Very important       48 percent
    Somewhat important   22 percent
    Not very important   25 percent
    Not important at all  4 percent
    A combination
      (volunteered)       1 percent


    The group (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 05:29:58 PM EST
    that BTD voted with are on the front page of the list.

    Who cares about the others?

    (not me).


    Health care "reform" (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 07:29:11 PM EST
    I swear to fock, the people of this country are so screwed. No matter who we elect. Why do we even have a government anyway? They do jacksh!t for us.

    The impending health care "reform" is feeling like last straw for me.

    Agree with Anne (none / 0) (#23)
    by good grief on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 07:31:28 PM EST
    Don't get BTD's poll question. "Politically, how important is it to President Obama that health care reform be bipartisan?" An answer like "not important at all to Obama" makes no sense since we know Obama is in love with bipartisanship.

    To me bipartisanship and negotiation are two different things. We might end up with a bipartisan agreement after negotiation -- or we might not. Who cares about bipartisanship anyway except media commentators keeping track of process to keep us entertained by highlighting the breakdown of bipartisanship into partisanship -- the cat fight? It's an abstraction, a description, it's not a negotiating position (or shouldn't be). The weak party (GOP) bamboozles Dems (via media) into guilting themselves into pretending to be "bipartisan" which means, in this situation, joining with the weak party. Why should we join in bipartisan union with the weak "party of no" who have no ideas at all on healthcare? Obama's error in leadership is that not only does he forget who won the election (and doesn't seem to know how to lead as a winner carrying the mandate of the electorate), he starts negotiating from an idealized position of bipartisanship (compromise) which means we Dems start in a position halfway between 50% of our own principles and the virtually worthless right.

    For example, we start with a "robust public option" (itself a compromise from a full single payer system) and end up sliding toward regional co-ops to avoid rhetorical association with a "government-sponsored" plan because the right since Reagan (including Blue Dog Dems) has tainted "government" with the specter of Soviet control which is -- in reality -- ridiculous. Obama and Baucus will try to gain GOP votes in a bipartisan agreement by scuttling "government-sponsored" (or even the word "public," says Baucus) which is one of the core progressive principles that gave rise to Social Security and Medicare. We're throwing out the window the strength we need in government-sponsorship by embracing "co-ops" -- for what? To gain a bipartisan agreement.

    Go figure.

    To be fair, it wasn't BTD's question, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 08:08:58 PM EST
    it was the  National Journal Weekly Bloggers Poll question.

    With respect to negotiation, I don't think you negotiate until you have to - but the first shot Obama always takes is, "what can we do to make you sign on to this?" which completely buys into the Republican definition of "bipartisan," which is "do it my way."

    I've given up thinking the Democrats will ever figure the Republicans out, or how to work the media to their advantage, or ever learn to deal with being in the majority.  Never did being in the majority mean less than it does now, with a not-so-Democratic president and a Congressional delegation that is fractured into the Blue Dogs, the Spineless and the Liberals no one listens to.

    They wouldn't know a clue if one jumped up and bit them on the...nose.


    I think it is not important at all (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 08:25:44 PM EST
    to Obama, politically or otherwise.

    That Obama may BELIEVE it is is a different question.


    Any healthcare "Reform" that (none / 0) (#39)
    by pluege on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 08:59:09 AM EST
    a republican would vote for is not worth having.

    Unless your sick (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Slado on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 11:16:22 AM EST