Who needs bipartisanship?

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo sums it up pretty well: the Republicans, as a group, have no intention of supporting the Obama stimulus package. Granted, there was, and still is, some spectacularly stupid stuff in that package, but that's irrelevant to the Republicans, for precisely the same reasons Marshall states: the Republicans gain nothing by supporting Obama. Like Rush Limbaugh, they hope he fails- provided, of course, that the blame for that failure doesn't fall on them.

In order to ensure that they don't take the blame, the Republicans are proposing changes to the stimulus plan- mostly more tax cuts for the wealthy, less aid to the poor, and total elimination of infrastructure spending. By proposing these changes, they can let the stimulus pass- as it inevitably will- and then, should it fail, crow loudly about how the liberal big-government Democrats turned a recession into a depression.

And should the stimulus succeed... well, nobody will remember the opposition, or really care much.

But they should- because of Obama's ongoing efforts to create bipartisanship.

Let's remember- against the better judgement and recommendations of Obama's advisors, one-third of the stimulus package will be in the form of tax cuts. These tax cuts have come at the cost of savage cuts in transportation, infrastructure, and alternative energy programs originally in the proposal. These tax cuts have come at the expense of the overall tax plan Obama campaigned on: he's given up on hiking taxes on the wealthiest 1% in order to try to sway Republicans to his side.

In short, Obama is watering down, if not betraying, his own principles in order to create consensus... when the Republicans have absolutely no desire or interest in joining a consensus. In every "bipartisan" measure that has come forth since 1990, the Republicans have not given an inch of ground: it has always been the Democrats who compromise, who give in, who agree to appeasement.

That last word is not chosen lightly. Appeasement is the word used to describe acts of moral cowardice in an attempt to placate an evil, bullying force. Let there be no doubt, though, that the Republican Party is quite thoroughly evil- not merely dogmatic or intolerant, but taking positive action to harm the innocent for their own gain or to serve their own purposes.

Consider: today Republican leaders are demanding that American torturers be immune from prosecution. Today Republican leaders oppose the closing of our gulag in Guantanamo Bay. The men vying for the Republican leadership include Ken Blackwell, who was turned out of his office as Ohio Secretary of State over evidence of voter suppression and elections fraud, and this man, a shameless and naked racist.

These are the people who Obama and his administration continue, again and again, to appease, including what amounts to a pledge from his attorney-general designate that no one in Bush's administration will be prosecuted for war crimes.

And what will all this appeasement gain them? Dick.

No, not Cheney, I mean dick as in bugger-all, goose-egg, nada, niente, zip-diddly, NOTHING.

Why? Because Republicans. Do. Not. Compromise. Ever.

The benchmark for bipartisanship is about one-third or more support from all parties. In the Republican case, if more than fifty House Republicans vote for Obama's plan, it counts as "bipartisan." My personal prediction is that fewer than thirty House Republicans vote for it- with at least 120 voting against. If my prediction is correct, it will amount to a declaration of war- the Republicans pledging to do everything they can to block everything Obama does, no matter how urgent or necessary it might or might not be.

I can only wonder if Obama is willing to pick up on the message and stop caving in to evil. Horse-trading in government is one thing, but it's just plain stupid to keep giving and giving to people who have no intention of ever giving anything in exchange.

Who needs bipartisanship?

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo sums it up pretty well: the Republicans, as a group, have no intention of supporting the Obama stimulus package. Granted, there was, and still is, some spectacularly stupid stuff in that package, but that's irrelevant to the Republicans, for precisely the same reasons Marshall states: the Republicans gain nothing by supporting Obama. Like Rush Limbaugh, they hope he fails- provided, of course, that the blame for that failure doesn't fall on them.

In order to ensure that they don't take the blame, the Republicans are proposing changes to the stimulus plan- mostly more tax cuts for the wealthy, less aid to the poor, and total elimination of infrastructure spending. By proposing these changes, they can let the stimulus pass- as it inevitably will- and then, should it fail, crow loudly about how the liberal big-government Democrats turned a recession into a depression.

And should the stimulus succeed... well, nobody will remember the opposition, or really care much.

But they should- because of Obama's ongoing efforts to create bipartisanship.

Let's remember- against the better judgement and recommendations of Obama's advisors, one-third of the stimulus package will be in the form of tax cuts. These tax cuts have come at the cost of savage cuts in transportation, infrastructure, and alternative energy programs originally in the proposal. These tax cuts have come at the expense of the overall tax plan Obama campaigned on: he's given up on hiking taxes on the wealthiest 1% in order to try to sway Republicans to his side.

In short, Obama is watering down, if not betraying, his own principles in order to create consensus... when the Republicans have absolutely no desire or interest in joining a consensus. In every "bipartisan" measure that has come forth since 1990, the Republicans have not given an inch of ground: it has always been the Democrats who compromise, who give in, who agree to appeasement.

That last word is not chosen lightly. Appeasement is the word used to describe acts of moral cowardice in an attempt to placate an evil, bullying force. Let there be no doubt, though, that the Republican Party is quite thoroughly evil- not merely dogmatic or intolerant, but taking positive action to harm the innocent for their own gain or to serve their own purposes.

Consider: today Republican leaders are demanding that American torturers be immune from prosecution. Today Republican leaders oppose the closing of our gulag in Guantanamo Bay. The men vying for the Republican leadership include Ken Blackwell, who was turned out of his office as Ohio Secretary of State over evidence of voter suppression and elections fraud, and this man, a shameless and naked racist.

These are the people who Obama and his administration continue, again and again, to appease, including what amounts to a pledge from his attorney-general designate that no one in Bush's administration will be prosecuted for war crimes.

And what will all this appeasement gain them? Dick.

No, not Cheney, I mean dick as in bugger-all, goose-egg, nada, niente, zip-diddly, NOTHING.

Why? Because Republicans. Do. Not. Compromise. Ever.

The benchmark for bipartisanship is about one-third or more support from all parties. In the Republican case, if more than fifty House Republicans vote for Obama's plan, it counts as "bipartisan." My personal prediction is that fewer than thirty House Republicans vote for it- with at least 120 voting against. If my prediction is correct, it will amount to a declaration of war- the Republicans pledging to do everything they can to block everything Obama does, no matter how urgent or necessary it might or might not be.

I can only wonder if Obama is willing to pick up on the message and stop caving in to evil. Horse-trading in government is one thing, but it's just plain stupid to keep giving and giving to people who have no intention of ever giving anything in exchange.