When will the GOP leadership learn that, to the Democrats, "bipartisanship" means total capitulation?
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in bipartisanship | Congress | Democrats | Economy | Republicans — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
On the heels of a meeting between Democrat and Republican leaders about a forthcoming economic stimulus package, Capitol Hill's major newspapers featured -- on their covers -- photographs of jubilant Democrats accompanied by fawning, subservient Republicans (see images at right for examples).
Though no caving in was done yesterday, the GOP's Congressional leadership still appears to be laboring, 
at least to some degree, under the equally false impressions that (a) so-called "bipartisanship" is possible in Congress without fully capitulating to the Democrats' demands, and (b) GOP leaders will ever, ever receive credit from the media and from their counterparts across the aisle for compromising on issues of importance and for reaching across the aisle in good faith and working together with the Ds.
As a year and change in the minority should have taught the GOP's current House leadership, there is no "common" or "middle" ground between conservative goals and the desires of the Democrats which the latter will ever accept as being valid. In other words, the only way that Democrats will accept an act or solution as being a "compromise" or as being "bipartisan" is if it involves a complete rejection of principles by conservatives, and a wholehearted acceptance of the Democrat position on that issue.
Read on.
Unfortunately for Republicans, this leaves them with two choices, neither of which appear ideal: abandon "bipartisanship" and attempt to govern -- or to obstruct bad governance -- according to their principles (something for which they will be castigated by their opponents across the aisle and in the media), or give in to Democrats and accept the faint, damning, and temporary praise that comes with allowing the other side a victory.
It may seem to some that, when done in moderation, the latter is acceptable, as it both gives Republicans the opportunity to show their goodwill and willingness to compromise and allows for some decent press for our side for once. However, the blowback™ from such actions is very real: once Republicans show that they can be convinced, for whatever reason, to temporarily shelve their principles and give the Democrats a "bipartisan" victory, their opponents' ability to score such victories in the future becomes exponentially greater. By meeting Democrats in their artificially-created "middle" (which is generally to the far left of the spectrum), Republicans have put their proverbial "blood in the water" -- and, in mixed-metaphorical language, they have exposed their jugular to their attackers, who will show far less compunction than we would in going after it and sinking their teeth into the weak spot on their prey.
According to The Hill, "Pelosi struck a conciliatory note after the meeting, saying Boehner had offered some “constructive” ideas," while Rep. Hoyer, her #2 man, made clear that Republican ideas had no place whatsoever in what the Democrats would push through the House. From The Hill:
While Democratic leaders for the most part emphasized bipartisanship in their public comments, Hoyer blamed President Bush’s economic policies for causing the current slowdown and said President Clinton’s economic policies brought prosperity. “People were much better off eight years ago than they are today,” Hoyer told reporters. “I’ve been here 27 years and I don’t think the economic policies of Republicans have worked.”
Though politics is not by nature a black-and-white game -- and governing certainly isn't -- there is one absolute constant on Capitol Hill: "bipartisanship," to Democrats, means only one thing -- complete and total GOP capitulation.
As the 2008 legislative year kicks off, the current Republican leadership needs to decide if they are going to stick to principle, or if they are going to accept backhanded pats on the head, like that which Ms. Pelosi gave to Rep. Boehner yesterday, in exchange for capitulation.
If they are going to accept the latter, then I respectfully submit that it may be time for new Republican leadership -- leadership which will not abandon principle and embrace faux "bipartisanship" in exchange for an opportunity to lap up the scraps from the Democrats' table.
« Sen. Ron Wyden leads bi(tri?)partisan group of 5 Ds, 6 Rs, 1 I in fighting for same old government-controlled health care — Comments (8)
When will the GOP leadership learn that, to the Democrats, "bipartisanship" means total capitulation? 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
it's more appropriate here:
Word leaked out today (yesterday) that the Republicans in Congress will NOT be pushing to keep the Bush tax cuts in place.
It's time for a major House (and Senate) cleaning, starting with every incumbent Republican who has defected to the Dark Side. Replace them before they run again. If they run again, you might as well vote Democratic. Conservatism still exists; it just isn't evident in the Republican Party.
And the Administration apparently wants to pass some kind of warrant-less internet spying program, just before the elections. These people are brain-dead. The Democrats are going to put up an eminently beatable candidate, and our party is just going to say, "Oh, no thanks, you get to win this one, too."
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
there is one absolute constant on Capitol Hill: "bipartisanship," to Democrats, means only one thing -- complete and total GOP capitulation
Absolutely, when will they get some back bone.
If they are going to accept the latter, then I respectfully submit that it may be time for new Republican leadership -- leadership which will not abandon principle and embrace faux "bipartisanship" in exchange for an opportunity to lap up the scraps from the Democrats' table.
If republicans would govern just as they run (as conservatives), they wouldn't have lost so badly in 2006, IMHO.
That GOP leaders have not, are not, and will not be conservative.
Which brings me back to a question I've been asking myself:
Are there far less conservatives in the party then conservatives care to admit - or are the party leaders simply going to pay lip service to conservatives because that's the way the power brokers behind the scenes want it?
If you want a Conservative Party, you're guaranteeing yourself to be a minor fringe. To most of us here, there's no point in that.
Every single one of McCain's celebrated bipartisan compromises are exactly of this type. We basically fold, and they get 90% of what they want ... and McCain gets some face time and hagiographies on the TV.
A witless compromiser like Boehner in the House and a self-righteous "bipartisan" John McCain in the White House is going to be one heck of a long nightmare for Conservatives and Republicans.
Say it aint so!
If Dems want some dubious stimulus, they need to offer some pro-growth measures too. Why not ask for permanent enactment of some of the Bush tax cuts? It's the Dems who need to prove they can govern.
Come on gents. Insist on some real bipartisanship.
I think Cantor and Ryan were holding their own press conference around the same time, talking about cutting taxes.
You say:
"Though politics is not by nature a black-and-white game -- and governing certainly isn't.."
But your essay (well written, by the way) seems to be calling for a "black and white" game, though I could be mis-reading this. This binary view seems to be the definition of partisanship.
With the electorate split nearly 50/50, governance must be bi-partisan in order to best represent all the American people. Some compromise is required from both sides. I believe the Democrats and Republicans both have and will continue to compromise the margins of their core beliefs in order to achieve the greater good, as they see it. It does not mean they will abandon their principles, all of which makes America stronger. This is a good thing. No?
...here -- or perhaps you choose to obfuscate instead. What I said was this (and I stand by it):
Though politics is not by nature a black-and-white game -- and governing certainly isn't -- there is one absolute constant on Capitol Hill: "bipartisanship," to Democrats, means only one thing -- complete and total GOP capitulation.
I'm not sure why bipartisanship IN ALL CASES is considered capitulation by some conservatives.
What do you base this philosophy on?
And if you believe it is true then does not that paint conservatives into a corner where we can never compromise on anything lest we sell out our credentials. And is an all or nothing approach a wise path to follow?
Many would argue, as Neil does above, that such s stance is a long term loser.
Name a compromise where Republicans got the better part of the deal?
We got the cuts we wanted and compromised with a sunset clause.
We got the better part of the deal for a teensy little while. We should have stood our ground and made the Dems defend not wanting to cut taxes to stimulate the economy.
Sometimes bluffs need to be called.
In that paragraph, you say:
"there is one absolute constant on Capitol Hill: "bipartisanship," to Democrats, means only one thing -- complete and total GOP capitulation."
Is that not black and white? Terms like 'only one thing', 'Absolute', 'Complete', and 'Total', would tend to give the reader the impression of 100%, ie., "black and white." I don't believe this is the case.
However, I respect that you stand by your statement and as an avid reader of your writings, appreciate your conviction.
I think what was lost in the translation -- figure of speech, not an insinuation -- was that the sentence in question was a conditional.
"While black-and-white governing is generally neither a good idea nor possible, this is one example of what is black-and-white" is the meaning that should be taken.
Thanks for the follow-up comment clarifying!
JE
Kind of knew where your intentions were on the piece and the clarification helps. :)
And one of our favorite, no-negotiating with idiots Democrats budget and small-government hardliner "train wreck" Coburn has endorsed Bob Barker for POTUS, our favorite hyphenated American, author of the latest McCain-[fill in the hard-line leftist Democrat de jour] Bipartisan Screw-America Bill.
Is there NOBODY we can count on?
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
I have a very hard time supporting John McCain at this juncture.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
it means your hand is too far away to bite!
In Vino Veritas
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
your hand is blocking his access to your wallet.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
He compromised and lost his job.
Did what he thought was the right thing, with the solemn promise of the Dems to cut spending, whereupon the Dems made Brutus look like an amateur.
Where do you come down on compromising?
I posted earlier that the GOP leadership is not conservative and you reponded by stating that if we want a pure conservative party we'll wind up on the "fringe".
Yet, you also, and rightly so, remark that GHWB comprmised on taxes and lost his job.
So, what is your standard for compromising and still retaining the conservative soul of the party?
Neil, given that you are still posting when I get up in the morning and all throughout my day, I'm beginning to think you are not sleeping. You know I respect what you say, but I think you must be tired because you seem to have strayed off the reservation today.
No dig intended, friend.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
Look, I don't like Seantor McCain. But I think if FDT leaves, he's the least worst of who's left. Sorry, heh.
you will reconsider. You are a Super Tuesday primary, so I hope you would look at Rudy before you pull that lever for McCain. That would at least leave him in play for me on 3/4.
And with that, I think I need to head to bed.
Tschuss!
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Shame on us, if you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. If we, as conservatives, did not learn from the era before Reagan, look at it. Read his speech from 1964 promoting Goldwater for President. You can find it easily on the Heritage Foundation's website. As we do today, he saw the path that capitulation would take us. If you substitute a few words, everything he said 43 years ago holds true today. When did we as a movement lose our collective backbone? As Rush is so fond of saying, “When you compromise, the only thing you compromise is your values.” If we waiver and give in so we can appear civilized, we get exactly what we deserve. It is time for all of us to stand up and tell the politicians, enough. I will not give the future of my children away so we can be civil. I expect more from us and the country and future generations deserve more. Conservatives win, when they act as conservatives.
from the MSM and on the cocktail party circuit in DC. They NEVER really hear from people like us or even from their own constituents. How many of you have ever been to a fundraiser for a Rep or a Senator? Senators especially ain't goin' to no cheap grip n grin where they might meet real people. And when they do have one of those little photo ops with the lower class and emotionally disturbed, they just stand there with a limp hand, fixed fake smile, and look right through you.
If the Republican Party wants to fundamentally change our culture, especially our leadership culture, we will abandon DC for everything except actually voting and necessary committee work. Make the press releases back in the state or district, start the iniatives back in the state or district, GO HOME whenever you're not on the floor or in committee. If the MSM wants to cover you, make them start to believe that a Holiday Inn Express is a luxury hotel, let them learn about turboprops, and, God forbid, even cars.
Nobody with an R behind there name will EVER get a vote in DC, NYC, or LA, so why do we try to please them? And, yes, I know the answers; the lobbyists pick up the tabs, the celebs rub elbows with you, the pretty ladies fawn over you, the reporters even act like they like you. I rest my case.
In Vino Veritas
WOB
To paraphrase Grover Norquist, "Bipartisanship is another term for date rape."
the GOP has pretty much gotten whatever it wants from the Dem leadership in every so called bipartisan deal.
the bankruptcy bill, the energy bill many more examples. Plus even with the Dems in power they have not done anything on the war.
We got what we wanted with the energy bill?
LOL
just told his listeners to vote for Fred Thompson. Love the Great One!
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
All existing evidence supports to 'never'.
I'm about 95% convinced that, in the Senate especially, the leadership likes to be in the minority. It absolves them from having to particularly do any work, or, you know, lead.
What on Earth are you talking about? Want to know what it looks like when Republicans don't cooperate? Take a look at Bush's first six years in office. Spend, spend, spend. Borrow, borrow, borrow.
Stop with this nonsense about how Republicans get shafted when they cooperate. They're going exactly where they want to go. You're the one who is out of step with them, my friend, not the other way around.
Visit The Scratching Post!
We had one year under Bush that featured huge discretionary spending increases, and that as when Daschle was leading the Senate and we had some 9/11 improvements to make.
In other words: it was the Democrats.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.