Like this:
Obama said the near-unanimous Republican opposition, after all his
meetings with GOP legislators, would not discourage him from reaching
out again on other issues. "Going forward, each and every time we've
got an initiative, I am going to go to both Democrats and Republicans
and I'm going to say, 'Here is my best argument for why we need to do
this. I want to listen to your counterarguments, if you've got better
ideas, present them, we will incorporate them into any plans that we
make and we are willing to compromise on certain issues that are
important to one side or the other in order to get stuff done,'" he
said.[...] And if he keeps reaching out, he
Yet while promising to continue to seek peace with congressional
speculated, Republicans may face "some countervailing pressures" from
the public "to work in a more constructive way." White House aides
suggest that regardless of how congressional Republicans react on
upcoming issues, Obama will pursue alliances with Republican governors
and Republican-leaning business groups and leaders.
Republicans, Obama also made clear he's prepared for the alternative.
"I am an eternal optimist [but] that doesn't mean I'm a sap," he said
pointedly.
[...]In such comments, and his remarks about his willingness to work with or
without Republican support in Congress, Obama may be revealing much
about his conception of leadership. He was insistent that a president's
responsibility is to resist the daily (if not hourly) scorekeeping of
the modern political and media system and keep his eye on the horizon.
"My job is to help the country take the long view," he said. Obama
portrayed himself as willing to consider a broad range of perspectives
for responding to the country's daunting problems.
Such a difference from Bush, but different also from Clinton, as well as 40 and 41. Ideological, but not rigidly so. Pragmatic above all else. Persistent and goal oriented. And his actions (oddly, for DC) seem to match his rhetoric. His Red state/Blue state lines were great on the stump, and his constant paeans to post-partisanship sounds great. Geez, is it possible he actually meant it?!?! He took the strange tactical step of including tax cuts in the stimulus bill before they were necessary concessions. He put Lieberman back in the Democratic caucus. He has put three republicans and his most dangerous rival in his cabinet. He let Gregg insist on a Republican replacement when he accepted the Commerce spot. And in the face of unanimous obstruction in the Congress, he declines to lash out at or threaten the dead-enders, but rather promises to try to work with them more on other issues.
Now I admit I wish he was more partisan, and I wish he was a barn-burning progressive driving a hard left-wing agenda. I think that is what will serve America best. His centrism and caution frustrates me just a bit. But I just can't help admire his approach and his leadership, and I wonder if, in the end, this sort of president might not just accomplish the same ends and maybe even succeed in bringing the right-wing a bit closer back to sanity at the same time...
4 comments:
I like him and am encouraged so far, but I wonder how bipartisan the work on the stimulus package was. I get the feeling it was put together very quickly by Democrats, presented to Republicans as done, and Obama went and visited them and said, "See, aren't I friendly to you, now vote for my bill."
Refraining from showing loathing of the opposition is not bipartisan.
Josh,
I don't know about the House bill or process -- the minority does tend to get more steamrolled in that chamber. In the Senate, there was a full debate and lots of amendments were introduced by republicans. Many GOP amendments were approved, and the sponsoring senators voted against the bill anyway. Compare to the Delay-Frist era when the GOP majority used procedural rules to prevent the Dems from even introducing amendments. And again, remember that Obama put tax cuts -- a republican priority -- in the bill from the very beginning. The GOP has never taken such a step when they were in control.
So I don't know what "bipartisan" means. It doesn't mean unanimity, or that the minority gets to take the lead in crafting the agenda. That's not realistic. I believe that what just took place was far more "bipartisan" than anything we ever saw in the Bush-Delay-Frist era, and so I view this as an improvement.
There are a number of real impediments to bipartisanship in the Congress. After the last two elections, there are very very few moderates left in the GOP, and the hard-right elements of the party are the least interested in collaborating with the democrats. Also, the GOP leadership seems to have made a rational decision that they have the most to gain by being an opposing party. If they sign on to Obama's plan, and it works, they will not get the credit or be rewarded in the ballot box, so better to oppose, hope for failure, and run against him in 2010. If that is their strategy, no matter how hard Obama reaches out to them, there is not going to be "bipartisanship" in DC. You need two sides interested in cooperation for that, and if the GOP doesn't want to play ball, it is not Obama's fault.
If that is their strategy, no matter how hard Obama reaches out to them, there is not going to be "bipartisanship" in DC. You need two sides interested in cooperation for that, and if the GOP doesn't want to play ball, it is not Obama's fault.
And Obama is already making a run around them on this by working with Republican governors. Also, the bill is a centrist bill--different from bipartisan--but it had bipartisan support from the electorate.
OK, I'm convinced it was a genuine attempt. And I like Jim's point that centrist is different from bipartisan.
Someone mentioned that they thought it was a mistake for Obama to put the tax cuts in there at the beginning, leaving the Republicans nothing big to bargain for. Could be.
Post a Comment