Getty Images
Looking back at Barack Obama's message from four years ago, one of the more common messages he pushed was a deeply-held desire to govern in a bipartisan way. As a candidate, he spoke extensively about reaching across the aisle, working in good faith, and bringing people with different ideologies together in a spirit of shared values and common purpose.
We now know those efforts fell far short, and I suspect there will be some voters who are disappointed, hoping that Obama would have had more success in at least narrowing the partisan divide. But that's all the more reason to understand why bipartisanship in the Obama era has proven to be impossible.
Obama made several moves early on that suggested he was sincere. The president put Republicans in high-ranking administration positions; he expressed a willingness to compromise; and he pursued an agenda that was moderate and mainstream, embracing ideas on health care, energy, and immigration that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan backing.
In November 2008, shortly after the election, the Weekly Standard ran a piece with a list of steps Obama could take to prove that he's serious about bipartisan governing. The president took most of the steps on the list.
But what about congressional Republicans? Robert Draper has a new book coming out, which shines a light on a private meeting "top Republican lawmakers and strategists" held, literally the same day as Obama's inauguration.
According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). [...]
[T]he book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform. "If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority," Draper quotes McCarthy as saying. "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."
Together, they sketched out a plan over the course of four hours: attack Tim Geithner, show "unyielding opposition" to every economic proposal, launch early attack ads targeting vulnerable Democrats. The GOP leaders left their meeting "almost giddily."
As Jamelle Bouie explained, "In other words, there was nothing President Obama could have done to build common ground with Republicans. From the beginning, the plan was to relentlessly obstruct Obama, regardless of whether that was good for the country The GOP's high-minded rhetoric of compromise and bipartisanship was bunk."
With this in mind, for all that is good and holy in this world, can we please stop pretending that "both sides" are to blame for the failure of the parties to cooperate in Washington?
Leave a Comment:
Wow, all of those liars in the same area, I'm surprised the room didn't stink forever after..
I guess it might have taken Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham to really push the fumes permanently into the furniture..
Obama was after all, a non-white male, of course he never stood a chance!
If it were strictly racism... remember they did the same thing to Jimmy Carter... we wouldn't have seen it before.
I read it as temper tantrum. Remember the history of the Republican party has been to align with big business, and the 'follow the money' line still works. The men in that room had been well paid to support their donors' interests. Obama had campaigned for the little guy- and that is what could not stand.
I think it was being in a "War against Islamic Terror" and the Republicans profound embarrassment at losing to a candidate with an Islamic name. I believe this embarrassment is far more powerful an emotion than garden variety racism.
And I think the Republican is still in denial of their insanely stupid choice of the Wasilla Hillbilly for VP and America not wanting her anywhere near Washington. I was keeping an open mind who to vote for till she was added to the ticket. After her addition voting for the Republican was unthinkable.
While I'm sure there is an element of racism in *some* Republicans, probably damned few, I believe the real problems are the Right Wings embarrassment at losing to Hussein coupled with the Right Wings refusal to accept defeat and their own mistakes that led to that defeat.
Bet President Clinton wouldn't agree!
He knew how to work with the worst of them
Record-setting cloture motions didn't happen under Clinton.
Because Bill Clinton had the "good grace" to be WHITE! Racist pigs....
Red herrings are fun aren't they FDH?
Red herrings =/= valid representations of hypocrisy on the left
Sighs
Mouzer, please educate
I know I'm asking a really stupid question, but what is a Red Herring? I never quite understood the meaning or application to a conversation. I can't tell if you are slamming me or agreeing with what I said....lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
I'm not necessarily slamming you, but rather am trying to point out that your comment doesn't end up proving the point that you're trying to prove.
In your attempt to try to label both parties the same you end up making a fallacy w/ your reasoning which ends up just making your argument weaker. Your argument could otherwise be valid, but you end up diluting it's validity by your eagerness to prove the point. It's sort've shooting yourself in the foot.
When you bring Clinton into the issue when Clinton wasn't the issue you end up not making the point you wanted to make (which is that both parties are filled w/....let's just say less than reputable people). It's OK for you to state this, but when you make it the premise to which you are counter-arguing then the premise becomes flawed.
Although, ftr, I realize you were also making a statement in jest. I was somewhat cranky this morning so you got the bad end of my mood. Sorry =)
Mouzer - Now I feel really stupid. I pretty much didn't understand a word you wrote...lol
My point is: A great negotiator, like Prez Clinton, who had his own intense evils to deal with, including the likes of stanch Repubs like Newt Gingrich, was able to accomplish great feats, not the least of which was balancing the budget, by reaching across the hall and working with the opposing party. Making excuses for the current President doesn't solve the problems of the country, and I believe President Clinton would agree.
I really am confused how this applies to the both parties are the problem (which I do believe) argument.
BTW: I still wouldn't be able to use the phrase "red herring" in a sentence confidently.......goes right over my head...lol
Even more to the point is keeping our eye on the big prize. The brass ring in this case is a working government. Whether or not it's Prez Obama's fault, which in my opinion is a moot issue, do we really want a President that can only work with one party or the other?
No we do not. The point I was making wasn't that you are necessarily wrong- it was that the premise w/ which you were arguing your point was faulty. When you present a faulty premise or a faulty conclusion (or both) it belittles your argument. I was stating that you otherwise could've made your point, but you chose to do so in the least logical way possible. I realize, however, that you were mostly doing that for humor. So to that extent I usually lay off. But like I said I was cranky. That's not really an excuse- really I normally don't rag on people whom I perceive as using humor (since humor is intentionally meant to be simplistic and illogical). But cranky mickey doesn't always read into comments w/ light-heartedness. So to that extent I am sorry. Was just trying to say it makes your point so much stronger when you avoid the weak points and go for the strong points.
Half the problem- or at least it seems this way to me- in communication between ideologies seems to be the fact that we have a communication error. It's like liberals are women and conservatives are men and we're in a failing marriage (the current state of our government) and we just keep yelling past one another and never really talking and listening. Take this as my attempt to try to provide counseling on how to express your wants and needs in a way that doesn't piss your wife off automatically ;-)
good point
Can you imagine what the media narrative would be right now if the positions were reversed? Can you imagine what the media would be saying about Democrats in congress if they had publicly stated that their primary goal was to hamstring a Republican president? Can you imagine what the media would be saying if Democrats decided to sabotage the economy for the sole purpose to damage the reelection chances of a Republican president? Can you imagine the headlines if Democrats had held the economy hostage and caused a credit downgrade...and then cheered? Can you imagine the stories if a Democratic Congress, elected on the notion of creating jobs, had failed to provide a single jobs bill eight months after taking office?
It's doubtful that the media would be blaming the Republican president. And it's doubtful that the media would be offering the popular meme of both sides do it.
Yep.
Traitors!
UnAmerican!
Treasonous!
IMPEACH!
Except that THEY DIDN'T! And isn't that really the point. Democrats didn't do things like this. ..."With this in mind, for all that is good and holy in this world, can we please stop pretending that 'both sides' are to blame for the failure of the parties to cooperate in Washington?"
"With this in mind, for all that is good and holy in this world, can we please stop pretending that 'both sides' are to blame for the failure of the parties to cooperate in Washington?"
Both sides ARE to blame but differently, Democrats for being such incompetents. Republicans would never be able to pull off their crimes if it were not for Democratic quislings.
They paid Draper money to write a book stating the obvious. I read authors who tell me something I don't know so I think I will pass on Draper's book, but I would commend it to professional "both parties do it" reporters everywhere. I am looking at you David Gregory and Chuck Todd.
Ron, you are right... but what we have here is a 'perfect storm' funded by the Koch Bros.
The Tea Party may have recruited some honest folk, but Rachel's term (or where I heard it first) of "Astro-turf" sums it up.
Our media-savvy team at Maddow & Co... (I"ll include Harris-Perry, Hayes, O'Donnell, former co-hort Oberman...) have held everyone's feet to the fire by dredging up the footage of their lies, and because we have the computer geeks in the production rooms, these days-- the pivots and the pandering are caught on tape. God love smart phones... no escape is possible anymore.
Draper did state the obvious, but he got 'em with their own words, and so hoisted them on their own petards... for which, I thank him.
Mr. Todd... bless him... is like most of us. What he doesn't want to hear, what breaks his 'view' of "the way things oughtta be" are discarded into the edit file. I can't speak to his 'mental state', but he has to be heart sick over the depths to which our leadership has sunk to maintain the illusion. Rather than employ his team (I assume he has one; I don't know how else they manage the development of the shows) to do the kind of research and development we see from Maddow & Co. he has chosen to go with the talking heads--
Rather than present fact, it is a series of opinions, and while it may line up supporters and detractors, it ain't 'journalism'... it's a cheering section.
Sorry, short term memory lose lap here, crap. Did I let the dog out ?
The public already knows that the Republicans have opposed everything Obama tried to do. So the question is how to present this to voters during this election cycle. Obama needs a Dem Congress to get anything done because we cannot afford another 4 years of gridlock and this can be the message to voters.
Label them as the Grand Obstructionist Party.
I think that is what got the president elected, the attempt to work together for the good of the nation, but rejected by GOP to force negativity and deep partisanship instead. Hope for change was smugly swatted down, going against the people is what they do and dress it up in sound bytes.
Fascinating report. I've often said it's rarely a good idea to second-guess your gut feeling, because it's the correct one far more often than not. Case in point.
The "liberal" media has relentlessly pushed a narrative that Obama had failed to achieve his bipartisan goals. This despite the fact that a very high profile interview in the Times with McConnell early in Obama's administration where he quite openly said his caucus would be a unified front against every Obama initiative.
From that moment on, any article written about negotiations between Obama and republicans that failed to start with that obvious point was journalistic malpractice. Which means that every article written has been journalistic malpractice. This was not a hidden conspiracy. This was quite out in the open. From nearly the very beginning.
why is sooo hard to communicate with msnbc
Look at Mr Turtle on the right side of that picture. He's afraid ole Cantor is getting the Cooties!
waiting for the talking heads to quit pretending that both sides are equally at fault is going to take a helluva long time. ferreting out the truth requires thought, something as rigorous for these self-impressed ciphers as running a marathon would be for a couch potato. if those able to name the last four presidents find the task too onerous, what change is there for the dimwits who populate the sbc churches and proudly pro-claim themselves 'ditto-heads'?
You can keep waiting, but please don't hold your breath.
The only people who could be foolish enough to entertain the thought that Republicans would consider the needs of the country over prospects for gaining power and at the expense of the needs of the country would be Democrats too stupid, unobservant, and naive to remember the last 20 years. You know, Democrats like Obama who was too enamored of his self-image and history of the ways he got things done in the Illinois legislature and his political team who were too invested in the story they were telling of their candidate. I still marvel at the level of cluelessness it took of Obama and his team to believe Republicans were in the government to help the government with the nation's governing and problems rather than to get rid of the government they infested. Republican goals remain the same to this day and they will remain their goals. SMMFH. It's just beyond belief everyone in the world doesn't understand this by now.
They deserve credit for at least trying like ADULTS to pacify the children they've been forced to work with. Despite evidence to the contrary, we still are trying to maintain a semblance of democracy. Democrats simply do not think the same way republicans do, and thank God for that. If we're ever to re-gain our moral footing as a country, that really is the only way it can happen.
Acting like adults would require that they recognize the truth of the situation instead of being so infatuated with a false and manufactured self-image. It's been all-too-abundantly clear for two decades what's going on. No excuse for this incompetency.
Wow, Disgusted, it's just too bad they didn't ask your opinion in the first place. How nice of you to described them in such gentle and positive words.
Perhaps if President Obama hadn't been so successful in Illinois he would have been more chary. To call it "clueless" and "infatuated with his self-image" is to ignore his successses and his hopes for the best. No one, and I mean no one ever expected the Republicans to throw the whole country under the bus in their petty snit for losing the election. Most of the citizens of this country thought there might really be a chance with an honest effort to heal wounds.
Thanks for damning the President with your ugly put-downs of his good try. You need to do something about your resentment and anger. . .you sound like a Republican. Too busy hating everyone to do any good for anyone. IMHO
John Adams was right. Political parties produce allegiance to political parties over country. Power corrupts and this is the evidence of that.
Neil
I wasn't John Adams warned about political parties. It was George Washington.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty." — George Washington, September 19, 1796
The thing that angers me the most about all of this is Obama had a chance to absolutely crush the stupid right ideas that had held the country in a choke hold since Reagan, and he instead chose to treat these traitors as honest partners in helping solve the problems they created with their prima facie idiocy.
Now look where we are: fighting to defend the entire 20th century of progress against the barbarians at the gate who are nothing more or better than the Southern Confederacy.
We're could have been completely rid of those sorry-ass bastards.
How in the hell could you come to a conclusion like that?
WHAT?
I would like for you to explain how Obama could have crushed "...the stupid right ideas...." when he never really had a congressional mandate. Do not forget the Franken episode in Minnesota, the untimely death of Kennedy, and the reluctance of the Blue Dog Democrats. At best, this task was nigh impossible from the get go. The blatant obstructionism of the right is mind boggling - and they do it with impunity - and get away with it. Seems I recall some statesman saying that no one ever lost money underestimating the whims of the American public.
@dbtexas,
I've been telling people about the Frankein thing and Kennedy's death for months.
On election night [well sometime after it] we had 60 votes, so we had 60 votes for 24 months. Oops no, just what? 3 or 4 months. Who knew? Worse, who remembers?
"With this in mind, for all that is good and holy in this world, can we please stop pretending that 'both sides' are to blame for the failure of the parties to cooperate in Washington?"
Asking nicely isn't going to cut it. People are going to have to go after reporters who are guilty of false equivalence and brand them as the blatant partisans they are. There has to be negative consequences for this type of malfeasance.
The print media understand one thing and one thing only: subscriptions. Everytime I cancel a subscription I tell them 1) I regret I have to do it, 2) I will no longer be able to support financially any media publication that does not have the will, reporter expertise, courage of their convictions to do anything other than stenography and provide a forum for lies which are asymetrical, 3) Treats science as a political debate.
I urge everyone to do the same. If the media is not going to contribute to a better understanding of current events, and instead, provides aid and comfort to those who wish to provide, not another way of interpreting objective facts, but a false reality, then that media deservedly needs to die.
Included in my cancellations are the NYT and my hometown daily. There will be more.
Not only that; because for every report of false equivalence, there is likely to be some support from the owners/managers of those reporters. For the reporters to change, there need to be ten or more negative strokes for every positive stroke they are getting from their corporate masters. More importantly, their advertisers need to see a drop in revenues because folks have stopped watching their shows before they advertise somewhere else. We need to talk by calling these reporters out, but we also need to talk with our money, because that's what they really hear.
I'm sure that Fox Gossip & Fake News Channel or the tea party channel (CNN) wont be doing any special segments on this plot to take over our government.If they do it will be with a republican "guest" debunking what actually went down,and they will let him/her go on and on with no questions asked.
Probably the worst thing was Obama did was treating Lieberman respectfully instead of kicking him out the door when he had the chance.
Lieberman's bad -- VERY bad -- but that's not even close to the worst thing Obama did. It doesn't matter now. We all better damn well hope Obama wins again, and work our asses off to make sure it happens. And if he does, try to make sure he does what he should have done the first time around, and that is to impugn and ignore Republicans to the maximum extent possible. Republicans have no business having any say in responsible governance.
The question is now that reality is public and the American Taliban has no clothes but those of racism what will the President do? i have no expectations whatsoever.
President Obama will probably be the gentleman he always has been, acting with the knowledge that regardless who is opposing him or what they are saying, he is responsible to all of us as citizens of the United States of America.
While I would love to see him kick some fanny, it wouldn't bring him any closer to getting this country back to health. Thank God he is smarter than either me or DisgustedWithItAll.
I have to agree with all of the folks who have pointed out that these "revelations" aren't really surprising at all -- of course, the opposition party's goal is to get back power, and Republicans are certainly well-practiced at working towards that goal with vicious, unprincipled determination. That said, however ... it's easy to forget just what a mess the economy was in when Obama took power. In those circumstances, with the global economy in free-fall, another Great Depression imminent, it's not unreasonable to expect even the most hardcore partisan to set aside ideology for a little while to get things stabilized. And the Republicans did not live up to that simple expectation. They are disgraceful.
Well said!
I am surprised that a bigger deal of this situation is not being made by law enforcement!
By definition this is nothing less than treason!
According to Encarta's on-line dictionary "treason" is: a betrayal of country. a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy (both foreign or domestic).
If these elected official have not violated the allegiance they owed the American people when they swore their oath, I do not know who has! To think that they have obstructed job growth in this country just because they oppose the President for some unknown reason is beyond me. In addition, because of their obstructionism, many American families have lost everything! Jobs, Homes, Health, etc.
They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!
Just because they hate government and apparently the entire structure of democracy doesn't excuse them from performing their jobs. They get elected talking about jobs and budget, then we get nothing but anti woman legislation to restrict freedom and cut jobs, appointed emergency managers, toss out contract agreements and block everything to make the president seem like he didn't do enough, fast enough.
Yes, they are betraying their country, especially when they say we will shut down government and not extend debt ceiling. The job of Congress is to appropriate funds to pay our bills. Because you don't like the debt doesn't mean you can say I'm not paying my bills and credit rating be damned. Seems like they are trying to overthrow the government, not serve and protect the Constitution.
Seems like it because they are. If there is any other outcome to Republican politics I'd like to know. We can never tax-cut our way to prosperity, never deregulate our way to prosperity, never wedge-issue our way to prosperity. Never.
They have no intent in doing so, directly demonstrated by their signing the Norquist pledge not to raise taxes and indirectly by their continual and gross errors in American founding documents and events.
I guess I am trying to be too polite for some people, but still we agree.
Barack Obama has done a lousy job because he's a lousy leader. Jimmie Carter comes to mind. Obama is a preacher not a president and I sincerely hope that the citzens of this country do not buy his rant.
I would encourage you to share something to back up your statements, like a link to a credible source of information, perhaps?
Like maybe this one which completely negates your premise?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116
My, my, apparently DisgustedWithItAll - is!
It's all the President's fault! It's right there in Article II, Section 2: "He shall have Power..." See, he does have the power to bring back the unicorns and cotton candy trees, or whatever else there may be in Disgusted's fevered imagination. And, as there aren't any unicorns or cotton candy trees or whatever, it must be Obama's fault!
I dunno, makes as much sense as Disgusted's rant...
Of course the citizenry of this country, and their elected representatives, have had absolutely nothing to do with bringing this country to its' current state of affairs. Absolutely nothing! Big corporations? Powerless. Opposition party dedicated to destroying this administration? Pussy cats! Nope. it's all Obama's fault!
Get real, Disgusted!
Ms maddow, I must say, that enjoy your show, very mush. But lets stop beating around.
There is a new political party in this country, called the republican communist party. Thay are taking away our civil rights. not only from the people of color, but the poor. Did mitt, buy the ovens used in ww2. Because if he didn't, how will he get rid of all the dead poor people, and people of color? Or, Is he going to send the live vicums of his evil doings to the frozen lands of the USSR. We, the poor people , need to know this
cont. the 13 colonies fought the first rev. war over this very same reason. So the people must prepare for the second, which is comming. Anerica was once the land of the free.
now it's the land of the rich, and ONLY the rich. After thay have killed off the poor and the people of color, thay will have a former country in ruin
It is my hope that the corporate powerful will realize that taking down instead of retaining middle income, building up poor and people of color to middle or better income affects their bottom line. I know they wield power over government, even if I don't want them to, that is reality. They tend to herd together with their "policies", but I hope the realization doesn't come too late, or we will have hungry angry mobs and they will get the police or military to kill them. Sorta like Libya, etc. Only in our case, instead of Qaddafi autocracy, we have "corporatocracy/plutocracy".
We seem to be turning away from democracy into assigned leadership through corporate and wealthy organizing their massive wealth by tapping into taxpayer money, religious fears and amassing money toward creating a faux democratic system.
No. Bipartisanship was never on the table, the authoritarians got people to trust them to do what's best for us (themselves). The people elected these folks, thinking they give a damn about their lack of jobs and started yammering on about the debt they created, but blame Democrats and the President. Make people hate the president with lies. Telling folks that they have to cut everything or we are doomed. We can fix it and do not have to destroy and start over. The Republicans want to take down what took decades to build up and convincing people they will turn it around, but they just keep destroying, it's what they do. Romney thinks that we should do nothing while foreclosures continue and jobs and wages are cut. Tax cuts and deregulate, really? That's it? That's how all this got started.
I do not want economy to fail, I just think they set the table for themselves, but forget that part about consumers and employees contribute to their success.
Ms maddow, equality in america, never was a part of our ways. In the 50's we had a govenor appointed by then Pres Ike, and his first bill he tried to pull of was to close parts of hawaii to whites only, no to people of color. now thay are doing it again to the entire country. The republican communist party wants america to fail. So as to dismantel it and sell it off, to the lowest bidder GWB has begun this, by sell some of america to China. What country, will "the Mitt" sell the rest to?