Next post
What exactly does Obama mean when he says he wants Washington to be more bipartisan? Well, it means that conservatives need to keep their damn mouths shut, give up all their principles, and happily go along with everything the Democrats do. Then, and only then, will you be lauded as “bipartisan”. Luckily, Barack Obama is giving us a handy two-step formula to get us on our way to being truly bipartisan.
Step one: stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.
“There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats,” the official said. “We shouldn’t let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done.”
Step two: make sure we never forget that we lost.
In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: “I won,” according to aides briefed on the meeting.
“I will trump you on that.”
See? Don’t you wish you could be mature like Barack Obama? Don’t you wish you could have such deep and undying respect for the opinions of others even if you disagree, like Barack Obama does? And hey, it’s good for us right, because everyone knows that when conservatives start listening to Rush, we become mindless zombies who are incapable of doing anything besides standing there listlessly with blank stares on our faces, mindlessly moaning “GOD. GUNS. RUSH. GOD. GUNS. RUSH. GOD. GUNS. RUSH.” Actually getting work done is completely out of the question.
And hey, it’s all good. The Obamamessiah will save us from this nightmare, because we don’t know what’s good for us, after all. So here he comes with the Fairness Doctrine to save us from those mind control monsters like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
It’s funny, too, because when Bush was in office, the cry we heard over and over again was that dissent was the highest form of patriotism.
Not when Barack Obama’s the President.
Unfortunately for President Obama, he’s intellectually out of his league. Rush hit him back with a zinger (emphasis mine).
There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.
… To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.
Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn’t Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn’t they have to buy the new furnishings? What’s the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet’s office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That’s fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.
The ball’s in Obama’s court now, but surely he’ll rise above this petty bipartisan politicizing of an economic crisis. Obama will save us, and all he asks in return is our unquestioning loyalty and devotion.
Unfortunately for Obama, us conservatives will probably just go on listening to Rush and thinking for ourselves.
Hat Tip: Ace of Spades
epobirs says: Bipartisan is a euphemism for “bend over, relax, and try to enjoy it.”
What I found particularly interesting about the Post piece was the idea of bipartisanship. In one part, the messiah wants to reach out, and later on, the Post writer talks about unrivalled party rule in Congress. The writer is right, of course. The Republicans are literally marginalized. One cannot be bipartisan and have virtual total control of the government. It smacks of phoniness. And that’s exactly what the Messiah is when he talks about unity. He’s phony. There’s no doubt that we saw the real Obama with those two quotes in the Post piece and I’m sure it won’t be the last that we see.
Lee says: You can think any way you please, as long as it’s the way I believe as well- *rolleyes*
Baz says: “Bipartisan is a euphemism for “bend over, relax, and try to enjoy it.””
Well, we know that’s how Bush meant it. But this is *way* more bipartisanship than we ever saw out of Bush, and he never got the overwhelming vote that Obama did.
I guess we’re learning that elections have consequences. When you get rebuked like Repubs did in the last election, they should be glad to get consulted at all. So much for that “permanent Republican majority” thing.
Of course, the Republican counter-proposal was so weak that even reputable conservative economists aren’t line up behind it. There’s disagreeing, and then there’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I’m not entirely happy with the current House bill, either. Too much wasteful pandering, but I’ll hold judgment until the final version comes around.
spike says: baz…’this is *way* more bipartisanship than we ever saw out of bush, and he never got the overwhelming vote that obama did’..what a load of intellectually dishonest horse manure! all we have heard from obama(pbuh), pelosi, and reid has been ‘we won, so shut up and obey’…this new administration was publicly claiming in november that they were ready to ‘rule from day one’…not ‘serve’, not ‘govern’, not ‘lead’, but ‘rule’…the most immediate example of bipartisanship during the bush administration was the votes by both parties in both houses of congress to go to war in iraq and afghanistan. a few other things for the arrongant would-be ‘rulers’ need to keep in mind? first, they won a majority, NOT a ‘unanimity’…every republican elected to congress represents a portion of the electorate that repudiates the big government permanent crushing debt schemes of the kumbayah leftists, and as time goes on, they will be joined in opposition by those moderates facing buyer’s remorse.
second, there are congressional elections are coming up next year; if the economy is not ‘fixed’, in the opinion of the taxpayers, expect a far different makeup in the house, and tougher sledding for obama(pbuh) in the senate…if he continues his ego driven policies of class warfare, talking down the economy, ignoring our national security, and playing verbal kissyface with scum like hamas and iran, he will go the way of his hero dhimmy carter in 2012
baz says: Obama has already made a lot of concessions in the stimulus package to the Repub leadership, and got zero votes for it. Bipartisanship is a two-way street.
Sorry you’re not feeling enough kumbaya. How much kumbaya do you need exactly before we can call it “bipartisanship?”
Keep talking about “class warfare.” Please. It lends you *so* much credibility, what with the middle class feeling very ignored for the past eight years.
Cylar says: Obama has already made a lot of concessions in the stimulus package to the Repub leadership, and got zero votes for it. Bipartisanship is a two-way street.
Do you have any actual, substantive examples to back this claim? Oh, and getting the Republicans’ input on what color the tablecloth ought to be, doesn’t count.
The GOP didn’t vote for this piece of trash because it spends too much money at a time when all levels of government are experiencing a cash crunch (we’re looking at a deficit north of $1 trillion this year) and it will not even have the intended effect anyway. What part of that evades your understanding?
Sorry you’re not feeling enough kumbaya. How much kumbaya do you need exactly before we can call it “bipartisanship?”
Maybe doing something other than merely paying lip service to the other party’s ideals? Actually allowing them to write the bill (like Bush allowed Ted Kennedy to do with No Child Left Behind, for example) or gathering (and then using) substantive input?
Writing the bill without such input, then asking them to vote for it, does not count as “bipartisanship.”
Keep talking about “class warfare.” Please. It lends you *so* much credibility, what with the middle class feeling very ignored for the past eight years.
Ok, we’ll keep talking. We’ll keep talking about how countless members of the middle class were put back to work after the 2003 tax cuts, and how the economy was generally roaring along fine until Pelosi and Reid got into power and promptly destroyed our economy with a housing crisis, a credit crisis, and $4/gallon gas.
What is it with you left-wingers? Why do you charge onto conservative blogs with the inane idea that you’re going to straighten us out? If we thought your idiotic notions of tax increases, soaking the rich, endless regulations on business, sacrificing the economy on the altar of environmental extremism, and confiscating all the guns….if we that had any merit, wouldn’t we already be voting like you?
Seriously man…GET LOST.
Baz says: Obama and Dems agreed to roughly 2/3 of the tax cuts that the GOP had been pushing for, and cut several spending programs at GOP’s request, including family planning funding. All in all, the GOP got almost half of what it asked for.
Ted Kennedy did not write NCLB. And his support for NCLB was contingent on fully funding the program, which the white house failed to do.
Two things about commenting on blogs:
1. Starting conversations like this is a blog’s reason for being. If you don’t want conversation, maybe a newsletter is more your style.
2. An untested idea is shouting in the wilderness. If you and I don’t listen to opposing points of view, and test ideas against them, it’s all just an exercise in self-congratulation. If you’re unwilling to test your ideas, then maybe you already know that your ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny.
That said, I see a lot of stuff here that is either factually untrue or a caricature of the facts. For example, I think you are completely alone in thinking that the economy was “roaring” before the housing crisis. Unemployment numbers, GDP numbers, interest rates, deficit spending, and the lowest average pay rates in 30 years when adjusted for inflation all point to economic malaise.
9 Comments