Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
Actually, ratbastid, it's not as unusual as you might think. I could give you examples, starting with McCain-Feingold, but there's also stuff where, say, Hatch and Kennedy (who are good friends) worked together. It's not that unusual to go issue by issue to build coalitions. That's how stuff gets done. The stark partisan splits tend to be on "hot button" high-visibility questions, and I really doubt that will change. So I do dispute that Obama's politics is a new phenomenon - he is just extremely good at articulating his vision, and he does it in an appealing way. Look, can we agree he is an extremely talented and attractive politician? I just don't think he is much more than that.
|
loquitor....I would suggest that the examples you gave of bi-partisanship have been the exception rather than the rule.
The "bi-partisan split", especially as initiated by the Republicans, goes far beyond the "hot-button, high visibility" issues.
Examples? How about the
Hastert rule of the former Speaker of the House, which effectively prevented bi=partisanship.
Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.
BTW,
Pelosi has no such policy. If there was a "Pelosi rule" which requried support by the "majority of the majority" the House would not have passed many of the Iraq funding bills without some limitations or mandates on Bush.
Or the
delaying tactics by the Republicans in the Senate to block even debate on proposed legislation.
This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.
The Democrats used such tactics far less often when in the minority.
Not to completely exonerate the Democrats, but for the last 20+ years, they have been far more willing to compromise and seek workable bi-partisan majorities than the Republicans.
But then I am a partisan.