Isn't pretty much anything that comes out of the mouth of a Republican these days pretty much at odds with reality?

lamar alexander -- what a goofball a hillybilly aristocrat is... the clampetts aint got nothin' on lamar

Back in college, a liberal friend from Nashville told me that Lamar Alexander was a moderate, reasonable Republican. I believe he was governor of Tennessee at the time. I don't know his history, what the issues were, but I'd be willing to bet that Lamar! is a lot different than he was in the '90s, much less in the '60s. My recollection is that he was found to insufficiently pure by the hard right in '96. He's become one of the nastiest, most partisan GOPers in the Senate.

But towards the end of the piece, we get a familiar argument that isn't improving with time.

Typical Sheryl Gay Stolberg. There isn't a single Republican line of bullshit that she won't carry water for.

Speaking of health care and agendas, Robert Reich has a harsh assessment of the Obama administration:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-reform-is-critically.html

half a century ago, there were dixiecrat and liberal republican senators. neither category exists anymore, so discussing how civil rights legislation was finally passed in an era that has no relevance to today is exceptionally dishonest.

and a southerner should know that.

It's worth pointing out that until the Republicans start having substantive offerings to bring to the debate, any concessions made to them will simply make Democrat-driven bills weaker. We've seen this already with the stimulus bill. The Dems threw in a lot of crap that made the bill weaker than it needed to be (helllllo long-term unemployment for the masses!) and tax cuts & shit, to please the Republicans, who shunned it anyway. The end result is that the bill is what it should have been, and any blame for its shortcomings rests with Democrats.

Also, again, it might be worth pointing out that Republicans seem to have collectively lost their minds. They're acting like spoiled children throwing tantrums. A moderate to right Republican isn't crazy enough for them? BURN HER AT THE STAKE!!!

Why would anyone want to work with people like that? Especially when they've gone on record that they're sole agenda right now is bringing Obama down.

You can reach the NYT author, Robert Pear, at:

202-862-0344

I just called and suggested that he make a better effort at reporting the administration's efforts at bipartisanship.

"Now, the opposition party is supposed to oppose the majority's agenda."
Steve, we have told you over and over why that Villager-style trope is false and destructive. No, it is the job of the "opposition" (really, *competition* in the business sense) to best serve the national interest (and yes, "constituents") in the terms of their perspective (like more limited government, or out-come based use of government instead.) Please quit saying this rubbish over and over.

"Now, the opposition party is supposed to oppose the majority's agenda. There's nothing especially wrong with that." GAAAA! Steve, what Neil B said.

It is the job of the opposition party to act in the national interest. If the GOP thinks stopping HCR is in the national interest, they should say so explicitly. If not, they should offer constructive alternatives. They have not done so, so quit with the "supposed to oppose" meme.

I agree with Neil B. The competition between the parties is not a game; the national interest is supposed to be paramount for legislators of both parties. The current GOP 'obstruct everything' attitude is lethal to civil discourse and it needs to be changed.

The GOP needs to come to grips with its position and find ways to influence legislation; they should not be taken seriously until they make constructive efforts at finding common ground. They are simply unwilling to compromise; they fear the Becks and Limbaughs more than they desire to serve the interests of their constituents. Beck and Limbaugh act as if their job is to oppose all Obama initiatives, but that thinking is destructive. That attitude doesn't serve the GOP well and it doesn't serve our nation well.

If only Obama the Dums were less bipartisan, we'd have change we can believe in.

Well you have to remember the Republicans definition of Bipartisanship is Date Rape. So to be bipartisan you just have to abdicate your values, positions and point of view and you'll get a bipartisan bill. Piece of cake.

I also agree with NeilB, but unfortunately the competition between political parties does seem to be just a game, and the press only wants to report on it that way. They also think that "bipartisanship" must be a trait only exhibited by Democrats; Republican partisanship is OK because they're Republicans.

The ultimate irony of Alexander's false analogy between the civil rights legislation and today's political landscape is that it was in fact the passage of civil rights legislation that engendered the kind of win at all costs, hyperpartisan, politics that we have today. In fact, it was the democrats under Johnson that broke ranks and supported civil rights against the dixiecrats that made civil rights legislation possible. The paring of northern liberal democrats and repulicans made civil rights legislation possible. In retaliation, most dixiecrats became republicans and republican moderates and liberals were purged from the party over the next 50 years until now the number of moderate republicans is in the single digits. Moderation in the republican party is basically a target on a members back for a primary from a far right candidate. See NY 23 for the latest instance of this...Now the Repiglican party is centered in the old confederacy, full of former segregationalists and other rabid right wingers.

After Democrats bent over backwards, compromised and made multiple concessions to please their counter-parts and in return got a big fat F-you for their efforts is partisan, then what the hell constitutes bi-partisanship?

If what Lamar is referring to as a bi-partisan effort apparently forgot that during the 1950s and 1960s Southern senators used the filibuster (which required 2/3rds or 70 senators rather than the 60 required today) to effectively kill civil rights and voting rights legislation. It wasn't until 1965 when LBJ somehow managed to overcome that hurdle successfully passed civil rights laws.

It was a time,too, when senators were more congenial and acted more like dignified statesmen rather than the childish, immature overbearing boors they've become. And also entertained moderate and "liberal" progressive ideas which clearly is not the case today.

I realize Americans are afflicted with ADD, so expecting them to re_member what happened decades ago might be asking too much ... but if Lamar is going use a time period when circumstances were completely different as an example of bi-partisanship, then the NYTimes should have, at the very least, informed their readers that Lamar is comparing apples to oranges.

For the media to assess blame solely on Obama and the Democrats for failing to get the GOP on board is ridiculously short-sighted and maddening.

If Republicans really wanted bi-partisanship, as they claim, then why aren't they acting in good faith? A question, for some reason -- eludes the press -- not even the NYTimes will ask!

To answer that would be redundant.

The amount of debt the government is accumulating to stimulate the economy is outrageous... What's wrong with those people!

Debt Help TN