The Washington Monthly

December 27, 2009

SHIFTING THE BURDEN.... One of the Republican talking points in the days leading up to the Senate vote on health care reform was, "Can you believe this bill is passing without bipartisan support?" As it turns out, one of the new White House talking points, in the wake of the vote, is, "Can you believe this bill passed without bipartisan support?"

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer had an item the other day tries to turn one of the principal GOP arguments on its head.

Today's Republican talking point of the day is that the historic health reform bill passed today represents the first major piece of social legislation to be passed without a single vote from across the aisle.
Well that may be true. But it's not a commentary on this bill. It's a commentary on the Republican Party, whose leaders made a determination that they were going to put party over progress. That's never happened before when the nation took on big challenges.

Right. GOP lawmakers would have Americans believe that Republicans' refusal to engage in good-faith negotiations, and stubborn opposition to the same ideas they'd already endorsed, reflects poorly on Democrats. Pfeiffer's point is that this argument has it backwards -- for generations, members of both parties were willing to step up and work on major reform initiatives like this with at least some sense of cooperation.

We've never had a situation in which a major political party simply refused to consider a reform effort of this magnitude. In 2009, the Republican Party, in its entirety, decided to sit on the sidelines, heckling those doing the real work of government.

Pfeiffer added, "The sad truth is that Congressional Republican leaders decided early on that their best move was to 'delay, define, and derail' reform -- not to find common ground on a bill both parties could support. They made clear their hopes that health insurance reform would be President Obama's 'Waterloo' and that it would 'break him' politically. In the process, they lost sight of the fact that this was never about President Obama -- it was about the families struggling to keep up with skyrocketing premiums; the small businesses forced to choose covering employees and staying afloat; the 15,000 Americans who lost insurance every day this year. [Thursday 's] vote was a victory for them."

Greg Sargent endorsed the approach. "[T]he die has been cast, and the best route for Dems is to emphasize the fact that the health care reform bill is theirs alone," Greg noted. "Medicare, Social Security, the Clean Air Act, and many other major reforms all passed with bipartisan support. This is the first major reform in American history to be unanimously opposed by a major party. No need to run from this."

Sounds like good advice to me.

—Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Comments

the goopers complaining about lack of bipartisan support reminds me of an old emo philips bit about a german guy bemoaning the difficulty of finding bagels in berlin.
"and whose fault is that?" emo asked.

Posted by: mellowjohn on December 27, 2009 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry -- they didn't sit on the sidelines and heckle. They attacked and lied and lied and attacked.

Did I mention the lies?

Posted by: Dems lose huge in 2010 on December 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

It's a simple dynamic to keep in mind: Republicans define successful bi-partisanship as the ability of the Democrats to get Republican votes, NOT as the willingness of Democrats to engage in good faith efforts to listen to Republican concerns and accomodate them if possible.

The fact that Republicans have defined bi-partisanship in strictly Republican terms is simply another manifestation of the fact that the GOP is a rigidly ideological party in which conservatism is the only legitimate position to have.

Since Republicans, even within their own party, have a litmus test or loyalty oath that they use to separate the "real" Republicans from those RINO traitors who depart from conservative orthodoxy, it would make sense that Republicans would not see bi-partisanship as relating to the process by which laws are cooperatively made by Republicans and Democrats working together, but rather to the end result of the lawmaking process and the extent to which new law conforms to right wing doctrine.

At the end of the day, the biggest complaint that Republicans have against Obama and the Democrats is not that they haven't tried to work with Republicans but that they refuse to govern AS Republicans.

Posted by: Ted Frier on December 27, 2009 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

No way the Democrats are samrt enough to hang this lack of bipartisanship on the GOP. Alas.

Posted by: KLG on December 27, 2009 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

More attention needs to be paid to the so far uncriticized culprits in this situation: Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Richard Lugar, George Voinivich etc., the "moderate," "responsible," and "sensible" Republicans, so beloved by the David Broders of the world. These Senators were the ones who could have made this a bi-partisan bill. Many of them actually engaged in negotiations over the bill, but ALL of them were too cowardly to face down the extremist elements of the GOP and vote for the bill. ALL of them are too opportunistic to do what was right. Compared to them, Arlen Specter is a stateman. Can Olympia Snowe say that her opinion, suggestions and vote was not sought?
It is their failures of character that prevented this bill from being bi-partisan.
Of course, the Kyls, the Ensigns, the Cornyns are going to oppose the bill -- that's the role they chose to play in Washington. But Snowe and Collins and the others claim that they are playing a different role, and reap the good opinion of others for being the "sensible middle" but they actually lack the courage to play it when the chips are down.
Would somebody please call them out on this !

Posted by: tom in ma on December 27, 2009 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

HCR is Obama's Waterloo. The problem the Repubs didn't figure on, he's playing the part of Wellington.

Posted by: artsmith on December 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Before this strategy takes place, reform legislation needs to survive conference and a final Congressional vote (50.1% to 49.9% and 60% to 40%) and then get signed into law.

Should this happen, game on!

And, I would certainly want to know earlier than later whether the Republicans would work to repeal the legislation after the 2010 elections. McConnell will not have the luxury of ducking the question should reform legislation become law! We'll just have to wait and see. -Kevo

Posted by: kevo on December 27, 2009 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

During Reconstruction the Radical Republicans passed a great many civil rights measures on straight party-line votes. History has vindicated the wisdom of that legislation. In short, there's nothing inherently bad about major legislation being enacted without bipartisan support.

Posted by: Bruce Bartlett on December 27, 2009 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

"In 2009, the Republican Party, in its entirety, decided to sit on the sidelines, heckling those doing the real work of government."

This is a really great summary, and I would like to see it on every Democratic web page throughout the country, AND on every Democrat's lips for the next few months. Longer, if the obstructionism persists.

Posted by: Zandru on December 27, 2009 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

It was bi-partisan: Democrats,Blue Dogs, Independents.

Posted by: Dale on December 27, 2009 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

In the process, they lost sight of the fact that this was never about President Obama

Actually, it is about President Obama and every conflict from Inauguration Day 2009 to the general election in 2012 will be about President Obama as long as Rush Limbaugh and his ilk fulminate their partisan spew (and Keith Olbermann and his ilk fulminate theirs).

It's about choosing up sides in some playground sqabble. Right and wrong no longer matter. It's who wins and who loses and it matters not what is destroyed in the process.

Limbaugh, for example, wants President Obama to fail and he doesn't care what that failure destroys in the process.

Posted by: Steve on December 27, 2009 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

And then there was an apparent terrorist attack the day after the bill was passed, wiping it off the media radar, a very convenient coincidence for the wingnut right.

Posted by: dalloway on December 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Well, we've finally found something the Republicans are good at - bitching.

Because after thirty years of undo influence in DC it's apparent to everybody that Republicans sure as hell suck at making laws and running the country!

Posted by: Glen on December 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK