Even the Left is admitting that Barack Obama has fatally hurt future bipartisanship efforts.

John Dickerson took perhaps too long to get to this paragraph, and he wrote it through gritted teeth, but he does put a finger on the central problem for the Obama administration right now:

The substantive differences between the president and Republicans on the budget may be insurmountable, but now it seems like even if the pipe dream of a substantive budget agreement could be reached it wouldn’t be enough. Even if Republican senators can engage in a trust-building exercise with the White House, how can they convince their constituents that the president is offering them a fair deal on the budget? A poisoned well is now roiling. Any Republican who tries to convince their constituents about a deal will now likely get funny looks. Their constituents would wonder why they were engaged in negotiations with an administration that has told evolving stories about its response to the attack in Benghazi and that houses an IRS targeting conservative groups.



Bloom Off Of The Rose Watch, Mark Knoller edition.

It’s not that the title of this article (“Obama Says Bipartisanship, But What He Wants Is GOP Surrender“) itself is so startling – as Ed Morrissey notes, it’s not exactly telling Republicans things that they don’t already know. It’s that this:

It’s a familiar refrain from U.S. presidents who can’t get their way in Congress.

“We must put aside our political differences if we’re ever to set our economy to rights,” said President Reagan in 1982.

“It is time to put aside partisan rivalries and work together for our nation’s future,” said President Reagan in 1987 in trying to get Congress to enact deficit reduction

“We must put aside partisanship for the sake of our nation,” said the first President Bush in 1990 in appealing for congressional cooperation on the budget.

“We must now put aside bitterness and rancor, move beyond partisanship,” urged President Clinton in 1993 in trying to get Congress to pass his economic plan.

What these presidential appeals for bipartisanship always mean is: do it my way.

…is showing up in CBSNews. Imagine that happening in the pre-post-Dan Rather days.

Moe Lane

PS: I almost called this “Waltzing Bear Watch,” except that this particular ursine is waltzing pretty well by any reasonable standard.  Blogging insiders will also note the opportunity for a jab that I passed up, mostly because I see no reason to boost the fellow’s anemic traffic.

Crossposted to RedState.


The GOP/White House ‘discussion’ on health care, simplified.

I’m going to sum this entire thing up, because the sooner we move past this the happier everybody’s going to be.

  • Republican Party* (in the person of House Republican Leader John Boehner & House Republican Whip Eric Cantor): Mr. President, you claim that you want bipartisan health care talks.  Do you have the moral courage to commit to junking this existing unpopular, hyper-partisan health care bill and start over from scratch, with a further commitment for transparency and against reconciliation?
  • White House** (in the person of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs): No.

And I think that should end it right there: Republican Members of the House of Representatives don’t debate press secretaries, either.

Moe Lane

*H/T: FireDogLake (I know, I know, but there was nothing offensive about this specific post).

**H/T: Hot Air Headlines.

Crossposted to RedState.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by