Obama: Playacting at Bipartisanship
While the tone of Robert Kuttner’s piece in the Huffington Post breathes contempt for Republicans and betrays a great misunderstanding of popular opinion, particularly in the Bay State, his title gives the game away about the real modus operandi of the Obami: Obama Rejects Bipartisan Bank Deal.
Yup, they’re the ones rejecting bipartisanship.
The Democrat’s campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, he’s not interesting in working with Republicans. President Obama never was, provided such work meant incorporating Republican ideas into the overall structure of his legislative initiatives. Yeah, sure, just like his rhetoric, he’ll throw in a few minor Republican ideas as window-dressing to call it bipartisan, but when he works out his deals, he works with the most hyperpartisan Democrats in Congress, those known for their contempt for conservatives and their commitment to big government policies.
Kuttner writes:
Although Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd and his sometime Republican ally Richard Shelby continued to make noises on the Sunday talk shows about a possible bipartisan deal, both President Obama and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank have personally urged Dodd not to cut a deal with Republicans. I asked Frank point blank why Dodd would want such a deal, and he said–on the record–”I have no idea, but both President Obama and I have urged him not to.”
This is a welcome sign that Obama realizes that public opinion is moving in the direction of tougher banking reform, and that he learned from the health debate that bipartisan compromise on key reform issues is a snare and a delusion.
Yeah, of course, Barney doesn’t want to cut a deal with Republicans. Barney doesn’t like Republicans. You know, he kind of blames them for everything.
And this snare and delusion? It’s all in Obama’s rhetoric, trying to trap Republicans by pretending he’s some magnanimous figure while obscuring his liberal record and beliefs. Kuttner can spin it however he wants, but he does admit at least that the Democrat is the one putting the kibosh on bipartisan reform. Just like he did with health care.
David Frum, are you paying attention?
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Nice that you linked the article…..because it is much more in depth and goes to the reasoning why bi-partisanship won’t fit here: Republicans would use it as a chance to gut it as much as they could. interesting that they mention Scott Brown, who’s already shown himself open to breaking with party ranks to vote for what’s the good of his constituents.
And by the way, hasn’t Republican leadership made it very clear they intend to continue being the party of no and stopping the President’s / Democrats legislative agenda as much as possible?
You were a buncha’ sore winners when you had both houses and the presidency and you’re a bunch of sore losers. sounds like they went anti-bi-partisan long before the democrats did.
Comment by Kevin — April 25, 2010 @ 11:30 pm - April 25, 2010
Gut it, Kevin or make it better? I noted how Kuttner betrays his bias in the very tone of his prose. Gut it or eliminate burdensome regulations which could stymie recovery and prevent innovation?
Guess Scott Brown breaking ranks from time to time does show he’s not as Kuttner so condescendingly describes him. Soon Kuttner will be wondering about the 10 new “accidental” Senators in the 112th Congress.
Sore winners, what? What? Hardly. Back then, it was Democrats who refused to cooperate, making great show of their obstructionism.
Sore losers, no? Hardly. When poll after poll after poll after poll shows that people don’t want more government regulation and when the GOP is thwarting legislation that does just that, that’s hardly being sore losers.
Now, I might take you more seriously if you were busy faulting the Democrats back in ’05 and ’06 for their obstructionism.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 25, 2010 @ 11:48 pm - April 25, 2010
I’m not sure where Obama is on bank reform.
I know that Obama is a socialist/fascist at heart. I also know that he accepted perhaps 10 times as much money (by some reports) from Goldman-Sachs, as Bush ever accepted from Enron.
Finally, I know that 99 times out of 100, government “reform” works to the benefit of the big guys, as it falls proportionally harder on the little guys (who have far fewer resources to meet the burden of regulation). And the big guys, like Goldman-Sachs, support the regulation or “reform”, sometimes behind the scenes, for precisely that reason.
So, putting together everything I know… it would have to be true that the Democrats and the top investment banks are working together to put together a most burdensome financial “reform”, another step in corporate socialism / financial fascism, that will benefit them by extending government power and by making competition more difficult (preserving the positions of the top investment banks). As has been done before.
Which, finally, means that the SEC’s recent lawsuit against Goldman-Sachs is window-dressing / politics. As has been done before. And as many observers are saying, i.e. the particular case which the SEC has chosen is actually not that strong.
But all of that is just deduction / guesswork, on my part.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 26, 2010 @ 1:02 am - April 26, 2010
Republicans would use it as a chance to gut it as much as they could
Or, more precisely, Barney Fag and Barack Obama would have to explain their outright criminal behavior.
Now, Kevin, what do you call it when a Congressperson intervenes with the President and another Congressperson to give Federal money to a failing institution in which they are invested?
In the normal world, that’s called bribery and corruption. But the Obama Party fully supports and endorses it. Kevin fully supports and endorses it. Don’t you, Kevin?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2010 @ 12:01 pm - April 26, 2010
ND30, could you please explain what point you are making by using “Barney Fag”? How does this help further whatever political point you are trying to make?
GPW’s calls for civility from the so called “gay left” would have more credibility, if he would just once publicly chastise for the viscous and nasty tone and name calling you constantly engage in with anyone who does not share your politics.
Comment by Brendan — April 26, 2010 @ 12:19 pm - April 26, 2010
Obama believes he has the Republicans backed in to a no win situation, so why would he want to give up things he believes he will get no matter what. He believes the political pressure will eventually force one Republican to cross over and vote for their bill, and he is probably right. It seems really hard for Republicans to win a message war this time around.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — April 26, 2010 @ 12:35 pm - April 26, 2010
Brendan, we all understand the problem here. You can’t criticize Fag or Maxine Waters for their behavior, because doing that would make you a racist self-loathing homophobe. So you beclown yourself by screaming about “civility” because someone else has the balls to call your precious Fag and your precious Maxine criminals.
The ironic part about it is that, by making it clear that you DO put skin color and sexual orientation ahead of obeying the law and avoiding corruption, you demonstrate that you are a racist and homosexist.
Furthermore, when it’s considered that you haven’t a word to say about Fag and Maxine Waters using hateful rhetoric, you’re quite obviously a hypocrite.
In short, if GPW is concerned about credibility, he certainly has better places to get it than from trying to please a racist, homosexist hypocrite like yourself.
Do you understand that concept?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2010 @ 12:51 pm - April 26, 2010
Actually NDT, I’m in Brendan’s corner on this one.
We have the authority that comes from being right (not to mention Right) on the side of history. The name calling and vitrol are not always needed.
That said, yes I call him Bawney Fwank myself on occasion.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 26, 2010 @ 1:10 pm - April 26, 2010
ND30–thanks for only confirming my point with your new post.
Comment by Brendan — April 26, 2010 @ 1:16 pm - April 26, 2010
ND30–thanks for only confirming my point with your new post.
That you’re a racist homosexist hypocrite? Happy to oblige.
And that’s what makes delusional Obama Party shills like you so funny, Brendan. Not a word about Fag. Not a word about Waters. You have facts shoved in your face about the corruption and hate speech of your idols, and you just stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalalalala, I can’t hear you.
Tell us again how it’s OK for Fag to bail out a corrupt bank because of the black skin of its owners and his homosexuality. Tell us again how it’s OK for Waters to profit off that because of her black skin. Tell us again how it’s OK for both of them to namecall and insult tea party participants because of their black skin and homosexuality.
Or just sit here and whine about “civility” while continuing to make a complete and utter fool of yourself.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2010 @ 1:52 pm - April 26, 2010
Gut it or oppose even more government takeover of the private sector?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 26, 2010 @ 2:25 pm - April 26, 2010