Date Rape
by digby
David Gergen says:
Yes, I am biased in favor of my friend, but I also fear that if Joe Lieberman – a man, let’s remember, who was the vice presidential nominee of his party only six years ago – is purged from national leadership, that would send a message rippling through both parties: that in our new politics, working too closely with leaders across the aisle can be political suicide. It’s hard to believe that, despite all their frustration, that’s what Connecticut Democrats really want to say.
I’m just curious what message the Republicans have sent rippling through both parties for the last six years of strong arm, thuggish political rhetoric and legislative tactics?
Here’s a mild example of what the Democrats have been putting up with, from Gergen’s brother in arms, David Broder:
Since 1995, when Republicans took control of both sides of the Capitol, the negotiating sessions often have been limited to GOP senators and representatives, with the Democrats locked out along with the press.
That arrangement has been reinforced by the “Hastert doctrine,” the policy enunciated by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert that he will bring to the floor only bills that are supported by the majority of the Republican caucus. Because of that policy, bipartisan coalitions have become rarities in the House. The emphasis now is entirely on shaping bills in conference that most House Republicans can embrace.
No judgment there about whether it’s good for the country to kill bipartisanship in a time of war. Just business as usual. IOKIYAR, I guess.
This stuff was going on throughout the first term, despite the disputed election of 2000 — a unique historical circumstance that one would have thought called for excessive bipartisanship — as you can see by this article:
Republicans, meanwhile, defended their handling of negotiations, saying too many voices — particularly those of lawmakers who do not support their policy goals — would yield cacophony, not compromise.
“You want to try to negotiate agreements with people who are going to vote for it and negotiate in good faith,” said John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. “You need to be able to reach agreement, and you can’t have 6,000 people negotiating.”
In both the cases of Medicare (HR 1) and energy (HR 6), the Republicans have been largely negotiating without the participation of Democrats, who have been complaining for weeks about the process. But in recent days the conflict has escalated.
Getting rid of bipartisanship was a conscious governing philosophy. A great book has been written about it called “Off-Center: the Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy” Somebody should send Gergen and his pals a copy.
There are, of course, a million examples of power crazed, partisan actions on the part of the GOP congressional majority over the years (not the least of which was an impeachment.) And it’s not like they have been quiet about it. Here’s Tom Delay all the way back in 1991:
We have a small faction, and they are a minority, who believe they are there to govern. Then there is the majority of us who believe that indeed we are there to govern but more importantly we are there to be an opposition to the Democratic philosophy and the only way to do that is through confrontation.
It’s a real shame about bipartisanship going the way of the buggy whip, but blaming Democrats for it is laughable. If anything they hung on long after it was obvious that the Republicans were punking them over and over again. Rank and file Democrats have finally had it up to here and are sending a message to their party that they aren’t going to sit by and let it happen anymore. The country is in deep trouble and somebody has to step up and put a stop to this.
Naturally, now that the crooked Republicans have shown themselves to be miserable failures at every aspect of governing, which they have consciously done without Democratic input, the mandarins who have been conspicuously silent about the excessive GOP partisanship of the last six years (and the previous decade as well) are calling for comity. If Democrats win in November, I have no doubt we are going to read sanctimonious op-ed after sanctimonious speech about how the Democrats need to put all this unpleasantness behind them and run the congress in a bipartisan spirit to heal the country’s wounds.
It’s always the same old nonsense with these people. The Republicans run the country into the ground, treat the Democrats like enemies of the state and when they are finally done screwing things up (and exhausted from counting all the money they’ve stolen from the taxpayers)the Dems have to clean up their mess. And they’re supposed to be generous and kind and not embarrass anyone when they do it.
I have no doubt that’s what will happen again. But I’m not ready to make nice, not by a long shot. The internet is a powerful tool that keeps a record of every rotten thing these people have ever done and said and I will never let them forget it.
Update: McJoan over at kos today has a great quote:
“Bipartisanship only works when the other side compromises, too. Otherwise it’s just capitulation.”
That seems like an obvious point. Perhaps David Gergen can give us all an example of anything Joe Lieberman has been able to get the Republicans to compromise on in the last six years. In fact, I’d be interested in hearing about any Republican compromises with Democrats in the last six years. I’m sure there must be a few.
Update II: Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice, examines various lessons people might take from the race if Lamont wins on Tuesday. One of them is this:
Bipartisanship Has Limits: If Karl Rove’s strategy has been to paint the United States’ security in danger if Democrats win control, and accuse Democrats who raise questions about the war as wanting to “cut and run” (event it is conceivable that someone supported the war but has very serious questions about its conduct), then it doomed Lieberman’s brand of bipartisanship. Rather than cultivate cooperation, Bush’s “your either with us or against us” has been applied to domestic politics and it sabotaged Lieberman’s cooperation with Bush would be perceived by many in his party.
That would be my take.
.