Last night, the House of Representatives approved a version of the health care reform plan by the narrow vote of 220–215. If the vote supporting the measure had been strictly along party lines, that would have meant that there were 38 Democratic defectors.
But, in reality, there were 39 Democrats who opposed the bill. That left 219 Democrats. In order to reach 220, they picked up the vote of one Republican. You may remember his name. He is Anh Cao, a Vietnamese–American who was elected last year to replace William Jefferson as the representative of a heavily Democratic district in New Orleans.
"Bipartisanship" has been a key word for Democrats this year, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasted little time bragging that the health care reform bill had been passed with a bipartisan vote.
Let's see. If one Republican votes for a Democratic measure and 39 Democrats vote against it, doesn't it stand to reason it is actually the Republicans who achieved bipartisanship?
I guess that depends on how something is being spun — and who's doing the spinning.
Well, at the very least, it's another example of how politicians induce a verbal fog by deliberately saying as little as possible for as long as possible. In this case, the Democrats in Washington, including the president, have spent a year trying to appease their Republican colleagues in the name of bipartisanship — with extremely limited results.
Before the Democrats in Congress and "the One" in the White House get carried away with their bipartisan achievement, I'd like to remind them that the Senate still has to approve precisely the same legislation that is approved by the House. If the Senate approves a health care reform bill that differs in any way from the version that was approved by the House, it comes back for another vote. And this can go on indefinitely.
Next time, Rep. Cao may be persuaded to vote with the rest of the Republican membership (which may, at this very minute, be trying to lure him back to their side with pledges of personal and financial support in next year's election). And some Democrats who straddled the fence before choosing to support their party may be nudged to join the three dozen defectors thanks to poll results from their districts.
Showing posts with label bipartisanship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bipartisanship. Show all posts
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Forget About Bipartisanship — For Now
Barack Obama's goal of bipartisanship was a good one, as I've been saying.
But, apparently, it cannot be achieved on the economic stimulus package.
Maybe it can be accomplished on other matters. But repairing the economy is too urgent. So my advice is to get just as many Republicans on board as are needed to pass the package — even if it is the weaker, watered-down version that emerged from the behind-closed-doors conference of senators last week.
It is something, and Obama himself told the nation during last night's press conference that he does not consider doing nothing to be an option.
Reactions to Obama's press conference were varied.
John Dickerson wrote, in Slate.com, that Obama treated the press conference like a seminar in a grad school class.
Peter Baker said, in the New York Times, that Obama sounded more like the candidate he was a few months ago and not as much like the president he is now.
But perhaps he should remind voters more often about the "failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place" that were, apparently, rejected in the election. More talk like that might prompt more people to press their lawmakers to support a stimulus package.
Baker's colleague at the New York Times, Bob Herbert, compared Obama to a "championship chess player."
William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal wrote about growing skepticism of the package. If that tells you anything, it is that Obama's mission now must not focus on bipartisanship but rather on motivating his supporters and retaining the support he has in Congress on this issue.
Now is no time for compromise, Eugene Robinson tells Obama in the Washington Post.
Well, bipartisanship was — and is — a good idea. It's a worthwhile goal. It just doesn't seem to be attainable on this issue.
But, apparently, it cannot be achieved on the economic stimulus package.
Maybe it can be accomplished on other matters. But repairing the economy is too urgent. So my advice is to get just as many Republicans on board as are needed to pass the package — even if it is the weaker, watered-down version that emerged from the behind-closed-doors conference of senators last week.
It is something, and Obama himself told the nation during last night's press conference that he does not consider doing nothing to be an option.
Reactions to Obama's press conference were varied.
John Dickerson wrote, in Slate.com, that Obama treated the press conference like a seminar in a grad school class.
Peter Baker said, in the New York Times, that Obama sounded more like the candidate he was a few months ago and not as much like the president he is now.
But perhaps he should remind voters more often about the "failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place" that were, apparently, rejected in the election. More talk like that might prompt more people to press their lawmakers to support a stimulus package.
Baker's colleague at the New York Times, Bob Herbert, compared Obama to a "championship chess player."
William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal wrote about growing skepticism of the package. If that tells you anything, it is that Obama's mission now must not focus on bipartisanship but rather on motivating his supporters and retaining the support he has in Congress on this issue.
Now is no time for compromise, Eugene Robinson tells Obama in the Washington Post.
Well, bipartisanship was — and is — a good idea. It's a worthwhile goal. It just doesn't seem to be attainable on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
