Reply #72: Irony: now the DLC appeasers are moaning about the end of 'bipartisanship' [View All]

[Q]

Banning Bipartisanship


The demise of bipartisanship in Washington under the president who promised to change the city's tone has been steady and dramatic. Lest we forget, it was not this way under his predecessor. Even though Republicans declared war on Bill Clinton from the moment he was first elected; called him "irrelevant" after they seized control of Congress two years later; and ultimately tried to remove him from office -- the Clinton years were regularly marked by bipartisan legislation and "center-out" coalitions, including the NAFTA, GATT, and China PNTR trade bills, welfare reform, the Balanced Budget Agreement, and many other major accomplishments.

But last week, bipartisanship reached a new and even historic low, as House Speaker Dennis Hastert refused to bring an administration-backed bipartisan intelligence reform bill to the floor that would have definitely passed, because he wasn't sure a majority of House Republicans supported it. And his spokesman John Feehery made it clear this was not just a one-time decision, but a fundamental principle Hastert intends to apply in the future. "He wants to pass bills with his majority," Feehery told The Washington Post. "That's the hallmark of this majority.... If you pass major bills without the majority of the majority, then you tend not to be a long-term speaker.... I think he was prudent to listen to his members."

This partisanship-first principle, mind you, was elevated not only above the views of a majority of House and Senate members, and those of the president, but above a strong national interest in fixing our intelligence system before another terrorist attack on the United States occurs. Maintaining his popularity among the House Republican rank-and-file was apparently more important to Hastert. Contrast that attitude with the one expressed by Republican House leader Newt Gingrich, hardly a slouch at partisan warfare, who in supporting one of President Clinton's trade bills in 1993 said: "This is a vote for history, larger than politics... larger than personal ego."

As Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), who was a White House staffer in the days when Republicans occasionally put aside partisanship to cooperate with Clinton, noted: "What is more comforting to the terrorists around the world: the failure to pass the 9/11 legislation because we lacked 'a majority of the majority,' or putting aside partisan politics to enact tough new legislation with America's security foremost in mind?"

It's a question that Dennis Hastert should be asked often. Banning bipartisanship is not simply an affront to Democrats or to the bipartisan rhetoric GOP leaders from President Bush on down trot out on the campaign trail -- it's an affront to all Americans who expect their elected representatives to place their interests first.


http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253036

----------------

The RWingers used and abused the DLC New Democrats...and now have simply thrown them away. Golly...we never saw THIS coming.....