Does the GOP want bipartisanship?

The Congressional Democrats, especially the House (oh my god Nancy Pelosi) really annoy me, and I feel like they want to push their agenda. The GOP's annoy me equally because they seem like they want their way as well by blocking everything the Dems want. It looks like a deadlock to me.

From what it seems, President Obama promotes bipartisanship more than either party does. I've heard people like Sen. McCain and other leading GOP's saying they would like to work with the President and find a common goal.

However, one of the most partisan things I've seen is this "Weekly Republican Response." Why do Reps want to have a party response like this, as if the whole world is against them?

I think its an attempt by bitter GOP's to get back at their loss of seats in the House and Senate. Its such a huge move away from bipartisanship.

What do you think?

MAIN QUESTION: Does the GOP want bipartisanship?

McCain is the biggest sore loser, especially since he claims to be good at reaching across the aisle....
If they won't help to move the nation forward, at least they should get out of the way.

I don't think either side really wants "True" bipartisanship.

Obama doesn't want "bipartisanship", he wants his agenda to be pushed and Republicans to go "Yes sir, we agree with you".

You condemn the republicans for their response to Obama after Obama's speech, but where were you criticizing Obama during his press conference about the Stimulus where he lambasted republicans, republican ideology, and basically told them to ****ing bad, this is happening my way and that's the only way.

Bipartisanship, as its used in politics today, is a bull**** word. For those in the minority, its getting enough of the majority party to vote for your bill so that you can actually get it passed. For the majority party, its getting a few token people from the other side to agree to sign on while giving up nearly no consessions to get them to.

Neither side really wants bipartisanship, because to truly have it in its honest true sense would require a great amount of compromise of both sides position, giving us legislation basically neither side really wants.

Here's the issue republicans generally run in to with bipartisanship. Lets say that the economic stimulus balooned to 1.5T under what the democrats wanted. Now lets say the republicans could get that number down to 1.2T if they agreed to vote for it.

On the plus side, they removed .3 trillion from the bill.

On the negative side, they're completely abandoning their principles and turning their back on their entire constituency by voting for and essentially saying "I agree with this" to a 1.3T dollar spending bill.

Its the same thing that always screws the republicans with the minimum wage.

Year 1 - currently no minimum wage
Republican stance: There should be no minimum wage.
Democrat Stance: We think we should have a $8 minimum wage. You republicans don't want to be seens as heartless obsturctionists do you. Lets be "bipartisan" and "compromise" and say a $4.50 minimum wage.


Year 2 - Currently $4.50 minum wage.
Republican stance: There should be no minimum wage.
Democrat Stance: We think we should have a $9 minimum wage. You republicans don't want to be seens as heartless obsturctionists do you. Lets be "bipartisan" and "compromise" and say a $6.75 minimum wage.

Year 3 - Currently $6.75 minum wage.
Republican stance: There should be no minimum wage.
Democrat Stance: We think we should have a $12 minimum wage. You republicans don't want to be seens as heartless obsturctionists do you. Lets be "bipartisan" and "compromise" and say a $9 minimum wage.

And onwards it goes. Yay for "bipartisanship", only issue is, each and every time what is really happening is Democrats getting a little of what they want with republicans AGREEING and being part of the movement FARTHER away from what they want.

That's the issue with the notion of "bipartisanship", it doesn't always work because often that "compromise" you have to make is agreeing to do something completely against your principles and the reason your constituents voted you into office in exchange for possibly getting the legislation not to be AS bad. And what happens come election time? The base gets upset because the politicians they voted in sold them out.

UtahBill said:

McCain is the biggest sore loser, especially since he claims to be good at reaching across the aisle....
If they won't help to move the nation forward, at least they should get out of the way.

Click to expand...

Last I checked, this is not a dictatorship. Last I checked, we still have multiple branches of government that are democratically elected. Last I checked, those that get voted into power should be representing their constituents.

I won't speak for McCain, because I did not vote for him into his senate seat. Sadly, I don't have anyone in my state to speak for me in the Senate. But in the house I cast the last vote I got to make in my old district for Bob Goodlatte, a Republican, and I'll be damned if he won't hear from me and hopefully the rest of us from my old county that voted him in if he desides to "get out of the way" or chooses to stab us all in the back by helping the nation "Move forward" in the way that Obama seems to be pushing it.

I vote for republican representitives because I want them to fight and stand firm on the ideals that I think are best for this country. I don't vote for them so they can get to DC and give extra votes to democrat proposals that I don't agree with, don't like, and don't think will be good for this country.

What you say they should do is the entire antithesis of what our governmental body should be doing.

Zyphlin said:

Last I checked, this is not a dictatorship. Last I checked, we still have multiple branches of government that are democratically elected. Last I checked, those that get voted into power should be representing their constituents.

I won't speak for McCain, because I did not vote for him into his senate seat. Sadly, I don't have anyone in my state to speak for me in the Senate. But in the house I cast the last vote I got to make in my old district for Bob Goodlatte, a Republican, and I'll be damned if he won't hear from me and hopefully the rest of us from my old county that voted him in if he desides to "get out of the way" or chooses to stab us all in the back by helping the nation "Move forward" in the way that Obama seems to be pushing it.

I vote for republican representitives because I want them to fight and stand firm on the ideals that I think are best for this country. I don't vote for them so they can get to DC and give extra votes to democrat proposals that I don't agree with, don't like, and don't think will be good for this country.

Click to expand...

I think what he means is that since Reps are block what is right at the the current time, they should stop.

I agree with you in that neither "side" wants bipartisanship, but Obama does. He knows what is right, and the current GOP's don't.

What you say they should do is the entire antithesis of what our governmental body should be doing.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you vote for Republican representatives, I think you should always do that to support your beliefs. You should vote for what you think is right, but unfortunately, most of the current Reps are not doing what is right.

I also agree that the gov't should be working together, but right now most of the GOP's are stalling for time (for whatever reason); they're hindering progress. I'm sure the Reps will contribute better ideals later on, but right now they're just dead weight. If certain people are hindering progress, they should get out of the way.

Zyphlin said:

Last I checked, this is not a dictatorship. Last I checked, we still have multiple branches of government that are democratically elected. Last I checked, those that get voted into power should be representing their constituents.

I won't speak for McCain, because I did not vote for him into his senate seat. Sadly, I don't have anyone in my state to speak for me in the Senate. But in the house I cast the last vote I got to make in my old district for Bob Goodlatte, a Republican, and I'll be damned if he won't hear from me and hopefully the rest of us from my old county that voted him in if he desides to "get out of the way" or chooses to stab us all in the back by helping the nation "Move forward" in the way that Obama seems to be pushing it.

I vote for republican representitives because I want them to fight and stand firm on the ideals that I think are best for this country. I don't vote for them so they can get to DC and give extra votes to democrat proposals that I don't agree with, don't like, and don't think will be good for this country.

What you say they should do is the entire antithesis of what our governmental body should be doing.

Click to expand...

No, I said move forward, and some of them want to stop all movement until they get to decide where forward is. Meantime, there is no movement.
We may not know what the perfect direction is that defines forward, but we can come close this year and fine tune next year. Waiting til we know the perfect direction is not moving forward....it is an excuse for maintaining the status quo which we already know is not working...

What the hell does Bipartisanship even mean?
Two parties acting as one? What's the difference if their ideologies don't match up? Even if we demolished both parties and formed one giant pool, we would still have the same arguments and conflicts as we do now it would just be [Insert Region] [Insert Party name]. During the initial break up of the Democratic Solid South, you had Southern Democrats/Dixiecrats, and you had Democrats.

Arch Enemy said:

What the hell does Bipartisanship even mean?
Two parties acting as one? What's the difference if their ideologies don't match up? Even if we demolished both parties and formed one giant pool, we would still have the same arguments and conflicts as we do now it would just be [Insert Region] [Insert Party name]. During the initial break up of the Democratic Solid South, you had Southern Democrats/Dixiecrats, and you had Democrats.

Click to expand...

No, bipartisanship is basically support for a common legislation/act/policy by both parties, not acting as one party.

Cilogy said:

I agree with you in that neither "side" wants bipartisanship, but Obama does. He knows what is right, and the current GOP's don't.

Click to expand...

I disagree, and I hope the republicans CONTINUE to disagree.

I do not believe Obama is right about this stimulus.

I do not believe Obama is right about re instituting the AWB.

I do not believe he's right about universal health care.

And if this trend continues I imagine I won't think Obama is right for many other things too.

And those things I don't believe he's right about and things I think are bad for this country I will push for and demand that the people in office that are there representing me do everything in their power to let him and others know that we do not like nor want this and think he is absolutely wrong.

You BELIEVE that Obama is correct, which isn't surprising because you claim to be very liberal. I however, don't believe that to be the case.

But he's shown no sign that he's for Bipartisanship anymore than the republicans have. His press conference speech about the Stimulus package was as blasting of Republicans as the republican rebuttle was to democrats, yet you did not comment on that.

I'm sure the Reps will contribute better ideals later on, but right now they're just dead weight. If certain people are hindering progress, they should get out of the way.

Click to expand...

UtahBill said:

No, I said move forward, and some of them want to stop all movement until they get to decide where forward is. Meantime, there is no movement.
We may not know what the perfect direction is that defines forward, but we can come close this year and fine tune next year. Waiting til we know the perfect direction is not moving forward....it is an excuse for maintaining the status quo which we already know is not working...

Click to expand...

NO, they should not get out of the way. Stalling progress when the "progress" is something absolutely against the ideals that got these people voted into office and is "progress" that their constituents do not want and they together feel is going to be more harmful than good is CORRECT.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is not always good. If Obama's plan was to say "I'm signing the country over to China", should the republicans get out of the way? I mean, he's DOING something right? That's progress of some kind right?

If the representatives in government feel that doing something, primarily doing a specific something, is actually worse than doing nothing than I agree completely with them attempting to block it. If their constituents feel that doing this specific something is worse than doing nothing, they owe it to those constituents to block it.

Absolutely not, the republicans should not just be quiet or sign on simply because they're in the minority and because the majority wants to do something. They should stand up and speak for the people they're supposed to be representing.

I think this whole whining about partisanship is a load of crap. If you elect a politician to office because you agree with his views the most why the **** on earth do you want him to work with people whose views you do not agree with on issues that you do not agree with on the other side with? If senator dickhead was elected to office as a anti-illegal immigration republican and senator ****nut was elected to office as a anti-illegal immigration democrat then fine they should work together on a anti-illegal immigration issue. If however Senator ****nut was elected because he is for socialized medicine and senator Dickhead was elected because he opposed socialized medicine then the side that is for it should do everything they can to pass it and the side that is against it should do everything they can to oppose it. Because if they worked together on every issue in a bipartisan manner then what the hell is the point in electing someone based on political and personal issues?

jamesrage said:

I think this whole whining about partisanship is a load of crap. If you elect a politician to office because you agree with his views the most why the **** on earth do you want him to work with people whose views you do not agree with on issues that you do not agree with on the other side with? If senator dickhead was elected to office as a anti-illegal immigration republican and senator ****nut was elected to office as a anti-illegal immigration democrat then fine they should work together on a anti-illegal immigration issue. If however Senator ****nut was elected because he is for socialized medicine and senator Dickhead was elected because he opposed socialized medicine then the side that is for it should do everything they can to pass it and the side that is against it should do everything they can to oppose it. Because if they worked together on every issue in a bipartisan manner then what the hell is the point in electing someone based on political and personal issues?

Click to expand...

That's true, I agree.

My main point was the fact that the GOP claimed they want bipartisanship but took the hypocritical route and become too partisan.

Zyphlin said:

I disagree, and I hope the republicans CONTINUE to disagree.

I do not believe Obama is right about this stimulus.

I do not believe Obama is right about re instituting the AWB.

I do not believe he's right about universal health care.

And if this trend continues I imagine I won't think Obama is right for many other things too.

And those things I don't believe he's right about and things I think are bad for this country I will push for and demand that the people in office that are there representing me do everything in their power to let him and others know that we do not like nor want this and think he is absolutely wrong.

You BELIEVE that Obama is correct, which isn't surprising because you claim to be very liberal. I however, don't believe that to be the case.

But he's shown no sign that he's for Bipartisanship anymore than the republicans have. His press conference speech about the Stimulus package was as blasting of Republicans as the republican rebuttle was to democrats, yet you did not comment on that.





NO, they should not get out of the way. Stalling progress when the "progress" is something absolutely against the ideals that got these people voted into office and is "progress" that their constituents do not want and they together feel is going to be more harmful than good is CORRECT.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is not always good. If Obama's plan was to say "I'm signing the country over to China", should the republicans get out of the way? I mean, he's DOING something right? That's progress of some kind right?

If the representatives in government feel that doing something, primarily doing a specific something, is actually worse than doing nothing than I agree completely with them attempting to block it. If their constituents feel that doing this specific something is worse than doing nothing, they owe it to those constituents to block it.

Absolutely not, the republicans should not just be quiet or sign on simply because they're in the minority and because the majority wants to do something. They should stand up and speak for the people they're supposed to be representing.

Click to expand...

so you would be talking out of the same side of your face if McCain was in the WH with a majority of the GOP holding both the senate and the house?
I doubt it....:2razz:

Did you read the boards much for the past few years?
I doubt it....:2razz:

Yes, I'd be saying the same thing. I'd be wanting republicans to be pushing for the things they were voted in to do and I'd fully expect to see the Democrats doing everything in their power to stop those things.

The only time I'd say this is different is if a politician ran specifically on a platform that they'd try to extensively work with the other side and compromise above principle, and then did the exact opposite.

Please Utah, go find me a post from myself during the past few years bemoaning the Democrats stalling things. You know who I had issue with during judicial nominations? Not democrats, they were doing what is generally expected of them. My issue was with the Republicans joining them. Demanding minority rights? I may've had issues with creating new rules, but I had no issues with them striving to do that.

Please, show me ANYTHING from my past posting history in any way, shape, or form that leads you to believe that I'd be talking differently in that situation aside from the fact I have "conservative" under my name. I'll eagerly await it but I hope you won't be offended that I'm not going to hold my breath.

Zyphlin said:

Did you read the boards much for the past few years?
I doubt it....:2razz:

Yes, I'd be saying the same thing. I'd be wanting republicans to be pushing for the things they were voted in to do and I'd fully expect to see the Democrats doing everything in their power to stop those things.

The only time I'd say this is different is if a politician ran specifically on a platform that they'd try to extensively work with the other side and compromise above principle, and then did the exact opposite.

Please Utah, go find me a post from myself during the past few years bemoaning the Democrats stalling things. You know who I had issue with during judicial nominations? Not democrats, they were doing what is generally expected of them. My issue was with the Republicans joining them. Demanding minority rights? I may've had issues with creating new rules, but I had no issues with them striving to do that.

Please, show me ANYTHING from my past posting history in any way, shape, or form that leads you to believe that I'd be talking differently in that situation aside from the fact I have "conservative" under my name. I'll eagerly await it but I hope you won't be offended that I'm not going to hold my breath.

Click to expand...

The Reps who joined to Dems, in the situation you're talking about, were the only ones being truly non-partisan. They saw what was right and forgot about party lines to get the job done.

By the way, just out of curiosity, why do you have a Joe Biden quote in your signature that is clearly anti-Republican?

Parties in general, which include the GOP and Dems only want bipartisanship to the point where it gets them votes and gets their agenda passed. If they need neither, then bipartisanship has no place in their portfolios. This is exactly what we saw with the all GOP years, with democrats and Deficit Hawk Republicans effectively being ostracized from much of the whole process.

The Dems are now in the position that was formerly occupied by the Republicans.

The question thus becomes, how much do they need bipartisanship for elections and how much to get their agenda passed? Clearly in the House it doesn't count for ****. I'd say it counts for a bit more in the Senate. And the GOP knows this. Why would they bother to try to get bipartisanship when they know their counterparts have little actual use for it?

You wonder why this country is so screwed up. There's part of the reason.

Cilogy said:

By the way, just out of curiosity, why do you have a Joe Biden quote in your signature that is clearly anti-Republican?

Click to expand...

Because Obama has proven himself to be very little change in terms of how Washington politics functions. Obama is actually a lot like Bush instead of spending things on socially conservative programs, he's spending them on socially liberal. We're still getting big government, still in Iraq and Afghanistan (this I don't think is a bad thing though), big intervention, big deficits, big debts and many of the other piles of poo that came with the Bush admin.

That's not change, it's more of the same with Obama/Biden.

Cilogy said:

No, bipartisanship is basically support for a common legislation/act/policy by both parties, not acting as one party.

Click to expand...

Thus they vote as one.

Cilogy said:

The Congressional Democrats, especially the House (oh my god Nancy Pelosi) really annoy me, and I feel like they want to push their agenda. The GOP's annoy me equally because they seem like they want their way as well by blocking everything the Dems want. It looks like a deadlock to me.

From what it seems, President Obama promotes bipartisanship more than either party does. I've heard people like Sen. McCain and other leading GOP's saying they would like to work with the President and find a common goal.

However, one of the most partisan things I've seen is this "Weekly Republican Response." Why do Reps want to have a party response like this, as if the whole world is against them?

I think its an attempt by bitter GOP's to get back at their loss of seats in the House and Senate. Its such a huge move away from bipartisanship.

What do you think?

MAIN QUESTION: Does the GOP want bipartisanship?

Click to expand...

They were elected to push their agenda. Why shouldn't they? In Britain and Australia the opposition almost always criticises the gov't on whatever they do.

obvious Child said:

Because Obama has proven himself to be very little change in terms of how Washington politics functions. Obama is actually a lot like Bush instead of spending things on socially conservative programs, he's spending them on socially liberal. We're still getting big government, still in Iraq and Afghanistan (this I don't think is a bad thing though), big intervention, big deficits, big debts and many of the other piles of poo that came with the Bush admin.

That's not change, it's more of the same with Obama/Biden.

Click to expand...

But the hilarious thing about this is that Biden actually said that about Palin and McCain.

And that's the wonderful irony

Cilogy said:

But the hilarious thing about this is that Biden actually said that about Palin and McCain.

Click to expand...

That's why it's in his signature.

Bipartisan is a meaningless word. There are very few issues that can be approached in a "bipartisan" manner without one side (or both) completely betraying their ideals and principles that they ran on. There are some issues were I could see one side giving a little here and another side giving a little there to find a workable solution, but many issues are cut and dry with out much room for compromise. Only on issues where there is pretty much universal agreement will we ever see bipartisanship.

Obama and the Dems want to do things their way. They have control of the White House and both houses of Congress. I don't expect them to be bipartisan because they don't need to. Just like Bush and Republicans weren't interested in bipartisanship when they had control. Similarly, I expect the Republicans to oppose most of Obama's agenda because that is the platform they ran on.The Democrats didn't go along with Bush's agenda as a party, why should the Republicans do it for Obama?

Usually when politicians envoke the word bipartisan they are really saying "the other side is being mean and not going along with everything I say".

obvious Child said:

That's why it's in his signature.

Click to expand...

Yeah but I believe Zyphlin was a McCain/Palin supporter. So it makes no sense for a pro-McCain/Palin person to have a quote in their signature that is obviously anti-McCain/Palin.

Not that it matters. Never mind, we're getting off topic.

Anyway ...

This CPAC speech by Rush Limbaugh as a keynote speaker (wtf? why Rush?) makes the GOP seem even worse and even more partisan.

If there is such a thing as bipartisanship, I think Obama is the one man who could make it work. This is how he was successful at the Harvard Law Review, and as a social worker in Chicago. He brought together people with conflicting interests and found a path that gave them all something. He is trying to do this with Congress, but the Republicans refuse to cooperate. They would not meet on the stimulus plan, and reneged on their House vote after he gave them some of what they asked for. I believe bipartisanship is possible, but not with this GOP

WillRockwell said:

If there is such a thing as bipartisanship, I think Obama is the one man who could make it work. This is how he was successful at the Harvard Law Review, and as a social worker in Chicago. He brought together people with conflicting interests and found a path that gave them all something. He is trying to do this with Congress, but the Republicans refuse to cooperate. They would not meet on the stimulus plan, and reneged on their House vote after he gave them some of what they asked for. I believe bipartisanship is possible, but not with this GOP

Click to expand...

I agree, Obama is doing all he can to promote bipartisanship and the current GOP's are reclining their chairs and eating junk food.

There is almost no hope for the GOP for 2012 or even 2016 for that matter.