I agree that both arguments - that he tried bipartisanship and that he did not - can be defended. However, I do not believe that the latter is accurate given my own perspective on Obama. In order to say that Obama did not attempt partisanship, then one would have to assume that he is a liar. While this assumption is exactly difficult to imagine given that we're talking about a politician, I don't believe it to be true in this case.
We both agree it COULD go either way. We split in what is the more likely one. Part for why we split is here...
He's a politician, and as such I expect him to lie. Actually, no...that's incorrect. I expect him to spin things to his electoral advantage and I expect him to try to get what the most of what he wants into action with the least amount of what he doesn't want coming into play. That's my general mindset with regards to politicians, all politicians. That's generally their policy goal, and I have no issue with that. And I think that's what the case is here. If Obama could've actually passed single payer there's not a doubt in my mind he would have done it. He couldn't. So he had to take action to get the most of what he wanted with the least of what he didn't want, which in this case meant winning over the moderate democrats. He also wanted to spin it best to his electoral advantage. Coming out and saying he had to water down his health care goal to win over people in his own party would piss off the base not just at him but at the party which would threaten things for 2010 and 2012. By spinning it as bipartisanship, the base is still going to be mad but does it in such a way that it presents an enemy (Those dastardly republicans who he cow towed to and they didn't even join along! Party of NO!!!!) and he has a means of saying he did part of what his campaign was promising, all while still getting the most of what he wanted with the least amount of what he didn't.
I don't particularly see political spinning as "lieing". Yes, it probably technically fits. But it's so a part of the very nature that the thing happens it almost takes on a different meaning to me to be honest.
First, I do not believe that Obama's compromising was for the benefit of Republicans. I think it was for his own benefit and perhaps, if he really is/was as honorable as he portrays himself to be, for the benefit of the country. Your second point is a solid argument. If you're not going to give Republicans what they want and you have a majority in Congress, then why not just push your original proposal through? Your answer is "because they needed the moderate Democrats who weren't buying the original plan." I agree with that. I remember that was a group of "blue dog" Democrats who wanted a more fiscally conservative plan. However, compromising within a party can coexists with compromising outside of it. I think Obama wanted to compromise, he offered a few and Republicans rejected it. I don't think he was willing to go as far as they wanted him to go, so he focused on Democrats and got the bill passed.
First, I agree. I rarely think in politics people compromise honestly for the beneift of the other side. And I think the only way they typically compromse on behalf of the country is through the notion of "What I want is good for the country, so if I have to give a little to the other side that I dislike it's worth it becuase most of my things are going in and it's good for the country. In other words...their compromising to get their things passed, and they just think their things are good for the country. I have a hard time thinking of any politician honestly going "I dislike what they're doing, but I think the country would be better off for having a bill with both our ideas even if I dislike them, so I'll do it". Perahps I'm cynical but...I just can't see it on either side.
As I said to AdamT, I don't doubt that he hoped to maybe pick up a few republicans with his compromises from what he'd ultimatley like the bill to look at. However, I don't think it was the intent. To me, bipartisanship is honestly reaching out and attempting to include the other side in the process of creating something that is reasonably acceptable to both sides. Bipartisanship is not giving one or two concessions and simply expecting the other side to get in line. Bipartiasnship is not trying to reach out and attempt to include other parts of your party into the process of creating something that is reasonablly acceptable to all sides of your party....and hopefully maybe picking off a few people from the other side as well.
Again. I'm not faulting Obama for doing this. It's what I expect, and hell to a point WANT, my politicians doing. I may have issues with him due to this as it relates to his 2008 campaign, but that's a different issue and not one squarely about bipartisanship. However every way I look at this thing, I can't come up with a scenario where honestly...in my opinion...I see Obama honestly and truthfully reaching out to including the other side in forging a bill that is palatable to both. I see him throwing a few table scraps out and primarily looking to shore up his own side. Nothing wrong with that, but to me that's not bipartisanship.
I understand that it's an opinon. It's one of those things that is ripe for argument because there's no universal symbol hanging over all our heads with a little needle that lights up and dings "BIPARTISANSHIP" whenever some criteria is met. I understand some may see the situation differently. But I have yet to see an argument or a suggestion that leads me to not have a majority of my brains reasoning pointing in the direction of "shoring up his side and spinning" rather than "honest attempts at bipartisanship".
Obama and his administration were advocating bipartisanship on the campaign trail. It's not something that suddenly came up after negotiations on healthcare began. Therefore, I don't see much of an argument for using bipartisanship as damage control since it wasn't an afterthought, but an idea pressed by them long before the actual election.
The reason he used it on the campaign trail is one of the primary reasons I think of it as Damage Control. They campaigned on Bipartisanship to a point. To not get ripped to shreds for dishonesty, they had to present an appearance that they're trying to be bipartisan. At the same time though..."Holy **** we have a super majority". The NEED for bipartisanship had mostly vanished once that happened. The Obama campaign had been pretty successful, especially early on, at controlling the message that was hitting into news cycles (not by some masterful puppet string shadow conspiracy OMG LIBERUL MEDIA...I mean that they were exceptionally good at spinning and helping drive a narrative). So on various issues throw a few table scraps, do a few token things, make a lot of noise about how you're being bipartisans and compromising despite you knowing full well it's not going to work, and then use the political fodder for it. That just made it all the easier to use bipartisanship as the cover for having to win over his own side during health care, because it allowed the killing of two birds with one stone.
