Register for E-mail alerts. Comment on articles. Sign up today, it's easy.
Close
The Washington Times Online Edition

DAVIS: Obama & bipartisanship: It takes five to tango

President Barack Obama (Katie Falkenberg/The Washington Times)President Barack Obama (Katie Falkenberg/The Washington Times)

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Barack Obama campaigned on change. One of the most fundamental changes he promised was a new politics committed to finding bipartisan solutions whenever possible.

In his first week as president, Mr. Obama has proven he is serious about keeping his promise. But in today’s Washington, it really takes more than two to do the bipartisan tango. In fact, it actually will take at least five to make true bipartisanship work.

First came Mr. Obama, who broke all precedent in his first week by traveling to Capitol Hill to meet with Republican House members to try to win support for his proposed economic-stiumulus package.

Then there are four other players who must become willing partners with the president if bipartisan government is to become a reality, rather than an idealistic dream: the House Republicans, the House Democrats, the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats.

So far, the most obvious impediment to bipartisan government at a time of severe economic crisis has been the House Republicans.

It is true that after the president’s first-week visit to the House Republican caucus, he was courteously, even warmly, received by members with multiple comments about what a “nice guy” Mr. Obama is.

But then what happened? Not one Republican voted for the stimulus package when it reached the House floor - not even one moderate or moderate-conservative (that is, if there are any left in the House Republican caucus).

That meant the House Republicans wanted and were able to enforce 100 percent partisan, party-enforced discipline to oppose the Obama-sponsored stimulus bill. They achieved this impressive unanimity even after the president added tax cuts he must have hoped would gain some Republican support, although many liberal Democrats, who preferred more infrastructure spending, and “Blue Dog” Democrats, who are budget hawks, were unhappy about those proposals.

Why did all the Republican House members choose to vote in such obvious lockstep?

It is a political mystery.

There may be an understandable explanation in human anatomical language - as in the “knee-jerk reaction.” But it’s virtually impossible to explain in political terms, since a majority of Americans, according to all the polls, want bipartisanship in this time of economic crisis and support the need for an economic stimulus and infrastructure package.

Some Republicans argue that the House Democrats bear the blame for the GOP solid opposition. They claim the Democratic House leaders shut them out entirely as the bill was drafted and finalized.

I know what the Democrats will say if this is true: The Republicans excluded Democrats almost entirely from consultations on many important House bills during the 12 years from 1994 to 2006 when Republicans were the majority.

But I am hoping House Democrats will resist the impulse to repeat the “gotcha” cycles of “they did it to us, so let’s do it to them” that has plagued our politics since Watergate.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story
Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like
  • Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney speaks at a campaign rally in Mesa, Ariz., on Monday. Arizona holds its GOP presidential primary on Feb. 28, the same day as Michigan, the home state of the former Massachusetts governor. (Associated Press)

    Romney finds tough times in Michigan

    By Andrea Billups - The Washington Times

  • TRAILING: Rick Santorum has won four states but just three delegates so far. Mitt Romney also has won four states but has 73 delegates. He is waging a strong effort to beat Mr. Santorum in Michigan. (Associated Press)

    Victory doesn’t always mean gain in delegates

    By Seth McLaughlin - The Washington Times

  • Education Department deploys ‘mystery shoppers’ to check for fraud

    By Jim McElhatton - The Washington Times

  • In Case You Missed It
    Happening Now