Skip to comments.Is Bipartisanship Possible or even Preferable?
Posted on 02/19/2010 4:52:41 AM PST by ConservativeHideout
With all the talk of bipartisanship lately, have we been missing a larger point? Weve talked about it being inauthentic, a trap, and a farce. All of those are likely quite true. But is the larger question, Should Republicans even try?
All through 2009, this blog, and thousands of others, chronicled what the Democrats wanted. We used video footage, quotes, excerpts, and good old fashioned connecting the dots, to show what the end-goals of the Democrats were. We knew that the public option was supposed to lead to single payer. We knew that the Porkulus was a massive pay off. We knew that the bailouts were meant to achieve control of as many industries as possible. We knew that they want to control the media and Internet. We knew that they mean to get card check as a payoff for their union goon supporters. The list could go on and on.
Not only were we able to discover the Democratic goals for 2009, but we can also safely assume that the goals have not changed. They may re-name the initiatives and legislation, but the intent is the same. Just as the oft mentioned second stimulus morphed into the jobs bill, they will use subtle (or not) changes in language to re-define and re-frame debates. When, in reality, they are presenting the same tired progressive ideas in alternate packaging. In this manner, they will attempt to increase their control over the everyday lives of all Americans. Bit by bit, piece by piece, they will eventually come to control everything we do. They will bide their time when they must, and they will take large chunks when they are in power, or can when they can exploit a crisis that they likely caused in the first place.
So then, lets assume that there is some bipartisan progress on health care. Will this not be part of a socialist plan that is either a direct attempt at control, or a Cloward-Piven plan designed to create an exploitable future crisis? Will a watered down progressive policy still be fascist & socialist? Will any concessions or assurances made by the Democrats be broken once the vote is taken?
To be realistic, bipartisan legislation will undoubtedly slow down the march towards the nanny state. But, weve already gone too far in that direction. Each step brings us all closer, and far too many steps have already been taken. We can afford no more of the slow slide towards control. Instead, the powers of government must be rolled back, not simply expanded more slowly. The left is too close to their end goals, hence their desire to use whatever means necessary to get there. They can literally taste it.
It cannot be ignored that we are dealing with the left. They have shown again and again that they believe that the end justifies the means. They have repeatedly lied about their intent, and have been trying to deflect the blame for their many failures. The GOP should have no motivation to deal with another party that have repeatedly failed to honor the most simple of promises.
The promises of bipartisanship coming from the left are as empty as all the other broken promises. They should be considered as such.
to the left....bipartisanship means....you agree 100% with me and you are bipartisan. you don't agree 100% with me you are an obstructionist partisan.
Hell is filled with people who were evil, who led others to evil, and those that allowed themselves to be led to evil.
Screw bipartisanship. What I expect elected pols to do is respect the Constitution and understand that capitalism—not diversity—made America the economic powerhouse of the last century.
Principles and a sense of right and wrong should govern decisions made about the county. Not bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship is a term used by socialists meaning accept our agenda. It inevitably takes us one step further down the path of socialism.
“Bipartisanship” is a word that no longer means bipartisanship. It’s simply another political label used to try to reframe political opposition.
There is nothing inherently good about bipartisanship. A policy is good (positive for the country) not simply because it was “passed in a bipartisan way,” but because it actually embodies a workable, representative view of what the represented want.
I recently read Dick Morris’ definition of “triangulation.” It is what “bipartisan” used to mean -— taking two opposing views, rising above them to find common ground, if possible, and crafting legislation from there.
Our democracy with its checks and balances is set up to run on a two-party system. The party out of power has a positive role to play, an affirmative duty to oppose and fight its corner. There is no virtue in compromising for its own sake. A party should compromise only to avoid worse, never to appease. There is no virtue or benefit to the Republic if the Republicans surrender their commitment to limited government.
A clever minority party (a characteristic which the Republican Party need not fear it will be accused of) should never put itself in a place where it must compromise because of a public-relations problem. That, unfortunately but predictably, is exactly what the Republicans are submitting themselves and the Republic to.
The question is not whether the Republicans should engage in bipartisanship, the question is whether the Republicans will act as patriots.
Neither side wants it so I’m saying not possible.
Absolutely! The current effort is about capitulation, not cooperation. There can be no middle ground with the left.
It has two different meanings:
For Democrats, it means a) you meanies who gained control of Congress should give us an equal voice on Committees, because we're the (dis)loyal opposition; b) "WE WON" so stuff it, the pork is ours; and c) which wishy-washy Republican can we bribe, and claim this was a bipartisan vote?
For Republicans, it means a) why sure, walk all over us, we are really, really, nice people. And we like pork.