Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bipartisanship: A New Winning Issue
Dick Morris ^ | 10/8/2012 | Dick Morris

Posted on 10/08/2012 7:48:05 AM PDT by Signalman

I was surprised when Frank Lunz’ focus group showed that the best line of the evening’s debate by either candidate was Governor Romney’s rendition of how he worked with Democrats in Massachusetts and will do so as president. But it makes a great deal of sense that this line would resonate.

While we professionals are trying to win the war of Dems vs. Reps and Blue vs. Red, the voters just want the war to end and the parties to come to an agreement — guided by the verdict they will deliver on Election Day. Ending this toxic division has been a key national goal of American voters ever since the Clinton impeachment, the government shutdown, and the debt limit fight. Indeed, the core of Clinton’s current popularity is that he did bridge the gap and pass bipartisan legislation to balance the budget and reform welfare.

Obama’s appeal was largely based on his promise to heal these divisions. But it is self evident that they have gotten worse during his term. Any promise now to heal the breech would be seen as fraudulent.

But Romney’s record in Massachusetts offers some hope that he might succeed where Obama has failed.

Stressing this theme in ads has the additional advantage of assuring moderate Democrats and Independents that Romney would not be manipulated by the ever-feared extreme Republican right. It would remind them that he did pass positive, constructive legislation on health care and education by working with the Democratic legislature. This will give great comfort to swing voters.

The Romney campaign should follow its candidate’s initiative and begin to stress this bipartisan theme in their advertising. By doing so, they will also make it harder for Obama to sustain his negative campaign. He will be seen as the divisive one and Romney as the healer.

The Romney campaign should also do ads which revert to the basic theme of more government vs. less V. All voters — Democrats or Republicans — agree that:

• Obama has raised spending and borrowing.

• If Obama is re-elected government will grow and so will spending and borrowing.

• That Romney would probably grow it less or maybe even spend less and shrink it.

Everybody agrees on these points. They disagree about the wisdom of each course of action. But the American voter agrees with the Republicans and Romney much more than he sides with the Democrats and Obama over these questions.

And these are the key questions over which our politics has been divided for the past four years. By impartially articulating these differences, Romney can make the election about big things like the size of government spending and borrowing.

These two initiatives should dominate the next few weeks of Romney advertising:

1) Bipartisanship

2) More government vs. less government


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: bipartisanship; morris

1 posted on 10/08/2012 7:48:10 AM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Signalman
Go ahead & talk about bipartisan, if it helps get the commie out of the white house.

Once in office do the right thing.

2 posted on 10/08/2012 7:51:53 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Bipartisanship means doing what democrats want.

Look at the tantrum the democrats are throwing over big bird. There is zero chance of compromise with those people.


3 posted on 10/08/2012 7:53:53 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Nonsense. When Democrats control anything, they are *never* bipartisan, and in fact go to lengths to exclude anything the Republicans want, even if they want it too, just to snub the Republicans.

Harry Reid has been an utter ass about this as US senate majority leader for years now. He has blocked any effort to create a federal budget, he has threatened to strip the Republicans of any power at all, including senate traditions like the filibuster, and in countless other ways he has diminished the senate.

And now that the Democrats may lose the senate, they are demanding that the Republicans be “bipartisan?”

To Hell with that. The Republicans need to embrace payback, kick the Democrats around like the anti-American, whiny socialists they are, and get the republic working again. And if the Democrats try to block them, slap them until their noses bleed.


4 posted on 10/08/2012 7:55:55 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Its sheer stupidity to seek “bipartisanship” for the sake of itself. People who advocate it aren’t really thinking. And if we are pointing fingers for the lack of civility and bipartisanship, the Dems are the ones to blame. They have always been partisan but ever since the George W. Bush administration, they have constantly attacked and pushed to the Left, country be damned in the process.


5 posted on 10/08/2012 7:57:41 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

If “Bipartisan” is the preferred state of being, can someone explain to the American people the need for two distinct political parties?

I’d LOVE to see this question fully debated.


6 posted on 10/08/2012 7:59:39 AM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Once a toe-sucker..always a toe-sucker..


7 posted on 10/08/2012 8:00:32 AM PDT by ken5050 (Barack Obama: An empty suit sitting in an empty chair...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard
Get ready for more such talk in the media - we always hear about the importance of bipartisanship when the GOP gains an advantage.

On the other hand, we heard NO talk of bipartisanship in 2009.

8 posted on 10/08/2012 8:09:42 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

That is how O thinks.


9 posted on 10/08/2012 8:09:59 AM PDT by TruthWillWin (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

They all want them to “get something done”. Why does it always feel like it was done to us not for us?


10 posted on 10/08/2012 8:12:00 AM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin (Ignorance is bliss- I'm stoked)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthWillWin
That is how O thinks.

Yes, O will do whatever it takes to win.

But O is a commie.

A big difference, no?

11 posted on 10/08/2012 8:13:39 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

How is a compromise reached when one party wants a smaller less intrusive government while the other party wants a larger more controlling government.


12 posted on 10/08/2012 8:22:03 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Our nation’s founders weren’t interested in bipartisanship. If they had been they would have sought a single party system where everybody could hold hands and get things done quickly.


13 posted on 10/08/2012 8:23:45 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: monocle
How is a compromise reached when one party wants a smaller less intrusive government while the other party wants a larger more controlling government.

The only possible compromise to those two visions, is government remaining exactly as it is today and that is simply unacceptable.
14 posted on 10/08/2012 8:26:29 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Si!


15 posted on 10/08/2012 8:29:02 AM PDT by TruthWillWin (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

(sigh).....one more time.....

You CAN NOT COMPROMISE with Today’s DEMOCRAT PARTY because they are FAR LEFT-WING IDEOLOGUES who DO NOT WANT to compromise with you if you’re not a Socialist. They want what they want or they’re taking their ball and going home. A bunch of truly arrested adolescents from the 1960’s.

This is NOT the Democrat Party of Harry Truman. They have not been the sorts of people you could compromise with for a very long time. You can only compromise with a partner that is REASONABLE and RATIONAL, and today’s Democrat Party is neither.


16 posted on 10/08/2012 8:36:46 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
One issue that is rarely, if ever, raised is the congressional staffs. Many staffers spend significant time looking for issues their bosses can exploit - the electoral cycle almost insures a larger more intrusive government.

Unlike you, I prefer the Mexican standoff which at least delays the growth of government.

17 posted on 10/08/2012 8:43:41 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: monocle
Unlike you, I prefer the Mexican standoff which at least delays the growth of government.

Well actually that's exactly what I said I want.
18 posted on 10/08/2012 8:54:40 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

I agree. Compromise sucks. Both sides lose...unless the Repubs start doing as the dims...ask for a lot more than you want to get what you want.


19 posted on 10/08/2012 9:25:57 AM PDT by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise (Learn three chords and you, too, can be a Rock Star!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
"slap kick them in their butts until their noses bleed."

:-)

20 posted on 10/08/2012 9:28:28 AM PDT by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise (Learn three chords and you, too, can be a Rock Star!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

OK. We have the Democrats who want to steal other people’s money and kill babies until the population of the world is down to 30 million people. And, eventually, they’re going to have to kill older and older babies to reach that goal. How do you compromise with thieves and psychopaths?
Nope, the Democrats are my enemies. I want them to lose every election and disband their party. I used to be a Democrat. I grew up in a union household. I know my enemies and how they do business. A thief wants your money and a psychopath wants you and your family gone. What kind of compromise should we make? Just steal half my money and only kill half my family? They’ll eventually want all your money and all your family gone. They KNOW that they’re smarter than everybody else.


21 posted on 10/08/2012 10:02:09 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

It’s important to remember what existed, and what did not, as institutions in the time of the founding fathers.

To start with, while British political parties had been around since the 17th Century, the US only had factions by the time of the constitution, so there is no mention of parties in the document. It can be argued even today that political parties have no constitutional authority, but they also have no direct constitutional restrictions of their activities outside of those that apply to everyone else.

Though they had the offices of Sheriff, Justice, Constable, Marshals, Night Watch and Conservators of the Peace, law enforcement was very fragmented, and citizens were expected to pitch in when a posse or the militia was needed. The big exclusion was the use of the military in police actions.

Highly regimented paramilitary and municipal police, as exist today, also lie generally outside of the constitution, excepting the Bill of Rights.

George Washington was America’s first great spymaster, controlling a large and effective network.

The founding fathers were also far from armchair philosophers about the harsh reality of war. The French and Indian War and Pontiac’s Rebellion were incredibly nasty, no quarters savagery at times.


22 posted on 10/08/2012 2:44:24 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

I think our founders would be rather shocked at today’s prisons and the things people are locked up for.


23 posted on 10/08/2012 3:01:16 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The British in the 18th Century put a lot of prisoners on as many as 40 prison ships or gave them transportation. It gets stranger:

“Under English law, any Englishman could prosecute any crime. In practice, the prosecutor was usually the victim. It was up to him to file charges with the local magistrate, present evidence to the grand jury, and, if the grand jury found a true bill, provide evidence for the trial. If the victim of a crime won his case, the criminal was most often hanged or transported.

“Offenses fell into three categories according to their possible punishments: minor offenses, clergyable felonies, and non-clergyable felonies. Minor offenses such as petty larceny-theft of goods worth less than a shilling-were typically punished with punishments designed largely to shame the offender, such as public whipping or exposure in the stocks.

“The distinction between the second and third categories was whether or not offenders could claim benefit of clergy. Benefit of clergy originated as a legal rule permitting clerics charged with capital offenses to have their cases transferred to a church court, which did not impose capital punishment.

“By the 18th century, the application of the rule had changed in two important ways: The definition of clergy had been broadened to include anyone who could read (and, after 1706, any defendant whether or not he could read), and the church courts had lost their role in dealing with serious crimes. The result in many cases was that a defendant convicted of a capital felony could plead his clergy, be branded on the thumb, and be sent home.

“Many felons did not bring enough return to pay the merchant’s cost of transportation. The result was that felons who had been sentenced to transportation but whom nobody was willing to transport accumulated in jails intended as temporary holding places. After 1718, merchants were paid three shillings a head to transport.

“Still, the accumulation of prisoners waiting for transport created the idea of prisons themselves as punishment instead of just holding areas.”


24 posted on 10/08/2012 3:42:44 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson