Tweet
Regardless of how you feel about the quality of Massachusetts health care reform, then-Gov. Mitt Romney’s role in its passage was a perfect example of the bipartisan compromise ideal that President Obama claims to love so strongly. Yet Obama is now actively trying to punish Romney for taking part in the bipartisanship Obama thinks is lacking.
As a Republican governor, Romney worked across the aisle with the Democratic legislature on a major piece of legislation to deal with a big issue. Neither sides got exactly what they wanted, but in the end they came together around a compromise they could agree to. This is exactly how Obama claims he wants the federal government to work on everything from health care to immigration reform to deficit reductions.
Not surprisingly, Romney’s past willingness to work in a bipartisan manner on health care is something many hardcore conservatives are using to attack him. The interesting thing, though, is that the Obama administration and their allies have been gleefully stoking the anti-Romney sentiment with their death hug strategy. They are actively using backhanded praise of Romney’s previous bipartisan moment to try to hurt his political career.
I personally have no problem with this strategy, but I’ve always seen “bipartisan” as, at best, overrated, and mainly an attempt to destroy democratic accountability.
But for Obama, this is deeply disingenuous and runs counter to the “pro-bipartisan” image he has been trying to cultivate. Who would want to work with the other party knowing this willingness to reach across the aisle could be used to help crush your political aspirations later? This is exactly the behavior that helps ruin the prospect for a future bipartisan deal.
Romney made the mistake of actually putting into practice the “everyone as adults coming together for a big comprise” ideal Obama claims to cherish, and for doing that, Obama is intent on actively helping others make Romney pay the political wages for committing this sin.
10 Comments
Interesting, isn’t it? Singing Kumbaya works great coming after a turd like GWB, but doesn’t work so great for re-election. What’s interesting is that this will be a further boon to T-Paw and what ever other empty suit that isn’t named Romney or Huntsman.
Has anyone given a thought to 2016? These guys may just be biding their time until whatshisname vacates the White House. I’m watching to see how the national mood develops during what I assume is Obama’s second term because it could presage a Republican landslide. Obama is not really a Democrat. Obama is for Obama. I can’t see what he’s done to strengthen the party one iota. In fact, he appears to have subsumed the party apparatus entirely to his own purposes. The Democrats were an anemic bunch before Obama’s election, they’re bloodless now. Whatever few (damaged) vertebrae they had before 2008 have been ground up and scattered over the WH Rose Garden.
Maybe I could hope that a second term of hopey changey bipartisanship will finally ring the death knell of both parties, but it’s hard to see what could take their places in just four years.
R U saying thatbi-partianship is this election’s compassionate conservatism?
Yeah, all of that is amusing, but whoever the Republicans choose as their candidate will win or lose based on the state and direction of the economy. That’s how swing voters vote.
The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.6% and climbing. Therefore:
a) If the September 2012 unemployment rate, when it is revealed in October 2012, is 7.5% or lower and trending downward, then Obama will be re-elected.
b) If the unemployment rate is 8.0% or higher, then the Republican will win.
c) If the unemployment rate is 7.6% to 7.9%, then it is a toss up. Then other issues (uncomplicated ones like “character” or election fraud) can push it one way or the other.
I’m not sure. Is compassionate conservatism a discredited term? I know it never had much heft in these climes, but we’re not in the mainstream.
Is compassionate conservatism a discredited term?
Ask W.
It’s politics.* Obama doesn’t want to run against Romney and is doing what he can to see that he doesn’t have to.
*AKA, war by other means.
I don’t know what study you are looking at, but I doubt those are accurate numbers, especially considering the power the BLS has on defining those statistics.
I think the BLS skew(s) has been thoroughly reviewed over the years. Most of the unemployment articles I’ve read begin by deconstructing the BLS methodology. As in, but………. and however………
I think it’s a pathetic story for the democrats that Obama doesn’t have to face a primary challenge. I voted for him but won’t do so again. Fool me once …….