Kyl: When We Say 'Bipartisan,' We Mean Dems Need to Agree With Us
A lot of attention has been paid lately to the idea of a "bipartisan" economic recovery bill. Clearly the House GOPers are happy to blame Dems while voting against the stimulus, but what about the Senate? Well, Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) just distilled his side's notion of cooperation during a press conference on the recovery legislation:
How about the Senate? Well, there have been two committee meetings, the Appropriations Committee and the Finance Committee, in which I sit. Not a single one of our [Republican] amendments was voted up. Every one was rejected.So essentially no changes as a result of those two markups on the bill that will come to the Senate floor next week. And if [the Ledbetter and SCHIP bills] are any indication, we'll get votes on amendments, they'll all lose, and the bill will then pass, and we end up with a totally partisan package. I don't think that's what the president had in mind when he talked about putting legislation together in a bipartisan way.
Okay ... so "bipartisanship" means not an exchange of ideas from both parties, or a chance to vote on proposals from both parties, but Democratic agreement on approving the GOP agenda? Good luck with that.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
That's what the Republicans and their media suckups (I'm looking at you, Halperin) ALWAYS mean by "bipartisanship".
January 29, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just Halperin... Yesterday, Norah O'Donnell grilled Majority Whip Clybourn hard on the need for arts funding. His eloquent response nearly brought tears to my eyes. In a nutshell, artists and arts educators need to eat, too. I would have added the large number of tech personnel that actually make our theaters operate. Unbelievable...
In the last week, it seems that nearly all the press have become GOP tools.
January 29, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bipartisanship is date rape.
We've all laughed about the absurdity of that statement, but clearly, the Republicans believe it and want to make sure they're always the ones doing the raping.
January 29, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called, YOU GIVE, WE TAKE attitude.
They want to be able to claim that they got the Dems and Obama to BACK DOWN on almost everything.
January 29, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
But is sells. That is, the way in which he is phrasing things (e.g., "Not a single one of our [Republican] amendments was voted up. Every one was rejected.") sounds compelling to most people. Like it or not, he is playing this well. The strategy isn't to bash Obama, it is to bash the congressional Dems (they're not like Obama!). The midterm election contest has already begun.
January 29, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might sell but I'm hoping most American taxpayers are not so stupid to buy! I plan to be watching BOTH parties. And calling them on their crap....up front and very vocal!
January 29, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it will backfire. The bill was already largely bipartisan. So they will be seen as trying to tip the balance while calling for a level playing field.
It's time for the hypocrisy to be well noticed.
January 29, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't read it the way you do, Elana. Bipartisanship means more than just listening to ideas, then voting them down 100% of the time. It means occasionally agreeing that the ideas presented make sense. I don't know the specifics here to argue the merits of the ideas rejected, but in general I think he has a point. And he isn't griping that all of the Republican ideas were rejected, he's griping that they were ALL rejected in commitee.
That said, I think it's way too early to give up on the concept and I think Obama is right in pushing for compromises by making changes based on preliminary discussions, even if eventually the bill gets passed with a partisan vote.
January 29, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me rephrase part of what I wrote.
He isn't advocating that all of the Republican ideas should be included, he is griping that they were all rejected.
Some inclusion is in the final product is needed for bipartisanship.
January 29, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the other part of this is what things the D's put in the bill up-front (e.g., plenty of tax cuts) didn't put in (not sure?), or took out of the bill (e.g., the Family planning bit). So, to claim that the R's got NOTHING, isn't accurate.
January 29, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, that's what I tried to address in my second paragraph above.
My initial comment is more directed at Elana's comment about the Democrats approving the GOP agenda. I think that bit of hyperbole misses the point of bipartisanship.
January 29, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Sen. Kyl explain what amendments the Republicans proposed? What if their only amendments were bad ones? You can't expect the Dems to vote in favour of a bad Republican idea just because they have to agree to something.
The Republicans should try proposing a constructive amendment. If the Dems vote against it, then Sen. Kyl should tell everyone what the amendment was and why they were proposing it. Let the people judge for themselves how arrogant the Dems are or how obstructive the Republicans are. [Possibly this info is public knowledge. If so, please excuse my procedural ignorance.]
January 29, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to take Kyl's complaints all that seriously without knowing what the amendments were.
Republicans also have a responsibility to offer amendments that are at least within shouting distance of being accepted by the Democrats; otherwise, they have no one to blame but themselves when they're crazy-ass harebrained stupid amendments get knocked down.
Whoops. The bipartisan spirit hasn't quite gotten to me.
January 29, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless, of course, that was the plan all along: to offer a lot of stuff you know damn well isn't going to get accepted, just so you can whine about it later. The argument also falls apart when you consider the changes that were made in the House to accommodate Republican views.
Personally, I don't care how many Republican votes the plan gets. The point of bipartisanship is to draft a plan that appeals to Americans of all persuasions. In that I think they succeeded. All indications are that even Republicans are in favor of this bill. If their elected representatives won't vote for it, there's a time-honored remedy for that, and they'll have a chance to exercise it in two years, although I think the voters might be inclined to express their opinions a lot sooner.
January 29, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republican voters aren't apparently in favor of it:
Link: Gallup results on stimulus plan
Rasmussen's numbers are even more stark (at least with respect to independents).
The good news?
From another Gallup:
What is immediately clear from the map is that residents of the United States were very Democratic in their political orientation last year. In fact, Gallup has earlier reported that a majority of Americans nationwide said they identified with or leaned to the Democratic Party in 2008.
Link: It's hard out there for a Republican....
January 29, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Diageo/Hotline poll out a couple of days ago showed Republicans at 50/50. But whether it's 50% or 40% doesn't really matter that much. Support for the bill among Republican voters is a lot higher than among Republican Congressmen, which means some of those Congressmen are going to have some 'splaining to do to the folks back home.
Moreover, it was clear from the last election that people are sick and tired of hyperpartisan politics. They want things to get done.
January 29, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'd say, given the three results, that yes, more Republican voters are in favor of the legislation than are Republican representatives.
And I think Republican representatives have pretty much squandered any relevance they may have had (the bleating of Drudge and Halperin notwithstanding).
This was a stupid vote on their part.
January 29, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the whole bipartisanship thing is to set them up to look like schmucks if the bill passes with zero Republican votes. The R's have played their part perfectly. I'd be surprised if a lot of them weren't hearing it from the folks back home, particularly those in purplish districts. The interesting test will be when it comes back for a second vote in the House after the conference committee. We'll see how many of them get religion between now and then.
January 29, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It certainly will. It will also be interesting to see if the 11 Democrats who voted against it will switch votes.
If they don't, I'd like to see consequences.
January 29, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Unless, of course, that was the plan all along: to offer a lot of stuff you know damn well isn't going to get accepted, just so you can whine about it later."
Looks like that is what they go for and there are plenty of people foolish enough to take that hook, line and sinker. I wish I had a bridge to sell them. They certainly seem gullable enough.
January 29, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the ideas don't make sense, then why should they be included?
Likewise, if things that Rs wanted were included,(which they were) why did they NOT vote for it?
You're presuming good faith, which is demonstrably not present.
January 30, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's that McCain guy doing these days?
January 29, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard he's in an experimental amyloid beta reduction study at the Novartis Institute of Biomedical Research.
January 29, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!
January 29, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bipartisanship? DeMint Predicts Zero Senate GOP Votes For Obama’s Recovery Package.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/29/senate-gop-zero-votes/#comments
Yesterday, despite President Obama’s unprecedented outreach — which included multiple working sessions on Capitol Hill and a White House happy hour — zero House GOP members voted for the economic recovery package. Their reasoning was that Obama’s recovery package did not contain enough Bushonomics.
Today, hours after the GOP’s defiant no-vote, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor ironically penned an op-ed in Politico saying that the GOP should not simply become the party of “no” to the Obama agenda. “We pledge to become a party of inclusion, not exclusion,” he proclaimed:
At a moment when the country needs our help, it would be a great mistake for the House GOP to turn inward and simply become the party of “no.” We want our new president to succeed, and America needs our new President to succeed, which is why we will contribute the full force of our ideas to help him navigate the choppy waters.
The recovery legislation will now be heard by the Senate. Is there hope for bipartisanship there? Unlikely. Today on Fox News, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) excoriated the legislation and said that he “thinks” the bill will receive zero Senate GOP votes:
DEMINT: But I think it is going to help define the Republicans and the Democrats once again. Because every Republican in the House rejected this, and I think every Republican in the Senate might do as well.
The House GOP was unwilling to compromise from the start, requesting earlier this week that the caucus present “100 percent” opposition to the package. With DeMint’s comments, it appears that conservative senators are preparing to mount a similar offensive.
In his op-ed, Cantor emphasized that he wants “our new president to succeed.” If that is the case, why did his caucus take its marching orders from Rush Limbaugh, who has explicitly said that he wants Obama to “fail?”
January 29, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Collins has all but come out and said she's voting for it. Snowe is probably better than 50-50. If they can hold this off until after the MN FUBAR is resolved, they'll have their 60 votes. Republicans up for re-election in 2010:
Bennett, Robert F. (R-UT)
Bond, Christopher S. (R-MO)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burr, Richard (R-NC)
Coburn, Tom (R-OK)
Crapo, Mike (R-ID)
DeMint, Jim (R-SC)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)
Martinez, Mel (R-FL)
McCain, John (R-AZ)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Thune, John (R-SD)
Vitter, David (R-LA)
Voinovich, George V. (R-OH)
Gregg, Martinez, Specter and Voinovich are good possibilities. After watching Liddy Dole go down in flames, Burr might be looking over his shoulder, too.
January 29, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that the republicans in the senate would dare filibuster the bill. The republicans up in 2010 would prevent that.
January 29, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no doubt that McConnell will demand a 60 vote threshold to pass. I also have little doubt it will get that many. It's easy for a Republican in a solid red congressional district to vote no. It's a lot harder for a Senator who has to run state-wide, and if you're a Republican from a state that's trending blue, you'd better think twice about voting no.
January 29, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that one. I guess we shall see. It did not sound like that was where they were going on this with all their hyperbole. I don't think that they will block it. Voting against it is one thing, totally blocking it would be double political suicide.
January 29, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what Kyl means here is not approving Republican amendments to existing legislation per se - he is complaining that the minority had no initial say in crafting the legislation. Which is how things often worked in the way-back time before REPUBLICANS started frequently crafting partisan legislation with no Dem input when they controlled the Senate, then claiming the process was bipartisan because Dems could offer amendments in mark-ups, which would be summarily voted down by the majority Republicans.
So Kyl's complaint is legitimate, and he is also a hyperpartisan arch-hypocrite for making it. If he wants "change" now, I suggest he win back the Senate for his party and make it happen.
January 29, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think kyl forgot that he just barely squeaked by in the 06 election. He's forgeting about the fact that arizona is turning blue as well, unless he is not interested in running for reelection, which I doubt. Let's see 2012 he is up again and who just might be there to take him down. Napolitano. If I were him, I'd start changing my tune. Ah, but that would be smart and he is a blockhead.
January 29, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to burst your bubble, but with Napolitano employed in the Obama Administration and McCain opting to run again in 2010, the leading candidate to replace Kyl is...John Shadegg.
The only Dem in the state with high enough visibility to beat Kyl (or Shadegg) is current AG Terry Goddard - who most think will run for Gov. in 2010.
We're redder here than casual observers want to believe. The state changes when the retirees begin to come from more progressive stock versus what floods our communities now.
January 29, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you don't think that napolitano would still be popular in arizona? I thought her approval ratings were through the roof and she was leading mccain in polling.
Also, kyl barely squeaked by in the last midterm election. He only got 53% of the vote as an incumbent. 2012 will be a general and obama ran close with mccain in arizona in the last election, even though he won't be on the ticket in 2012. Obama only lost by 200,000 votes. I bet arizona is up for grabs in 2012.
January 29, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kyl seems to miss the point that this is not a bipartisan country -- that is a perfect 50/50 split as he seems to think. Republicans lost, big time, two cycles in a row. That means they don't have enough votes in the Senate (or House) to pass amendments on their own. Now, if they put up an amendment or two that had appeal to anyone beyond their right-wing nutter circle jerks, then perhaps they'd attract a blue dog vote or two. Straight up repug amendments will only attract straight up republican votes, and hence they will go down in flames.
There is something inherently anti-democratic about republican thinking.
January 29, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kyl is still under the dangerous delusion that the GOP is still in control and has power. Funny I remember for the last 8 years this monster Kyl and his GOP Ilk NEVER offered to work in any bipartisanship manner.
Kyl was lucky back then because he was dealing with Reid and the rest cowardly spineless democratic creeps in the senate. Maybe if the Dems knew how to be a legitimate opposition party maybe just maybe we would not be in the mess we are in now. I give the republicans credit; they have balls unlike the Dems
January 29, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well what do you know, John Kerry is smarter than any number of our commenters around here. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18171.html
January 29, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you define bipartisanship in terms of style, the Republicans got it with overtures of inclusion by Obama, which they rejected. Promising to vote against a measure just before the President shows up to woo you has got to lose you style points no matter how expedient you think it is politically.
If you define bipartisanship substantively, then GOP pols actually are looking pretty good... they got rid of a few pork chops by exerting public pressure, they insisted and got tax cuts (which are only stimulative in a Grover Norquist textbook of economics), and the President listened to them, the first time this has happened in eight years. Why all the fuss?
I'll tell you why. Because, finally, the GOP is reaping what it has sown. Their economic ideas are bankrupt (as they have always been); their social divisiveness, always on display, is having less political impact in tough times for everybody; and their very narrow operating agenda, which never had room for creative dissent, is becoming more comical as it becomes more obvious. Hence no new RNC chairman with bright ideas, Rush Limbaugh hero worship (pathologic fealty if you ask me), and an infantile resistance to productive change, economic or otherwise, for fear (rightly so) that they'll never get credit for it.
January 29, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
With any luck, statements like Kyl's will help to kill the notion that bipartisanship is a good thing in itself. It's good if it leads to better legislation, otherwise not. Bipartisanship can work if there is common ground between the parties, or if there is an actual balance of expertise between the parties, and if the parties will deal with each other honorably.
None of these conditions is in place in Congress today. The Republican party is run by right-wing extremists who are out-of-step with 80% or more of the country. There's no useful common ground with these sorts of people. There is no balance of expertise between the parties. One thing we've learned this week is that the Republicans do not have the slightest grasp of economics. And we know very well that the Republicans will stab the Democrats in the back at any time.
If Obama wants to use bipartisanship as a rhetorical club and clobber the Republicans with it, fine. But the sooner he learns that the way you deal with Republicans is by running them over, the better.
January 29, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Skybolt, your comments are right on the money. Wish I had made them.
I would emphasize that Obama runs a real risk of coming across as a political naif if he continues the bipartisan meme. The toughest thing in politics (and any walk of life) is to get other people to do what you want. It's all the harder when there's nothing in it for them.
Obama should concentrate on doing what is right for the country. He now has (and may never again have) the political capital and will to push through a powerful and smart agenda. He shouldn't waste this solid hand by making pie-in-the-sky attempts at bipartisanship which crafty GOP right wingers will use to their own advantage.
January 29, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's important to try to find bipartisan solutions not because it's what Republican congressmen want but because it's clearly what the American people want. This much was clear from the last election. If the Republicans in congress won't cooperate, there's nothing you can do about it, but it's important to try. People are sick and tired of hyperpartisanship, and if the R's continue in this vein, they will pay the price.
January 29, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are not tired of hyperpartisanship. Partisanship is just a word politicians feed the media. What people are tired of is the government not working for them. Trying to work with Republicans, whether you call it "bipartisanship" or not, is going to reduce the effectiveness of the government in working for the people. Therefore, in order to retain the support of the people, Obama needs to tell the Republicans to sit down and speak when spoken to. If the Republicans continue in this vein, and Obama keeps letting them get away with it, it will reduce the effectiveness of the government, which will hurt the party with more to lose, which is the Democrats.
January 29, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right! Nothing matters except results! If the repubs succeed in watering down everything and giving their good old millionaire friends some more goddamned tax breaks at everyone else's expense then the stimulus will fail and Obama will be blamed. The only point is to make the stimulus work as best is possible. All this bipartisan talk is just repubs manipulating public opinion to get more money for their already rich and well fed clients period. Tax breaks for the rich and corporations does NOT add shit to stimulate anything but donations to repub politicians and run up the debt for the rest of us to pay off. We have the votes to do it right so being blackmailed to it half assed is just plain stupid. Stick to what you know is right and what works.
January 29, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Bob Cesca pointed out at Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/obama-versus-the-republic_b_162004.html , this hand-wringing and bed-wetting over Obama's bipartisan approach has got to stop. He's proven time and again that he is playing 3-D chess while everyone else is playing checkers.
It hurts nothing for Obama to make a bipartisan approach, on every piece of legislation, every time. He isn't going to get a lesser bill because of concessions to Republicans, because he would have to make exactly the same concessions to Blue Dogs. It makes Republicans look bad every time Obama makes high profile attempts at bipartisanship and the Republicans throw it back in his face like this.
January 29, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the bill is weaker because Obama tried to be all fluffypartisan. If Obama is so super-brilliant, and the Republicans are such dumb old farts, then why did Obama reduce the size of the stimulus, waste part of it on tax cuts, and remove family planning funding from it in order to please them?
He would not have had to made the exact same concessions to the Blue Dogs. There is still such a thing as party discipline. If the vote was actually going to be close, those fake Dems could be bullied into voting the right way. You deal with a fake Dem the same way you deal with an actual Republican. But really, you cannot seriously believe that dealing with Evan Bayh is like dealing with John Boehner. The Blue Dogs would have thrown a tantrum over renovating the Mall? I think not.
The Republicans lose nothing by handling things this way. It will make them more popular among their remaining supporters. They are not trying to appeal to the general population. They are trying to appeal to the dead-enders, and the more they fight with Obama, the more the dead-enders will love them.
People really have to get over the idea that everything that happens is part of Obama's master plan. He screwed up, and apparently if it's up to his supporters he will continue to screw up until we're all totally screwed.
January 29, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is not in Congress. He made a proposal for funds he thinks he needs to make government work. Demos in Congress write the bill. He's not a Dick Cheney, he only has a bully pulpit.
January 29, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be great for the Senate Republicans to be unanimous in opposition to the bill.
That way, the Dems could take the bill to conference, and cut every single provision that was introduced in order to draw them in. If they aren't going to vote for the bill, then there is no reason for them to get what they want from it.
January 29, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Newt Gingrich set exactly that definition of cooperation in 1994. It is a corrolary of the members of that caucus beliving they are morally right in whatever thought wafts into thier heads. Since they are Morally RIGHT the only RIGT thing to do is make sure others think like they do.
No one should be surprised that it remains the basis of Republicant world view.
January 29, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, we've heard this same song and dance before. The Rethugs were bitching about this same thing when they were in the majority, claiming that the Democrats wanted bipartisanship to mean agreeing with their policies.
January 29, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except they were lying. As always.
January 29, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink