quote:

Richard Mourdock, fresh off of defeating Dick Lugar in the Indiana Senate primary, hit the ground running with a quote everyone is talking about this morning:

quote:

I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view...If we [win the House, Senate, and White House], bipartisanship means they have to come our way, and if we’re successful in getting the numbers, we’ll work towards that.

What I think is interesting about this is that, by most accounts, Mourdock isn’t really part of the crazy faction of Republican politics. A recent New York Times profile compares him more to Utah Senator Mike Lee than to flaky and failed 2010 nominees Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell. That is, Mourdock is part of the new normal in Republican politics, and that’s a “normal” that utterly rejects the notion that any cooperation between the parties is possible - that is, without the other party’s abject capitulation.

As I’ve argued, the problem with the Republican Party - the problem that Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein write about in their new diagnosis of dysfunction, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks - isn’t that many of today’s Republicans are extraordinarily conservative. It’s that they reject the kinds of co-operation and compromise with their opponents that a Madisonian system depends upon.

What’s depressing about Mourdock’s quote is that it’s not about conservative policy positions or philosophy. It’s all about partisan polarization almost as a primary goal in and of itself - a goal that is now commonly aspired to even by mainstream Republicans. If their most important project during the Obama era has been to make the political system more dysfunctional than ever, that project took another step forward yesterday.

quote:

I wonder if Republican voters are noticing and, if they are, agreeing with the increasing Republican position that the only acceptable option is one that gives Republicans 100% of what they want.

And let's not say that President Obama does the same thing, because this is absolutely false.

In the debt ceiling negotiations, President Obama dropped his desire for tax increases. In the deficit reduction talks, President Obama offered several dollars in spending cut for every dollar in tax increases, thereby meeting Republicans way more than half way. Even in health care, President Obama made numerous concessions to Republican senators, only to have them renege and vote against him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Mourdock's absolutely right, it's time for the definition of bipartisan to stop meaning "do it the democrat way". Obama and Reid have gotten away with this shit for too long, and Boeher and co have let them. Time for new leadership in the House, Senate, and Executive office, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, McConnell. and Obama have ALL got to go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Mourdock's absolutely right, it's time for the definition of bipartisan to stop meaning "do it the democrat way". Obama and Reid have gotten away with this shit for too long, and Boeher and co have let them. Time for new leadership in the House, Senate, and Executive office, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, McConnell. and Obama have ALL got to go.

Sounds like you're in favor of a single party system like sayyyyyyyy, China, Cuba, N Korea and the former USSR [8|]

quote:

Looking just at 2011, Obama’s third year in office and one year before he stands for re-election, Gallup finds that polarization between Republicans and Democrats was higher than it has ever been in any other third year of Presidential term since they became taking measurements:

Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake argue that numbers like this are a reflection of the hyper-partisan atmosphere of modern American politics:

We are simply living in an era in which Democrats dislike a Republican president (and Republicans dislike a Democratic one) even before the commander in chief has taken a single official action.

The realization of that hyper-partisan reality has been slow in coming for Obama. But in recent months, he seems to have turned a rhetorical corner — taking the fight to Republicans (and Republicans in Congress, particularly) and all but daring them to call his bluff.

Democrats will point out that Republicans in Congress have played a significant part in the polarization; the congressional GOP has stood resolutely against almost all of Obama’s top priorities. And Obama’s still-high popularity among the Democratic base also exacerbates the gap.

For believers in bipartisanship, the next nine months are going to be tough sledding, as the already-gaping partisan divide between the two parties will only grow as the 2012 election draws nearer. And, if the last decade of Gallup numbers are any indication, there’s little turnaround in sight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Yes, it means: "do as we say or we're not playing."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

I await the attacks from the Right

quote:

If we [win the House, Senate, and White House]

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
At that point, yes, the Democratic {I corrected your typo for you - since there is no Democrat party in the United States} party would certainly need to be more mindful of conservative concerns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

I await the attacks from the Right

Well, if you consider being asked, "so what," an attack, so be it. It's hardly a new definition, is it, though? Wasn't it President Obama who declared that it was, "Republicans to the back of the bus," when it was his turn to have a majority?


Perhaps Fightdirecto, you missed that bit of your snip which you didn't blow up and bold? Or maybe you just hoped everybody else would?

quote:

If we [win the House, Senate, and White House]

Kind of a big, "if," don't you think? And kind of a clear statement from the nation that we don't want to go, where the Democrats have been trying to take us? At that point, yes, the Democrat party would certainly need to be more mindful of conservative concerns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Does the word "compromise" mean anything to you guys????

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Does the word "compromise" mean anything to you guys????

Yeah, it means let the democrats win.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

A few months ago, Mr Boehner and his House nearly let the country default on our debts, causing the credit rating to be lowered in response.  The Republicans take no responsibility in that fiasco, but blame it on the president's policies, even though the credit agency said, at the time, it was because of the debt ceiling fight. 

Now, Boehner & Co. are ready to do it again.  Further, they want to increase the defense budget in part to build an east coast missile defense shield.  The shield we have does not work, is a waste of millions of dollars a year.  The Pentagon has said the huge budgetary increase is not needed.  But Congress keeps pushing things onto the military they don't want (like the amphibious tank).  And to pay for this unwanted, unnecessary defense budget, Congress will force poor children to go hungry, deny elderly health care, increase the number of students in our public classrooms and cut back on health and human services so that many other minorities and disenfranchised do not get the care and help they deserve and need in order to survive.