Alexander, NYT Slam Obama as Too Partisan, Ignoring Actual GOP Record
I guess this criticism is never going to go away, but after dwelling for a while on other issues Robert Pear and Sheryl Gay Stolberg eventually trot out this time-honored trope—Obama needs to be nicer to Republicans:
Yet White House officials have shown little interest in Republicans, with the exception of Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, whom they have wooed assiduously, and one or two others. Mr. Obama did meet with some Republicans early on, when his aides still believed it was possible to get the support of Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee.
The No. 3 Republican in the Senate, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who attended one session with the president, recalled that in the 1960s, when he was a Congressional aide, Democrats and Republicans worked together on civil rights. He said he saw no possibility of a bipartisan health bill.
“White House officials don’t want one or don’t know how to do one,” Mr. Alexander said.
This is very confused, starting with the fact that Alexander started working as a Senate aide in 1967 by which time the main civil rights debate was over. Then any competent observer of American politics should realize that it’s no coincidence that the bipartisanship of the civil rights era vanished in the post-civil rights age. It was the debate over civil rights itself that created the unusual bipartisanship of mid-20th century America.
Last there’s the small matter here of the actual history of the health reform debate. Chuck Grassley is not just some guy, he’s the top Republican on health care issues. And the Grassley courtship process took a long time. And Grassley abandoned it in a blaze of hypocrisy, eventually slamming Democrats for embracing an individual mandate to purchase health insurance that he had long supported.
The larger context is that the president laid out some goals for health reform. He wants a bill that expands coverage in a way that’s deficit neutral in the medium-term, doesn’t disrupt people’s existing health insurance in the short-term, and bends the long-term cost curve. A lot of different ideas were put forward in Congress about how to do this. None of them were put forward by Republicans. One of them, produced by the Senate Finance Committee, was embraced by one Republican, Olympia Snowe. But the others are opposed to all the different proposed ways of achieving these goals and don’t have an alternative approach to offer either. Which is fine. Political parties can have profound disagreements about objectives. But it is what it is. Acting as if inviting Lamar Alexander over for tea would have fundamentally altered the landscape is silly.
17 Responses to “Alexander, NYT Slam Obama as Too Partisan, Ignoring Actual GOP Record”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:06 am
If the goal of one side is the failure of the other side’s efforts, it’s hard to imagine a bipartisan solution. I don’t see the point in any verbiage beyond that.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 am
Alexander knows exactly what he’s doing: as a loyal Republican soldier he’s going viral with the meme that had the White House only stepped up to the plate they would have produced a bipartisan bill. And the wired-for-the-GOP Washington press corps laps it up. With the very real possibility of health reform on the horizon, the Republicans will say and do everything to tarnish it.
What “bipartisan” means in Washington is that Democrats must do what Republicans want. The essence of Broderism.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
Lamar Alexander is a bald-faced liar. Evidently because he is certain that no Democrat in Washington will stand up and point out Lamar’s constituents that he is lying and that he had stabbed those constituents in the back by sabotaging healthcare.
Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Fox News have that same certitude that they can get away with blatant lying without challenge from the Democrats. With justification, it seems.
Why is that?
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:29 am
This is both odd & common enough to need an explanation. I think part of it may be that the writers assume something like a naturalistic attitude toward Republicans: they are what they are, their behavior is determined by their nature, by objective factors known to us all, & responsible interlocutors have to take their limitations into account. (This is the soft bigotry of low expectations.) Whereas something very different is assumed w/ respect to the President. He, at least, is fully responsible for what he does & how well he conciliates the other side.
I dunno; something must explain it.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 am
Yes, let’s deal with the people who advance the death panel lie and who want to cut spending at a time when business isn’t investing and the consumer isn’t spending. Makes perfect sense.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 am
Mr. Alexander is right; I miss the comity Richard Cheney brought to government.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
“None of them were put forward by Republicans.”
I think I know what you mean, but this is a little inaccurate. A few Republicans offered a few big ideas on this stuff, mostly before the entire party decided to enact their Blood Moon Rites of the Summer Demon God. In particular, their desire to chip away at the Employer-Bases system is worth exploring, and it’s a shame we’re deferring to unions so much on that issue (Maybe a push for EFCA would’ve bought us the leeway we need; but were I some sort of legislative tactician, I doubt I would’ve seen that possibility at the time).
The problem is, rather than articulate these ideas and push for their inclusion, they just mentioned them in a private meeting with Baucus and then began their Rage Orgy.
This was probably a mistake. The Republicans now think so, as they’re trying to bring out their own plan, though I suppose the current Republican Party isn’t the best barometer of what’s politically smart. On the other hand, it sure seems like they walked- no, CHARGED, full tilt, while bellowing a Nordic Battle Cry- right into the “Party of No” trap.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Belt class logic. If there is a disagreement between the Cool Kids and the Losers, it MUST be the Losers’ fault. The details are irrelevant. Obama is supposed to make friends with the Cool Kids, and be grateful if they deign even to speak to him.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 am
To grasp the “Obama and the Democrats need to be bipartisan to the Repulicans ( although the Republicans have no such reciprocal obligation )” argument, one must realize that Republicans represent a segment of society that believes that “what’s theirs is theirs; what’s yours is negotiable.”
They think they have what you want; and that’s your tough luck.
Therefore they must always be included – but no such luck for you.
To the extent that this mentality somehow represents an underlying socio-economic reality – they have a point, unpalatable as that point may be.
To address any such point, you must critique any underlying socio-economic reality that may support it. Lamar Alexander is far too comfy to do it for you.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 am
This kind of thinking confuses me. Then I remember that the Republican version of bipartisan is doing what they want and kissing their ass. If the GOP is in power and Democrats are groveling they being bipartisan but if Democrats are in power and Republicans aren’t being consulted with every second of every day, Democrats aren’t be bipartisan.
This is the political version of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
#4- I think you’re right that it’s a natural assumption of the political press. But I think the assumption is: “Republicans know how to govern. Democrats don’t. So we should listen to what Republicans say about it.”
This assumption doesn’t even make sense on it’s face (much less when you check on the facts), but it’s probably the natural results of Republicans winning elections for so long (and, to a lesser extent, Democrats so often winning the Presidency with relative neophytes).
I mean, you can almost see it. Alexander has been a cabinet secretary, a governor, a Presidential candidate, and a Senator. You’d really expect him to know something about how to govern.
But no, he’s just another bleeting and jotting idiot. And while I see where the assumptions come from, reporters should recognize that. After all, I went to J school, I know they teach you to discard your assumptions.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
“Acting as if inviting Lamar Alexander over for tea would have fundamentally altered the landscape is silly.”
Oh, I don’t know. If, after he’s had the tea, you wave a little bottle and say, “Now, if you want the antidote to the slow poison you’ve just drunk, here’s what you do…” – well, I could see considerable progress being made.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 am
It was the debate over civil rights itself that created the unusual bipartisanship of mid-20th century America.
Insofar as the Democrats outnumbered the Republicans in registration by some insane figure of like two to one, and the entirety of the unreconstructed racist fucks that were the Confederacy resided in the larger party, then yes, that allowed for a certain amount of bipartisanship.
But I’d say it was Anti-Communism that created the unusual bipartisanship of Mid-20th Century America.
You had your McCarthys, Nixons, and Ikes, but you also had your Scoop Jacksons and JFKs and your LBJs and your Carl Vinsons and even your Bobby Kennedys (who was an aide to a certain Midwestern Republican, despite being of a Democrat dynasty).
The minute Carter continued Nixon’s détente, the GOP finally got the weak-on-defense label to stick, as the Republicans had had only partial success in pinning to Democrats, who after all were the originators of pretty much every armed conflict since the turn of the century.
Once the Democrats were made to be the hippies, no more Anti-Communist consensus, only our Lord and Savior Reagan standing down Commies, including the Democrats.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Ah, Lamar, my favorite winner of the Golden Question Mark for All-Time Most Clueless Use of a Rock Tune for a Campaign Song, back when he ran for prez in 96. “Same As It Ever Was,” by Talking Heads, I kid not. “You may find yourself/living in a shotgun shack.” “You may ask yourself/My god! what have I done!”
Guess he never listened beyond the chorus.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Yes, let’s deal with the people who advance the death panel lie and who want to cut spending at a time when business isn’t investing and the consumer isn’t spending. Makes perfect sense.
I want to push the “Recommend” button on this.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
[...] yglesias: This is very confused, starting with the fact that Alexander started working as a Senate aide in 1967 by which time the main civil rights debate was over. Then any competent observer of American politics should realize that it’s no coincidence that the bipartisanship of the civil rights era vanished in the post-civil rights age. It was the debate over civil rights itself that created the unusual bipartisanship of mid-20th century America. [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
… it was Anti-Communism that created the unusual bipartisanship of Mid-20th Century America.
Specifically, it was in large part because of the Cold War that the civil rights consensus emerged. White supremacy became a liability in the struggle for hegemony over the nonwhite world.