Bipartisanship is not a magic word
Jeb Bush caused a stir this week when he said partisanship in Washington had gone too far. If that doesn’t sound like news, what really drew attention was the former Florida governor’s apparent belief his father and Ronald Reagan would find it difficult to become the GOP nominee these days.
I say “apparent” because Bush’s statement, in an interview with Bloomberg, included one enormous qualifier. Reagan and George H.W. Bush would have trouble with today’s GOP, the younger Bush said, “if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.”
Well, that settles that!
The notion that Reagan, at least, would be spurned by the contemporary GOP is odd. In 1980 he was considered far more conservative than the elder Bush, who succeeded him as the Republican standard bearer. Nothing about nominees Bob Dole (1996) or John McCain (2008) places them to Reagan’s right. Even George W. Bush was less aggressive than Reagan on taxes, and his spending, given that unlike Reagan he had a fully GOP-led Congress to work with, is less forgivable.
Yet, Bush didn’t mean Reagan was too conservative for the 2012 GOP.
Until cloning technology allows us to re-create Reagan in the flesh, however, this is just a parlor game. The more pertinent matter is whether Bush was correct to point the finger at partisanship.
Or, even better, whether bipartisanship is the cure for what ails us.
Bipartisanship gave us the No Child Left Behind Act, which both sides now criticize (for different reasons). There was significant support from each party in Congress to authorize the Iraq war, which the left eventually disowned and of which the right grew weary.
The same goes for McCain-Feingold — formally, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — which sought to get “soft money” out of elections but instead led to super PACs.
That’s just in the past 11 years. Back in the Reagan era, when the president struck those bipartisan deals of which Jeb Bush approves so much, “working together” brought us tax cuts but only unfulfilled pledges of reduced spending, and amnesty for illegal immigrants without the promised border enforcement to prevent future illicit border crossings.
I could go on, just as Bush or others could point to good laws that passed with bipartisan support: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for instance.
The point is that being “bipartisan” doesn’t necessarily make a bill good.
Obamacare wouldn’t have magically become good law if a few Republicans had voted for it. The handful of GOP votes for the Dodd-Frank financial reform didn’t prevent it from enshrining “too big to fail” into the law or squeezing credit markets.
A common argument today is that the problem has more to do with obstructionism, that too often one side stands in the other’s way to forestall legislative progress.
The left trotted out this argument back in the health-care debates of 2009-10. In fact, very liberal Democrats spent several months trying to bully moderate Democrats into supporting very liberal policies before Scott Brown’s election to the Senate gave Republicans enough votes even to be obstructionist.
Lately, the GOP-led House and majority-Democrat Senate have disagreed about long- and even short-term plans for taxes and spending. The bipartisan solution being urged is for Republicans to accept higher taxes in order to get lower spending. That happens to be the exact kind of arrangement, economists now warn, that would lead our economy off a “fiscal cliff” in 2013. But at least we’d be holding hands as we took the plunge!
When “bipartisan” means taking the best ideas from both sides, it’s not such a bad thing. If this happens less frequently these days, I chalk it up to two things.
First, while there’s an apparent cry for compromise, there’s very little consensus about what’s an acceptable compromise. We want other people’s taxes raised, or spending that affects other people cut. Politicians don’t advocate splitting things down the middle, because there’s no sign of a constituency for shared pain.
Second, even when combining ideas is practical, the results tend to be smaller than the kind of Grand Compromise we think we need for our toughest problems. But in some cases — health care comes to mind — it’d be better to take several nibbles at problems than to go whole-hog.
Making both sides mad, or happy, too often is just an excuse for not making sure to make good law.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
268 comments Add your comment
Jeffrey
June 14th, 2012
9:06 am
The affordable care act was bipartisan, because it was originally conceived by conservatives I even heard of governor who called himself a republican passed a similar law in some northeast state. But I agree the affordable care act would have been better if it was a single payer totally partisan bill. That would’ve at least explained why no republican voted for it.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 14th, 2012
9:08 am
Obozo couldn’t get single payer past his own Democrats. That’s the only reason it didn’t happen.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 14th, 2012
9:11 am
Jobless claims on the increase
CNNMoney June 14, 2012: 8:42 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits climbed last week, indicating continued trouble for the labor market.
The Labor Department reported Thursday that 386,000 people filed new jobless claims in the week ended June 9, up 6,000 from the previous week’s revised figure.
————————-
Obozo: Do-nothing failure.
Road Scholar
June 14th, 2012
9:16 am
“The notion that Reagan, at least, would be spurned by the contemporary GOP is odd.”
Are you kidding me? For a party who cannot remember history (Reagan grew the Fed Government and taxes), and who shun science, diversity, math, etc. and which is loaded with very angry members (if they only understood what they are angry about), you are surprised????
Illegal Alien
June 14th, 2012
9:18 am
The 3 million Jews that WEREN’T murdered probably would not have complained too much.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 14th, 2012
9:20 am
Obozo’s been in office three and a half years. He’s spent more than anyone since FDR. Last week, 390,000 folks had to apply for unemployment benefits, just like the week before that, and the week before that…
What are Obozo’s ideas for fixing this?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 14th, 2012
9:22 am
That’s right, Illegal Alien…and many thousands of American military wouldn’t have been killed, either.
Why wouldn’t FDR compromise?
@@
June 14th, 2012
9:23 am
600 comments pertaining to what?
The reason is you will not do any moderation on this board.
Does another AJC Blog columnist need to moderate a bunch of folks who talk about the books they’re reading or what they had for dinner last night?
By the by, cat….do you call your evening meal dinner or supper? Your midday meal…dinner or lunch?
schnirt
Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
9:28 am
JDW @ 8:28: That’s a cute document you’ve got there, but a) federal budgets are done in fiscal years, not calendar years, and b) the appropriations listed for each year in your document are a couple of hundred billion dollars less than actual federal outlays during that time. So, even if we ignore the fiscal/calendar issue, either your document is incomplete, or it demonstrates that actual spending was in fact far higher than what presidents requested.
How much higher? If we assume your document is right about presidential requests, then the requests in the calendar years Reagan was in office — 1981-88 — totaled $4,587.4 billion. Actual outlays in FY81-88 totaled $7,089.2 billion. That’s a difference of $2,501.8 billion or 55%. The gap is even wider if we assume Reagan had more to do with the FY82-89 budgets.
So, what were you saying about HORSE HOOEY?
GT
June 14th, 2012
9:29 am
When you began a argument with a list of how the Democrats have failed in bipartisan solution you undermined the sincerity of your statements. And when you say economists now warn, you obviously have found an economist in a cave in north Georgia trading economic information for food or a promise not to blow anything up.
carlosgvv @ 8:08: “The Republican electorate has been taken over by fundamentalist ‘born again’ Christians.” is a correct statement.
Do you think your party really backs Romney or is he a compromise? You ran so many clergy with Rolex watches in this primary, you blocked out the real personality, to the relief of many Washington Republicans, of your party. Your way or the highway would have ran a Rick Santorum as your candidate but who knows maybe that is why the saloon and casino owner from Las Vegas was writing those big checks to keep Newt in the race to water down Santorun.
Reagan was a leader. His own son says he wouldn’t be a Republican today. You have no leaders in your party, more less a Reagan. Jeb Bush may have shown the first light of day you nomads, Dixiecrats jumping the fence to the Republican Party, have seen in years. You make statements that repeated enough times turn to your truth. Most Americans had no idea how bad the health care in this country was until it arrived in the Supreme Court. Now your side has to say we will fix it but not this way. Before you said nothing, because you have no leadership, just a Bible misread for an explanation of why you hate, similar to how you misread the constitution to favor your chosen few.
saywhat?
June 14th, 2012
9:31 am
Don’t worry cat, lil boring , @@ and lil tibby are still just all butthurt because Jay sent them to the kids table. They represent the mindset of the typical republican congressman, and like Ron White likes to say, “You can’t fix stupid”, and apparently, you can’t compromise with it either.
Illegal Alien
June 14th, 2012
9:35 am
Unconditional surrender is what the Allies demanded. The German military wanted to remove Hitler, but unconditional terms weakened their hand and not only did those countless numbers die, we enabled Stalin to occupy and dominate eastern Europe for decades.
Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
9:36 am
the cat @ 8:58: You complain I do too little moderation, other people complain I put too many people in moderation. All I know is that I try to address the most problematic people. (I also know, and have said many times, that “comments” do not equal “hits,” or readers. In my experience on my blog, the two have no correlation whatsoever.)
I don’t think Lil’ Barry is “happy about all the Jews killed in the Holocaust.” I do think the point would have been better made that Britain and France tried to compromise with Hitler, and it bought him enough time to kill 6 million Jews.
A Realist
June 14th, 2012
9:36 am
Compromise doesn’t guarantee better results, but dogmatic, autocratic approaches to solving complex problems significantly increase the chances of failure.
Successful businesses (especially in the creative fields) have for years worked with teams that consisted of folks with differing opinions. Those folks are put into an environment that encourages development of unique approaches to complex and difficult problems. All sides have to give and take. Modern technology has thrived on that model. Most of the gadgets that the public uses were created using such an approach.
The ‘my way or the highway’ approach being used by both political parties (and apparently more so by the GOP) almost guarantees failure. After all, both sides have valid opinions and approaches to contribute, and must listen and understand the other side. They must not listen with their mouths as they do now.
But that’s reality…. Congress is living in some sort of dream world of the past where the king ruled, and all the serfs had do bow down in homage. And if you keep the serfs stupid, and loudly feed them falsehoods again and again, they will soon begin to believe the falsehoods are true (that’s called brainwashing.)
Dusty
June 14th, 2012
9:36 am
I do wish our dead presidents were left to rest in peace. They did their best and that’s that. Jeb Bush ought to mind his own business. He did not want to run. Then he should stop preaching.
Bipartisanship is just another word for getting something done. If our current congressmen don’t have common sense and good character (which is what it takes), they should come home and stay. Likewise for the president.
Both sides should be asking “What’s best for the country?” Move the capitol to the middle of the country for some fresh air. Washington DC is without oxygen these days. Nothing good happens with dead wood. Something HAS to change!! I, like many, are sick of the shenanigans in Washington.
the cat
June 14th, 2012
9:43 am
Kyle-your blog your rules. I believe you would have more intelligent blogging with a wider range of people and comments if the usual suspects were moderated.
Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
9:46 am
Further to my 9:28, Firefox keeps crashing on me when I try to do more than one year, but I have managed to look at FY83:
1. Reagan’s budget request for fiscal 1983 was $757.6B (your doc had $543B for calendar 1983)
2. Actual outlays for FY83 were $808.4B (your doc had $551.6B for C83)
So, the numbers in your doc are nowhere near the real picture — in terms of totals or the difference between presidential requests and actual spending.
Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
9:48 am
Btw, I started with FY83 because the request for FY82 was submitted by Carter.
Dusty
June 14th, 2012
9:48 am
Say what..@9:31.
What is your problem? We are here for political discussion. REMEMBER?
If you want to discuss Bookman, he has a BLOG! Go where you can find happiness! Best wishes and tootle loo…..
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 14th, 2012
9:51 am
“Do you think your party really backs Romney or is he a compromise?”
So now your saying that the party that doesn’t compromise just compromised on it’s own nominee? Which is it, GT?
“Reagan was a leader. His own son says he wouldn’t be a Republican today.”
That would be his flaming leftist son who basically disowned him while his father was alive, GT? Why don’t you ask his conservative son if Reagan would be welcome in today’s Republican party? You know, the one who actually knew the man AND knows the party?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 14th, 2012
9:52 am
the cat, the reason Bookman has so many posts is because his liberal readers don’t have jobs and sit around all day taking in government handouts.
Kyle’s bloggers actually work for a living.
Don't Tread
June 14th, 2012
9:55 am
As far as the left is concerned, conservatives should “compromise” on their principles because liberals are “correct” in their thinking. I believe the correct word there is “appeasement”, and that never works (because then they want more).
As the old saying goes, give them an inch and they’ll take you a mile. A perfect example is the aforementioned “you agree to raise taxes and we’ll agree to cut spending” promises made by the Democrats.
No more appeasement.
Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
9:58 am
Look, the discussion about bloggers here vs. bloggers on Jay’s site has really gotten old. He and I do things a little differently, and our ways work just fine for each of us.
A Realist
June 14th, 2012
9:59 am
So ‘Appeasement’ is the word of the day?
Since when did we elect representatives in Washington to autocratically run the country? It sure would be easier to just get a dictator and send the rest of them home!
JohnnyReb
June 14th, 2012
10:10 am
Off Subject Slightly – I often post America’s biggest enemies are the rabbid environmentalists. Here’s an example.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/celebrities-tv/actress-lucy-lawless-pleads-1457576.html?cxntlid=thbz_hm
This obviously spoiled little girl has no grasp of reality. She probably thinks the world would be fine without oil. She does not think she will do jail time. I hope they surprise her. She needs a hard jolt of reality and considerable time in the gerneral population at a woman’s prision would do her good.
carlosgvv
June 14th, 2012
10:12 am
Kyle – 8:48
They nominated him because they feel he in the one with the best chance to beat Obama. It’s clear they are holding their collective noses in doing this.
carlosgvv
June 14th, 2012
10:15 am
Barry – “an American hating Marxist bent on destroying”
If you really believe that then one or more of the followig is true:
1. Your are a student in a Christian Academy.
2. You are a graduate of a Christian Academy.
3. You are a simple tool who is easily brainwashed.
4. You are delusional.
ragnar danneskjold
June 14th, 2012
10:18 am
For benefit of our conservative friends, a portrait of the leftist opposition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnZX5TeUGWI
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 14th, 2012
10:18 am
Unfortunately, the time for compromise on this spending problem has long since expired.
Greece, Spain and now Italy are finding out what it’s like to spend without reason. France is likely next. But when these lesser countries go down, they won’t have the impact of what will happen when our country tanks under the weight of massive, un-payable debt.
We’ll take the whole world down with us when we go belly-up.
The folks on the left who don’t understand a tinkers damn about the economy will keep telling us we aren’t Spain or Greece, and they’re partially right:
We’re both of those countries writ large.
And we can’t print our way or float our way out of this mess. We HAVE to get deficit spending under control.
There is no hope in a Democrat “leadership” that will make this happen. They don’t know how to actually CUT spending; they only know how to raise taxes (and not necessarily raise revenues when that happens because they don’t understand the concept of “cause and effect”).
Republicans are by no means perfect, but I believe they actually get the dire future we are looking at right now, and are the only alternative that will even attempt this needed course of action. Yes, they screwed up their chance in 2000-2006 when they had both houses of Congress, but unlike Democrats, they appear to have learned their lesson. It is the only hope for the future of this world if they have, because to continue with any Democrat-controlled part of our government would mean the end of civilization for untold billions of people.
It is THAT serious, people.
GT
June 14th, 2012
10:26 am
The history of this group running the Republican Party now days has been a take no prisoners since they were trying to garner favor as Democrats back in the 60s. Many a plane carrying a Democratic candidate was not met at the airport by a state official of that party in the day, because the local guy didn’t want to be seen in photos with the national candidate.
These yahoos impressed the nation with storming out of Democratic Conventions looking like a band of greasy gypsies, leaving all to believe we were the descendants of a troll under a bridge somewhere.
In the meanwhile Reagan captured the hearts of the nation, taking over a moderate Republican Party with charm and compromise. One of his greatest speeches was made at a Republican convention where he had just lost the nomination to Ford. He talked about a great American future, a dream he had riding the highway of California, almost a Martin Luther King moment. Republicans were winners before Reagan joined their ranks, Jimmy Carter was the only interruption in a long line of victories. But these were not the Republicans of the troll descendants we see today. The ones who saw a soft spot in the south where the Republican Party was almost non existent, because they were the party of Abe Lincoln and harbored no ill will to minorities. A party they could dominant with their no compromise hatred and stupidity. That came after Reagan, after the last gentleman, Reagan, turned the lights out of a real GOP.
Replacing Reagan are the sting pullers for their own gains, the Murdocks and the Rushs, who saw opportunity in this NASCAR crowd. The Dixiecrat jumping the fence like Mormons looking for a land to practice their polygamy, only in their case it was bigotry. Now the party is lead by profiteers, no longer the dream of Regan on that stage that night many years ago.
DannyX
June 14th, 2012
10:29 am
Ronald Reagan would get kicked out of today’s Republican party. No doubt.
Reagan expanded the now hated socialist Earned Income Credit calling it “”the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”
Reagan gave amnesty to 22 million “what do you not understand about illegal” illegal immigrants. Mexican-Americans call him “Ronaldo Reagan, Los Padre de Estados Unidos!”
Reagan tripled the deficit, expanded socialist Medicare, raised gasoline taxes, raised debt ceiling 18 times, increased the federal workforce, increased federal spending, raised SS and Medicare taxes. He created the big government Dept of Veterans Affairs.
As governor of California he liberalized abortion rights.
Ronald Reagan is a Rhino, Republican Hero In Name Only!
Dusty
June 14th, 2012
10:30 am
BIPARTISANSHIP is the big word today. I’m all for it.
But have you noticed alll the many INVESTIGATIONS that are going on in various places? Kyle mentioned yesterday the lawsuit involving the state ethics group. DeKalb County has investigations going on into something (?). Vernon Jones says he will report to the investigators if they don’t try to “investigate ” him. And the Atlanta School system is just one big ongoing investigation . Gov Deal is said to have walked away from his investigation and came home. I guess he got tired of Democratic dosey-does.
So what is an investigation any more? Just another way to point fingers and make claims? Is anyone tarred & feathered, put in jail, stay after school, fingers slapped or what? And most surely they are costly to the taxpayer. You betcha!
JohnnyReb
June 14th, 2012
10:39 am
For all the Moonbats who try to use Reagan against Conservatives, are you that dumb?
Reagan would not like today’s Repbulican Party. Not because he would not fit in. Not because he does not believe in today’s Conservative causes. No, it would be because he would be utterly PO’d that in the short time since his death the Right has allowed things to get so out of control toward the Left.
Reagan spoke often of the folly of healthcare law similar to Obamacare. He believed in limited federal government. He believed in the same social issues as does the Right today.
There is only one thing dumber than the Left using Reagan; that would be anyone on the Right that buys into it.
1961_Xer
June 14th, 2012
10:40 am
Bipartisan politics has led to an incessant ratcheting to the left. Every “compromise” moves government to the left of status quo.
Example: first there was no income tax. Then there was 1 or 2 percent….. and up from there.
First there was not SS. Then there was. Then there was SS disability. Then there was Medicare. Then Medicaid. Then a medicare drug program. Then Obamacare.
I could go on and on, program after program that gets more expensive and more intrusive… to the point that the Government now controls the entire Healthcare system and owns a car company. Welcome to the Fascist States of America. The march is always to the left. If a lawmaker dares try to halt the march, then there are the cries of “Jim Crow” or wanting “dirty air, food and water”.
The days of the bipartisan march to the left is over. Democrats decry this as the “extreme” factions of the Republican party taking over. I submit that the extreme factions of the Democratic party have always been in control, and the Republicans have only just now taken their cue from the Democrats in order to stop this move towards the European socialist model (that , itself, is just about to fall off a cliff).
detritusUSA
June 14th, 2012
10:41 am
A previous poster identified the problem when he used the word “moderate”. For too many conservatives and republicans, moderate has become an epithet and both sides have become extreme. Cooperation cannot exist in an extremist environment. In America we have plenty of conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats, but too few patriots willing to sacrifice for the good of the country.
td
June 14th, 2012
10:41 am
You people that think Reagan would not be the nominee of todays Republican party are just nutty. The Tea Party would love him, the neo cons would put him on a pedestal and the social conservatives would embrace his message.
The moderate dems and Independents would embrace him and he would win in a landslide this Nov over Obama.
md
June 14th, 2012
10:45 am
Let’s not forget Reagan’s compromise that led to amnesty #1……..which led to a huge influx of more illegals who realized one could break our laws with no consequence…….which seems to be leading to amnesty #2………which will certainly lead to numerous amnesties down the road as folks realize our laws aren’t worth the paper they are written on………
Dusty
June 14th, 2012
10:46 am
Well, it looks like all the liberals here want to talk about is REAGAN! It’s REAGAN this and REAGAN that and REAGAN aint what he used to be
You would think that the antics and policies of our current out of touch president OBAMA would interest them. Looks like they’d want to talk about OBAMA this and OBAMA that and OBAMA just aint what he was supposed to be.
I admit keeping up with President OBAMA on the campaign trail is hard to do; here , there and yonder. But I think we should be more aware of our CURRENT PRESIDENT than the illustrious, but deceased President Reagan.
Where R U, President OBAMA? Stop by, will ya? Liberals have almost forgotten you.
yuzeyurbrane
June 14th, 2012
10:50 am
Kyle, you presume that both sides are being equally recalcitrant about taking the best ideas of both sides. Empirically not accurate. Also, “fair and balanced” does not mean that one must take an equal number of ideas from each side (or all sides if more than 2) if an idea is just plain bad.
As to your continued contortions with Jeb Bush’s pretty clear statement, just read it again. Jeb did say that both his dad and Reagan would have trouble getting the Republican nomination if they were coming along today. The only thing he backtracked on was his statement that he did not agree with those who say the Republican Party has an “orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.” Being a wordsmith, you should agree that this is quite different from your interpretation.
ragnar danneskjold
June 14th, 2012
10:51 am
International papers reporting on the typical Reagan compromise, quoted in today’s WSJ:
From a June 12 New York Sun editorial remembering Ronald Reagan’s 1987 speech at the Berlin Wall:
[The New York Times] greeted Reagan’s speech in Berlin with an editorial paean not to Reagan but to Gorbachev and to Lenin. “The world watches Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms with hope and wonder,” it began.
The Times rattled on at some length before ending with a paragraph kvelling about how those who say the Soviet system “is too rigid for reform” should “ponder Lenin’s” new economic program “in which the system accommodated real change without losing its character.” But it can be said for the Times that it was by no means the battiest of the big papers. The London Observer greeted Reagan’s speech at Berlin, and his participation in the Venice Summit shortly before Berlin, with a story headlined “Lame-duck Reagan enters the twilight zone.” It described Reagan as “slowly, laboriously and without any of his usual verve, reading his challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to pull down the Berlin Wall.”
We mention this only to mark the virtue of humility. Few are immune from having been made fools of by history. But there are very few who have been more abjectly mistaken than those who underestimated Reagan.
DannyX
June 14th, 2012
10:53 am
“The Tea Party would love him, the neo cons would put him on a pedestal and the social conservatives would embrace his message.”
Funny stuff. What part of Reagan’s record would the Tea Party love?
Social conservatives were used by Reagan, he gave them nothing. As California governor like I said, Reagan expanded abortion rights and also refused to purge the public education system of gay and lesbian teachers.
The Reagan myth, alive and kicking.
Hillbilly D
June 14th, 2012
10:54 am
When he couldn’t name his own Indiana address where he allegedly resided, I knew it was time for him to go.
Well, sometimes I forget my phone number, probably because I never call it……..Oh, wait….
md
June 14th, 2012
10:57 am
“Do you think your party really backs Romney or is he a compromise?”
Do you think the Hillary voters really meant to vote for Obama?
What a silly question………
MarkV
June 14th, 2012
10:58 am
There is nothing wrong with partisanship, as long as it means a support of an idea, rather than a blind support of a party. If the idea is wrong, then it is the wrongness of the idea that is the problem.
When the issue is legislation, however, it should be kept in mind that many “ideas” are just that, ideas, not facts, and that the legislators represent people with different ideas about how to solve a problem. Insistence on not allowing a legislation to pass in order to deny the other party a victory is obstructionism, and we have seen plenty of that from the Republicans from the start of Obama’s term. It has not been the exclusive tool of that party, but the current members have brought it to new heights.
Jefferson
June 14th, 2012
10:58 am
President Reagan, one of the 1st big spending neo cons was popular but Jeb was probably right.
Jefferson
June 14th, 2012
11:00 am
md: “and I don’t have an answer” because ?
md
June 14th, 2012
11:00 am
“Republicans are by no means perfect, but I believe they actually get the dire future we are looking at right now, and are the only alternative that will even attempt this needed course of action”
In discussing this issue with a few of our friends over at the other place, they contended that we were nowhere near in trouble as individuals still had trillion of dollars in the bank…….that pretty much summed up the ideologies for me. As long as “others have it”, it is there for the good of all.
MarkV
June 14th, 2012
11:03 am
Dusty @10:46 am
“Well, it looks like all the liberals here want to talk about is REAGAN! It’s REAGAN this and REAGAN that and REAGAN aint what he used to be”
Dusty,
Have you not noticed that it is one of the major themes of Kyle’s article today?
GT
June 14th, 2012
11:03 am
Reagan left the Democrat Party in the 60s when these right extremist were in that party, instead of drowning the Republican Party as they do today. If he didn’t feel an affiliation with them then why would he now as they have only gone backwards from what was considered then an illiterate position even in that time.
Just saying..
June 14th, 2012
11:04 am
To me, Kyle, the issue is the seemingly increasing number of people voting Republican who believe bipartisanship is a dirty word.